Here are some stories I found interesting this week:
California’s GHG emissions are already lower than the 2015 threshold established as part of California’s cap-and-trade policy. The reasons emissions fell more than expected include the slow economy and relative widespread renewable energy deployment. The problem with this is the lack of innovation. We have seen what companies do with no incentive to innovate their operations: nothing that gets in the way of profit, which is the way companies should operate. That’s why we need regulations – to incentivize companies to act in the public interest. Should CA adjust future cap thresholds in light of this news?
No surprise here: Alter Net had a story detailing the US Department of Energy’s International Energy Outlook and the picture isn’t pretty (and I’m not talking about the stock photo they attached to the story – that’s not helpful). Experts expect fossil fuels to dominate the world’s energy portfolio through 2040 – which I wrote about last month. This projection will stand until people push their governments to change.
Scientific American’s latest microgrid article got to the point: “self-sufficient microgrids undermine utilities’ traditional economic model” and “utility rates for backup power [need to be] fair and equitable to microgrid customers.” To the first point, current utility models will have to change in 21st century America. Too much depends on reliable and safe energy systems. The profit part of the equation will take a back seat. Whatever form utilities take in the future, customers will demand equitable pricing schemes. That said, there is currently widespread unfair pricing in today’s energy paradigm. For example, utilities continue to build coal power plants that customers don’t want. Customers go so far as to voluntarily pay extra for non-coal energy sources. In the end, I support microgrids and distributed generation for many reasons.
A Science article (subs. req’d) shared results of an investigation into increasing amplitude of CO2 oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere in the past 50 years. This increase is greater for higher latitudes than middle latitudes. The increase’s reason could be longer annual times of decomposition due to a warming climate (which is occurring faster at higher latitudes). Additional microbial decomposition generates additional CO2 and aids new plant growth at increasing latitudes (which scientists have observed). New plant growth compounds the uptake and release of CO2 from microbes. The biosphere is changing in ways that were not predicted, as I’ve written before. These changes will interact and generate other changes that will impact human and ecosystems through the 21st century and beyond.
And the EPA has adjusted new power plant emissions rules: “The average U.S. natural gas plant emits 800 to 850 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt, and coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds. According to those familiar with the new EPA proposal, the agency will keep the carbon limit for large natural gas plants at 1,000 pounds but relax it slightly for smaller gas plants. The standard for coal plants will be as high as 1,300 or 1,400 pounds per megawatt-hour, the individuals said Wednesday, but that still means the utilities will have to capture some of the carbon dioxide they emit.” This is but one climate policy that we need to revisit in the future. This policy is good, but does not go far enough. One way or another, we face increasing costs; some we can afford and others we can’t. We can proactively increase regulations on fossil fuels which will result in an equitable cost comparison between energy sources. Or we can continue to prevent an energy free market from working by keeping fossil fuel costs artificially lower than they really are and end up paying reactive climate costs, which will be orders of magnitude higher than energy costs.