The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes. (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:
Transcript
Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:
The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes.
Ian Bowles is Secretary of Energy with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
He says the states would prefer that the federal government take the lead on this issue, but they’re doing what they can to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks as soon as possible.
“If everyone waits and sits on their hands until there’s a global agreement, it’s going to take a long time to get anything done.”
Bowles expects the eleven-state agreement to spur investment into new types of ethanol and biofuels. And he says that will mean new jobs in science, engineering, and at fuel refineries.
“We’ll be creating a much bigger market for biofuels. Jobs will get created and greenhouse gasses will be cut.”
The states expect to have a legally binding agreement on the low carbon fuel standard by the end of the year.
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Transcript
We can expect Congress will take up a carbon
cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make
greenhouse gases a commodity. The United
States Climate Action Partnership wants to
know the rules of the carbon trading game
sooner rather than later. US CAP is made
up of businesses such as GE, automakers,
some power companies and environmental groups.
Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Dan Lashoff: The opportunity that we have, right now, is to, first of all, invest
billions of dollars in the economic stimulus package – which the Congress will be
taking up in the next couple of weeks, that President Obama has made clear he
wants to see a substantial portion of that investment go into clean energy
technologies: insulating homes, building a smart grid to carry renewable energy
around the country. So, there’s an immediate step that needs to take place to
get investment flowing, to jump-start the green energy economy that we need.
That should be quickly followed with the type of comprehensive climate policy
that US CAP has called for, because that will guide longer-term investments, it
will mobilize private capital that is needed to build the clean energy future that we
need to have. And that will put people to work installing wind turbines, installing
solar systems, insulating homes, insulating schools. And keep the investment
flowing, and actually create an export opportunity for companies that are making
clean and efficient energy systems that the world is going to increasingly
demand.
Lester Graham: President Obama has talked a lot about the green economy and
green-collar jobs that you just mentioned, but will those jobs actually offset the
economic pain that a cap-and-trade program is expected to cause?
Lashoff: Well, first of all, you have to realize, if we passed a cap-and-trade bill
tomorrow, the actual limits would not kick in until 2012 at the earliest, and, by that
time, hopefully, the economy is really moving forward. So, what the value of
passing the legislation now is that it sets the long-term agenda, it sets the
strategic agenda that’s going to reduce our emissions, and it mobilizes
investment flows. The actual price signal that is needed to discourage global
warming pollution actually wouldn’t kick in for a couple of years, and that actually
works quite well with the timing, that is appropriate given the current economic
crisis.
Graham: The 80% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 is exactly
what President Obama has suggested we do, but there still are enough
Republicans who hold enough seats in the Senate to block cap-and-trade if they
wanted to. What are the chances of having legislation like this passed?
Lashoff: Well, I’m very optimistic that with the momentum that the US CAP
proposal delivers, the strong business support from at least a significant portion
of the business community, certainly not universal, that we can move forward. It
certainly will require a bi-partisan effort. There will need to be Republicans
joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as well as in the House to enact
legislation. I think we can do that. I think that this proposal provides a lot of
insight into the types of provisions, in addition to the cap itself. Things like
energy efficiency investments that will hold down the costs for consumers,
approaches to dealing with concerns of the economic impact – that chose a
pathway to get legislation enacted, hopefully in 2009.
Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Governors in New England are up in arms about some changes the Bush administrations
wants to make that would allow older power plants to add on but avoid buying new
pollution control equipment. Mark Brush has more:
The proposed rule change would change how air pollution is measured from power plants
that expand their operations.
Right now, the air pollution is capped at a certain amount
per year. The new rule would cap the amount of air pollution allowed by the hour.
That
means a power plant could put out a lot more air pollution over the course of a year.
John Walke is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He says
this little change in the rule could have a big impact.
“So as soon as these utility companies began to expand their plants and to pump out more
smog and soot pollution. People in surrounding communities would see their air quality
worsen.”
Six northeastern states are urging the EPA not to go forward with the rule change. In a
recent letter sent to the EPA they say the rule change – quote “threatens the quality of our
states’ air and the health of our citizens.”
President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
Transcript
President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
In a surprise video statement that opened the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Los
Angeles, Obama said there’ll be no more denial or delay. As soon as he’s president,
America will help lead toward global cooperation on climate change, starting with a
federal carbon cap-and-trade program and making investments in clean energy.
Bill Kovacs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes the investments idea, but
cautions restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions could hurt business.
“You need to be very sensitive, especially in a stressed-out economy that you could end
up imposing very huge costs on virtually everybody who participates in the economy.”
President-elect Obama said in the video statement he’ll work with business.
“Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington.”
Environmentalists applauded the statement. It’s the first on climate change since
Barack Obama won the presidency.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Several geothermal power plants at The Geysers (Photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy)
A new kind of commercial-scale
power plant is tapping the earth’s heat
and converting it to electricity. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
A new kind of commercial-scale
power plant is tapping the earth’s heat
and converting it to electricity. Lester
Graham reports:
A company called Raser Technologies just started up a new electric generating plant
using geothermal. No emissions, no pollution – just power.
Brent Cook is the CEO of Raser.
“This first phase of the plant that we just brought on-line will power approximately
nine-thousand homes in the city of Anaheim, California.”
Cook says this technology will work a lot of places out West where the earth’s crust
is a little thinner. You don’t have as far to drill down into the earth.
A National Renewable Energy Lab report estimates geothermal could meet about a
third of the nation’s electrical demand.
And, this new technology developed by UTC Power could work other places. For
example, it could convert waste heat from factories into electricity.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois (Photo by Lester Graham)
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Transcript
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Recently I dropped in on a corporate meet-and-greet in Chicago.
I waded through through computerized presentations, and loads of free pastry and coffee,
and heard executives from Pepsi, IBM, and Staples talk about cutting their carbon
emissions.
The company most eager to talk was Exelon.
“We’re a very large power generator, we are also a very large utility company and
given our size, we have a special responsibility to help address the implications of
climate change.”
Ruth Ann Gillis is an executive Vice President at Exelon.
The company’s prepping for the day when the government makes them pay when they
put carbon into the atmosphere.
Gillis says Exelon is starting early, and plans to cut carbon emissions by fifteen million
tons a year by 2020.
“The reduction, the offset, the displacement of fifteen million tons is the equivalent
of taking three million cars a year off our roads and highways. And for nothing
more, everyone should be hopeful we are indeed successful, because it will make a
difference.”
To make that difference, Exelon will promote efficiency, cut the coal used in some of its
power stations, and slash its own energy use in buildings and vehicles.
I head to one of Exelon’s power plants to learn another way Exelon might cut its carbon
output.
Plant Manager Brian Hanson says the idea is to squeeze more power out of existing
nuclear power stations.
Brian Hanson: “One of our strategies of our 2020 Carbon iniative is to increase
power in some of our reactors, to take advantage of some of the flexibility built into
the power plants.”
Shawn Allee: “When you say flexibility what do you mean by that?”
Hanson: “They were built with extra pumps and systems that would let us operate
at higher power.”
Allee: “Do you need somebody’s permission to do that?”
Hanson: “As part of our license to operate the facility we’re only allowed to operate
at a certain power level, but to go above that we have to submit a formal
engineering study to the nuclear regulatory commission.”
But why upgrade? Why squeeze more power out of old plants? Why not build new
nuclear power plants, too?
Well, Exelon would like to. But it’s not easy.
Tom O’Neil is Vice President of New Plant Development at Exelon.
He says Exelon wants a new nuclear power plant in Texas.
But no one’s licensed a nuke plant for a dozen years and it’s common for projects to get
canceled.
So Exelon’s got some blanks to fill in.
“How much will it cost, can we finance it, what’s the political support, what do we
think the regulatory environment will look like. Those are all factors that generate
risk. Can we mitigate the risk and move forward with what would be a very
expensive construction project with some confidence that we can get it done, on time
and be profitable at the end.”
If the company pulls that off, it would make more electricity, but emit almost no new
carbon.
And its overall carbon footprint would shrink. Helping reduce emissions that cause
global warming.
But, even Exelon – the country’s biggest nuclear power company – might not be able to
turn to its core business to save the world.
Corn-processing giant Archer Daniels Midland creates excess carbon dioxide while brewing ethanol and other alcohols from corn. The company is donating carbon dioxide from a plant in Decatur, Illinois. Scientists will bury the CO2 deep underground and test whether the local rock can hold it there indefinitely. If it can, the government may encourage coal-fired power plants and other carbon sources to sequester their carbon underground. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make
electricity in America is to burn coal, but there’s
this little problem of global warming. The coal power
industry is a major offender because burning coal
gives off carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.
It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all?
Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove
we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:
Transcript
One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make electricity in America is to burn coal. But there’s this little problem of global warming. The coal power industry is a major offender… because burning coal gives off carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas. It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all? Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:
A big part of our global warming problem starts right in coal country. Recently, I recorded this coal train leaving a coal mine, destined for some power plants.
(sound of coal train)
It was a long train … and across the country, hundreds like it run constantly. The coal power industry generates half our electricity. And that’s responsible for nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide, or CO2, we chuck into the atmosphere.
Well, wouldn’t it be great if we could reverse some of this? So, when we pull coal out of the Earth and then burn it … we could just send some of the carbon dioxide gas underground?
That’s getting tested by scientists.
I found one.
ALLEE: “What’s your name, sir?”
FINLEY: “Robert Finley. I’m the director for the center for energy and earth resources at Illinois State Geologic Survey.”
Finley wants to take carbon dioxide and bury it deep under the town of Decatur, Illinois.
He says the rock has to be just right.
One layer needs to absorb the carbon dioxide, while other rock has to keep it put.
“In order for the CO2 to remain in the subsurface, to not leak back in the atmosphere, we have to have an excellent seal.”
Finley calls this geological carbon sequestration, and he says it’s worked … in small tests. His experiment and six others across the country are much larger. Finley says the technology is promising, but needs testing.
“Decatur involves two years of characterizing the site and drilling wells before we even inject CO2. Three years of CO2 injection, then two more years of study of the site. So, that in total is a seven year effort.”
Again, he’s gotta make sure the carbon dioxide stays underground … and that it won’t hurt water or other underground resources. But while Finley experiments, coal plants continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s got some environmental groups a little impatient.
“The best way to avoid emissions from burning coal is to not burn it in the first place.”
This is Ron Burke, the Midwest Director for The Union of Concerned Scientists.
“We can meet most of our energy needs by substantially increasing the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy.”
Allee: “But when you listen to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, it seems that both of these candidates seem to want to make it work, when Mr. Finley and others doing work on the ground say I won’t even have my data until 2014.”
Burke: “It’s clear that a lot of elected officials share this aspirational goal to commercially develop so-called clean-coal technology. But right now we can’t depend on it. We shouldn’t be developing plans to mitigate greenhouse gases assuming that technology’s going to be available.”
Geologist Robert Finley says we cannot rely on carbon sequestration exclusively.
Even if CO2 can stay underground forever, there’s no guarantee we can afford to send it there.
“One could argue we should have been doing this five years ago or earlier, but we can’t go forward and simply drill a well next year and move forward without these kinds of studies, because that would be reckless in my view.”
Finley doesn’t apologize for the pace of science.
He says he’s confident it can answer questions about carbon sequestration…. he just hopes it’s in time to make a difference for the global warming problem.
Memorials to miners and past mining disasters dot the public spaces in rural
parts of southern Illinois. This granite obelisk is in honor of mining near
West Frankfort, which is in the heart of Illinois coal country, and close to
several operating mines. In 1980, Illinois had 18,000 coal miners - now, the
workforce is less than 4,000. Mining experts say new digging permits, new hires
and new investment in Illinois coal signals a comeback, though it's unclear
mining employment will reach former heights. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
John Mead directs the Center for Clean Coal Research at Southern Illinois
University. Mead says the probable comeback of Illinois' coal industry
hasn't fully materialized yet, but he agrees with industry experts who say
cleaner-burning coal-fired power plants are creating a new market for the
state's high-energy resource. By the way, the coal nugget in his palm is the
only coal he could find in his office. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
The exit at an operating mine near Galatia, Illinois. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
This coal fired power plant sits at the corner of the SIU campus in Carbondale,
Illinois. It's built sulfur scrubbers and other technology that allow it to use Illinois coal. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
America has a love-hate relationship
with coal. We burn coal to make half our
electricity, but we’re always fighting coal’s
air pollution. Some regulations decimated
the coal industry in one key state. Shawn
Allee reports miners there are caught
between a slow comeback and another round of
regulation:
Transcript
America has a love-hate relationship
with coal. We burn coal to make half our
electricity, but we’re always fighting coal’s
air pollution. Some regulations decimated
the coal industry in one key state. Shawn
Allee reports miners there are caught
between a slow comeback and another round of
regulation:
Coal was once king of the Southern Illinois economy, but no longer.
Nathan Threewitt lives in the area. He explains mining jobs evaporated.
Nathan Threewitt: “Eighteen years ago, give or take a couple, people went from
making a nice, upper-class living to nothing at all. Couldn’t find work, everybody
had to move.”
Shawn Allee: “Did you have that happen in your own family?”
Threewitt: “Yep. My dad’s got ten brothers and sisters. They went from, everybody
had clothes for school, everybody had food to eat, to, we don’t know how the hell it
was gonna happen.”
Even though Threewitt has a tough history with coal – he’s actually trying to get into the
industry.
In fact, I find him while he’s taking a break from a coal mining training class at Rend
Lake College.
I know at one time, classes like these had been canceled.
I track down instructor David Colombo to see what’s changed.
David Colombo: “This room is where I train miners for the most part.”
Shawn Allee: “What’s this?”
Colombo: “Ugh. This is a high voltage cable.”
Allee: “This is almost as thick as your arm.”
Colombo: “This isn’t the biggest of the bigs, either.”
Right now, only about four thousand Illinois miners need to be familiar with equipment
like this.
But Colombo gets calls from mining companies in the area who need trained workers.
So, his school’s growing to keep up.
Shawn Allee: “Why have faith that you’re going to need space for miners to be
trained?”
David Colombo: “With the mining permitting that’s going on, is the highest it’s been
in thirty years.”
Colombo: “Gentlemen in this afternoon’s class will start sinking a mine within the
next week or two. Right now it just employs ten people, but in a year from now, that
same mine’s probably going to employ a hundred and ten people.”
People use words like rebound and comeback when they describe the Illinois coal
industry.
To understand what happened, you have to dial back a little.
“It was really the effect of Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.”
This is John Mead. He heads coal research at Southern Illinois University.
He says Illinois coal is blessed with high energy, but it’s cursed with sulfur that caused
acid rain and lung disease. The amendments aimed to cut that.
“Most utilities were able to switch to lower-sulfur coal, and that’s just what they
did.”
In fact, utilities opened new mines out West where the coal has less sulfur.
As for an Illinois coal turn-around?
“Today, sulfur and other materials in the coal can be controlled pretty effectively
with technology.”
So, now Illinois coal can better compete with lower-sulpher coal.
But here’s the thing. There could be another pollution clamp-down in the works.
You know about global-warming, right? Well, carbon dioxide’s a big cause, and coal
produces carbon dioxide in spades.
Scientists say cutting coal emissions would be a quick way to cut carbon.
So, miners in Southern Illinois get mixed messages – the country wants their coal again,
but maybe not for long.
Miner-to-be Nathan Threewitt says he’s thought this through.
Nathan Threewitt: “Well, if anybody looked at the economics of it, it’s gonna go
back. Coal used to be fifteen dollars a ton, it’s now 65 dollars a ton. You’re gonna
have these coal companies with coal left in the ground, it used to not be worth it to
get the money out, now it’s worth it.”
Shawn Allee: “You like those odds.”
Threewitt: “Yeah, I do. I’m rolling the dice on it.”
Threewitt figures, he’s got time to build a career from coal, while America makes up its
mind just how clean it wants its coal-fired electricity.
The EPA is looking into storing CO2 emissions underground (Photo by Lester Graham)
The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Some coal-fired power plants are looking into storing their carbon dioxide emissions
underground.
If the system works, it’d be a way to slow down climate change.
But EPA water administrator Ben Grumbles says injecting large volumes of CO2
to underground storage wells is a concern. So, he says the proposed rule calls for
extensive testing and monitoring.
“So that the CO2 doesn’t migrate. If it did, it could also push other fluids, like
salts, into that underground source of drinking water.”
Grumbles says if there was contamination, companies could be ordered to stop
injecting the gas. He says the rule also aims to make sure the CO2 doesn’t seep
from the ground into the air.
The EPA will take comments on its proposed rule until mid-November.
Some of the fish caught in the Great Lakes are unsafe to eat due to mercury (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The government warns people not to eat too
much Great Lakes fish. That’s because some fish are
contaminated with mercury – a toxic chemical. Some
of that mercury comes from coal-burning power plants.
Erin Toner reports more states are beginning to make
power companies cut down mercury pollution:
Transcript
The government warns people not to eat too
much Great Lakes fish. That’s because some fish are
contaminated with mercury – a toxic chemical. Some
of that mercury comes from coal-burning power plants.
Erin Toner reports more states are beginning to make
power companies cut down mercury pollution:
The courts have ruled the federal government has not done enough to reduce mercury
pollution. Now, more states are adopting their own rules.
Illinois and Minnesota require power plants to cut mercury emissions 90% by 2015.
Wisconsin is following suit, but its plan gives utilities more time to get to 90% if they cut
other pollutants at the same time.
Keith Reopelle is with the group, Clean Wisconsin.
He’s happy with the new rule, but says it could be stronger.
“It does require the largest power plants to reach the 90% reduction on average over their
fleet, that’s not really the same as requiring every plant to get a 90% reduction.”
Wisconsin’s largest utility says complying with the new rule will be a ‘technological
challenge’. Power bills are expected to go up between 5 and 12 dollars a year to pay to
reduce mercury pollution.
The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes. (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
