The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Canada will seemingly become the first country to pull out of the Kyoto protocol entirely. It would have been subject to substantial fines in a few years under that treaty due to the enormous increase in emissions caused by their production of oil from tar sands.

[Balta1701]

Well, this doesn't seem good.

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

 

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

 

In an exclusive interview with The Independent, Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he has never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

 

"Earlier we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing," Dr Semiletov said. "I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area we found more than 100, but over a wider area there should be thousands of them."

 

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere leading to rapid and severe climate change.

 

Dr Semiletov's team published a study in 2010 estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.

Of course, if the author had actually known how to write the article, the next question to ask (or the next bit of data to supply) is how big 8 million tonnes a year is compared to the global methane release, and what happens if you multiply those emissions by factors of 10 and 100.

 

After checking, Livestock farming is believed to be the largest current source of methane, contributing on the order of ~120+ million metric tonnes per year to the atmosphere. Which means that these plumes, if they're as large as he seems to be suggesting they are, could suggest methane releases that would be large enough to be a major factor in building up atmospheric methane.

[Balta1701]

Good work Republicans. They've succeeded in their quest to make sure the country wastes more electricity.

A controversial rider that would halt the roll out of new lighting efficiency standards remains plugged into a massive spending deal House and Senate negotiators worked out last night.

 

Lawmakers in both chambers signed off on the omnibus spending deal that would fund U.S. EPA, the Energy Department, the Interior Department and other agencies for the rest of fiscal 2012. The deal paves the way for votes in both chambers today, a move that would narrowly avoid a government shutdown when current funding expires at midnight.

 

The 1,200-page conference agreement released just before midnight last night appears nearly identical to language House Republicans released as a stand-alone bill early yesterday morning, including the same steep cuts for EPA and the rider on lighting efficiency standards.

 

The light bulb language had emerged as a sticking point in negotiations this week, and its inclusion in the final bill is a blow to Democratic efforts to remove it.

 

"I strongly oppose that language," Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said yesterday. Bingaman is the chief author of the 2007 law that originally enacted the standards requiring light bulbs to be about 30 percent more efficient starting Jan. 1. He told reporters last night -- before a deal was reached -- that he was pushing Senate leaders to remove the controversial provision from the conference agreement.

 

The language, which was originally tacked onto the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers fiscal 2012 spending bill that the House passed this summer, prohibits DOE from enforcing a set of light bulb efficiency standards that are set to take effect on Jan. 1. It also blocks enforcement of standards for flood lights that have been in effect since 2008.

 

Some conservatives in the House and right-wing pundits and commentators have championed the light bulb standard issue this year, citing it as an example of government overreach and saying it would effectively ban traditional incandescent light bulbs.

 

Light bulb manufacturers, efficiency advocates and others say that simply is not true.

 

"In the real world, outside talk radio's echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs and give off just as much warm light," Republicans for Environmental Protection Policy Director Jim DiPeso said in a statement. "The only different is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. What's not to like?"

 

Blocking the standards effectively serves as a slap in the face to light bulb manufacturers, who have been working since 2007 to produce the new bulbs.

 

"Eliminating funding for light bulb efficiency standards is especially poor policy as it would leave the policy in place but make it impossible to enforce, undercutting domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make new incandescent bulbs that meet the standards," a coalition of dozens of lighting manufacturers, efficiency groups and environmentalists said in a letter this week to senators (Greenwire, Dec. 15).

 

And it would disrupt the marketplace, supporters of the standards say, because individual states could still implement the standards. California, in fact, already is enforcing them.

 

"It would create a patchwork of enforcement that would be nightmarish for the industry," said a lighting industry executive.

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

[StrangeSox]

They've become brazenly anti-environment at this point.

Edited December 16, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

After a year of continuing disappointment in our government and this administration on environmental issues, this move, belated as it is, deserves all the credit possible.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, the first national standards to protect American families from power plant emissions of mercury and toxic air pollution like arsenic, acid gas, nickel, selenium, and cyanide. The standards will slash emissions of these dangerous pollutants by relying on widely available, proven pollution controls that are already in use at more than half of the nation’s coal-fired power plants.

 

EPA estimates that the new safeguards will prevent as many as 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks a year. The standards will also help America’s children grow up healthier – preventing 130,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 6,300 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year.

 

"By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health– and especially for the health of our children. With these standards that were two decades in the making, EPA is rounding out a year of incredible progress on clean air in America with another action that will benefit the American people for years to come," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards will protect millions of families and children from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the American people with health benefits that far outweigh the costs of compliance."

[Balta1701]

Anyone who pays attention to green news will have spent the last two years hearing a torrent of stories about EPA rules and the political fights over them. It can get tedious. After a certain point even my eyes glaze over, and I'm paid to follow this stuff.

 

But this one is a Big Deal. It's worth lifting our heads out of the news cycle and taking a moment to appreciate that history is being made. Finally controlling mercury and toxics will be an advance on par with getting lead out of gasoline. It will save save tens of thousands of lives every year and prevent birth defects, learning disabilities, and respiratory diseases. It will make America a more decent, just, and humane place to live.

 

A couple of background facts to contextualize what today means:

 

First, remember that the original Clean Air Act "grandfathered" in dozens of existing coal plants back in 1977, on the assumption that they were nearing the end of their lives and would be shut soon anyway. Well, funny story ... they never shut down! There are still dozens of coal plants in the U.S. that don't meet the pollution standards in the original 1970 Clean Air Act, much less the 1990 amendments. These old, filthy jalopies from the early 20th century, mostly along the eastern seaboard and scattered around the Midwest, are responsible for a vastly disproportionate amount of the air pollution generated by the electricity sector in America, including most of the mercury. They have been environmentalists' bête noire for over 30 years now.

 

Second, mercury rules get directly at these plants in a way no other rules have. There's no trading system for mercury like there is for SO2 (the Bush administration tried to set one up, but the court struck it down). There are no short-cuts either. Every plant that's out of compliance has to install the "maximum available control technology." There is some flexibility -- more than industry admits -- but there's no getting around the fact that this is going to be an expensive rule. It's going to kick off a huge wave of coal-plant retirements and investments in pollution-control technology. That is, despite what conservatives say, a good thing, since the public-health benefits will be far greater than the costs. Every country on earth is modernizing its electric fleet. Even China's ahead of us. These crappy old plants are an embarrassment and good riddance to them.

 

Third, this has been a long time coming. (Nicholas Bianco has some good history here.) An assessment of mercury was part of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. EPA stalled and stalled, got sued, and finally did the assessment. Sure enough, as had been known for years, they found mercury is harmful to public health. Then more stalling and more stalling until the Bush administration's malformed 2004 proposal, which instantly got caught up in (and struck down by) the courts. So when the mercury rule finally goes into effect in 2014, 24 years will have passed since Congress said mercury needs regulating. It's been a fight for enviros every step of the way.

 

So anyway, this is an historic day and a real step forward for the forces of civilization. It's the beginning of the end of one of the last of the old-school, 20th-century air pollution problems. (Polluters and their rented conservatives will try to kick up dust about this, but check out this letter to Congress [PDF] from a group of health scientists, which says "exposure to mercury in any form places a heavy burden on the biochemical machinery within cells of all living organisms.") Long after everyone has forgotten who "won the morning" in the fight over these rules, or what effect they had on Obama's electoral chances, the rule's legacy will live on in a healthier, happier American people.

Different version.

[StrangeSox]

Huntsman has (incorrectly) claimed that this will lead to blackouts this summer.

 

also "an historic"

Edited December 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Huntsman has (incorrectly) claimed that this will lead to blackouts this summer.

 

also "an historic"

 

Huntsman has claimed (somewhat correctly) that regulations (using multiple examples) which cause the need for this type of investment on older plants will result in some plants closing, which may result in more blackouts when demand gets too high. And he's right.

 

Where I diverge from him though, is that, I think that doesn't give enough reason not to do it.

 

[BigSqwert]

Some props to my new company.

[Balta1701]

Of course, our best example of rolling blackouts over the last decade was entirely fraudulent an manufactured by Enron.

[StrangeSox]

Huntsman has claimed (somewhat correctly) that regulations (using multiple examples) which cause the need for this type of investment on older plants will result in some plants closing, which may result in more blackouts when demand gets too high. And he's right.

 

Where I diverge from him though, is that, I think that doesn't give enough reason not to do it.

huntsman claimed it would result in blackouts. That is incorrect.

 

My swype also gave me chinaman instead of huntsman, I thought that was kinda funny.

[mr_genius]

Of course, our best example of rolling blackouts over the last decade was entirely fraudulent an manufactured by Enron.

 

i was actually watching a show about that about the same time you wrote that post.

[mr_genius]

Huntsman has (incorrectly) claimed that this will lead to blackouts this summer.

 

also "an historic"

 

if Huntsman is actually correct about something it would be news.

[iamshack]

Huntsman has claimed (somewhat correctly) that regulations (using multiple examples) which cause the need for this type of investment on older plants will result in some plants closing, which may result in more blackouts when demand gets too high. And he's right.

 

Where I diverge from him though, is that, I think that doesn't give enough reason not to do it.

What the utilities can do in order to avoid this is to institute demand side management protocols to reduce demand across their control areas rather than institute rolling blackouts.

 

I'll be interested to see if Huntsman is actually accurate in tis respect.

[iamshack]

if Huntsman is actually correct about something it would be news.

It appears he is not correct in regards to this:

 

Jon Huntsman falsely claimed that the Obama administration’s proposed regulations to cut pollution from coal-fired electric plants will “likely” cause blackouts “this summer.” That’s not true. Huntsman’s claim is contradicted by a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission letter cited by his own campaign, and by independent assessments as well.

 

No Blackouts ‘This Summer’

 

The Environmental Protection Agency has issued or is in the process of finalizing several regulations that would significantly affect coal-fired power plants. The new regulations include, for example, the Clear Air Mercury Rule, which will regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired plants for the first time, and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, which will reduce the release of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from power plants in the eastern United States. In both cases, the EPA was acting under court order to comply with the Clean Air Act.

 

Huntsman, the former Utah governor who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, spoke of the cumulative impact of these and other EPA regulations on coal-powered generation plants during a Nov. 1 speech at the University of New Hampshire, where he unveiled his energy plan.

 

 

Huntsman, Nov. 1: Today coal is under siege from government regulations and litigation. There are even efforts to halt the export of our coal, which would destroy American jobs when we now need them most. This summer, in fact, we will likely see blackouts as a result of the administration’s assault on coal, which will take 8 percent of U.S. generating capacity offline.

 

We asked the Huntsman campaign to support the candidate’s claim that EPA regulations would reduce U.S. electricity capacity by 8 percent and cause blackouts “this summer.” We were referred to an Aug. 1, 2011, letter that was sent to Sen. Lisa Murkowski by FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff and two of its commissioners, John Norris and Cheryl LaFleur. The FERC was responding to Murkowski’s request for its assessment of “EPA rules affecting generation of electric power.”

 

But the agency’s letter does not support Huntsman’s claim. Quite the opposite.

 

The letter says “the retirement of coal units is expected to begin between 2015 and 2018,” and even then FERC expects to work with the industry to avoid disruptions in service. “As it has in the past, the commission would seek to find ways to require or allow utilities to operate when needed for reliability or other purposes while being compensated adequately and without violating other federal laws,” the letter says.

 

Wellinghoff, who was appointed to FERC by President George W. Bush and elevated to chairman by President Barack Obama, also addressed the reliability issue before a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Sept. 14. In his prepared remarks, Wellinghoff said the industry “can plan to meet its reliability and environmental obligations.” He cited historical data to show the industry has done exactly that “when circumstances warranted.”

 

Wellinghoff, Sept. 14: As I have said before, available data indicates that the electric industry has added significant amounts of generating capacity when circumstances warranted. As a point of reference, EIA data shows that between 2000 and 2004, an annual average of 38.74 GW of capacity was added nationally, with a peak addition of 58.06 GW in 2002. Similarly, the electric industry has the ability to plan for the EPA regulations, which will affect the operation of some electric generation units.

 

To be sure, there are some who remain concerned about future reliability. FERC Commissioner Philip Moeller, who was appointed by Bush and reappointed by Obama, told the committee that “older, fossil-based generation” plants eventually should be replaced. “However,” he warned, “such retirements need to be handled in an orderly way to avoid regulatory, economic, and reliability chaos.”

 

But most experts do not predict chaos — and certainly not as early as this summer.

 

PJM Interconnection, a regional grid operator that serves 58 million customers in 13 states and the District of Columbia, issued a report in late August on the impact of two EPA rules — both of which have compliance deadlines of Jan. 1, 2015. The report concluded that “resource adequacy does not appear to be threatened” in delivery year 2014/2015.

 

Separately, the Bipartisan Policy Center — which was founded by four former Democratic and Republican Senate leaders — issued a report that said the impacts of the EPA regulations on the nation’s power sector are “manageable.” The potential for blackouts? The report, which was drafted by staff members of the center’s Energy Project, said “scenarios in which electric system reliability is broadly affected are unlikely to occur.”

 

‘Back-of-the-Envelope’ Assessment

 

Now, let’s look at Huntsman’s claim that the EPA regulations will reduce the nation’s electric generation by 8 percent. That figure also comes from the FERC letter to Murkowski and a press release the senator released in response to it.

 

Murkowski, Aug. 3: The commission’s staff has preliminarily estimated that up to 81 gigawatts of existing generation are ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ to be retired as a consequence of new EPA rules. That’s nearly 8 percent of our installed capacity for electric generation and a retirement at that scale could have drastic consequences for many parts of our country.

 

But FERC’s letter also warned not to put too much stock in its estimate of coal-fired plants likely to be retired. The letter called it an “informal, preliminary assessment,” adding that “an in-depth analysis could not be conducted because complete information was not available.” In his Sept. 14 testimony, Wellinghoff pulled the plug entirely on his staff’s informal analysis. He told Congress it was an “adequate back-of-the envelope first assessment of the amount and location of potential generator retirements,” but he warned that such an informal analysis “is inadequate to use as a basis for decision making.” For one thing, Wellinghoff said, FERC “did not evaluate any alternatives that might be available to the regions to offset any generator loss such as new or planned generation or transmission, retrofits of coal-to-gas burners, demand-side resources, or energy efficiency strategies.”

 

There is no doubt that the EPA’s regulations and proposed regulations will have a significant impact on coal-fired power plants. American Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio, announced in June that complying with EPA regulations would cost between $6 billion and $8 billion and force the company to “retire nearly 6,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 MW; refuel 1,070 MW of coal generation as 932 MW of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 MW of natural gas-fueled generation.” Nearly all of the plant closings will occur by Dec. 31, 2014, or later.

 

Huntsman can offer his opinion that the EPA is moving too fast or that the regulations are too costly, or both. And, of course, there are those who will disagree with him. In his Nov. 1 testimony before a House oversight committee, Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe cited both the health and economic benefits of retiring or upgrading aging power plants.

 

But Huntsman resorts to fear-mongering when he raises the specter of blackouts “this summer.”

 

Link

[Balta1701]

What the utilities can do in order to avoid this is to institute demand side management protocols to reduce demand across their control areas rather than institute rolling blackouts.

Of course, if "Avoiding rolling blackouts" was a serious goal, then spending substantial amounts of money modernizing the transmission grid would be the obvious thing to do.

[StrangeSox]

The new mercury regs are even better than you thought:

 

Earlier this morning I wrote that even with estimated benefits of $90 billion per year, the EPA may be selling short its new rules limiting emissions of mercury and other airborne toxins. (Most of that $90 billion estimate is due to reductions in particulate matter, not mercury.) After all, mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin, and the cost of cognitive and social defects, negative autoimmune effects, genetic effects, and heart attacks goes beyond just the EPA's estimate of lost earnings due to lower IQ.

 

The EPA's official analysis of the impact of mercury on kids' brains is limited to the impact on wages of children born to families that catch freshwater fish for their own consumption. The impact they find is, not surprisingly, pretty small since most families don't each much self-caught freshwater fish. But the entire analysis simply skips the impact of mercury toxins ingested through commercial fishing which, obviously, is the vast majority of the fish that people eat.

 

They did it this way because it's extremely difficult to trace oceanic mercurity to specific power plants and because the rule (easily) passes cost-benefit scrutiny for separate reasons so there was no need for the EPA to produce a guesstimate about it. But a 2005 study that attempted to quantify this estimated $8.7 billion per year in lost wages wages due to mercury-related IQ loss. There is huge potential low-hanging fruit here to build an entire better next generation of Americans, but this entire subject was completely excluded from the EPA's analysis which is overwhelmingly focused on the respiratory impact of particulate inhalation. That's a big deal. It means less asthma, thousands fewer premature deaths from older people, etc. But the main channel through which mercury does neurological damage to infants and fetuses is basically neglected for technical reasons.

[Balta1701]

Last week was a decent environmental week.

When the U.S. Congress adjourned for the holidays on Friday, December 23, its departure sealed the fate of subsidized ethanol production.

 

During its session, the Congress did not renew a tax break for U.S. production of corn-based ethanol that had become increasingly unpopular across a wide area of the political spectrum.

 

The tax credit amounted to 45 cents per gallon of ethanol that was blended into gasoline. It had been in place since 1980.

[Balta1701]

Link

Oil major BP is bracing itself for criminal charges against some of its American employees, amid allegations that it misled regulators on the dangers posed by the Deepwater Horizon rig which exploded last year killing 11 employees and unleashing the worst offshore oil spill in US history.

 

A Department of Justice investigation has identified several Houston-based engineers and at least one BP supervisor it expects to charge in the New Year, according to reports yesterday.

 

The US Attorney-General Eric Holder announced a criminal investigation at the height of the public outcry over the spill, which sent BP shares plunging and even called into question whether it could survive as a company. To date, the British oil giant has taken $41bn (£26.7bn) in charges to cover the cost of the spill, including legal claims against it that will hit the courts in 2012. BP refused to comment on the reports of impending criminal charges against individuals, who could face up to five years in prison if they are found guilty of providing false information in federal documents. The latest developments in the criminal investigation were first reported yesterday by The Wall Street Journal.

[Balta1701]

Things I only say begrudgingly; Props to Ball State University. They're apparently building effectively the nation's largest single geothermal heating and cooling system, that will basically take over running the heating and cooling for all of their building pretty soon. Eliminating multiple coal fired boilers, saving them about $2 million a year.

[iamshack]

Things I only say begrudgingly; Props to Ball State University. They're apparently building effectively the nation's largest single geothermal heating and cooling system, that will basically take over running the heating and cooling for all of their building pretty soon. Eliminating multiple coal fired boilers, saving them about $2 million a year.

My stepfather has been trying to get a geothermal business up and running for years now. There is literally no reason that large buildings or groups of buildings (such as campuses, military installations, etc) should not install geothermal systems. The payback time is fairly short, the financing is very available, and the technology is rock solid.

[Balta1701]

 

Stellar work by NASA.

[StrangeSox]

Ed Kilgore with a solid take-down of the nonsense climate change denial article published by the WSJ today

[iamshack]

Ed Kilgore with a solid take-down of the nonsense climate change denial article published by the WSJ today

Hmmm....I wouldn't characterize it as a solid anything, let alone take-down.

 

This article basically does the same thing as the WSJ article: It raises the same broad excuse for why the other side must disagree....simply because it's in their economic interests to do nothing about Global Warming.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Hmmm....I wouldn't characterize it as a solid anything, let alone take-down.

 

This article basically does the same thing as the WSJ article: It raises the same broad excuse for why the other side must disagree....simply because it's in their economic interests to do nothing about Global Warming.

 

That's missing the point. He's exposing the gaping logical hole in that argument, not claiming that AGW is true because "follow the money."