Bush Administration to enshrine destructive coal mining practice

Imagine theres no … people | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist

Or as the grist puts it, “imagine there’s no people”!

This graphic they posted caught my eye

It is thought provoking. I am no believer in an human-primary view of the earth, but if there’s no one around to watch this happen, does it even matter? No, I must not be this utilitarian!

Well, looks like old fashioned regulation actually stands up to Cost Benefit analysis. The problem is that the costs are to Industry, a well organized bunch of folks with lobbies, scientists, and such, and the benefits are primarily to the general population, well, they get a choice every few years!

Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Budget Office Reports On Regulations:

Budget Office Reports On Regulations EPA air pollution rule helps boost overall societal benefits of federal actions Cheryl Hogue A 2005 air pollution rule is a major reason why benefits from federal regulations continue to outpace costs, says a draft White House Office of Management & Budget report released on April 13. Federal regulations issued between 1996 and 2005 generate total annual benefits estimated to be between $94 billion and $449 billion, the OMB report says. Costs of those rules, which range from health and education standards to transportation and labor regulations, are estimated to be between $37 billion and $44 billion yearly, the draft report says. The document is the 2006 installment of an analysis that OMB by law must prepare each year for Congress. The ratio of benefits to costs is higher for the 1996–2005 decade than it was between 1995 and 2004 primarily because of a single rule reducing air pollution from power plants, the draft report says. That EPA regulation requires 28 eastern states and the District of Columbia to control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, two key pollutants released by coal-fired power plants. According to the draft report, that rule will generate from $50 billion to $60 billion a year worth of health benefits by reducing public exposure to fine particulate matter. This rule will cost about $1.8 billion annually to implement. Most of the costs and benefits of federal regulation are due to EPA rules, the draft report adds. During the 1996–2005 decade, the annual benefits of the agency’s rules are calculated to be between $59 billion and $394 billion, while estimated costs ranged from $24 billion to $26 billion. The draft report is available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/2006_draft_cost_benefit_report.pdf. Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2006 American Chemical Society

I happened to watch an interesting short film called After the Peak about peak oil, the concept (not that revolutionary unless you ask Messrs  Exxon-Mobil, Shell and Dick Cheney!) that oil production will start declining after a certain peak production event. The docudrama made by local film maker James McQuaid was part of a public meeting on the local (Orange County, NC) responses to the coming energy crisis. Interesting conceptually, it was shown as a 30 minute local newscast, with the usual cast of characters, the too handsome eye candy anchor and his female sidekick, the young and breathless “street reporter”, the gray haired expert, and the uber-energetic sports guy! The newscast is set a year into the future when the price of gas is $10/gallon. The documentary of interviews with various community members about the effects of the price of gas on their business/life. In the 30 minutes, he touched upon food, school buses, sports, NASCAR, the poor, commutes, etc. It was an interesting effort, if a little over the top! The fake interviews with the racing track owner who’s closing his track down, the UNC athletic director who has to cancel all his long distance events, the manager of the local food store who threatens food scarcity.

But is $10 a gallon really a big deal?

This simple chart shows income adjusted dollar per gallon gas prices (gas prices from 2006, income from 2004, but it should not change too much.)

Let’s avoid the low income outliers and just compare the U.S and Germany. In April 2006, the U.S was paying $2.95 a gallon and Germany, $8.06 per gallon (ref). If you further adjust that with the per capita income of the two countries, $41,300 for the U.S versus $30,500 for Germany (ref), you will find that the price of gas in Germany is well above $10 a gallon already, they seem to be doing just fine! Maybe they just drive less. The US uses 381 million gallons of gas per day (that’s about 1.2 gallons per day per person). I agree that this comparison is a little flawed because the bulk of the German price is due to taxes, which go back to the government and are presumably used for various good deeds. Also, if the price of gas went up due to shortages, the price differential between Germany and the US would presumably stay constant (unless the Germans lowered taxes). My point is that many countries cope with high gas prices quite well, they just don’t make the same choices the Americans make, 1 acre lots, large SUVs, super long commutes, etc. There are a lot of efficiencies to be had here. The graph below shows the income adjusted gasoline price for a few countries (easy data was available!)

My take: we need to swiftly move away from gasoline by a) Disincentivizing the use of gasoline in transportation b) Incentivizing the use of electricity for transportation. Electricity can be produced more efficiently, and pollution at the source can be controlled more effectively. A combination of a drastic increase in solar and wind power, coupled with aggressive development in battery technology should more than solve our problem without much recourse to biofuels (that great boondongle).

The utilization of solar energy on a large scale requires its storage. In natural photosynthesis, energy from sunlight is used to rearrange the bonds of water to O2 and H2-equivalents. The realization of artificial systems that perform similar “water splitting” requires catalysts that produce O2 from water without the need for excessive driving potentials. Here, we report such a catalyst that forms upon the oxidative polarization of an inert indium tin oxide electrode in phosphate-buffered water containing Co2+. A variety of analytical techniques indicates the presence of phosphate in an approximate 1:2 ratio with cobalt in this material. The pH dependence of the catalytic activity also implicates HPO42– as the proton acceptor in the O2-producing reaction. This catalyst not only forms in situ from earth-abundant materials but also operates in neutral water under ambient conditions.

In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+ — Kanan and Nocera, 10.1126/science.1162018 — Science

Don’t you just love the title of the paper? I would have titled the paper “Splitting Water for Cheap”. The author is interviewed here. This catalyst can split water into H2 and O2 using the energy from a solar cell. Then, when you need electricity, you recombine them in a fuel cell to make water and electricity. So, a closed loop with the only external input being the solar energy. Solar energy can now be stored almost painlessly.

It is so simple. I am listening to the interview and the author says this can be replicated in a chemistry lab as it only needs a phosphate buffer, cobalt electrode and a conducting glass.

Wonderful. Now, please stop building coal plants.

Tags: Environment, Solar energy