Showing posts with label Carbon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carbon. Show all posts
Group releases recommendations to cut pollution
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
From a news release issued by Clean Wisconsin:Expansion will save homeowners and businesses million
MADISON -- After more than a year of meetings and studies, the Midwestern Governors Association's (MGA) Low Carbon Fuel Advisory Group has released a report detailing a regionally coordinated cleaner fuels policy. These recommendations are designed to lower pollution in transportation fuels.
"The MGA report shows that cleaner fuel policies can be developed in ways that take advantage of our region’s economic and natural resource strengths and move Wisconsin away from the fossil fuels we import to our state at a cost of $13 billion a year," says Keith Reopelle, senior policy director, Clean Wisconsin.
While California and other states have already adopted similar policies, these recommendations differ in key respects. For example, they propose to measure greenhouse gas emissions for transportation fuels in a way that does not penalize the use of food-based crops for fuel, such as corn ethanol. A decision on evaluating potential market effects of food-based crops would be delayed until there is greater scientific consensus.
The Midwest is the leading producer of corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel, both of which can contribute to cuts in carbon pollution. The region is also a leader in the development of next-generation, clean-burning biofuels, from sources like wood waste and biogas, which benefits local economies. Wisconsin leads the country in farm-based biogas energy that turns cow manure, cheese wastewater and other byproducts into a valuable fuel for natural gas vehicles. And, of course, the region is the nation’s leading automotive and automotive components manufacturer. For instance, Wisconsin-based Johnson Controls is building car batteries and electric drivetrains for vehicles such as the Ford Transit electric van. Electricity qualifies as a low-carbon fuel due to the greater efficiency of electric drivetrains.
"Moving to lower carbon fuels not only reduces dependence on imported oil but helps develop new economic opportunities in the advanced biofuel and electric vehicle industries," says Reopelle. "The recent announcement that United Ethanol of Milton will be installing a biogas system to reduce fossil fuel consumption will lower the carbon footprint of ethanol fuel produced in Wisconsin."
Some proposals were recommended for state or region-wide action, but the Advisory Group made recommendations for federal policymakers as well. The Advisory Group included state policymakers, business leaders, including the oil and gas industries, academic researchers and environmental groups.
MGA asked the Advisory Group to develop mutually acceptable recommendations for action to cut the carbon pollution from transportation fuels by 10 percent in 10 years. A technical evaluation found that nearly a 15-percent cut in pollution could be achieved in the same timeframe.
MGE Rate Filing Rewards Fossil Fuel Use, Penalizes Renewable Energy
Friday, September 17, 2010
From a news release issued by RENEW Wisconsin:MGE Rate Filing Rewards Fossil Fuel Use, Penalizes Renewable Energy
RENEW Wisconsin, a statewide renewable energy advocacy organization, today called on Madison Gas and Electric (MGE) to scrap its pending request to substantially increase the cost of participation in its voluntary renewable energy subscription program.
RENEW contends that MGE does not need a higher renewable rate because the cost of energy supplying its award-winning Green Power Tomorrow program have not changed over the last 18 months and will not for the foreseeable future. The utility is seeking permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to increase the renewable energy rate from 1.25 cents to 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), a 60% increase.
If approved, the voluntary premium that MGE customers will pay for sponsoring more wind and solar electricity production will be significantly higher than what other Wisconsin utilities charge. In contrast, Milwaukee-Based We Energies charges a 1.38 cents/kWh premium to participate in its Energy for Tomorrow program. That rate, which received a slight upward adjustment in 2009, will remain in effect through 2011.
“Nothing about this price hike makes any sense,” said Michael Vickerman, Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. “Program costs haven’t changed. Wind and solar energy is no more costly this year than it was in 2009, and next year it will be more of the same. Therefore, Green Power Tomorrow’s premium should remain where it is today.”
Energy bill reflects science, consensus
Monday, February 01, 2010
From a letter by Rob Nelson to the editor of the Baraboo News Republic:If anyone is guilty of espousing "ideology, not reality," and taking a stand based on "politics rather than science or economics," it is clearly Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald in his recent column attacking the legislature’s Clean Energy Jobs Act (AB-649).
The bill is based largely on the 2008 report by the Governor’s Task Force on Global Warming. After 14 months of research, discussion, and compromise, this diverse group suggested more than 60 wide-ranging policy recommendations in order to enhance Wisconsin’s energy independence and reduce our state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Reflecting an extraordinary amount of consensus, 26 members of the Task Force ultimately endorsed the entire document, while three members objected to individual components of the plan.
Keep in mind that this was no mere collection of tree-huggers: The 29 members of the Task Force included representatives from six utilities (MGE, We Energies, Alliant, Xcel Energy, WPPI, and Integrys Energy Group); two of the state’s largest unions (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, United Steel Workers); several of Wisconsin’s most prominent manufacturers (Ariens, SC Johnson, General Motors, NewPage, General Electric, and Plum Creek Timber); plus the Dairy Business Association, the Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives, and a Democratic senator.
A member of Mr. Fitzgerald’s own party, Rep. Phil Montgomery, (R-Ashwaubenon) was included in this bi-partisan effort and agreed with the Task Force’s recommendations.
Not all of the steps outlined by the Task Force are found in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, but many are, including:
— enhancing statewide energy efficiency and weatherization programs;
— requiring that 25 percent of Wisconsin’s energy come from renewable source by 2025;
— offering incentives for producers of agricultural energy crops;
— promoting carbon sequestration in Wisconsin forests; and
— a guarantee that utilities purchase electricity from small-scale generators at fair, reliable prices.
The Wisconsin Office of Energy Independence estimates the Green Energy Jobs Act "will create a minimum of 15,000 new jobs for Wisconsin by 2025, and more than 1,800 of those jobs will be realized in the first year."
Air-quality improvements offset climate policy costs
Friday, January 22, 2010
From a news release issued by the UW-Madison:MADISON - The benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation policies are likely to outweigh the near-term costs of implementing those policies, according to a new study.
Coming on the heels of the international climate talks in Copenhagen and a proposal earlier this month by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to tighten smog standards, new research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggests that climate change policies should be assessed on the basis of potential benefits as well as initial costs.
Writing online Jan. 22 in the journal Environmental Research Letters, University of Wisconsin-Madison researchers Gregory Nemet, Tracey Holloway and Paul Meier report that the value of "co-benefits" - especially improved public health due to better air quality - rarely factors into assessments of climate change policy.
"The debate is really about how expensive this is going to be, and it excludes the social benefit," says Nemet, an assistant professor of public affairs and environmental studies at the La Follette School of Public Affairs and the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at UW-Madison. "That hasn't really been part of the equation."
Rather, policy assessments and decisions typically focus on cost-minimization without balancing those costs against the value of the resulting benefits, an approach that misrepresents the true economic impact of climate change policies, the researchers say.
In a survey of existing studies on air quality co-benefits, the researchers found 48 estimates ranging from $2 to nearly $200 per ton of carbon dioxide avoided, with an average benefit of $50 per ton. The highest values were in developing countries, where reducing pollution is likely to have the greatest impact on human welfare.
These benefits far outweigh the costs of carbon dioxide mitigation, which currently proposed policies limit to less than $30 per ton.
MG&E hangs ten on energy wave
Thursday, December 31, 2009
From a commentary by Ken Harwood, a writer for online Capital Region Business Journal, where this column first appeared:Now for the positive side of the energy dilemma. One Wisconsin firm has seen the tidal wave and decided to grab a surfboard and ride it in. I sat down with Scott Neitzel of Madison Gas and Electric and asked about the future of energy production in Wisconsin. Scott shared an MGE initiative, the Energy 2015 Plan, to create economic and environmentally responsible energy. The plan outlines that the company will discontinue burning coal at the downtown Madison Blount Generating Station by 2011, increase its use of wind tenfold, involve the customer in energy efficiency efforts, and secure a cleaner more reliable and affordable product across the board.
To date MGE has made good on the promise. The Blount facility will soon no longer rely on coal, MGE has increased its wind generation from 11 to 137 megawatts, and the company has incorporated new cleaner technologies into its generation facilities portfolio. In addition, MGE has educated the consumer and offers a Green Power Tomorrow program, which allows customers to voluntarily purchase renewable energy for a penny per kilowatt-hour and sell solar energy back to MGE for $0.25 per kilowatt-hour.
Neitzel suggests, “Renewable energy is a part of our corporate culture from the top down.” In describing how they got here he used a sports metaphor from Wayne Gretzky: “You skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it is.”
The most interesting observation I can make is that MGE was not motivated by current policy or the looming cap and trade initiative. In fact the 2015 Plan was adopted in January of 2006, a full two years before the new administration or current legislative agendas. I learned a lot about balancing good business with good policy from Scott and MGE. I hope this lesson will be shared on Capitol Hill before legislation is drafted. We must remember that energy, the environment and good business is, like surfing, a balancing act. If we are really going to ride the wave to shore, we need to see it coming.
How does the everyday Joe benefit from Green Power?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
From Ask Bob, a feature on the Web site of Madison Gas and Electric:
We’re going to have to make a transition. We can’t continue to rely on fossil fuels, because there’s a limited amount of them. We’re going to run out. We need to develop other sources of energy. The benefit of buying green power is that it pushes a transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Oil & gas industry seeks energy dependence, ignores peak oil, and opposes climate protection plans
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The oil and gas industry's energy policy: Drill, baby, drill! Import, baby, import!:+ Increase, not decrease energy production by promoting all sources. [In other words, peak oil doesn't exist.]
+ Encourage energy efficiency as a core American principle.
+ Encourage investment in advanced technologies and long-term energy initiatives.
+ Allow market forces to allocate products and adjust to changing conditions.
+ Refrain from new taxes that make it more expensive to develop our domestic supplies.
+ Support the need to participate actively in global energy markets rather than isolate the U.S. [In other words, become more dependent on foreign sources.]
From print ad of the oil and gas industry:
Congress will soon consider massive new taxes and fees – which could easily exceed $400 billion – on America’s oil and natural gas industry, yet this level could produce devastating effects on our economy, all when America can least afford it.
These unprecedented taxes and fees would reduce investment in new energy supplies at a time when nearly two-thirds of Americans support developing our domestic oil and natural gas resources. That would mean less energy, and it would cost thousands of American jobs, actually reduce local, state and federal revenue, and further erode our energy security.
Learn more and tell Congress to oppose these proposals to impose $400 billion in tax hikes on America’s oil and natural gas companies. By using SocialCapital, you can voice your opinions to public officials and members of Congress about key energy issues via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and more.
'Clean coal' debate plays out on the airwaves
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
From a story by Quinn Bowman posted at the Online NewsHour With Jim Lehrer:American television audiences are likely noticing a battle being waged during commercial breaks as millions of dollars are being spent on advertising to promote or denigrate a mysterious-sounding buzzword: clean coal technology.
In an ad produced by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry group, then-candidate Barack Obama tells a cheering crowd that he wants to create new clean energy jobs with clean coal technology. "Yes we can," the crowd chants.
Rival organization the Reality Coalition, made up of environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Foundation, produced a spot with a mock salesman touting clean coal technology as he sprays an aerosol can of soot inside a family's home.
The public relations battle is the face of an ongoing debate among environmentalists, the government and the coal industry about how to contend with the massive amounts of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by coal-burning power plants.
Nelson Institute to pick best new green idea, give $20k
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
From an article by in The Badger Herald:
The University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute will offer $50,000 in prizes to students who produce ideas to reduce the impact of climate change through a new competition called the Climate Leadership Challenge.
“Right now there is no program to create incentives for low-carbon energy technologies,” said Greg Nemet, assistant professor of public affairs and environmental studies at UW. “There is a lot of enthusiasm for doing something that we haven’t taken full advantage of. The idea of the project is to create an early stage award for some really talented people.”
Project coordinator Josh Ghena said the competition is based off of the “X Prize,” a competition that rewards competitors for achieving goals that benefit humanity.
Ghena said he spent a lot of time researching competitions at other universities before settling on the idea of a competition seeking projects that promote a sustainable future.
“The idea of the climate challenge is fairly unique,” Ghena said. “People involved in policy and making decisions see this as a really creative and unique opportunity for students. There are a lot of people excited about this.”
Both graduate and undergraduate students are invited to submit a program, policy or product to participate in the competition.
Homecoming features Big Ten’s first ‘carbon-neutral’ football game
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
From an article by Dennis Chaptman on the UW-Madison news site:
As part of a campuswide commitment to reducing our environmental footprint, the Badgers' Homecoming game against the University of Illinois on Saturday, Oct. 25, has been designated a "carbon-neutral" game.
The game, the first of its kind in the Big Ten and one of the first in the nation, will offer a chance to raise awareness of environmental issues, such as the damaging effects of carbon dioxide and the benefits of conservation and recycling. The event will also provide information on ways fans can take action in their daily lives to become more environmentally friendly.
The game is also a way to highlight the Athletic Department's plans to implement a recycling and sustainability plan during the next five years.
"We're hoping this game will stimulate more awareness of environmental issues on the part of Badger fans everywhere and demonstrate the many ways in which athletics and the rest of our campus are making meaningful commitments to sustainability," says Chancellor Carolyn "Biddy" Martin.
The project has two aims: to offset carbon dioxide emissions generated directly by activities surrounding the game, and to make a continuing investment in a healthy environment by planting trees.
The project will involve the planting of thousands of trees at the Arington Tree Farm near Cambridge, beginning at 2 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 16, when Bucky Badger, UW-Madison student-athletes and university officials will be on hand for the planting of the first seedlings.
The university's commitment also involves the purchase of carbon credits — made possible by an anonymous donor — to offset estimated game-day carbon dioxide emissions.
Mpowered!
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Michael Vickerman has been Mpowered to install a solar
hot water system on the lower roof behind him and a solar
electric system on the higher roof.
Mpowering Madison asks Madison residents to take a pledge
to help reduce 100,000 tons in citywide emissions of carbon
dioxide pollution by 2011.
DOE funds carbon capture with $340M & solar with $24M, Sigh
Thursday, August 14, 2008
From an article by Craig Rubens on Earth2Tech.com:
In the last two days, the Department of Energy has announced $24 million worth of new investments in solar energy while also revealing it’s putting a whopping $340 million into yet more clean coal research. In conjunction with the funding announcements, the DOE says it’s “committed to…developing the technologies that will ensure coal can be used,” but at the same time describes solar as “an important component of our comprehensive strategy to commercialize and deploy advanced, clean, alternative technologies.”
Parsing the language indicates this administration’s bias toward clean coal, but the numbers speak even louder. Since 2001 the DOE has put more than $2.5 billion into clean coal, including millions sunk into the scuttled FutureGen project. This week’s $340 million is part of President Bush’s $2 billion, 10-Year Clean Coal Initiative, but is separate from the $1.3 billion announced with the “restructuring” of the FutureGen project.
The DOE was not able to immediately provide us with the total amount of federal funding that solar projects have received, but we do know that the agency announced $60 million earlier this year and $168 million last year for solar projects. We’re sure that’s not the entire amount, but seems to come in significantly under its clean coal budget.
Import Canadian oil sands? Pro and con
Sunday, April 06, 2008
The Wisconsin State Journal ran a pro and a con article on whether the U.S. should import Canadian oil sands.Wayne Madsen, a Washington-based author and columnist and a contributing writer to the liberal Online Journal (www.onlinejournal.com), wrote the con:
WASHINGTON -- Anything that allows America to continue its narcotic-like dependence on carbon fossil fuels -- whether the sprawling tar sands of Canada or the petroleum pools under Alaska 's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- completely misses the point about shifting to alternative energy sources.Robert Fink, a petroleum geologist living in Cleveland, Wisconsin, wrote the pro:
Alternative sources should be real energy alternatives like wind, solar and geothermal power rather than alternative fossil fuel sources that often give off more greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil.
Without making that crucial distinction we will continue to stoke the boilers of global warming that are destroying our planet 's all-too fragile environment at an ever-increasing rate.
Congress was wise to ban oil drilling in ANWR, one of the most pristine areas on Earth, and it would be equally wise to ban the import of oil from the tar sands of Alberta in Canada. Our Congress also should support efforts by far-sighted Canadians, who are pushing for a moratorium on the further development of Alberta 's tar sands.
At a time when Congress and the states are trying to come up with solutions to the nation 's energy problems, it is vital that decisions be made on the basis of fact, not fiction.
U.S. Senate opposition to legislation that would speed up the permitting process for oil refineries, for example, comes in part from an impression that oil companies aren 't interested in increasing refinery capacity in the United States.
Worse, some members of Congress want to prohibit Midwest refineries from using Canadian tar-sands oil in the mistaken belief our refineries have easy access to crude-oil supplies from other countries that can fill the gap. . . .
The United States consumes about 21 million barrels of gasoline, diesel and other oil products daily, according to the Energy Information Administration, but only 17 million barrels are refined in this country. The rest is produced at refineries in other countries, some as far away as Europe and the Near East, and with growing demand for petroleum products, imports from foreign refineries are projected to more than double within 20 years.
"We 're going to become dependent on foreign refineries, " Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, warned recently. "If we can 't refine oil, others will do it for us, and it 's foolish if we don 't wean ourselves off imports. "
Canadian ruling could halt planned oil-sands project
Friday, March 07, 2008
From an article by David Ebner in The Globe and Mail:CALGARY -- Oil sands projects could face tougher regulatory scrutiny after a federal court judge yesterday found the approval of Imperial Oil Ltd.'s $8-billion oil sands mine insufficient on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
A federal-Alberta review panel approved Imperial's Kearl mine last year, saying it was in the public interest, although it worried about "critical challenges" on environmental issues and local problems in Fort McMurray. Alta.
The panel didn't explain why it decided that 3.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year - equivalent of 800,000 cars on the road - wouldn't be significant, Federal Court of Canada Judge Danièle Tremblay-Lamer said in a judgment published yesterday.
"The panel dismissed as insignificant the greenhouse gas emissions without any rationale," Judge Tremblay-Lamer wrote, calling on the panel to revisit the specific question.
The court victory by environmental groups, four of which had appealed the panel ruling, signals that the spotlight and assessment of oil sands projects will become ever-more intense.
While the decision focuses on the panel's decision to approve the mine rather than evidence presented by Imperial and its parent company, Exxon Mobil Corp. of Texas, it was hailed as a "landmark" in the oil sands by environmental groups.
Shawn Denstedt, a partner at law firm Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Calgary who works on many oil sands regulatory applications, said companies are ready to deal with tougher assessments. "The scrutiny of projects is becoming more and more stringent," he said.
"This is another speed bump in the regulatory approval process, not a roadblock," he said, adding that expected regulations on greenhouse gases from the federal government will provide further clarity.
Refinery pollution may soar in Midwest
Thursday, February 14, 2008
From an article by Michael Hawthorne in the Chicago Tribune:Global-warming pollution from Midwest oil refineries is expected to soar by as much as 40 percent during the next decade, a dramatic increase that runs counter to regional and national efforts to curb heat-trapping gases. . . .
The huge increases in greenhouse gases are a largely hidden consequence of an industrywide trend to buy more Canadian crude. Vast reserves of tar-soaked clay and sand lying under the swampy forests of northern Alberta are seen as a profitable and reliable source of oil, but the heavy petroleum requires more energy to process.
Other oil companies declined to discuss projected increases in global-warming pollution, but researchers have calculated that refining the Canadian petroleum produces 15 percent to 40 percent more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional oil.
With no greenhouse-gas regulations in place, the companies face no costs for the extra pollution they will churn into the atmosphere.
"This is a glaring example of how our energy policy and climate policy are at cross purposes," said Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Companies are making decisions that really don't make sense on a national level when you fail to take climate change into account."
Older Posts
.body
Home