A pair of new federal air pollution regulations could result in the closure of up to 69 aging, inefficient coal-fired power plants, simultaneously reducing both harmful air pollutants and driving a 1.4 to 4.4 percent reduction in total US electric power sector CO2 emissions, according to a Breakthrough Institute analysis.
 By Alex Trembath and Jesse Jenkins
Updated: This post was originally published on January 1, 2012. It was updated on January 27, 2012 to reflect the announced closure of six coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
Two new federal air pollution regulations are expected to spur the closure of up to 69 aging, inefficient, coal-fired power plants, reducing both harmful air pollutants and emissions of the climate destabilizing greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), according to an AP survey of US power plant operators and a preliminary Breakthrough Institute analysis of the likely impacts on CO2 emissions.
According to the AP survey, 31 coal-fired electricity generating units at power plants in a dozen states are expected to close rather than face costly upgrades to comply with a pair of new EPA regulations designed to curb emissions of smog-forming pollutants and toxic smoke stack emissions. These plants are joined by four plants in Ohio that were formerly classified by the AP survey as "at risk for closure" and two plants in Pennsylvania and Maryland that were not on AP's list. These units have a combined nameplate capacity of 15,532 megawatts.*
Up to 32 additional coal-fired units with a combined 9,714 megawatts of capacity may also decide to close, as the costs of compliance with the EPA's recently enacted Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, designed to curb air pollution in states downwind from coal-fired power stations, and the new Mercury and Air Toxics Rule announced this week both take effect.
While the purpose of these regulations is to reduce harmful pollutants and improve public health, closure of these aging plants will also lead to a 1.4 to 4.4 percent reduction in US electric power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), according to an analysis completed by the Breakthrough Institute. These air pollution regulations are thus a prime example of the ongoing success of pragmatic, "oblique" strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Continue reading "Breakthrough Analysis: New Air Pollution Rules Could Reduce US Electric-Sector CO2 Emissions By More Than 4 Percent" »
Contrary to conventional wisdom, biodiversity is increasing in most regions of the world -- if you include the immigrants, that is.
Visit almost any city in the US or elsewhere today, and you are likely to find restaurants from all corners of the world: Indian, Thai, Italian, American, you name it. Clearly, gastronomical diversity within cities has increased hugely over the past couple of centuries. Now go to a city in another country -- and the range of cuisines on offer is likely to be nearly identical. This is a hallmark of globalization: increased diversity locally, decreased diversity globally. As Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow Erle Ellis and colleagues show in a recent paper, the same phenomenon also applies to plants.
Continue reading "The Other Side of the Biodiversity Crisis" »
Obama's focus on energy innovation and the regulation of conventional pollutants, rather than climate science and carbon pricing, is part of a growing climate centrism that could hold bipartisan support on addressing issues related to climate change.
By Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus
In his 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama tacitly acknowledged how politically toxic climate change had become by not mentioning it once. His move angered many environmentalists who insisted there could be no significant action without a full-throated defense of the climate science against skeptics.
 But one year later, President Obama's shift can be understood as part of a new climate centrism, one focused less on climate science and carbon pricing and more on energy innovation and the regulation of conventional pollutants like mercury. In his 2012 address, Obama briefly mentioned the divisiveness of climate change as a segue to touting his energy policies.
Polls show that Obama's call for continued energy innovation funding was one of the most popular elements of his speech. Meanwhile, the EPA's new mercury regulations—which will result in the shuttering of some of America's dirtiest coal plants—have long been more popular with Independents and Republicans than carbon regulations.
These policies have a growing number of supporters on the right. Last week, John Tierney of the New York Times pointed to a new study in Science that touted the climate benefits of dealing with non-carbon pollutants:
After looking at hundreds of ways to control these pollutants, the researchers determined the 14 most effective measures for reducing climate change, like encouraging a switch to cleaner diesel engines and cookstoves, building more efficient kilns and coke ovens, capturing methane at landfills and oil wells, and reducing methane emissions from rice paddies by draining them more often.
Continue reading "Obama and the New Climate Centrism" »
A "no regrets" climate strategy: cutting non-CO2 contributors to climate change may be the fastest way to slow warming, while yielding significant, near-term co-benefits.
By Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and Jesse Jenkins, Director of Climate and Energy Policy at the Breakthrough Institute
It is time to take stock of our current climate trajectory, and consider what it means for climate policy. In Part 1 of this week long series, we argued that our current climate trajectory means we must 1) redouble efforts to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, and 2) we must proactively build resilience to the uncertain impacts of a changing climate. Part 2 examined why voluntary economic contraction is a not a viable strategy for reducing emissions “as quickly as possible.” Part 3 explained why implementing a robust clean energy innovation strategy is the key way to making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, thus enabling the rapid adoption of low-carbon energy sources and drastically reducing CO2 as quickly as possible. Part 4 discussed why adaptation through innovation is central to preparing for the impacts of a warmer world. Finally, Part 5 discusses how reducing a set of non-CO2 pollutants and greenhouse gases can make a significant, near-term dent in warming and buy time to decarbonize the energy system.
As we have argued previously in this series, averting as much dangerous climate change impacts as possible hinges on our efforts to drive innovation and make clean energy cost competitive with fossil fuels. The cost of decarbonization is the key moderating force affecting the pace of carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions, and innovation is the key to lowering these costs and accelerating climate progress. However, CO2 isn’t the only powerful contributor to global warming, and scientists have identified opportunities to make a significant, near-term dent in warming by tackling other greenhouse gases and pollutants.
While we cannot effectively manage human impact on the climate over the long-run without decarbonizing the global energy system — a task that hinges on the energy innovation efforts described in Part 3 of this series — in the short term, we would do well to seize opportunities to reduce non-CO2 emissions, particularly those with immediate co-benefits (e.g. profitable byproducts, improved public health, or better agricultural yields) that align incentives for rapid action.
Continue reading "The Future of Global Climate Policy: Slowing Warming by Cutting Methane and Pollutants (Part 5)" »
With the rise of global supply chains, manufacturing has been fundamentally transformed. Yet manufacturing still remains key to America's future prosperity. Creating a competitive advanced manufacturing economy requires new strategies and new thinking.
In his State of the Union address, President Obama laid out his election-year vision for restoring America's global competitiveness. U.S. manufacturing figured prominently:
Think about the America within our reach...an America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs...we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back.
Last weekend, the New York Times ran a long and important piece on why one particular high-tech product, Apple's iPhone, is manufactured in Asia and not the United States. The article is part of a renewed debate about how the United States can reinvigorate its manufacturing sector, or whether it even should.
A key part of the article is that there is a dearth of middle-income jobs in U.S. manufacturing. A combination of labor-saving technological improvements and the off shoring of more labor-intensive manufacturing has led to a sharp reduction in factory jobs that were once a pathway to the middle class for many Americans. Manufacturing employment on the factory floor may simply never reach levels of previous decades.
Nevertheless, as we have written previously, advanced manufacturing remains critical to U.S. prosperity in the 21st century for three key reasons:
- Advanced manufacturing drives productivity and innovation. Two-thirds of R&D investment occurs in industry and manufacturing is a core component of the nation's innovation ecosystem that is key to creating new technological industries.
- Advanced manufacturing generates output and employment throughout the economy. It has the largest economic multipliers of any industry and large manufacturing facilities sustain entire communities. Even if manufacturing never supports as many direct jobs on the factory floor as it has in the past, restoring advanced manufacturing is thus essential to America's long-term employment challenges.
- Manufacturing is critical to improve the nation's trade balance and tackling our $500 billion cumulative trade deficit. Manufactured goods still comprise 57% of U.S. exports and closing the trade deficit will be difficult, if not impossible, without manufacturing playing a key role.
Continue reading "Global Supply Chains and American Economic Competitiveness" »
Obama missed an opportunity in this week's State of the Union by failing to tie revenues from expanded fossil energy drilling to public investments in clean energy innovation.
 Mark Muro and Kenan Fikri. This post was originally published at The New Republic. Muro and Fikri are Policy Director and Senior Research Assistant, respectively, at the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. Mark Muro was a collaborator the 2010 report "Post-Partisan Power" with the Breakthrough Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.
It was good to hear strong shout-outs for clean and renewable energy sourcing as part of the balanced energy stance promoted in President Obama's State of the Union speech this week.
We've long agreed that the "all of the above" energy approach Obama championed last night could be desirable so long as it is just that--oriented to the balanced development of all sources including American renewable and clean energy as well as fossil fuel resources.
In that nexus lies a politically defensible sweet-spot notwithstanding the tough politics of the energy debate.
And yet, the President left out a crucial link in his renewed commitments to both clean energy and increased conventional energy: He missed the opportunity to tie the revenues from fossil fuel drilling permits and licenses to investment in energy innovation.
Continue reading "The Missing Link in the SOTU Energy Agenda" »
In the face of uncertainty, resilience is key. Time to make adaptation and resilience a cornerstone of our climate policy efforts.
By Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and Jesse Jenkins, Director of Climate and Energy Policy at the Breakthrough Institute
It is time to take stock of our current climate trajectory, and consider what it means for climate policy. In Part 1 of this week long series, we argued that our current climate trajectory means we must 1) redouble efforts to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, and 2) we must proactively build resilience to the uncertain impacts of a changing climate. Part 2 examined why voluntary economic contraction is a not a viable strategy for reducing emissions “as quickly as possible.” Part 3 explained why implementing a robust clean energy innovation strategy is the key way to making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, thus enabling the rapid adoption of low-carbon energy sources and drastically reducing CO2 as quickly as possible. Part 4 discusses why adaptation through innovation is central to preparing for the impacts of a warmer world and buying us time to drastically cut emissions.
The door is closed to mitigating away all of the potentially dangerous impacts of climate change. We’ve simply waited too long to take sweeping action and provide a cheap and viable clean energy substitute to fossil fuels. In Part 1 of this series, we discussed that even so, the key objective of climate mitigation efforts is still the same – we must drastically cut emissions as quickly as possible (and Part 2 and Part 3 discussed how).
Yet the warmer world we have locked ourselves into does inform other policy choices. In particular, building our resilience to extreme weather and increasing our adaptive capacity is now equally as important as mitigation and should be treated as such. Advocating for adaptation and mitigation is nothing new – in fact it’s common place. The argument here is that adaptation must now be a cornerstone of all climate policy choices – domestic or otherwise.
When it comes to climate adaptation policymaking, a lot of work needs to be done, as it’s still a topic that has been largely ignored by U.S. decision makers. In fact, the most immediate hurdle is for decision makers to stop paying lip-service to the need for an adaptation policy and begin aggressively implementing real resilience efforts.
Continue reading "The Future of Global Climate Policy: Building Resilience Through Climate Adaptation Innovation Policy (Part 4)" »
Accelerating energy innovation to make clean energy cheap is the key to unlocking rapid reductions in climate destabilizing greenhouse gas emissions.
By Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and Jesse Jenkins, Director of Climate and Energy Policy at the Breakthrough Institute
It is time to take stock of our current climate trajectory, and consider what it means for climate policy. In Part 1 of this week long series, we argued that our current climate trajectory means we must 1) redouble efforts to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible, and 2) we must proactively build resilience to the uncertain impacts of a changing climate. Part 2 examined why voluntary economic contraction is a not a viable strategy for reducing emissions “as quickly as possible.” Part 3 explains why implementing a robust clean energy innovation strategy is the key way to making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels, thus enable rapid adoption of low-carbon energy sources and drastically reducing CO2 as quickly as possible.
As we wrote in Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, our current climate trajectory and global political economy dictates that the only way we can limit potentially dangerous climate change impacts, above the dangerous impacts we’re already locked into, is to redouble efforts to reduce global CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. To rapidly decarbonize the economy requires greatly accelerating the replacement of fossil fuels with low or zero-carbon clean energy substitutes. Implementing the right strategies to do so raises numerous stark policy choices and issues.
The most fundamental issue is that energy is largely a fungible commodity – the electricity coming out of your wall socket doesn’t have any immediately tangible differences whether it comes from a coal plant or a wind farm. The only immediate difference is cost. This key reality means that the rate of adoption for new clean energy technologies is largely moderated by two principal levers:
(1) The level of public tolerance for paying for the cost of cleaner energy in the form of higher energy costs, subsidies, or reduced economic welfare; and
(2) The cost competitiveness of clean energy compared to fossil fuels.
Continue reading "The Future of Global Climate Policy: Clean Energy Innovation Imperative (Part 3)" »
CNN's sloppy fact-checking leads them to draw blatantly false conclusions on the history of the shale gas revolution.
 "They did a hell of a lot of work, and I can't give them enough credit for that. DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement." So said Dan Steward, former geologist and Vice President for Texas-based gas company Mitchell Energy, in an interview with the Breakthrough Institute.
In a recent edition of their political fact-checking series, CNN makes glaring historical omissions in their claim that the private sector, not the government, was the leading developer of the technologies that led to the modern shale gas boom.
In a reaction to President Obama's statement in this week's State of the Union address that "it was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock," CNN reporter Matt Smith claims that the President's analysis was "true, but incomplete." In reality, CNN's fact-check is light on the facts and could use a check of its own.
CNN claims that hydraulic fracturing has been around since initial private application in the 1940s, and therefore government investment was inconsequential to the modern gas boom. This is like saying government investment in jet engines was inconsequential because the Wright Brothers pioneered air travel. CNN gets its facts and its history wrong. Here's what really happened:
- All the component technologies and techniques that made the shale revolution possible - massive hydraulic fracturing (MHF), microseismic imaging, and directional drilling among others - are direct products of federal R&D and demonstration.
- At the request of the gas industry, a diverse set of federal labs and agencies spearheaded R&D and demonstration of early shale extraction technologies, including the Morgantown Energy Research Center, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Bureau of Mines, the Department of Energy, and the national laboratories.
- The Department of Energy first demonstrated MHF in 1977. Slickwater fracturing, Mitchell Energy's technique for Barnett drilling in the late 1990s, was an incremental improvement on this foundational innovation in hydraulic fracturing.
- In a joint DOE-industry venture, the first successful multi-fracture horizontal well was drilled in 1986. The Gas Research Institute (GRI), which was funded partially by a government-imposed surcharge on retail gas bills, subsidized Mitchell's first horizontal well in 1991.
- Sandia National Labs developed microseismic imaging technology and mapping for use in coalbed methane recovery. Data and techniques developed by Sandia were cited as critical contributions to Mitchell Energy's R&D in the 1990s.
- The federal Section 29 tax credit for unconventional gas resources benefitted the gas industry from 1980-2002.
- Using an innovative technique called slickwater fracturing and capitalizing on federal contributions like MHF, directional drilling, and microseismic imaging, Mitchell Energy engineers drilled the first economical well in the Barnett Shale in 1998. This was the first profitable commercial shale drill in history.
Continue reading "CNN Blows Obama SOTU Shale Gas Fact-Check" »
In his State of the Union, President Barack Obama referred to the findings of a Breakthrough Institute investigation, which found that 30 years of federal funding led to the shale gas revolution.
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama referred to the findings of a Breakthrough Institute investigation, which found that 30 years of federal funding led to the shale gas revolution.
"It was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years," said the president, "that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock -- reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground."
Obama is referring directly to a Breakthrough Institute investigation, which found that all the major technologies -- massive hydraulic fracking, horizontal drilling, 3-D mapping -- came from federal funding. Breakthrough's research was published in the Washington Post, with a longer history of shale gas and key interviews published at the Breakthrough.
Continue reading "Obama's Energy Revolution" »
|
