Some power companies are sending out charts and graphs that compare you to your neighbors. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Air conditioners are running full-blast
in much of the country right now.
Shawn Allee reports some
utilities are sending out info that might
get you to turn them down a bit:
Transcript
Air conditioners are running full-blast
in much of the country right now.
Shawn Allee reports some
utilities are sending out info that might
get you to turn them down a bit:
Ever wonder if you’re an energy hog compared to your neighbors?
Well, some power companies are sending out graphs and charts to tell you.
Commonwealth Edison is a utility in Illinois.
It’s sending energy comparison letters to 50,000 customers this August.
Val Jensen runs the company’s program.
Jensen hopes competition will get people to conserve, because power bills alone don’t work.
“Despite pretty compelling economic reasons for customers to become more efficient at using energy, a lot of them don’t do it. Despite what they teach you in Economics 101, most customers don’t behave in the traditional, rational way.”
Jensen says, if enough people conserve energy, utilities can avoid building expensive new power plants.
Commonwealth Edison is just the latest utility to try energy comparison reports.
Power companies in New York and other eastern states will try them this year.
Congress is trying to work out a bill that would mean bring in a clunker, get cash towards the purchase of a new high mileage car (Photo source: Flicka at Wikimedia Commons)
On Capitol Hill, there’s growing momentum for legislation called “Cash for Clunkers.” In fact, there are several bills circulating in Congress and the details are in flux. But the general idea is to use tax dollars to encourage people to trade their old gas guzzling clunker for a new fuel efficient car. The hope is to help the slumping auto industry and the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith gives the environmental claims a test drive:
Transcript
On Capitol Hill, there’s growing momentum for legislation called “Cash for Clunkers.” In fact, there are several bills circulating in Congress and the details are in flux. But the general idea is to use tax dollars to encourage people to trade their old gas guzzling clunker for a new fuel efficient car. The hope is to help the slumping auto industry and the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith gives the environmental claims a test drive:
At DarCars, a Toyota dealership in Silver Spring, Maryland people are shopping for cars.
But business is down.
Tammy Darvish is vice president of DarCars automotive group. Here’s how she describes “cash for clunkers.”
“It’s money from heaven.”
Well, from angels in Congress anyway. Bring in a clunker, get cash towards the purchase of a new high mileage car.
“I think they were talking about $4,000 or $5,000 or even $2,000. Whatever it is. Any incentive that you could add to the manufacturer incentives and the dealer incentives just make it all the better deal for the customer.”
And as we walk around the lot, Darvish points out plenty of cars she figures could qualify as fuel efficient replacements for clunkers. Like this one that gets 35 miles to the gallon on the highway.
“So here’s a Corolla and it’s not a hybrid technology vehicle and it’s still getting great gas mileage and all the manufacturers have vehicles, you know in those ranges.”
But not everyone is sold on the merits of a cash for clunkers program.
Dan Sperling heads the Institute for Transportation Studies at University of California Davis.
“What it mostly does, and we should be honest about it is it stimulates vehicle sales.”
He says this is more an economic policy with a green polish.
“It is supporting the use of more low carbon efficient vehicles, that’s good. It is supporting the automotive industry. That’s good. The problem is, it’s a very expensive way to do that.”
Whether a federal cash for clunkers program will be able to claim environmental success will largely come down to what counts as a clunker – and just how fuel efficient the car that replaces it needs to be.
For example, one version of the legislation would allow any car 8 years old or older to be junked in exchange for cash.
But an 8 year old car isn’t exactly a gelloppe. That’s younger than the average car on the road.
Bill Chameides is dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.
“I would say that cash for clunkers programs that only put a requirement on the age of a car, from an environmental point of view is a real clunker, if you pardon the pun.”
To really analyze the environmental impact of a program like this Chameides says you also have to consider what it takes to manufacture a new car. And it turns out a lot of greenhouse gas emissions come from building a car.
“When you drive that new car out of the showroom, you already have 1 year of carbon dioxide emissions already in the atmosphere.”
So, to make up for those emissions, he says cars getting junked have to be real gas guzzlers, and the new cars need to be gas sippers.
“If we want to sell this as an environmental program we need to make sure that it’s focusing on really making a difference in the amount of gasoline we use, the amount of CO2 we emit. And therefore we need to have a limit on the miles per gallon of the scrap car. It need to be way down at the bottom of the spectrum. And we need to have a limit on the new car. It needs to be up high on the spectrum.”
There’s disagreement in Congress about what the mileage requirements for the program should be.
It’s one of those details yet to be worked out, that will determine just how green cash for clunkers will really be.
The nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois,
was started up just after the state banned new
nuclear power construction. For its entire history,
it's been operating without a permanent home for
its spent nuclear fuel. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:
Transcript
There’s been plenty of buzz
about dozens of proposed nuclear power
reactors in the US. Well, Wall Street’s
financial mess is making power companies
scramble to find all the investment money
for them. But, in twelve states, it won’t
matter whether power companies have cash
in hand or not; it’s illegal to build new
nuclear power plants there. Shawn Allee
reports there are efforts to repeal some
of those bans:
JoAnn Osmand represents a state legislative district in northeastern Illinois.
Nuclear power is close to her heart – there’s an old, dormant nuclear power plant in her
district. Osmond thought, maybe that plant could be useful again. So, she sat down with
the plant owner.
”And I asked a question: ‘Why are you not taking some of the parts away and
putting them in other nuclear locations?’ They said, ‘there’s a moratorium, we’re
not building any more nuclear plants in the state of Illinois.’”
Osmond was stunned.
Illinois has six existing nuclear power plants – she didn’t know it’s illegal to build more.
She hears plenty of gripes about energy prices – so she thought, why leave nuclear energy
off the table?
“I don’t want my granddaughters to have to buy their electricity from another state.
I want to be able in 2020, 2030 to be able to plug in our electric cars.”
Osmond’s bill to lift the moratorium stalled – it’s still illegal to build nuclear power
plants in Illinois. California and Wisconsin recently had similar fights over their nuclear
moratoria.
Some veterans of nuclear politics are shocked anyone would want to life a ban on nuclear
power plants.
“It makes absolutely no logical, rational sense in any mode of analysis.”
I find Dave Kraft at a coffee shop. Kraft is with the Nuclear Energy Information Service,
a group that’s worked against nuclear power for almost thirty years.
Twelve states severely restrict or ban new nuclear power plants. Kraft says seven have
language almost identical to Illinios’.
“The moratorium simply said, no more new construction of nuclear reactors until
the federal government has a demonstrated means of dealing with the waste
permanently.”
Kraft says states tried protecting themselves from becoming dumps for the most
dangerous nuclear waste – the radioactive spent fuel.
The federal government is supposed to store spent fuel – maybe in Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. But so far, that hasn’t happened, so it’s piling up in nuclear power plants – like
this one in Braidwood, Illinois, southwest of Chicago.
(sound of a door)
Bryan Hanson manages the Braidwood power plant. He leads me to a square storage
pool. It has the bluest water I’ve ever seen.
Hanson: “This is where we store our spent fuel. It’s about thirty feet of water
between us and the top of the fuel bundles down there. So you’re looking at thirty of
water and another twelve feet down below.”
Allee: “If you look into it, it’s almost like honeycomb.”
Hanson: “Honeycomb … looks like an egg crate or honeycomb. Within those cells
are fuel bundles that have been used in the reactor, generated energy, and now
they’re waiting for eventual disposal.”
Braidwood’s pool was meant for short-term storage, but spent fuel’s been stored here for
nineteen years. Hanson says the company is planning for when spent fuel will have to be
stored on-site, but outdoors, perhaps for decades.
It’s a situation the nuclear industry’s is unhappy about, but it’s confident the federal
government will come up with a solution – some day.
So, most power companies support removing bans on new plants. This drives critics like
Dave Kraft crazy.
“To build more reactors at a time when we have no place to put the waste makes no
sense at all. The first rule of waste management is, stop producing.”
Even though Kraft says it doesn’t make sense to lift bans on nuclear power plant
construction, he predicts those bans will get challenged again soon.
The seven million or so Flex Fuel Vehicles
are just a small portion of the 200-million
or so vehicles in the American fleet, but
there could many, more in the future.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
Transcript
For most drivers, filling up at the
pump’s a pretty easy operation – you drive
up, you fill up, and you drive out. But people
who have Flex Fuel Vehicles have another choice.
They can fill up on gas or E-85, that 85 percent
ethanol blend – if they find the right station.
Shawn Allee reports a lot more of us
could have to make that same choice in the future:
I’m at a car lot in my home town. I’m not actually in the car market, but I am
curious what these E85 compatible Flex Fuel vehicles look like. I don’t own one
myself.
Anyway, I’m here with Edgar Moreno. He sells cars on this lot. He’s gonna show
me one of these vehicles here.
Allee: “Edgar, what can you show me?”
Moreno: “The Chevy Impala.”
Allee: “I actually don’t see anything that would tell me it’s a Flex-fuel vehicle.”
Moreno: “Usually it says on the gas cap whether you can use E85 or not.”
(sound of twist)
Allee: “It’s bright yellow. It says E85. In fact it says E85-slash-gasoline. What does
that mean?”
Moreno: “You can fill it with either, or.”
Allee: “How many stations are there available where I could fill this Impala up with
E85?”
Moreno: “I think there’s one in the area, but you have to drive quite a bit to get
there.”
Allee: “So, it’s one of those situations where, if I take this Impala off the lot, I could
still use it at a regular gas station, but I might have to search around for an E85
station?”
Moreno: “Yes, you do. Yep.”
Congress and both presidential candidates are considering making every car a Flex
Fuel Vehicle.
Detroit has spent a lot of money promoting E85 vehicles, and you might think they’d
be in favor of this.
Well, I called Ford Motor Company about this and found out that’s not the case.
“You could mandate every vehicle on the road to be a flex fuel vehicle. It would be a
great cost to our industry.”
Curt Magleby is Ford’s point-man on ethanol regulations.
He says if Congress gets its way there’d be more Flex Fuel Vehicles, but not necessarily
more E85 pumps.
“So you can mandate the vehicle side, but unless there’s a real focus on distribution,
it’s wasted money – we’d be putting dollars on the hoods of our vehicles for no
reason.”
So, Ford and the other car makers could make less profit on Flex Fuel Vehicles if there’s
a mandate.
At one time, they got government incentives to build Flex Fuel Vehicles, but those will
phase out.
So there’d be no benefit for the automakers.
And there’s another twist in the E-85 story.
The fuel industry is pushing to distribute ethanol in a way that might not require flex fuel
cars at all.
This is a little technical, but most gas already has 10% ethanol in it.
The fuel industry wants to sell 20% or even 30% ethanol blends because it saves oil
companies money. The government subsidized ethanol is cheaper than refining oil for
gasoline.
Ford and other car-makers are fighting this.
Magleby says burning E-20 or E-30 blends would be a disaster for existing cars.
“Ethanol is corrosive and it burns hotter, so you have to have a different fuel tank.
You have to have stainless steel fuel lines. You have to have hardened valves in your
engine.”
Car companies say burning 20% or 30% ethanol blends could hurt existing cars.
Scientists are checking whether that’s the case.
In the meantime, Congress is deciding exactly how it will promote ethanol.
It could mandate all cars be E85 Flex Fuel vehicles or it could promote lower-level
ethanol blends in gasoline.
Either way, over the next few years, we’re going to see big changes in our cars or our gas
pumps.
High gas prices are making it difficult for SUV owners to sell them (Photo by Ben VanWagoner)
With higher gas prices, SUV and light
truck owners are scrambling to trade in their
large cars for smaller more fuel efficient ones.
But, they’re shocked to learn how little they can
get. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports:
Transcript
With higher gas prices, SUV and light
truck owners are scrambling to trade in their
large cars for smaller more fuel efficient ones.
But, they’re shocked to learn how little they can
get. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports:
The auto industry says, sales of new SUVs and light trucks have basically stalled and the
market is flooded with used models. That’s got used car dealerships across the country
offering owners about 20% less than their vehicles are worth.
Art Spinella, president of the auto research firm, CNW, says even at a steep discount,
Sport Utility Vehicles and light trucks are taking about a month longer to sell than they did a
year ago.
“If you need a sport utility for some reason, now is probably the best time to buy one. But
if you’re trying to sell a sport utility you may be better off just parking it and keeping it
until the market either turns around or the over supply that exists right now kind of dwindles down.”
Research shows a lot of SUV owners are deciding to not to drive them.
For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.
Some power companies are sending out charts and graphs that compare you to your neighbors. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
