Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

The Center for American Progress has a terrific new report on “Global Warming and the Future of Coal,” by Ken Berlin and Robert Sussman.

The report explores what to do about the explosive growth in coal plant construction projected for the coming quarter century — 1,400 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, with more than 10% in the U.S. alone.

In the absence of emission controls, these new plants will increase worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide by approximately 7.6 billion metric tons by 2030. These emissions would equal roughly 50 percent of all fossil fuel emissions over the past 250 years.

So we must have emissions controls on the vast majority of those plants. The report looks at a variety of policy measures that might achieve that goal and recommends

Requiring all new coal power plants to meet an “emission performance” standard that limits CO2 emissions to levels achievable with CCS systems.

That is the best way to maintain coal’s viability in a carbon-constrained world.

Watch Bob Sussman discuss the report (YouTube)

Watch Ken Berlin discuss the report (YouTube)

It depends on the fuel used to drive the conversion process — acording to a new study:

In particular, greenhouse gas emission impacts can vary significantly–from a 3% increase if coal is the process fuel to a 52% reduction if wood chips are used.

These results come from the energy life-cycle wizards of Argonne Lab who have published a new study, “Life-cycle energy and greenhouse gas emission impacts of different corn ethanol plant types,” in the open-access Environmental Research Letters.

Here is a figure showing “Well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emission changes by fuel ethanol relative to gasoline.”

The greenhouse gas benefit from most corn ethanol is modest at best unless the energy source is biomass such as wood chips. And other studies have found no climate benefit from corn ethanol.

Thus, corn ethanol should not be viewed as a major climate solution because its ultimate supply is limited and its climate benefit small or non-existent. Its main role should be as a transition fuel to the Holy Grail of biofuels — cellulosic ethanol, which reduces total greenhouse gas emissions a whopping 86% relative to gasoline and which is potentially available in abundance.

General Motors is apparently serious about introducing a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, which I have repeatedly argued is the car of the future. The race is now on between Toyota and GM as to who will be the first to introduce this game-changing vehicle.

The Chevy Volt is to be the “legacy” of Robert Lutz, GM’s vice chair of product development, according to Business Week’s “Auto Beat” column. The Volt will go about 40 miles on an electric charge before reverting to be a regular gasoline-powered hybrid.

Given that the vast majority of trips are under 20 miles round trip, the Volt will consume very little gasoline most of the time. And the per mile cost of running a car on electricity is under one third that of running on gasoline, plugs ins are indeed more than a game-changer.

Business Week shares our enthusiasm for plug ins:

I can’t help thinking that this technology will make the current crop of hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape look like Ford Excursions… The technology would create viable vehicles that get the equivalent of more than 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.

Even game changer isn’t strong enough: “Make that a world changer.”

If they are serious about plug ins and beat Toyota to market, they will have reasserted their leadership in electric drivetrain technology, which they abandoned so short-sightedly several years ago.

You should be able to find something you like here:

• Alternative Energy
• Clean Break
• Cleantech Blog
• Ecotality
• The Energy Blog
• GreenOptions
• Sustainable Style
• WattHead and, of course
  
• WorldChanging

Tim Wirth, Vinod Khosla and John Podesta have written a piece for Grist on how “new energy rules could unleash an economic boom and help quash climate change.” What do they mean?

Consider the recent case of Xcel Energy, a Minnesota utility that wanted to build a new coal plant. When the state utility commission asked Xcel to recalculate the cost of running the plant with an $8-per-ton cost for carbon emissions, the company did so — and then abandoned its plan for the coal plant. Instead, it will rely on wind generation and hydropower. A spokesperson said that the prospect of a carbon fee helped prompt the decision, and the company now advocates mandatory standards for reducing greenhouse gases.

In this case, just the anticipation of a rule change created a market incentive for Xcel to make its next investment in a way that favored new technology.

They propose five rule changes:

• Put a price on carbon.
• Set “carbon efficiency” standards for vehicles.
• Make energy efficiency the business of utilities.
• Modernize the electric power grid to be more efficient and better deliver clean energy.
• Increase government support for clean energy.

What could this accomplish?

Climate change and oil dependence are pushing us toward a clean, renewable, efficient energy future. The profits to be made in making and selling these technologies are pulling us in the same direction. With one strategic leap, we can wipe out two of the biggest threats to our children’s well-being while creating the high-tech industries that will employ them in the future.

If we just change the rules.

“Lose-lose: the penalties of acting alone stall collective effort on climate change” is an article the Financial Times ran a while back. While the piece gives a panoramic analysis of the international prisoner’s dilemma, there are two other angles that are missing. The first is the penalties of no one acting.According to the UK’s environmental minister, the economic rationale for inaction is that the first country to act risks undergoing some degree of economic hardship. This, he explains, is “the last refuge of the deniers — the idea that it’s not worth anyone doing anything unless everyone does it.”

It seems that actors are falsely interpreting an outcome that avoids economic costs as a win–but not so fast! The whole point of this debate is to avoid the costs of continually unregulated global warming.

Maybe someone needs to brief policymakers again on what the future is bound to look like when sea levels rise 20 feet, populations are famished from crop-damaging drought, and loved landmarks have been destroyed by hurricanes or wildfires.

The second flaw in the argument has to do with the traditional first-mover advantage for new technologies and new industries. Countries that go first in reducing emissions will develop the expertise and the technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ensuring global leadership in the job-creating clean industries of the future.

The time to act is now!