The renewables safe sources of energy that never run out are coming!  And if it was braggin’ time for wind when wind power hit 1.25% of U.S. electricity generation in 2008, what’ll it be in 2012, when it hits 5%, as projected by the Energy Information Administration?  Well, it’s probably time for a tougher renewable energy standard than the Senate is considering.

Significantly, the EIA, which is the DOE’s independent analytical arm, is no fan of safe sources of energy that never run out.  When I was at the DOE in the mid-1990s, we uncovered a key reason there was so little wind in EIA’s modeling of federal climate action:  Their original forecast had in fact shown a huge upsurge, so the EIA analysts tweaked the model to artificially suppress wind.  And today, the EIA is run by my old friend, Howard Gruenspecht, who was a Bush Sr. holdover at DOE’s office of policy when I started there in 1992 and a Bush, Jr. appointee at EIA.  He ain’t progressive.  Obama should replace him.  But I digress.

So it is all the more shocking that EIA’s remarkable, if little noted, report from last month, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook projected this response to the Obama stimulus package:

Note that non-hydro renewables are about 9% of supply in 2020.  You can find all the year-by-year projections here (see Table 15, “Renewable Energy Generating Capacity and Generation”).

Now you can pretty much ignore the post-2012 projections by EIA since they have self-inflicted myopia — EIA’s basic forecasts assume “no further energy and climate policy” and “no peak oil.”  For instance, their analysis notes “wind capacity growth is projected to slow significantly after the expiration of the Federal tax credits in 2012.”

Slow significantly?  That’s an understatement.  EIA projects U.S. wind capacity rising from about 25 GW in 2008 to 66 GW in 2014 — but then to only 68 GW in 2030!

Anybody want to bet me that wind capacity will grow 2 GW from 2015 to 2030?  Didn’t think so.  Seriously EIA — how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

And EIA projects solar thermal power in 2014 will be … wait for it … 790 MW, and in 2030 … wait even longer and longer for it … 860 MW.  Like I said, EIA does not like renewables — even those with power purchase agreements (see “World’s largest solar plant with thermal storage to be built in Arizona “” total of 8500 MW of this core climate solution planned for 2014 in U.S. alone“).

Needless to say, they assume no climate bill and thus no price for carbon dioxide.

And here is their oil price forecast:

Read more

Some Republicans really don’t like the idea of new jobs. Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) , in his opening statement on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), attacked green jobs as “subprime” and “just like leaves on a tree” that disappear over time:

There’s little doubt in my mind that this legislation will shut down businesses and eliminate blue and white collar jobs. While I know the majority has prided its plan on the creation of green jobs mr chairman I have listened to some of our counterparts in Europe discuss their experience with these green jobs. It seems to me that green jobs, just like leaves on a tree, they may shine in the summertime when everything is sunny, but when the fall comes these leaves will fade and in winter they’ll be long gone. They may be described as “subprime” in comparison to solid traditional manufacturing jobs we’ve recently lost to other countries.

Watch it:

Gingrey and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), who also attacked green jobs by reading from a National Post hit piece (which Whitfield mistakenly called the “New York Post”), were relying on a study by Spanish libertarian Gabriel Calzada that blamed Spain’s support for its renewable industry for its high current level of unemployment. The only problem is that the study — produced by a right-wing Spanish think tank — is “completely untrue.” The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that “the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending” and that “hard to see how” Spain’s support for green jobs “could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.”

Gingrey was right when he said that “solid traditional manufacturing jobs” have been recently lost to other countries. His mistake is in not understanding that investing in green jobs is how to keep these traditional jobs in the United States — from designing, building, and transporting wind turbines to installing insulation and solar panels in millions of homes. Gingrey needs to spend more time in his district and visit his constituents working for green companies like the industrial heating engineering firm Sigma Thermal, home refitting company Wheeler’s Windows and Doors, and the electrical design engineering firm Lunar Accents Design. I doubt they consider their work to be “subprime.”

Transcript: Read more

The man who is arguably the most credible progressive expert on economics has begun to seriously weigh in on the clean energy and global warming bill (see Krugman: Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities”).

In today’s column, “The Perfect, the Good, the Planet,” he argues for the bird in the hand:

If we’re going to get real action on climate change any time soon, it will be via some version of legislation proposed by Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. Their bill would limit greenhouse gases by requiring polluters to receive or buy emission permits, with the number of available permits “” the “cap” in “cap and trade” “” gradually falling over time….

So is Waxman-Markey “” whose language was released last week “” good enough?

Well, Al Gore has praised the bill, and plans to organize a grass-roots campaign on its behalf.

[Note:  I can mostly confirm that there will be a grassroots campaign on behalf of this bill by an organization associated with Nobelist Gore.]

I’m with Mr. Gore. The legislation now on the table isn’t the bill we’d ideally want, but it’s the bill we can get “” and it’s vastly better than no bill at all.

Then Krugman explicitly addresses both the issue of a carbon tax and too many free permits.

First, however, let me note that, my response to Hansen’s dissing of cap-and-trade has generated discussion on the blogosphere — see the many links in Dave Roberts’ post at Grist, “Cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax: a bird in hand is worth two on Alpha Centauri.”

I would also note that ExxonMobil prefers a carbon tax (see here), and as the Miami Herald notes, “Republican lawmakers back carbon tax (yes, that’s right),” and so does our old friend Roger Pielke, Jr (see here), but that isn’t entirely news to CP readers (see “Finally, Roger Pielke admits he supports policies that will take us to 5-7°C warming or more“).

Still it must make any pro-tax climate science activist wonder a little how flawed and/or politically infeasible a carbon tax must be for it to be embraced by the country’s top deniers and delayers.

Here’s what Krugman has to say about it:

Read more

UPDATE:  The NYT story is not entirely accurate, and, separately, sources tell me there appears to be a little confusion as to exactly what mpg standard is set for what class of vehicles (see below).

UPDATE2:  The numbers appear to be 39 mpg for cars, 30 mpg for light trucks (see here).

For all those who are worried that the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill represents the alpha and the omega of energy policy, the NYT reports today:

The Obama administration will issue new national requirements for the emissions and mileage of cars and light trucks in an effort to end a long-running conflict among the states, the federal government and auto manufacturers, industry officials said Monday.

President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine California’s tough new auto-emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard to create a single new national standard, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.

I agree with Dan Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign (and formerly of Sierra club)

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker

Kudos to team Obama for putting this deal together.  Here are more details:

Read more

MONDAY, MAY 18, 2009 — If members of the U.S. Congress listen closely today, they will hear this sound.

That’s the cavalry (and the Navy, Air Force and Marines) coming to the aid of the green army that is so vastly outnumbered and out-funded by the oil and coal lobbyists on Capitol Hill.

A panel of 12 distinguished retired generals and admirals has just released the latest in a series of reports over the past two years warning that global climate change is not just an environmental issue, or an economic issue, or a public health and welfare issue. It’s an urgent matter of national security.

Put another way, any effort to further delay the world’s transition to a sustainable energy economy or to launch an aggressive response to global climate change is a national security threat.

The new report — “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security” – is the work of the Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), a federally funded research and development center serving U.S. defense agencies. The Board consists of former admirals and generals who have served at the very top of America’s military structure and who know a security threat when they see one. (See their names and titles at the end of this post).

Among their conclusions:

Read more

Carbon capture schemes an expensive step into the unknown

This article, from the Australian Sydney Morning Herald, illustrates precisely why betting on a carbon capture scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a recipe for disaster. The nonexistent technology must be developed, tested, and deployed on a large scale very rapidly. No one knows what it will cost or even if it is possible, making CCS the longest of long shots on which to pin humanity’s hopes.  See also “Is coal with carbon capture and storage a core climate solution?“

The [Australian] Federal Government will spend $2 billion to build “industrial-scale” carbon capture and storage projects in Australia.

You would be better off just burying the money, from an environmental point of view, because many doubt the CCS technology will work. The best proponents can say is, it has to. But if it doesn’t, the money is worse than wasted, because the spending will have exacerbated the climate problem by justifying construction of new coal-fired power stations that burn for another 30 to 40 years.

The public could bear the ultimate liability if the technology fails, too, because the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act — the world’s most comprehensive, according to the Government, when it was passed last November — nicely shifts long-term liability (beyond 15 years) onto the Commonwealth.

I’m afraid it is a near certainty that the US public would have to swallow all of the liability associated with carbon capture and storage, too, in the unlikely event it becomes commonplace in this country.  After all, the public has taken on most of the liability associated with nuclear power, and it has far riskier outcomes see “How much of a subsidy is the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industry Indemnity Act?“).

The story continues:

Read more

1. The Waxman-Markey bill will create jobs by spurring investment in renewables and efficiency.
2. Boosting investments in low-carbon energy will help the United States regain the lead in the manufacture and sale of clean-energy technologies.
3. The global warming threat is growing, and we have no more time to lose.
4. The bill would cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to equal pollution from half a billion cars.
5. It would increase new building efficiency by 50 percent.
6. It limits impact from energy costs on families and would make emitters pay to pollute.
7. It provides a smooth transition for energy-intensive industries.
8. Opponents of action would continue the status quo of doing nothing, which cost the average family a $1,000 increase in energy bills over the past eight years.
9. Investments in carbon capture-and-sequestration research and development to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
10. The bill has critical industry support.

Read more

Let me start by warning/notifying readers that this week will see a lot of posts about Waxman-Markey.  The name of this blog is Climate Progress — and I so rarely get to blog on actual climate progress!

This is, after all, the first bill to require reductions in global warming pollution ever considered by a House committee, let alone one with a very serious chance of passing. Also, it is a complicated and controversial bill (big PDF here) and recent articles suggest that the traditional media is not going to do a terrific job of explaining the issues.

And this is the key week:

On Monday, May 18, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, the full Committee on Energy and Commerce will meet in open markup session to consider H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act) comprehensive energy legislation to deploy clean energy resources, increase energy efficiency, cut global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.

So begins a memo to the committee from the majority staff.

The revolution will be televised!  On C-SPAN3 (here).  And that immediately brings up the possibility of a drinking game.  And you can certainly get plastered faster than “The historic 2008 election drinking game” (in which you took one shot every time you heard the word “historic”).

Today, just take one shot every time a conservative says “tax” or anyone says “jobs.” I guarantee you’ll be plastered faster than you can say American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which may not be a bad thing, given how mind-numbing a mark up can be — and how inane most of the GOP’s 450 planned amendments to Waxman-Markey are, not to mention the possibility they may force a reading of the entire bill.

More seriously, the memo contains an extended summary of the major provisions in the bill.  I will summarize the part of the summary on the climate title below:

Read more