How do you like this blog?

Tell me what you think.

Illinois governor “stunned” after FutureGen reversal

Despite President Bush’s committment to invest in “clean coal” technology at last Monday’s State of the Union address, the government announced Tuesday that the state-of-the-art FutureGen coal plant planned for downstate Mattoon, Illinois, was not worth the $1.8 billion price tag.  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin called the move a “cruel deception,” and vowed the Illinois Congressional delegation would not go down without a fight. 

The 275 megawatt plant was to achieve ”near zero emissions” by utilizing the latest in coal gasification technology and pumping CO2 emissions into deep underground geological chambers, a process known as “carbon sequestration.”  The decision cost Illinois over 1,000 jobs, and may play a role in next Tuesday’s Illinois primaries should any of the candidates address it. 

Both Obama and Clinton support carbon caps and “clean coal” technologies such as coal gasification, as long as they emit 20% less carbon over their life cycle than conventional fuels.  McCain, Romney and Huckabee each support the use of coal, but none support a carbon cap as strict as the Democrats.  See where all the candidates stand on coal with this chart.         

The American Wind Energy Association announced on Thursday that domestic wind power capacity increased 45 percent last year.  According to the group’s release, 5,244 new megawatts of wind power were installed nationwide.

“The U.S. wind power fleet now numbers 16,818 MW and spans 34 states. American wind farms will generate an estimated 48 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of wind energy in 2008, just over 1% of U.S. electricity supply, powering the equivalent of over 4.5 million homes.”

With Illinois’ renewable energy pledge in the books, it will be interesting to see how fast wind power expands in the Midwest. According to an earlier report from AWEA, Illinois ranks 16th nationally in wind energy potential.  This map indicates wind power productivity potential in Illinois, with pink being the highest.        

Wind to bring more power in Japan

 

The New York Times reports that Japan, the world’s fifth largest greenhouse gas producer, plans to invest in offshore wind power.  Japan currently gets 0.6 percent of its energy from renewable sources, but by law must more than double this output by 2011.  By tapping into the Pacific sea breeze, Japan hopes to replicate Europe’s success in wind power, which meets 3.3 percent of the continents’s energy needs.  Some say Japan must invest more in wind if it plans to meet Kyoto standards.

The issue is just as hot in Illinois, where legislation mandates 25 percent of energy must come from renewable energy sources by 2025. Seventy-five percent of this alternative energy must be in the form wind power.  Here’s a fact sheet on wind power from the American Wind Energy Association.             

Getting to know Nuclear

Don’t want to rely on the Simpsons show for news and info on nuclear energy?  Read up on its real risks and benefits.  

Though they cost billions of dollars to build, the construction of nuclear plants releases minimal amounts of greenhouse gasses.  Once they are operable they produce zero CO2 emissions. The argument of opponents focuses almost entirely on security, both against environmental spills and terrorist attacks.  But with the exception of Three Mile Island, which did not result in environmental contamination or death, the U.S. has an immaculate record in safety. And the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission argues power plants are adaquately secure in this f.y.i.

Aside from the government and nuclear power advocates like the Nuclear Energy Institue however, most NGO’s and non-profit organizations are categorically against the use of nuclear power.  The Union of Concerned Scientists argues that nuclear is no “silver bullet” solution for solving our energy problems, and is an unnecessary risk to the environment and national security.  The issue made the front page of The Economist magazine’s September 6th edition, a good launching point to be up to date on the future of American nuclear energy.         

For raw stats on the domestic use of nuclear energy, see this faq from the NEI.      

Obama on Nuclear Power:

In a spring 2006 congressional testimony, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama suggests nuclear energy should remain part of the domestic energy equation, saying “As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable — and realistic — for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration.”  He reaffirms that nuclear should remain “in the energy mix” at a recent Democratic presidential candidate debate. 

Aside from Sen. Hillary Clinton, a self-declared ”agnostic” on nuclear energy, Obama is the sole Democratic candidate willing to consider the continuesd use of nuclear energy.  It’s a position more in line with the Republican contenders, all of whom support the use of nuclear energy.  It has endeared him to energy behemoth and Illinois-based Excelon, which operates some of Illinois’ 11 nuclear power plants, but it has drawn criticism from most environmental groups.  By pledging opposition to storing nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain repository, Clinton distanced herself from Obama and won the state’s primary.  Just for the record, Obama has also pledged to close Yucca, but it may not carry as much weight.  See what grist.org had to say.   

What people are saying

Courtesy of the Society of Environmental Journalists, here is a comprehensive list of environmental blogs covering a variety of energy issues.

green energy resources

Environment Illinois

Green Building Council’s Green Home Guide

City of Chicago’s Green Initiatives

National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition

Nuclear Energy Institute

“hot” energy topics

This blog will primarily explore issues of nuclear energy, the capping of greenhouse gas emissions, and biofuel production. 

Nuclear energy: Illinois produces more nuclear energy than any other U.S. state, and nearly half of its energy consumption is nuclear.  Many groups like Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity adamantly oppose the use of nuclear energy, arguing that it is not worth the environmental risk.  Though nuclear energy burns cleaner than any fossil or biofuels, accidents like Three Mile Island in 1979 have prevented any new nuclear facilities from being built since the 1977.  But fears of nuclear contamination are not as widespread in places like France, where 75 percent of energy is nuclear, and Britain announced last week it intends to expand its nuclear program.  The issue has divided Europe, and as a recent Tribune article  suggests, it’s bound to be an issue in the next presidential election.  

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Most of our electricity comes from coal, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.  There are alternatives in nuclear, wind and solar power, but none are sustainable in themselves.  This section will therefore look at what can be done to burn cleaner coal and limit the emissions of GHG.  The candidates are pushing ahead with “cap-and-trade” proposals for the release of CO2, something the EPA does not regulate as of yet, but they are are also cautiously optimistic about technologies like “coal-to-liquid.”  See an inventory of national GHG emisions, as well as check up on your own footprint, at the U.S. EPA’s site.  A good site for understanding how GHG contribute to global warming can be found at the climate institute . 

Biofuels: You may have already seen them at the pump.  Biofuels are popular in Illinois because they represent opportunities for new jobs, but they, like other alternative energy sources, are not a sustainable alternative by themselves.  Here’s the basics: Production is expensive and somewhat dirty, but costs are offset by government subsidies.  Consumers pay up to a dollar less per gallon at the pump for a cleaner burning fuel, but get around 20 percent less gas mileage.  Some say it’s a wash, but the issue is a lot more complicated according to a report from SRI Consulting group.  Candidates have each pledged support for an expansion of biofuel production.  Here’s a guide for drivers to tell if their car can run on the ethanol biofuel E85.                        

Getting started

There’s a wealth of information on the web about candidates’ platforms for alternative energy.  The site I’ve found most informative is a blog, www.grist.org, which provides a table describing each candidate’s position on greenhouse gas emissions, fuel economy standards, renewable energy, biofuels, coal and nuclear energy.  There are also interviews and videos where candidates expand on their agendas: http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html?source=most_popular  

Of course, to understand what all this means it’s important to be fluent in the many kinds of energy technology.  About half of the candidates support investment in “coal to liquid” fuels, but some do so only under the condition that they emits 20 percent less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuel.  For more information on how it works, check out this illustration from the Coal to Liquid Foundation: http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/technology.asp The ”coal to liquid” technology uses coal gasification and liquification to produce diesel that, according to the foundation, is “virtually sulfur-free… cleaner than conventional diesel. It burns more completely and emissions are significantly lower than low-sulfur diesel, as tested by the Department of Defense in 6.5 liter diesel engines. Most of the CO2 is already concentrated and ready for capture and possible sequestration or for use in enhanced oil or gas recovery.”  The technology is already used in South Africa, but is yet to be developed in the United States.