"WHAT IF THERE IS NO CLIMATE/ENERGY BILL?" Report outlines path forward...

[kristopher]

WHAT IF THERE IS NO CLIMATE/ENERGY BILL?

CIVIL SOCIETY INSTITUTE REPORT FROM SYNAPSE SHOWS CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE STILL POSSIBLE FOR U.S.

With Uncertainty Mounting About Climate/Energy Bill, Major New Study for CSI Details Path for Breaking Away From "Business As Usual" in the Electric Power Sector.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - What happens if Congress fails to pass a climate or energy bill in 2010? Even without a federal carbon policy, the United States could move from the "business as usual" status quo to a dramatically cleaner and healthier approach to meeting its electrical power needs, according to a major new report from the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute think tank. The report was prepared by Synapse Energy Economics of Cambridge, MA.

The Synapse report outlines a "Transition Scenario" that would step up energy efficiency and the use of clean, renewable energy, allowing the country to retire all coal-fired power plants, and over a quarter of existing nuclear reactors. The overall cost of the plan would involve modest near-term costs over a "business as usual" (BAU) scenario, but result in savings by 2040.

In addition, many environmental and health impacts of the electric power industry would be dramatically reduced, including emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) the primary cause of global warming, emissions of from mercury, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Production of coal ash would also be eliminated, as would the damages and risks of coal mining, including mountaintop removal (MTR) mining. Further, the production of high-level radioactive waste at nuclear power plants would be reduced.

Pam Solo, president, Civil Society Institute, said: "The electric power industry in the U.S. is at a crossroads. While the industry remains obsessed with such dirty and needlessly expensive 19th and 20th century 'business as usual' solutions as coal-fired and nuclear power, there is an opportunity today to make the transition without multi-billion dollar gambles on unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology and risky nuclear loan-guarantee bailouts. What elected officials and other Americans need to understand is that, even if the climate bill falters, we can still make the move to dramatically cleaner and healthier electricity generation."

Bruce Biewald, president of Synapse Energy Economics Inc., said: "This study investigates a long-term, national strategy to transition away from coal and nuclear electricity and toward increased efficiency and renewable energy. The focus of the study is on what resources would be likely to replace coal-fired and nuclear generation, where those resources either are or need to be located, and what this resource mix would cost relative to a 'business as usual' energy future. The study finds that a future built on more efficient use of electricity and development of the nation's renewable resources would pose modest near-term costs but would cost less than 'business as usual' over the long term."

Using only existing technology and making no assumption or adjustment for the passage of federal carbon legislation and related price setting, the Synapse report for the Civil Society Institute develops a scenario for 2010- 2050 that would provide the following benefits.
• Aggressive investments in more efficient technologies in every sector could reduce electricity use by 15 percent from today's requirements, or over 40 percent from a "business as usual" scenario. Utilities in several states are already achieving savings at this level.
• The U.S. could feasibly retire the entire fleet of coal-fired plants and build no new coal-fired generation, rather than burning more coal. Tens of billions could be saved in avoided pollution control costs at the coal-fired plants retired between 2010 and 2020. At the same time, we could retire 28 percent of the nation's nuclear capacity.
• Electric sector emissions of carbon dioxide fall by 82 percent relative to predicted 2010 levels. Emissions of SO2, NOx, and mercury fall in the BAU Case, as new emission controls are installed at coal-fired plants, but they fall much more in the Transition Scenario. Emissions of NOx fall by 60 percent over the study period, and emissions of SO2 fall by 97 percent. Electric sector mercury emissions are virtually eliminated.
• Renewable energy, including wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, would increase throughout the nation, eventually providing half of the nation's electricity requirements. Natural gas use in the electric sector would grow more slowly than under business as usual, leaving more gas for clean cars and other uses.
• There would be modest near-term costs of the scenario, but over the long term it would cost less than a business as usual energy future. The scenario would cost an estimated $10 billion per year more than the BAU in 2020, but it would save $5 billion annually by 2040 and $13 billion annually by 2050. These are direct costs only; they do not include savings resulting from reduced CO2 emissions or public health costs. (A recent National Academies study estimated the annual health impacts of power generation in the U.S. at $62 billion in 2005.) For a typical residential consumer, purchasing about 900 kWh per month, the 2020 cost increase would amount to about $2.20 per month. By 2040, the same customer would be saving about $1.50 per month and by 2050, saving nearly $4.00 per month.

The report also looks at the regional consequences of moving away from "Business as Usual" in the U.S. electric sector. Under the report's "Transition Scenario," the country's massive Midwestern wind resource is tapped, and that energy is used primarily in the Midwest. The South Central wind resource is developed and used there and in the Southeast. The Northeast and California import less power from other regions than they do today, and the Northwest continues to export electricity from its low-cost renewable resources. Solar energy is developed across the country and especially in the Southwest. The country's biomass and geothermal resources are also developed. Aggressive energy efficiency efforts allow renewable energy to be developed with much less new transmission infrastructure than some other studies have envisioned.

Commenting on the findings, Grant Smith, executive director, Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, said: "Clearly, there are many advantages the Transition Scenario has over today's Business As Usual approach. Given the substantial financial, public health and environmental risks posed by coal-fired and nuclear power, there is a moral and ethical imperative to eliminate these resources from the electric generation mix."...

The rest of the press release and the full report for download at: http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/051110release.cfm

[joshcryer]

1. Synapse Energy Economics

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. (http://www.synapse-energy.com/) provides research, testimony, reports and regulatory support on energy, economic, and environmental topics. Synapse has a professional staff of 22 with more than 300 years of combined experience in the electricity and natural gas industries. Synapse assesses the implications of electricity and natural gas industry planning, regulation and restructuring. Their work covers various interrelated issues such as transmission planning, service reliability, siting, fuel diversity, resource planning, financial and economic risks, renewable energy potential and renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency, electricity modeling, portfolio management, customer service and more. Synapse works for a wide range of clients throughout the United States, including attorneys general, offices of consumer advocates, public utility commissions, a variety of environmental groups, foundations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, Department of Justice, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and others.

[kristopher]

2. Kick

[Christopher Calder]

3. Energy bill will cause higher food prices and starvation and more environmental damage

"Renewable" energy schemes other than hydroelectric power will cause higher food prices and even more starvation of both humans and animals. Remember our dogs, horses, and cattle have to eat as well. High food prices and increased global starvation levels should not be goals of the Democratic Party. There are ALTERNATIVE energy sources that are not "renewable" that do work and are worth supporting. Wind, solar, and biofuels are destructive and not sustainable politically, economically, or environmentally.

A number of members of the Obama admiration already know this, just as they know that the war in Afghanistan is a disaster and a complete waste of money and lives. The trouble is few dare to speak out publicly. Egos and pride get involved in these policies, and politicians stick to bad ideas in order to put off the day when they finally have to admit that they have been wrong all along and that they are not as smart as they thought they were.

PLEASE SEE:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx

Wind power is a complete disaster

By Professor Michael J. Trebilcock

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Indeed, recent academic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back-up generation required because of its intermittent character. On the negative side of the environmental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Industrial wind power is not a viable economic alternative to other energy conservation options. Again, the Danish experience is instructive. Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen , the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

The Economist magazine notes in a recent editorial, “Wasting Money on Climate Change,” that each tonne of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15.

Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers on a myriad of margins to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewables in terms of cost effectiveness.

The Ontario Power Authority advises that wind producers will be paid 13.5¢/kwh (more than twice what consumers are currently paying), even without accounting for the additional costs of interconnection, transmission and back-up generation. As the European experience confirms, this will inevitably lead to a dramatic increase in electricity costs with consequent detrimental effects on business and employment. From this perspective, the government’s promise of 55,000 new jobs is a cruel delusion.

A recent detailed analysis (focusing mainly on Spain) finds that for every job created by state-funded support of renewables, particularly wind energy, 2.2 jobs are lost. Each wind industry job created cost almost $2-million in subsidies. Why will the Ontario experience be different?

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems that make polluters pay, favor massive public subsidies to themselves for renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions. These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy (such as wind turbines).

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government’s Green Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy: Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all respond.

*Michael J. Trebilcock is Professor of Law and Economics, University of Toronto.

------------------------------------------------------------

Windmills are monuments to irrationality, and represent a tragic victory of empty symbolism over much needed substance.

Windmills are great for pumping irrigation water on a farm, because eventually wind energy can get the job done. The water does not have to be pumped right away on a strict schedule, and there is simple conversion of wind energy to mechanical energy in a pump, without the need for generating electricity.

Using wind energy to produce electricity for large scale use is a clear case of using the absolute wrong tool for the wrong job. Wind turbines are so inefficient at producing electrify, that to satisfy 100% of the electricity needs of New York City with wind power would take impossible around-the-clock winds within a strict speed range, and require a wind farm the size of the entire state of Connecticut. Other than traditional hydroelectric power, all of the “renewable” energy schemes are a complete waste of money for large scale electrical grid use. Solar cells are great for powering pocket calculators, but their high cost and intermittent output makes them of no use for powering the grid.

It takes so much energy to produce food that one can say that FOOD EQUALS ENERGY AND ENERGY EQUALS FOOD. The higher we push up the price of energy with ridiculously inefficient renewable energy schemes, the higher the cost of the food we need to keep our families, livestock, and our pets alive.

Please read “The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!” at:

http://biofuel.50webs.com/

This website has a detailed explanation of our energy situation, and presents positive new energy sources that can produce massive amounts of low cost energy without talking up huge amounts of land and without destroying our essential natural resources and the environment. Without affordable energy we cannot have affordable food. It is that simple.

Christopher Calder - nonprofit food security advocate