Sustainability - - A Focus On Carbon

A recent article in  Mother Jones  details how several dozen large and influential corporations that have donated to the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) have also publicly supported remaining in the Paris Climate Accord. This is an issue because RAGA has identified the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) as its top legal priority to undo.  Some of the companies involved argue that their donations is in the time honored tradition of donating to politicians and issues on both sides of the isle. To this observer, that is nothing more than a thin veil of respectability that calls their position into question. Further, these organizations contributed more to RAGA than to its democratic counterpart. Quoting from the article, “During the timeframe that the 27 companies donated about $3.3 million to the Republican group, 23 of them collectively gave about $1.9 million to the parallel Democratic organization.” While it’s true that RAGA and its democratic counter

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen and colleagues recently published an article that lays out why cutting CO2 emissions ais necessary but is no longer sufficient to reduce concentrations of greenhouse gasses (GHG) to acceptable levels.   Among their findings is that “…large CO2 extraction from the air is needed and a halt of growth of non-CO2 climate impacts to achieve the temperature stabilization…” They rightly point out that developed nations have an obligation to assist those nations since they haven’t contributed much to the problem but bear a disproportionate share of its impacts. They also point to a role for demand-side changes that provide GHG mitigation. For example, reducing meat and dairy production is needed to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture.   Other agriculture and land use changes (in addition to changes in our diets), include reducing food waste and changes in wood use “…have substantial mitigation potential, but they remain under-researched and p

What if cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), especially CO2, is not the same as increasing the share of electricity generated using renewables? Which would you pick? As an economist, such questions interest me. This kind of question interests me because we face a slew of problems and we have a limited amount of effort available to help solve them.  If we are able to cut CO2 emissions at a lower cost one way rather than some other way, why pick the more costly approach? For many folks, there is no question of deciding between cutting GHG and installing more renewables. They are assumed to be one in the same. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? Actually, there is. Electricity planning analysis performed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is but one such body of work. In their 7th Power Plan, which was released at the beginning of 2016, is a chapter that addresses this very issue. Here's another source. What the NWPPC found is that cheaper and more e

Not exactly. Let me explain. Our lack of even the most basic understanding of how the elecricity system operates (explained below) allows us to mistakenly imagine we are taking actions that will shut down CO2 emitting generators. A number of headlines read something like "California Poised To Require All Its Electricity To Come From Renewables."  SB100  appears to be a bit more complicated, however.  Plus, electricity complies to the laws of physics, not the laws we mere mortals devise. Hoefully, this post will identify several important implications of these distinctions. Recognize that electrons (what electricity consists of) going over the wires thorughout California flow from all generators located everywhere within what’s called the Western Interconnect (WECC).  Electrons are already present throughout all the electric wires in every building in every community at every moment in time. When you flip a light switch on, more electricity gets generated that replaces

The often cited study by Mark Jacobson et. al. that asserts it's economic to replace every fossil fuel use with either electricity from wind, water, and sun (WWS-only) or hydrogen produced using WWS-only in 139 countries over the next 33 years implies a massive construction program the likes of which we may not have ever seen. I find it useful to compare the implied construction program to what we have experienced in the recent past. Click  here  to see his paper on the 50 U.S. states. Over the next 33 years, even under his extraordinary drop in total electric load, he envisions approximately 5.8 million MW of new generation are needed (plus an additional 600GW for peaking and system stability). He reports that as of 2013, 2.71% (of 5.8 million MW) is currently installed, or approximately1.6 million MW. Such quantities indicate an extraordinary construction program, especially since the U.S. installed capacity rose by only about 177,400MWs over the eight year period, 2006-2014

Last Tuesday, the OPUC Commissioners held a regularly scheduled hearing. The main topic was Portland General Electric's (PGE) proposed acquisition of 175 aMW of wind. At the hearing, which I attended, renewable and environmental advocates were out in force. Dozens of citizens showed up wearing read t-shirts, some with 350.org, others from the Sierra Club. Others wore the color red in solidarity. Commissioner Bloom, the lone Republican on the three-member Commission, read prepared remarks that were extraordinary, being delivered from the Dias. He chastised PGE for an op-ed in the Oregonian the prior Friday in which the Company's head honchos essentially pleded with the public to come to help support their proposed acquisition before the Commission. I've seen the Commissioners take witnesses to task. What I hadn't seen was a thorough admonishment of a utility at the beginning of a hearing, reading from prepared remarks. Customer groups had filed testimony opposing P