Movement on Texas Coal Fired Power Plants.

Byoliveridley

There’s been some progress on the coal fired power plants I had railed on about recently.
In Big Buyout, Utility to Limit New Coal Plants – New York Times

Under a proposed $45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, the TXU Corporation, a Texas utility that has long been the bane of environmental groups, will abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal plants and commit to a broad menu of environmental measures, according to people involved in the negotiations. The roster of commitments came through an unusual process in which the equity firms asked two prominent environmental groups what measures could be taken to win their support. The result is an about-face from the company’s earlier approach to climate-change issues, and includes a goal of returning the carbon-dioxide emissions by TXU to 1990 levels by 2020. Environmental groups said yesterday that they had never known of a financial deal with such an ambitious built-in environmental component.

Better than nothing. This is good news for sure. But as I mentioned previously, the Sanders (Good ol’ socialist!) Bill calls for an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. This is required to cap CO2 levels at 450 ppm and avoid the worst effects of global warming. So, while reducing CO2 to 1990 levels sounds impressive in a breathlessly written NY Times article. It is not nearly enough. This is exactly what I was afraid of when I mentioned the moratorium word! In the absence of regulation, or a clear policy, private equity companies, power plants, and other plutocrats are setting the US global warming agenda. They are establishing the floor plan, meaning, we’ll set the bar near the floor and not budge. Yes, I know, the NRDC and Environmental Defense were involved, and this part is definitely good…

TXU will discard plans to build eight of 11 proposed new coal plants, which would have been major new sources of emissions. Those plants — which would have added more than 9,000 megawatts of new capacity, the equivalent of 3.5 percent of the nation’s current coal-fired power — had been part of a planned $10 billion expansion of coal-fired electricity.

TXU, which is based in Dallas, also intends to expand the renewable energy portion of its portfolio and reduce or offset its emissions significantly, said people who were familiar with the plans.

All very good, but as I talked about previously (man, way too much self reference, not a good thing!), a book called Reality Check just out assesses voluntary actions by various companies in the US, Europe and Japan and comes to the following conclusion:

Most of the programs it studies have positive results, but they are
small compared with business-as-usual trends and the impact of other
forces–such as higher energy prices. Importantly, potential gains may
be quickly exhausted as the “low-hanging fruit” is picked up by
voluntary programs.

Now tell me that this agreement does not fit this frame!

Similar Posts

  • The glacier melts away in Ladakh

    Byoliveridley

    Ladakh

    The enormity of climate change and its impact is on everyone’s lips in this cold desert where over 80 per cent of the farmers depend on the snow melt for their needs. Water is almost a luxury now. There is no authoritative study done so far to estimate the impact of receding glaciers in Ladakh, points out Ms Nisa Khatoon, project officer, of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) in Leh. Scarcity of water has led to people digging bore wells in Leh, which is likely to have an impact on the underwater springs. Ms Khatoon also notes a reduction in pasture lands affecting the migration routes of the Changpas, a nomadic tribe that lives near the lakes in the upper reaches of Ladakh.

    The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The glacier melt.

    I seem to remember a certain Environment minister claiming that climate change mitigation policies were irresponsible because they would lead to a small drop in GDP growth in his country. If only the people of Ladakh had this luxury. Believers in reincarnation may wish that Mr Prentice be reborn as a farmer in Ladakh circa 2060, but there may not be any farmers in Ladakh come 2050, nor any glaciers, so I guess that would make him a lonely man!

    Picture courtesy Rich Drogpa’s Flickr Photostream, used under a creative commons license

  • Voluntary Priority and Toxic Chemical Reduction – US EPA

    Byoliveridley

    Priority and Toxic Chemical Reduction | Resource Conservation Challenge | US EPA

    Priority and toxic chemicals make up a fairly limited volume, yet potentially hazardous portion of the nation’s waste stream. We are working to eliminate or reduce priority chemicals and other chemicals of national concern from commercial products, waste streams, and industrial releases through pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling/reuse.The 31 priority chemicals are federal priorities because they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and highly toxic. We’re focusing on reducing priority and toxic chemicals to better protect human health and the environment.

    By substituting or eliminating certain chemicals in their manufacturing processes, companies produce less waste and thus lower their waste disposal costs. Our goal is to substantially reduce the volume and toxicity of priority chemicals in waste by asking companies to voluntarily:

    • Substitute safer alternatives when they can;
    • Minimize the amount of priority chemicals they use, if they can’t substitute for them;
    • Maximize their recycling efforts;
    • Practice cradle-to-cradle chemical management; and
    • Design products to minimize exposure to, and release of, priority chemicals during manufacturing and use.

    Sounds good, and Worldchanging has more:

    But nowhere near the progress some companies are making on their own in cleaning up toxic emissions — not simply to be good guys, but to reduce their costs, liabilities, and exposure to activist and shareholder pressures. And, in some cases, to meet their customers’ growing demands for less-toxic or nontoxic alternatives to business as usual.

    Read the whole post, which sounds ambivalent about the scheme. The idea is Environmental Good Sense 101, use less, or none at all, practice cradle to grave economics and minimize exposure. Simple stuff, huh. The biggest problem, however, is that by setting limits on a voluntary basis, you always run the risk of setting the bar too low, and then indulging in relentless and pointless self congratulation about how the “market” solved everything, and how rules are so, well, 1970s?

    you need a good mix of

    1. Regulation, which sets a minimum, health based bar
    2. Flexibility to the business on how to achieve their targets
    3. Market systems to trade emission credits, etc
    4. Voluntary industry-government initiatives like the one above
    5. Relentless citizen activism that forces governments/business to act
    6. Community outreach and education so consumers can make informed choices
    7. Costing mechanisms that actually reflect free market efficiencies (no stupid subsidies, accurate costing of “externalities”, etc. )

    Yeah, this does not fit neatly into the Mano a Mano, you’re with us/you’re against us false dichotomy of choice that seems to beset almost every policy debate (environmental or otherwise). It seems that you never have to do one or the other, but a bit of both, or all of them at the same time.

    In the meanwhile, the voluntary program will work, but only in areas in specific instances where it is to a company’s advantage.

    BTW, I think that good old fashioned regulation in Europe – See Reach and many many more existing regulations, such as this one for PCBs and Dioxins which I know a little too much about, have a little more to do with American companies reducing POP levels that they care to admit!

  • |

    Eastern United States vulnerable to climate change

    Byoliveridley

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/pu-sdn121007.php
    6157_rel.jpg
    Time to get out of the Eastern United States? A study to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science tries to quantify the relative risk of climate change using something called a “socioclimatic” risk factor. As always, the redder the worse. A look at the paper would no doubt be more illuminating, but for some reason, press releases about PNAS papers come out way before the papers actually become public. China is in bright red all the way, India in a rather bright orange. Where I live, the Eastern United States, is a nice beet red. No doubt, the unprecedented drought the South is experiencing right now is a nice big red signal.

    Interesting stuff, though the actual paper will tell the story. Any technique that tries to integrate all the complex scientific, social and economic variables of climate change into one number is bound to have a flaw or two. But such a metric is useful for estimating relative risk, as the authors themselves say.

    He added that the study does not address the absolute degree of impact or risk.

    “This study illustrates exposure of one nation relative to another,” Diffenbaugh said. “Thus, it is important to note that a country low on the relative scale could still face substantial risk.”

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: ,

  • | |

    Green Building in India: NOT

    Byoliveridley

    There is a buzz about green buildings. But the question is: what does one mean by building green? And how does one design policies to make the green homes of our dreams?Green is not about first building structures using lots of material and energy, and then fixing them so that they become a little more efficient. Building green is about optimizing on the local ecology, using local material as far as possible and, most importantly, building to cut the power, water and material requirements.

    via Green buildings: how to redesign | Centre for Science and Environment.

    Sunita Narain makes some excellent points about building in India, and how western architecture influenced glass facades, closed buildings, etc. make little sense in India, and how traditional building concepts, optimised for local conditions would make more sense.

    Two points:

    1. Traditional buildings are not necessarily optimised for density. To fit a lot of people in a little space, you need to build up. No, not 100s of stories, but fives and tens? It would be interesting to figure out that contradiction. But I’m no architect and I don’t know the answer
    2. The glass facade concrete skyscraper jungle look is associated with aspirational prosperity, ask any affluent Indian what they like about Hong Kong, or New York, or Singapore, and the shiny buildings will figure pretty high on the list after cleanliness and shopping. This is the kind of building associated with modernity and “class”. Making a sealed glass and concrete hell hole work in regions of high heat and humidity without large amounts of energy use for air conditioning is difficult.

    It appears, though, that at least some people are thinking about this, as this book, helpfully titled Tropical Sustainable Architecture, would attest to.

    BTW,
    Sunita Narain’s editorials for the Down to Earth magazine are always thoughtful, and required reading for anyone interested in India’s development and environmental issues.

  • BC and Carbon

    Byoliveridley

    As BC’s Carbon Tax enters the terrible twos, and is the subject of stupid headlines in the CBC trumpeting a 1.5c/L increase in gasoline price (smaller than the price difference between a pump in the Saanich Peninsula and outside), it is worthwhile to see what the rest of the province’s carbon strategy is, or isn’t doing.

    Metro – B.C. looks to carbon capture to balance clean-air targets with energy revenues

    Economic realities and environmental promises are creating an explosive mixture for the recession-fighting B.C. government as it juggles expansion in its oil and gas industry with the need to cut greenhouse gases.

    Massive untapped gas fields in northeastern British Columbia hold billions in potential revenues, but environmentalists are watching to see if Premier Gordon Campbell will stick to his promise to fight global warming by cutting emissions by one-third by 2020.

    This is one of the issues with relying solely on a carbon tax to reduce GHG emissions, it is inadequate. A carbon tax is a consumption tax levied at the point of sale, not at the point of production. The BC government has gotten a lot of positive press for the carbon tax, but it is reliant on natural gas and oil to bring in some revenue. After all, the lumber industry is dying with the US housing bust, and something needs to get the province out of deficit as the BC government will not countenance any tax increases whatsoever.

    The weakness of the province’s carbon plan is best typified by quotes from a couple of fossil fuel executives/government officials:

    “The question is, if I were to make this big investment, who’s going to pay me to do that so I can generate a return for my shareholders? Weilinger asks.

    Horne agrees there is no business case for oil and gas companies to justify carbon capture projects to shareholders, but says industry needs to support greenhouse gas reductions.

    The notion that industry will somehow support reductions is hilariously disingenuous. Carbon capture and storage is an untested and expensive technology even when it comes to sources where all the CO2 comes out of one tailpipe, like a power plant. The notion that it can be used in an activity as widespread and diffuse as oil/gas drilling is laughable. The best way for these companies can be forced to make their mining more GHG emission friendly is to price their actions according to their GHG production footprint, something a differently designed carbon price would do.

    BC’s carbon tax, in my book, was a shrewdly designed political maneuver to undercut traditional environmentalist support for the opposition NDP, which very “smartly” took the bait and campaigned against it in a recent election earning howls of disgust from the mainstream environmental movement.

    When it actually comes to cleaning up and taking actions that will actually reduce the province’s GHG footprint, the government is found wanting, as expected.

  • |

    Methane Leakage, again

    Byoliveridley

    In a sane world, we would be very concerned about measuring, reporting and closely regulating methane releases during its extraction and processing, especially if we claim that it is clean energy. This is nothing I, or other people haven’t said before, but here’s more research summarized in the very respectable Nature Journal indicating that measurable leak rates of methane can vary widely.

    Preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado

    via Methane leaks erode green credentials of natural gas : Nature News & Comment.

    10% is a large number. I’ve posted this picture from Wigley (2011) previously. At any leakage rate other than zero, which no one claims, the benefits of switching from coal to methane are very modest.

    It's all about Methane leakage
    It’s all about Methane leakage
    We absolutely need to measure, control and regulate fugitive methane emissions from every BC site, and need to have solid regulation in place before we keep expanding natural gas infrastructure. We need our political leaders to start talking seriously about capturing methane leaks when they talk about BC’s natural gas “play”.