Blog Archive for August, 2011
Is Keystone XL a done deal?
In a video interview with energyNOW!, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu lays out a familiar argument for the Keystone XL pipeline. Namely, that we’re going to be using oil anyway, it’s better to get it from Canada than somewhere else:
“It’s certainly true that having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than to have other countries supply our oil. … It’s not perfect, but it’s a tradeoff, and meanwhile, I as the Secretary of Energy am going to focus on batteries for electric vehicles, biofuels, and energy efficiency.
The comments were strikingly similar to remarks made last fall by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, which set off a firestorm of speculation that approval of the pipeline was a done deal:
“We haven’t finished all of the analysis, so as I say, we’ve not yet signed off on it,” Ms. Clinton said in response to a question from the audience at the event on Friday.
“But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons … we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.”
Tolerating dirty oil, she added, is a reality “until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet.”
But the oddest thing about the video is that Chu refers to the forthcoming State Department decision in the past tense, as though it already happened:
“Well, let me just say first that the decision the State Department made was a State Department decision.”
It would be easy to read too much into something like that, but either way, if there’s a chance the pipeline won’t be approved, why would Chu start off by distancing himself from the State Department and talking about his own work on renewable energy?
More scrutiny for Minnesota ‘clean coal’ project
Excelsior Energy's office in Coleraine, Minnesota. (Photo by Dan Haugen for Midwest Energy News)
A long-stalled northern Minnesota “clean coal” project is again in the spotlight following a two-part investigation by the Duluth News Tribune.
The Mesaba Energy Project, which we profiled in April, is a proposed coal-to-gas plant that was eagerly embraced by officials in Minnesota’s Iron Range, which has long suffered from high unemployment due to a downturn in the region’s mining industry. Excelsior Energy, which organized the project, has received more than $40 million in public funds, but after ten years, has yet to produce much beyond blueprints.
The News Tribune took a more aggressive look at the project’s finances, finding that the backers of the plant, Tom Micheletti and Julie Jorgensen, had been paying themselves six-figure salaries, and that the project is nearly out of money.
Jorgensen and Micheletti responded with an op-ed piece defending the project, blaming regulations for the lack of progress.
Karl Bremer, a journalist and blogger based in Stillwater, Minnesota, picks up where the News Tribune left off, finding that the project’s backers have spent more than $325,000 toward campaign contributions (to Democrats and Republicans alike) and lobbying expenses.
It’s a scenario we’ve seen before: A private company forms to promote a dubious enterprise, hires politically connected lobbyists, sucks up millions in government grants, hands out boatloads of campaign cash to politicians who keep the government money flowing to enrich a handful of lobbyists and consultants—and then the cycle repeats itself over and over.
Aaron Brown, a former newspaper editor and current college instructor/blogger/organizer in Hibbing, Minnesota, has been following the project since its inception in 2001, and, like Bremer, isn’t been shy about using the word “boondoggle” to characterize it.
Brown says it’s time to move on:
The Iron Range must do better. There is no acceptable defense of the status quo in the context of this story. Those who persist to ignore facts and advance the causes of private interests over the public good are enemies of the people of the Iron Range and should be treated as such.
Live stream: National Clean Energy Summit
Today, Vice President Joe Biden, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and others will gather in Las Vegas to talk about America’s energy future.
The National Clean Energy Summit starts at 11 a.m. CDT, you can watch a live stream here:
Battery as economic savior?
An abandoned Packard factory in Detroit.
The New York Times Magazine this weekend has an expansive article by Fast Compnay editor Jon Gertner on the burgeoning lithium-ion battery industry in Michigan. The gist of it is that federal efforts to boost the battery industry are actually a fairly radical return to “industrial policy,” an idea that has long since fallen out of favor politically.
The thinking goes that the market will ultimately decide which industries will thrive and survive, so the government has no business interfering with the inevitable. Problem is, while the U.S. avoids large-scale support of emerging industries, countries like South Korea and China have no problem with it whatsoever, and when they guess correctly, they clean our clocks.
And battery technology seems like a pretty safe bet. Lithium-ion batteries in particular are compact and powerful enough to meet the demands of ever-proliferating mobile electronic devices, but are also making possible the first generation of truly viable mass-market electric cars.
So why Michigan? Clearly the state has a surplus of skilled manufacturing workers, and (I suspect) the rent’s fairly cheap. But what I didn’t realize (maybe you did) is that labor is comprises about 5 percent of the cost of making a battery, which means that the higher labor costs in the U.S. are only a small factor in the final cost of the product. Advances in technological or production efficiency could easily make a Michigan factory outperform a Chinese one.
The downside to all of this? Even if brought to scale, the battery industry couldn’t replace all the manufacturing jobs lost in the past few decades, so it’s unlikely we’ll see Detroit return to its previous glory anytime soon. But a successful battery revival could have implications on industrial policy that expand into other areas of the clean energy economy.
At any rate, I recommend reading the article in its entirety.
Photo by wyliepoon via Creative Commons
‘The Man with the Golden Sun’
(Updated 1:51 p.m. to correct misspelled names and biographical information)
As we mentioned back in June, Environment Minnesota is hosting a video contest to promote its solar power campaign (full disclosure – the contest is funded by RE-AMP, which also funds Midwest Energy News). The group recently announced the finalists, and it appears there’s a ringer in the bunch:
This entry, title “The Man with the Golden Sun,” baffled the contest organizers, as it clearly cost much more to produce than the $1,500 first prize. So they contacted the producers.
The video, it turns out, was produced by a team of more than 50 people, led by Steve and Lisa Fait. Lisa Fait works for a solar company in San Francisco, while her husband, Steve (a native Minnesotan), spent ten years working for a variety of film studios, including Industrial Light and Magic (yes, THAT Industrial Light and Magic). Steve currently works at Splice, a Minneapolis production company.
The Faits are living on different coasts (here in Minnesota, we consider the Mississippi River to be one of the coasts) until Lisa can find the right job opportunity to rejoin her husband. Meanwhile, the solar film contest provided them with an opportunity to combine both their passions.
Lisa explains:
Environment Minnesota’s film contest allowed us to pool our passions and hopefully will contribute towards bringing my career to Minnesota. When Steve brought the contest to the attention of the Splice team, they contributed funds, expertise and equipment towards the project. Then the word spread and before we knew it, Steve had a talented, magical crew who out of love of their craft and support of the Minnesota solar cause, volunteered to help bring the film to fruition.
“They didn’t enter the competition for the $1500 they could win, but rather because they truly believed in our cause,” explains Environment Minnesota’s Ken Bradley.
There are eight finalists in all, you can vote here.
Carbon capture, without the coal
Photo via Archer Daniels Midland.
Most of the focus on carbon capture technology involves coal-fired power plants. But what’s being touted as America’s first large-scale industrial carbon capture facility isn’t at a power plant, but at an ethanol refinery in Illinois.
The project, at the Archer Daniels Midland biofuels plant in Decatur, will capture carbon dioxide released as corn is fermented into ethanol, resulting in a “negative carbon footprint” for the fuel, according to a Department of Energy news release.
The DOE says starting in 2013, the plant will capture 2,500 metric tons of CO2 per day and sequester it in sandstone formations at a depth of about 7,000 feet. The formation, known as the Mount Simon Sandstone, is said to have the potential to store billions of tons of CO2 (As a point of comparison, an average car emits about 5 metric tons of CO2 per year).
The project is being driven by the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, which seeks to develop carbon dioxide sequestration sites in the Illinois Basin, a geological formation that spans much of Illinois and parts of Indiana and Kentucky.
(h/t Politico’s Morning Energy)
A line in the sand over Keystone XL?
This morning, Politico looks at the Keystone XL protests in Washington, D.C., which it frames as a “stern warning” to President Obama. In other words, if the White House approves the pipeline, environmentalists will turn their back on Obama in the 2012 election.
The pipeline has become a, well, a keystone issue (sorry) in energy politics, and as is often the case in such situations, both the arguments for and against it are probably a bit overstated.
Bill McKibben, who organized the D.C. protests, has said that over the long-term, tar sands extraction has the potential to disastrously raise atmospheric CO2 levels by 200 ppm. Canadian economist Andrew Leach acknowledges that number is technically correct, but “laughably out of context,” as it would take until approximately the year 3316 to reach that level.
Proponents of the pipeline cite energy security issues, and argue that Canada will just find a way to ship oil to China if the United States doesn’t buy it. That’s also technically true, but the problem, as we’ve noted before, is that Keystone XL doesn’t necessarily prevent Canadian companies from shipping oil to China, in fact, it makes it easier.
Perhaps the more tangible issue is for people who live along the pipeline’s route, particularly in Nebraska (my home state, if it matters), where it would cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a key source of irrigation and drinking water for much of the Great Plains. As Mother Jones‘ Kate Sheppard points out in an excellent summary of the issue, the potential threat to that water supply has drawn out opposition from across the political spectrum.
The simple reality is that the pipeline is a way for Canadian oil companies to sell more of their product, and make more money doing so. Honestly, it’s not as though TransCanada came up with Keystone XL after sitting around dreaming of a way to improve American energy security.
But let’s get back to that line in the sand. Should Keystone XL be at the center of the climate change fight? The always thought-provoking energy consultant Geoffrey Styles says the carbon emissions from the oil sands are a real concern, but that most of those emissions will take place in the United States as we burn that oil in our cars.
…we shouldn’t forget that under UN agreements it is Canada that bears responsibility for the extra emissions that oil sands generate in Alberta. … Whatever path [Canadians] choose, we have plenty of our own emissions to consider without going into a tizzy over a Canadian sector that currently emits roughly as much as U.S. livestock waste management.
Canada, as Styles points out, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while the United States did not. So does Obama really have the political cover he needs to reject the pipeline on the grounds that it will contribute to climate change? If the U.S. wants to get serious about CO2 emissions, are there perhaps more effective things we could do that don’t involve pissing off our closest political and strategic ally?
And if the pipeline is approved, will environmental groups make good on their threat to punish Obama at the ballot box for it?
Photo by tarsandsaction via Creative Commons
A conspiracy theorist responds
Vaccines: Another vast government conspiracy perpetrated by so-called "scientists"?
Last week, I wrote about the lengths to which some conservative politicians and media outlets are genuflecting to spin the new truck efficiency rules in a way that fits their anti-government narrative. In the process, I found a post by Melody Scalley, writing for the American Thinker, that suggests the EPA is attempting to take over the trucking industry.
I’ll admit, I was a little concerned I was being unfair to Scalley by attributing such a mind-blowingly absurd idea to her. Maybe I had misunderstood something, or perhaps there was a bit of subtle irony that had gone over my head.
Fortunately, Scalley was kind enough to post a comment clarifying her view, which I’ve pasted below in its entirety:
Ken,
Did you miss the point that the ATA does not and cannot speak for the ‘trucking industry’?
Their members are not the individuals driving the trucks. The independent truckers will NOT be running out to buy new trucks; they are not even making enough money to support the trucks they have.
These regulations will result in fewer sales and smaller profits. Exactly what we need in a recession with no end in sight – more government regulation.
The EPA SmartWay program is based on the need to reduce ‘man-made global warming’, a complete farce made up by alarmists to control industry in the U.S.
Let us hope that some folks will understand what this administration is really trying to do before it is too late.M.
(emphasis mine)
It’s easy to be dismissive of stuff like this. I mean, even BP acknowledges climate change is “a major global challenge – one that will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals.” When you can get industry involved in the vast conspiracy to destroy itself, that’s one hell of a cabal.
But the issue here is that we — all of us — tend to view reality through an ideological lens. Climate change, for instance, is a problem that the free market can’t fix, so if you’re a person who believes that the free market fixes all problems, climate change simply can’t exist.
And because this denial is driven by a widely-accepted ideology, it’s treated as a legitimate political position in the broader media, rather than a wrongheaded rejection of established science. Plenty of people believe childhood vaccinations are part of a vast conspiracy, too, but can you imagine a presidential candidate declaring that “the science isn’t in” on the measles shot?
I mean, we’d laugh them right out of town!
Right?
One more time: Keystone XL is about profit
"Shang-hai traffic ... so hard to get through youuu."
This morning, Stephen Lacey at Climate Progress writes about a new report that says there are now 1 billion cars and light trucks on the road worldwide. “Billion” with a “b.”
In just six months, the world added about 35 million cars. But only about 1 percent of those were registered in the U.S.
It will probably come as no surprise that more than half of those cars — 16.8 million — were purchased in China. With 78 million cars, China is now second only to the United States in the number of vehicles on the road.
If China keeps adding new vehicles at this rate, Lacey points out, it could pass the U.S. within a few years.
So what does this have to do with Keystone XL? China’s rapidly increasing oil demand is often cited as a reason the U.S. State Department should approve the pipeline. If we don’t buy the oil, the argument goes, Canada will just sell it to booming markets in Asia.
The problem with that argument, as I’ve written before, is that Keystone XL doesn’t necessarily prevent Canadian companies from shipping oil to China. If anything, it makes it easier.
National Geographic on Friday wrote about an analysis by Canadian economist Philip Verleger, who argues that not only does Keystone XL make oil shipments to China more likely, it makes them a virtual certainty:
The bottom line for Verleger is that refineries on the Gulf Coast have long-term commitments to buy oil from current suppliers—including Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Mexico. Those nations don’t want to cede market share to Canada. All three have ownership in Texas refineries, and they can also match any discount that comes with the Canadian crude. “There will be too much oil, it’s got to go somewhere, and it’s going to China,” Verleger says.
The reality is that Keystone XL, as TransCanada has acknowledged, is all about opening up new markets for Canadian oil. As China continues to add staggering numbers of cars, and as the U.S. attempts to curb its oil consumptions, it’s not so radical to suggest that much of the new oil entering the market will flow eastward.
Photo by Bert van Dijk via Creative Commons
Is the GOP’s climate litmus test weakening?
If you were anywhere near the Twitterbox yesterday, you probably saw this bold announcement from Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman:
The tweet was bouncing around the web around the same time as a video of Texas Gov. Rick Perry explaining to a kid that he’s “not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how old the earth is.”
But Perry doesn’t just question evolution and geology, he’s got issues with climate science as well. The candidate recently claimed that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.” This statement and others earned Perry a whopping four out of four Pinocchios from the Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog.
While Perry is hardly alone in his rejection of climate science, Huntsman — who is anything but liberal — is deliberately distancing himself from the party’s anti-science wing. Huntsman’s chief strategist, John Weaver, recently told the Post that “We’re not going to win a national election if we become the anti-science party … the American people are looking for someone who lives in reality.”
Are they really? Consider this quote from a Perry supporter in Iowa:
“I’m looking for who’s the toughest and who stands with his values,” said Kyle Moeller, a 21-year-old college student who met Perry at the Walcott compound that bills itself as the world’s largest truck stop. “Right now, that looks like Rick Perry.”
“Living in reality” appears to be optional, at least in this case.
While a candidate’s views on science are certain to have a major impact on energy and climate policy, will it matter in the election? A recent article in Politico suggests not:
Republican campaign veterans shrug off the distinction on climate science as a third-tier issue that will be quickly overshadowed as the candidates engage on topics like the economy and how to balance spending cuts and entitlement programs.
“People will tell you it matters,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former top economic adviser during John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. “It doesn’t.”
So positions on science may not matter, but equivocating on those positions, as former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty did, just might. In a piece published today, former Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial writer Jim Lenfestey says Pawlenty “embarrassed himself before the entire nation by turning his back on one of his most significant accomplishments.”
As governor, he saw the ominous clouds of climate change as the economic opportunity they represent, and was a strong supporter of renewable-energy standards that helped make Minnesota a leader in using our abundant nonpolluting energy resources.
But as candidate for the Republican nomination for president, he shamefully recanted that position to fit right-wing talking points that the science is uncertain, while he knows the opposite is true — the science has only grown more certain since he first became governor.
So will science win the day? Or conviction about science, right or wrong? Watching Huntsman’s poll numbers in the coming months will give us a clue.
