The Great Beyond

The line in the basement hallway of the US Department of Energy stretched interminably. "What's this line for?" asked one DOE employee. "Is everyone going to the gym or something?"

Nope. The bomb-sniffing dogs and Secret Service made it clear that the line was to see First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama, a figure so popular that the DOE had to give its employees tickets through a lottery.

Making her 13th visit to a federal agency, Obama joined Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Thursday in a tightly packed, 200-person basement DOE auditorium for a mock quiz of 10 middle schoolers who would compete next year in the National Science Bowl, an outreach effort run by DOE. Chu said that Obama was helping him with one of his highest priorities: "elevating the social status of nerds everywhere."

After a quick pep talk to the career civil service employees, Obama got ready to start peppering the kids with questions. "We're all set. I'm Alex Trebek," said Obama. "Secretary Chu is like my Vanna White."

And the two leaders jumped into a 14 minute round of hard-fought science trivia. "Cellular respiration in human cells is carried out mostly by what organelle?" asked Obama. Beeeeep! Catherine Xue, from Takoma Park, Maryland, buzzed in. "Mitochondria?" she asked timidly. "Correct," said Chu. Xue exchanged a fist bump with her team captain, Avikar Periwal.

Chu seemed to take pleasure when the budding scientists nailed a question, but winced when one team incorrectly guessed that nuclear power comprises only 5% of the US energy budget. The other team quickly got the answer right: 20%. "Correct," said Chu with a wry smile. If he gets his way, that answer could change -- Chu is hoping that DOE funding will help launch a new generation of nuclear reactors.

Image: Ken Shipp / DOE Photo

Posted by Eric Hand on November 05, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Immediate action should be taken to prevent plutonium leaks following a potential future earthquake at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was warned this week.

The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board says an earthquake could trigger a fire inside high-risk gloveboxes where work on plutonium takes place. Los Alamos sits on a fault line, so an earthquake would not be unexpected.

The consequences of an earthquake-induced fire in the lab’s plutonium facility exceed the Department of Energy’s guidelines by over two orders of magnitude, says the board.

“The board believes this situation warrants immediate attention and action,” states a letter to Chu dated 26 October (pdf).

According to the Project on Government Oversight, the energy department has been trying to delay the board’s report in order to deal with the problem before it became public. It claims that a glovebox fire could cause the public to be exposed to 100 times the recommended safe level of plutonium.

In a statement to AP and the LA Times, the lab said it was already taking action to improve fire safety at the Technical Area-55 facility.

“Protecting the health and safety of our employees, the public and the environment while conducting operations all across the laboratory, particularly at the plutonium facility, TA-55, is our primary concern,” it says.

Posted by Daniel Cressey on October 28, 2009
Categories: Energy, Physics & Mathematics, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Months after the House of Representatives passed its historic global warming legislation, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is finally poised to begin moving its own bill. But first, three days of non-stop testimony from dozens of experts representing the Obama administration, academics, environmental groups and business representatives.

Today was reserved for Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who partnered up with California Democrat and committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer, to write the bill, as well as a suite of administration officials led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Despite a steady stream of testimony underscoring the many benefits that could flow from 900-plus page bill, the debate seems to be stuck on basic questions about whether protecting the climate by deploying clean energy will bankrupt the nation. As the New York Times points out, even Democrats who come from energy producing states have reservations.

Chu tried to address the question by pointing out that China "has already made its choice" and is now spending $9 billion per month on clean energy. He went on to talk about how the United States has lost its lead in clean energy manufacturing and must now make up for lost time if it wants to remain competitive.

"When the starting gun sounded on the clean energy race, the United States stumbled," he said in his written testimony, available here. "But I remain confident that we can make up the ground."

Continue reading "US Senate begins climate proceedings " »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on October 27, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There could not have been a more receptive audience for US President Barack Obama than the one that filled MIT’s 1100-seat Kresge auditorium to capacity today. Obama’s 19- minute speech about clean energy was filled with words that would make any American engineer or scientist’s heart -- a Democratic heart, at least -- swell with pride. He spoke of how America has always been a leader in innovation and discovery and how he believes the country’s innovators will once again forge ahead to build a new energy economy.

“From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to produce and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the world economy. I’m convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation."

Continue reading "Obama’s energy speech at MIT—low in substance, high in inspiration" »

Posted by Corie Lok on October 23, 2009
Categories: Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In December this year, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will descend on Copenhagen to wrangle over the details of a new global climate deal — a potential successor to the Kyoto Protocol. See Nature’s Road to Copenhagen special for more coverage.

The European Union’s environment ministers have reportedly agreed on a negotiation mandate for Sweden for the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen. Sweden currently holds the EU presidency, which rotates every six months (Spiegel).

The EU has previously said it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% by 2020. At a speech to the European Parliament, Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish environment minister, yesterday reiterated that the EU will agree to 30% cuts only if other parties make sufficient commitments in Copenhagen

“We see the 30% target as a lever to convince other parties to join us in being more ambitious. By 2050 emissions should have dropped by at least 80%,” he said

At today’s talks in Luxembourg, environment ministers of the 27 EU member states also called for the Copenhagen climate talks in December to set targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from ships and airplanes. By 2020, global emissions from aviation should be cut by 10%, and emissions from shipping by 20%, compared with 2005 levels, the group said according to news reports.

Meanwhile, at a meeting yesterday of EU finance ministers, Poland and other eastern EU member countries blocked a decision on climate adaptation aid for developing countries. The group is concerned that their national contribution to the planned adaptation fund will overburden their economies. Andreas Borg, the Swedish finance minister, complained about “a lack of commitment by certain member states”.

The EU’s heads of states will now attempt to resolve the issue at a council meeting next week in Brussels, when the EU’s negotiation position for Copenhagen is to be rubber-stamped.

Posted for Quirin Schiermeier

Posted by Daniel Cressey on October 21, 2009
Categories: Energy, Road to Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

US billionaire George Soros, founder of the hedge fund Soros Fund Management, has announced plans to invest $1 billion in clean-energy technologies to help stave off global warming.

Speaking at a climate conference in Copenhagen on 12 October, Soros also said he plans to establish - with $100 million of his own money - a new environmental policy group called Climate Policy Initiative.

“I want to apply rather stringent criteria to the investments,” Soros told Bloomberg in an email. “They should be profitable but should also actually make a contribution to solving the problem.”

Soros – estimated to be worth $11 million billion by Forbes – said to reporters in Copenhagen that he lacked scientific expertise, but “the one thing I have is the ability to put money to work” (Guardian).

The Climate Policy Initiative will be headed up by Stanford University Law School professor Thomas Heller, says Bloomberg.

In December this year, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will descend on Copenhagen to wrangle over the details of a new global climate deal — a potential successor to the Kyoto Protocol. See Nature’s Road to Copenhagen special for more coverage.

Posted by Daniel Cressey on October 13, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Road to Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The US Chamber of Commerce has hit back at Apple, after the computer company joined the list of members who have left the group over its views on climate change.

In a letter to Apple, the chamber’s president Thomas Donohue writes:

It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.
…
While we do support legislation to address climate change, we oppose legislation such as the Waxman-Markey bill that numerous studies show will cause Americans to lose their jobs and shift greenhouse gas emissions overseas, negating potential climate benefits.
(Full letter on Under the Influence blog.)

Earlier this week Apple said it was leaving the chamber, with VP Catherine Novelli saying, “Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the Chamber at odds with us in this effort.” (Various sources, eg ARS Technica.)

Earlier this month the not-insignificant energy companies Exelon, the Public Service Company and Pacific Gas and Electric also left the chamber over climate change differences. In August the chamber called for a public trial of climate change.

Image: Thomas Donohue. Photo by Ian Wagreich / © U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Posted by Daniel Cressey on October 08, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Road to Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The European Commission has proposed investing an additional €50 billion into a new research and development programme for low-carbon energy over the next decade, ramping up annual investments from the current €3 billion to €8 billion annually.

The proposal lays out funding goals in six sectors - wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, electricity grids and carbon capture and storage, while creating a new "Smart Cities Initiative" focusing on urban energy efficiency. Solar came out on top with €16 billion, followed by CCS at €13 billion. For a quick summary of investments, check Reuters.

The plan sounds good but is missing one thing: Money. The commission readily acknowledges that it can't foot the entire bill itself, meaning "public and private sectors at national and EU level" will need to step up to make it a reality. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reports EU Commissioner Janez Potocnik saying that most of the money will need to come from the private sector.

Response to the plan has generally been positive, despite some questions about priorities. The European Wind Energy Association wonders why CCS and nuclear received more money than wind, which is ready to go. Along similar lines, the European Photovoltaic Industry Association suggests the commission would be wise to put more resources into clean energy deployment.

Policymakers, researchers and business representatives will discuss the proposal later this month at the European Energy Technology Summit in Stockholm.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on October 07, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Five carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects across Europe look set to receive on the order of €180 million each from the European Union; and another project will get €100 million, after making it through to a whittled-down list of CCS projects deemed worthy of €1.05 billion in EU stimulus funding. The money must be used by 2010.

The Wall Street Journal reports EU sources revealing that the European Commission will approve funding applications from the Hatfield power plant in northern England (operated by Powerfuel); Vattenfall's Jaenschwalde plant in Germany; Spain's Endesa for its Compostilla plant; the Massvlakte plant owned by Germany's E.ON and Belgium's Electrable near the Dutch port of Rotterdam; and a scheme in Poland, run by Polska Grupa Energetyczna, or PGE SA. An Italian scheme should get €100 million, the paper says. Remember these names, there'll be a quiz later.

Continue reading "Carbon capture funding rumours: every little €180 million helps" »

Posted by Richard Van Noorden on October 05, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A European court injected a fair bit of doubt and confusion into carbon markets Wednesday, ruling that the European Commission exceeded its authority when it imposed tighter caps for greenhouse gas emissions in Poland and Estonia (Reuters, The Times)

At first glance, the ruling could be interpreted to curtail the commission's authority to impose a European cap, which would threaten the integrity of the entire multi-national system and fuel existing tensions among countries. But analysts say the ruling is actually limited to the second commitment period, which runs from 2008 to 2012. The commission's authority moving forward does not appear to be in any danger, which means the impacts, whatever they turn out to be, will likely be temporary.

Milo Sjardin, an expert on carbon markets for the consultancy New Energy Finance in New York, said he isn't expecting any major changes in the overall European cap, in part because the recession has already significantly reduced pressure on European industries. NEF's latest estimates indicate that covered emissions (which include power and major industrial sources) are likely to drop by a whopping 10 percent in 2009 alone.

The result is a 50 percent reduction in the cost of curbing emissions by 20 percent by 2020. In fact, NEF now says it will be cheaper to curb emissions by 30 percent (an EU pledge that is contingent on action by the rest of the world) than original forecast for the 20 percent target, Sjardin says.

For his part, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas made it clear that the commission isn't about to back down (AFP).

Regardless, the price of carbon allowances in Europe dropped on the news as traders weighed the possibility of the commission losing its battle and granting additional allowances, not only to Poland and Estonia but six other countries that have appealed their caps. That would make compliance easier and thus decrease the likelihood that companies would need to buy additional allowances to cover their emissions.

If all eight countries were to return to their originally proposed CAP, NEF says allowances would increase by 15 percent. And because companies can carry their allowances forward into the third trading period, which runs from 2013 to 2020, such a scenario could theoretically depress prices for years to come. That would be good news for traditional industries, although it might make clean energy technologies less competitive.

"But we regard that as a very unlikely scenario," Sjardin says. "There’s likely to be a compromise somewhere down the road."

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on September 24, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy, Road to Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

All eyes are now on tomorrow's UN Summit on Climate Change in New York and the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh later this week, although it's not yet clear whether either of these meetings is going to produce any meaningful breakthroughs.

Indeed, if last week's US-sponsored Major Economies Forum is any indication, the outlook isn't particularly good. The meeting ended as quietly as it began, leaving the United States' top climate envoy, Todd Stern, with little to say except that there was a "narrowing of differences" among the globe's top 17 greenhouse gas emitters. Combine that with increasing skepticism that the US Senate is going to be able to squeeze a climate bill out before the UN global warming talks in Copenhagen in December, and things begin to look positively gloomy.

Nonetheless, there are signs of movement at the highest levels, which is what people at the lower levels have been saying was needed for some time. Chinese President Hu Jintao will discuss his country's climate policies during a much-anticipated address on Tuesday. US President Barack Obama plans to do the same, although it's not clear how far he will be able to go given that his hands are tied by Congress.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced that he would be willing to personally attend the talks in Copenhagen if it comes down to that, and The Associated Press has reported that Obama might attend as well. This would certainly qualify as an important gesture of goodwill if the US delegation is unable to sign on to any significant commitments due to slow-moving domestic politics.

And just for kicks, Conservation International reports that out that Guyana President Bharrat Jagdeo and Harrison Ford (who does not lead a country but has appeared in some cool films) will attend an "extraordinary origami event" in New York, calling for the inclusion of tropical forest conservation an eventual climate change pact. Pictures aren't yet available, but keep an eye out for "life-size origami trees and wildlife."

Continue reading "Mixed signals as 'Climate Week' kicks off" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on September 21, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy, Road to Copenhagen | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The United States' climate envoy, Todd Stern, appeared on Capitol Hill Thursday to deliver what has become a depressingly familiar update. Yes, the chasm between the developed and developing worlds remains wide and deep; yes, talks are progressing with key players like China and India; yes, all sides are taking the issue seriously; no, there are no details to report; but yes, yes, of course, there is hope.

For more detail, check Bloomberg and Reuters, but suffice it to say that reporters in the room were generally left scratching their heads as to why Stern had been called to testify in the first place. And perhaps lawmakers felt the same way: Only seven members of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming showed up; three stuck it out for the duration.

Indeed, there's no particular reason why anyone would expect Stern to have any major progress to report at this point. The most likely venues for breaking news come later this month, when the United Nations holds its Summit on Climate Change in New York and the G20 convenes on Pittsburgh. Moreover, Congress has just returned to town after a lengthy August recess, and pretty much everybody, including President Barack Obama, is talking about health care, not climate.

Continue reading "Stern talks; Congress flounders; EPA gears up?" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on September 10, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The British Science Festival is on this week at the University of Surrey. The festival provides an opportunity for British researchers to show their stuff. And it gives the media something to write about. Here's what's grabbed headlines today:

1. Conservationists are reintroducing short-haired bumble bees (Bombus subterraneus) to the British countryside. The bees were once commonplace in some parts of the UK, but none have been spotted since 1988. Now researchers are going to bring the bees back from New Zealand, where they were introduced in the 1800s to pollinate clover. Plenty of coverage to read here.

2. Chimpanzee babies are less whiny than human ones, according to a study out of the University of Portsmouth. Baby chimps apparently only cry when they have something to complain about, and they stop crying when their problem is dealt with. Actually it's more about a new way of understanding chimp facial expressions. But you can read the feed here.

3. Finally, there was plenty of coverage of a new, green Formula 3 car being developed at the University of Warwick. The car uses recycled carbon fiber and a steering wheel made of carrot bits. A lot of outlets picked up on the fact that the car ran on old wine and chocolate (aka biodiesel). You can read all about it from this Wawrick press release (from May).

Credit: D. Goulson/Bee Conservation Trust

Posted by Geoff Brumfiel on September 08, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has staked out a larger government claim on newly discovered offshore oil reserves, promising to funnel proceeds into poverty reduction, education, science and technology.

Located off Brazil's southeast coast near Rio de Janeiro, the deep-water fields (the blue area in the Petrobras map) represent some of the biggest discoveries in the world in recent decades. The "pre-salts" are technically challenging, trapped below a thick layer of salt several thousand metres below the sea, but they could thrust Brazil into the major leagues of oil production - albeit at a time when the world is desperately seeking cleaner alternatives.

The plan has been on ice for more than a year (Nature), due in part to the global economic crisis. In making the announcement on Monday, Lula proclaimed an "independence day" of sorts. It stops well short of the kind of nationalization that has been seen in places like Venezuela and Bolivia, but many see it as a step in that direction.

Continue reading "Lula reasserts Brazilian control over new oilfield " »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on September 01, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rapidly-emptying oil and gas fields under the North Sea used to signify only depressing news for industry: precious fossil fuel resources, and the profits they provided, were running out.

No longer: that increasingly empty graveyard is being viewed as a fresh commercial opportunity – a new kind of natural resource, even, supporting what still seems a bizarre new industry: that of capturing, piping and storing carbon dioxide deep underground.

Offshore (under-sea-bed) storage is particularly attractive. It involves geological structures that are known to hold carbon dioxide underground, thanks to decades of experience in the oil and gas industry. (A Geology paper published in January says natural carbon dioxide stored in reservoirs under the North Sea has moved 12 metres upwards in 70 million years). And it doesn’t attract the kind of public resistance that accompanies schemes to, say, inject carbon dioxide under a shopping mall.

This offshore ‘oil industry in reverse’ could mean boom-time for Scotland, the FT notes today in a summary of latest developments.

Continue reading "Scotland the grave (for carbon dioxide)" »

Posted by Richard Van Noorden on August 18, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Chinese state media reported on Wednesday that the chief of China’s civilian and military nuclear programmes has been placed under investigation for alleged “grave violations of discipline”.

That usually means corruption, in the language of the Communist Party’s Central Committee for Discipline Inspection.

Kang Rixin, 56, is president of the state-owned China National Nuclear Corp., which is the country’s largest nuclear power developer and operator. It is responsible for nuclear power generation, nuclear weapons production, uranium mining, and nuclear waste disposal, and also conducts research and development.

Billions are currently being spent on China’s nuclear industry. It has six nuclear power plants – all on the coast – and plans to build five more this year (The Guardian).

The Wall Street Journal notes that the investigation into Kang is the latest in a high-profile crackdown on government and corporate corruption, ahead of China's 60th anniversary in October.

Posted by Richard Van Noorden on August 06, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This week South Korea sketched out several options for reducing greenhouse gases in the coming decade, inching closer to a national commitment before the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen this December.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, only industrialized "Annex I" nations were required to take on specific emissions targets.
Seoul has already announced massive investments in clean energy technologies, earning a place among a core group of developing nations that are taking significant action to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. If it moves forward, South Korea would join the ranks of Mexico, South Africa and Brazil in volunteering quantifiable pledges as world leaders negotiate a follow-on treaty.

Government officials say they are considering three emissions trajectories for 2020, all using a 2005 baseline: an 8 percent increase, a return to the 2005 level or a 4 percent decrease; that compares to a projected 30 percent increase under a "business-as-usual" scenario. The 2005 baseline is revealing because South Korea's emissions have increased by 95 percent since 1990, the baseline used in the Kyoto Protocol, according to the World Resources Institute in Washington.

Compared to a 1990 baseline, the proposals seem decidedly less ambitious, and the government has not spelled out exactly how it plans to meet such a commitment. Nonetheless, says Remi Moncel, an energy and climate expert at the institute, "it’s a good sign of leadership from a developing country."

Continue reading "South Korea unveils climate proposals" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on August 05, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

India has yet again publicly stated its opposition to targets that limit carbon dioxide emissions – even as it continues to push a domestic clean energy agenda.

"It is not true that India is running away from mitigation," said Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, on Sunday, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s three-day tour of the country. "India's position, let me be clear, is that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding emissions targets." (Washington Post).

Later, in a closed-door meeting with Clinton, Ramesh repeated his position: “There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.” (AP) India’s per-capita carbon dioxide emissions are some 17 times lower than that of the US (pictured, extracted from EIA’s May 2009 International Energy Outlook).

Ramesh added that India also faced the threat of carbon tariffs imposed on its exports to countries such as the US – under a provision inserted into the Waxman-Markey energy bill being debated in the Senate.

Although it seemingly objects to the politics of climate talks, India has developed an ambitious climate agenda domestically (see Developing nations tackle climate, Nature 460 158-159; 2009).

Continue reading "India objects to US climate targeting" »

Posted by Richard Van Noorden on July 21, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rajendra Pachauri turned up the heat on global policymakers in a series of interviews following last week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Venice.

Speaking to reporters in New York on Monday, the IPCC chairman credited global leaders with endorsing a goal of holding global warming to 2 degrees Celsius but said countries must now follow up with real action. "The reality is that we have very little time," Pachauri said. Despite an alarmingly wide gap between developed and developing nations, Pachauri said he remains "cautiously optimistic" that a climate deal will be reached in Copenhagen this December.

Following the IPCC's fourth assessment in 2007, some experts suggested that the panel should switch gears and begin performing more rapid assessments, but in the end the panel decided to stay the course. Pachauri said the IPCC will begin rolling out its next major assessment as scheduled in 2013.

Reuters summarized some of the major issues that the panel will be digging into. At the top are sea level change, one of the more contentious issues in the fourth assessment, and the role clouds, which are the source of the largest uncertainties in current climate models.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on July 20, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Thirty-four Nobel Laureates have penned a letter urging President Barack Obama to push for a $150 billion clean energy fund in the climate legislation currently moving through Congress. Not that Obama needs any prodding - this message was clearly targeted at Congress.

The president kicked things off earlier this spring by assumed the existence of roughly $600 billion in cap-and-trade revenues in his first 10-year budget. Some $150 billion of that money was dedicated to a Clean Energy Technology Fund, but the Senate eventually stripped all of this out of its budget bill, illustrating precisely why advocates are pushing for a dedicated and untouchable stream of revenue in the climate legislation itself.

Those efforts fell apart when House Democrats began striking deals to secure votes, eventually paving the way for passage on June 26. The last Congressional Budget Office analysis forecasts that the bill would effectively raise $873 billion over 10 years, but most of that sum would be doled out to various causes in an effort hold consumer and business costs down.

Burt Richter, the Nobel-prize winning physicist and former director of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, offered up a few numbers in a conference call with journalists: Energy makes up about 10 percent of the nation's gross national product, or about $1.5 trillion per year; $15 billion would represent just 1 percent of the nation's energy expenditures. Small potatoes in the grand scheme, but Richter says it would get the nation started on the kind of energy innovation that will be needed to meet the climate challenge - and stay ahead in an increasingly competitive world.

"The United States is getting to the point where it doesn’t make anything that anybody wants to buy," he said, pointing to nuclear and wind power as two energy technologies that the United States pioneered and then shipped overseas. "We would be well advised to invest at an appropriate scale ... if we want to preserve our position of technological leadership."

Continue reading "Nobelists call for energy R&D in climate bill" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on July 16, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Twelve companies, including Siemens, Munich Re and Deutsche Bank, yesterday signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in Munich to develop business plans and financing concepts for building networked solar thermal plants in North Africa and the Middle East.

The companies agree to establish by the end of October a company, called Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII), of which they will all become shareholders. DII will then analyse the technical, economic, political, social and ecological framework of generating solar (and wind) power in the Saharan desert, and piping electricity to consumers in Europe. By 2050, the companies involved hope to produce sufficient power in the region to meet 15% of Europe’s electricity demand as well as a substantial portion of the power needs of the Maghreb region.

"We are pursuing a visionary plan,” Munich Re board member Torsten Jeworrek said in a statement. “If it is successful, we will make a major contribution to combating climate change. The ecological and economic potential is huge."

The DII consortium includes the Swiss ABB, the world’s largest builder of electricity grids. Besides legal and political issues, the transmission of power from the Sahara across the Mediterranean Sea to European population centres is considered a main hurdle to the project.

The Desertec project, a brainchild of the so-named foundation and the Club of Rome, made news last month when plans had leaked that German companies intended to invest up to €400 billion in a 100 gigawatt solar utility in Northern Africa.

Signatories of yesterday’s MoU did not confirm these figures.

Finance experts are not convinced that the project will attract sufficient private and public investment. “So far, this is nothing more than political lobbying in my view,” Reuters quotes an equity analyst as saying.

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier

Image: Torsten Jeworrek (Munich Re Group)

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on July 14, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

With the international climate community focused on Italy, a key US senator casually announced plans to delay the first round of votes on a climate bill until September. The news from Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, came just two days after her committee kicked off the legislative process.

To what extent this counts as a setback remains unclear. For her part, Boxer downplayed the announcement by saying the committee would get its work done quickly after the August recess, leaving plenty of time to push the bill through the Senate during the fall session. In doing so, she issued her first warning to colleagues who might think they have better things to do in December: "We'll be in until Christmas, so I'm not worried about it."

There are two easy explanations for the delay. The first is that energy is competing for attention with another big-ticket issue: health care reform. The second is that Democrats are worried about cobbling together votes. Undoubtedly both are true to some extent, but it might also be that her staff needs time to organize hearings and write legislation, likely modelled after that passed by the House on June 26. After all, Boxer shouldn't have a problem getting a bill out of her committee, which consists of 12 Democrats and seven Republicans.

The difficulty will come when the bill hits the Senate floor, where it will surely need 60 out of 100 votes to pass. Boxer's committee is the most important of several that will take up the issue and then report legislative language to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Congressional Quarterly reports that Reid has pushed back his deadline for committee work by 10 days, to 28 September. That's certainly not enough to derail the whole process, but every day counts.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on July 09, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Dark allegations are being muttered about the ongoing International Renewable Energy Agency meeting in Egypt.

The agency, known as IRENA, is not even up and running yet and already sources are reporting tiffs over where it should be sited and how much power (no pun intended) the nuclear industry should have.

Even before the meeting in Sharm El Sheik began today some were warning that the French government was backing a push by the United Arab Emirates to host IRENA in Abu Dhabi in order to ensure it was friendly to nuclear power.

“An IRENA located in Abu Dhabi under such circumstances would be ‘nuclear tainted’ because the negotiating process used to select a host country would be based on support for nuclear power,” Eric Martinot, of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, told the Huffington Post. “Are the original goals of IRENA being co-opted so that renewables become a mere appendage to a nuclear agenda – ‘sprinkling some renewables on top of our nuclear power?’”

Continue reading "UAE and Germany fight for IRENA" »

Posted by Daniel Cressey on June 29, 2009
Categories: Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The legislative process wasn't pretty, but the US House of Representatives voted 219-212 on 26 June to approve the most sweeping piece of energy and environmental legislation in history. (New York Times)

The predictable result is a bill that almost nobody likes. Greenpeace's opposition illustrates a general sentiment on the left side of the political spectrum that the bill's Democratic sponsors, Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, compromised too much. The US Chamber of Commerce says they compromised too little. And even the American Farm Bureau, whose members sought and won massive concessions in a deal that secured enough votes for passage, maintained its opposition (for a rather scathing take on this issue, see Steven Pearlstein's column in the Washington Post).

What holds the current coalition together is a core group of seasoned legislators backed by pragmatic environmentalists and businesses who understand and are willing to play by the rules on Capitol Hill. And of course a president who supports the idea. In this respect, it's hard to imagine a more concrete example of the political transformation wrought by the past two elections (whether this momentum will carry through a third election in 2010 is an open question - and one that increases pressure on Democrats to get the job done this year).

At its core, the bill would create a cap-and-trade system that would reduce covered greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But the legislation contains a host of initiatives meant to boost things like energy efficiency and renewable power while controlling costs on industry and consumers. Nearly every one has its critics.

Continue reading "Climate bill clears US House, faces long road ahead" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on June 27, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier

A gargantuan plan of supplying European consumers with electricity generated in the Saharan desert could see the light of day earlier than even the most optimistic solar energy aficionados had expected.

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a group of 20 large German companies, led by the reinsurance giant Munich Re, and also including Siemens, Deutsche Bank and RWE, is determined to go ahead with an €400 billion project known as Desertec. If fully realized, the envisaged network of huge solar thermal power plants across North Africa could provide up to 15 % of Europe’s overall electricity needs by mid-century.

Next month already, the group plans to create a consortium that is to look in more detail into the technical and financial feasibility of the envisaged project. Developing concrete plans could take two to three years, Torsten Jeworek, a Munich Re board member, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

Continue reading "German firms look to draw power from the Sahara" »

Posted by Quirin Schiermeier on June 17, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The White House opened its gates to a gaggle of science reporters Tuesday as administration officials and scientists released a much-anticipated assessment of global warming's impacts on the United States. The message - global warming is upon us - was delivered clearly and forcefully, several times over.

Hardly a novel finding, but, in a sign of the times, the audience proved receptive. The report echoed over the wires (see the Washington Post, New York Times) and filled up email in-boxes as environmental groups and politicians put their seal on the document.

President Barack Obama's chief science adviser, John Holdren, called the report "the most up-to-date, comprehensive and authoritative assessment" of global warming in the United States. The document focuses on regional impacts, he added, "talking about climate where people actually experience it: in their back yards."

Continue reading "US releases assessment of climate impacts" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on June 16, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Shell has settled out of court in the case brought against them by a group including Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr., son of Ken Saro-Wiwa, an environmental activist executed in Nigeria in 1995. (see previous post here

Shell was accused of complicity in human-rights abuses, including Saro-Wiwa's execution. The settlement sees Shell pay $15.5 million, although the company says this is part of a process of reconciliation, rather than an admission of guilt.

Image: Friends of the Earth International

Posted by Katharine Sanderson on June 09, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The United States has accidentally published a top-secret, highly-classified, I'd-show-you-but -then-I'd-have-to-kill-you list of nuclear installations on the Internets.

OK, it's not quite that bad. What they've gone and done is published a "highly confidential" disclosure document that was meant for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This document is part of the US obligation under the IAEA "additional protocol"—a set of rules that requires America to provide the agency with a list of the location and type of civilian nuclear facilities currently on its territory. You can find the whole document on Secrecy News, the excellent blog of the Federation of American Scientists website.

The key word there is civilian. This list doesn't disclose anything about the facilities in which the US handles or dismantles its nuclear weapons. But it does have the addresses, details and sometimes schematics, of every other nuclear facility in the country (click the image for an example). Not exactly the sort of thing the government may have wanted to go public with in the post-9/11 world. The government is particularly sweating the publication of detailed information about the Y-12 site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. "That's of great concern," energy secretary Stephen Chu told a congressional committee.

Of course there's a silver lining, the document does show that the US is taking seriously its obligations to the IAEA.

UPDATE: Secrecy News has taken down the file, but nothing dies on the Internet. You can find it on WikiLeaks.

Image: Super-secret US archives/GPO

Posted by Geoff Brumfiel on June 04, 2009
Categories: Energy, Physics & Mathematics, Policy | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted for Anjali Nayar

The Nigerian senate has set a new deadline for oil companies to end gas flaring; December 13, 2010, reports ThisDay, a daily Nigerian newspaper.

The deadline will be binding once a bill, called the Gas Flaring (Prohibition and Punishment) Bill 2009, is passed in the National Assembly.

It’s not the first time a date has been set for oil companies in the Niger Delta to clean up their act. Nigeria first outlawed gas flaring in 1979. Over the years, the main oil companies in the region – Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), ExxonMobil and Chevron – have all set targets for the phase-out that didn’t materialize. The last deadline, in December 2008, also went by without action.

"It's a history of shifting goal posts, missing deadline after deadline,” Vivian Bellonwu, a local activist told the BBC in January.

The cheapest way to deal with gas, a byproduct from crude oil extraction, is by burning it. According to the World Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership, Nigeria flared around 16.8 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2007, about 2.5% of the natural gas consumption in the US. Burning the gas also produces small amounts of over 250 toxins.

Of course, if the natural gas was allowed to seep out without burning, it would have a much greater environmental impact. Campaigners would like to see it captured instead.

Continue reading "An end to Nigerian gas flares?" »

Posted by Daniel Cressey on May 21, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A senior official in the Obama administration held an anonymous background briefing with reporters Monday evening, confirming earlier reports that the administration plans to issue new regulations for automobiles tomorrow.

Given that the official largely confirmed everything that has already been written, it wasn't entirely clear why anonymity was required, but there you go. The new standard does indeed achieve the same requirement in 2016 as the California standard, although the ramp-up in the first three years is slightly slower. California has consequently agreed to drop its request for a separate standard, at least through 2016.

The proposed rule, to be filed jointly by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department, would break vehicles into unspecified categories and require each category to increase in fuel-efficiency. This new system is designed to ensure that all vehicles improve, because companies can't simply make a few more fuel-efficient vehicles to offset their gas-guzzlers. Manufacturers would still be required to make sure that their entire fleet meets the average of 35.5 miles per gallon.

The official said the new proposal is expected to add $600 to the price of a new car on average, in addition to the $700 increase expected from the previous regulations. But once you factor in savings due to increased fuel efficiency, the official explained, 'it might end up being a wash."

Although the proposal must still negotiate the regular rule-making process, the administration seems confident that it will sail through as written, thanks to support from not only California but also the automobile manufacturers themselves.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on May 19, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The White House is poised to announce new federal standards for automobile manufacturers on Tuesday. Early news reports suggest that the deal will settle a long-standing dispute with California and create the first greenhouse gas standards for vehicles (Associated Press, Washington Post).

Indeed, reports suggest that the administration is going to essentially take the California standard and apply it across the nation. Such a move would reduce cumulative greenhouse gas emissions from new automobiles by nearly 30 percent by 2016. This translates into a mileage standard of about 35 miles per gallon (nearly 15 kilometers per liter) in 2016, which is in line with the standards that California had been proposing and four years ahead of the current schedule.

California proposed its greenhouse gas standards in 2004, but it needed a Clean Air Act waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency in order to institute the regulations. Automakers immediately sued, arguing that California was using the Clean Air Act to indirectly regulate fuel economy, which is something that only the federal government can do (the issue is still tied up in court).

EPA sided with automakers in December 2007, but Barack Obama pledged to reverse that decision during the presidential campaign. Now it looks like he will be able to fulfill that pledge, even as he overhauls the entire sector in an attempt to preserve some kind of future for beleaguered US auto companies.

The issue is also tied up with the Supreme Court decision granting EPA the authority to set greenhouse gas emissions for vehicles. EPA recently proposed a finding on that account, but it's not year clear how these two issues might play out in the current decision. Stay tuned.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on May 18, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

European Commission plans to create a new department for energy and climate change have been criticised by members of the European Parliament (MEPs), the European Voice reports.

In a letter to Jose Manuel Barosso, the president of the Commission, the MEPs say they are “astonished” that the new department may be established. They express concern that combining energy and climate change in one department presents “a risk that short term economic interest would interfere and conflict with the aim of designing effective and sustainable climate priorities”.

Currently energy and climate change are dealt with in separate directorates.

The MEPs also fear that “internal speculation” within the Commission about the new directorate and its responsibilities could be “highly damaging” to the EU’s preparations and performance in the climate change negotiations due to take in Copenhagen, Denmark in December this year.

Last year, the EU Observer reported that detailed proposals for the scope and structure for the new directorate would be expected by 1 May.

Posted by Natasha Gilbert on May 18, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

House Democrats announced Tuesday that they are close to a preliminary agreement on US climate legislation, meaning the Energy and Commerce Committee could complete its work on schedule next week.

Reuters reports, via the Washington Post, that the deal would ease the requirement for reducing overall emissions from 20 to 17 percent by 2020. The language would also allow upward of 35 percent of the emissions allowances to be given away for free to utilities in the early years.

Obama, Democratic leadership and most economists think a 100 percent auction is wisest because each company must then pays for the right to pollute, but news of a compromise on these principles is hardly surprising. This is one easy place for political bargains to be struck with lawmakers who want to protect one industry or another in their state.

Meanwhile, Greenwire is reporting that Committee Democrats have also reached a deal on a renewable electricity standard, long a top priority among environmentalists. Many set their sites on 25 percent by 2025, but the House language would apparently reduce that to 20 percent and allow a quarter of the requirement to be met through improvements in energy efficiency.

Continue reading "House Democrats report progress on climate" »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on May 13, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Image courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Despite pressure from many environmentalists, the Obama administration upheld a Bush administration rule limiting the regulatory impact of last year's decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

The rule would essentially prevent the Endangered Species Act from becoming a venue for arguments about greenhouse gas emissions. And the logic is simple enough: Bear biologists hopefully have better things to do than analyze greenhouse gases from, say, a cement plant in Georgia, even if emissions from that plant contribute to global warming and the retreat of sea ice, which ultimately translates into hungry bears.

"We already are doing everything we can to protect the polar bear," US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told reporters Friday. "The Endangered Species Act, however, is not in my view the proper mechanism for controlling our nation’s carbon emissions."

This does not necessarily mean that the administration doesn't care about climate. Indeed, Salazar reiterated Obama's call for a comprehensive regulatory regime for greenhouse gases (and presumably one that would be enforced not by biologists but the Environmental Protection Agency, which has more expertise regulating industrial airborne pollutants).

But some environmentalist groups refused to let him off the hook. Greenpeace, for instance, went so far as to cite the decision as evidence of an "emerging willingness by the Obama administration to ignore clear scientific imperatives on global warming in the face of industry pressure."

Many viewed the environmentalists' polar bear strategy as part of a broad effort to apply regulatory pressure wherever possible in hopes of forcing action at the federal level. Whether or not they challenge the polar bear rule, there's no reason to think that this debate is going to end here.

The polar bear might be the first species to receive federal protection due primarily to long-term threats posed by global warming, but the US Fish and Willdife Service is already analyzing whether similar protection should be granted for the pika, a hardy rodent that typically lives among rocks high in the mountains. Indeed, there's no end to the list of plants and animals that stand to lose their homes as the world heats up.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on May 08, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Shell has pulled back its plans for drilling in the Arctic, but insists this does not mean the end of this controversial oil exploration.

In the face of huge opposition from environmentalists and native groups, the company has withdrawn its plans for drilling in Beaufort Sea in the 2007-2009 period and says it will be back with a more modest proposal for 2010.

“Over the last three years, Shell's Beaufort Sea drilling objectives have become more focused with the acquisition and analysis of additional seismic data,” says Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s general manager (statement pdf, via KTVA). “As a result, the 2007-2009 plan no longer represents Shell’s current drilling approach.”

The NY Times Green Inc blog says the decision will be seen as a “costly setback” for the company, which spent $2.1 billion to obtain oil leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. However, the Financial Times Energy Source blog says:

The move is really only a formal acceptance of a position that was generally understood already: drilling this year was going to be too difficult. Shell insists, however, that this is a setback, not a defeat. In the Arctic, one of the last great frontiers for oil and gas exploration, it is playing the long game.

Last month a court ruled that the leases granted to oil companies in the Chukchi were invalid, as the US Minerals Management Service had failed to do proper environmental checks before issuing them. Slaiby said then that Shell still had “every intention of pursuing a drilling program in the Beaufort and the Chukchi” (Reuters).

Image: Beaufort Sea, by Kevin Raskoff / NOAA

Posted by Daniel Cressey on May 08, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Following up on California's announcement last week, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed the nation's first greenhouse gas standards for biofuels on Tuesday (AP)

The much-anticipated analysis confirms that corn ethanol often increases greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline, largely due to the impact of indirect emissions. These result from foreign farmers cutting down forests and planting new crops in response to rising grain prices. That said, the analysis suggests that there is plenty of room for improvement in the production of corn ethanol (for instance, by switching to natural gas or biomass as a heat source during production). Corn ethanol also performs better over the long haul, gradually overcoming the initial spike in emissions due to deforestation.

EPA will use these standards to implement the US biofuels mandate, which requires companies to meet various greenhouse gas requirements as they ramp up production in the coming years. It came as part of a broader set of White House initiatives that seem to offer up a little something for everybody. The administration underscored its support for the industry by creating a high level biofuels working group, while announcing $786.5 million in stimulus funding to promote a range of biofuel research and development activities.

Environmentalists are pleased to see that the administration isn't ignoring the latest science regarding ethanol's unintended impacts. The Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group, is pleased to see ample wiggle room in the way the numbers work out. And according to Reuters, investors are pleased to see that the administration isn't turning its back on biofuels altogether.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on May 05, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Shell’s profits tumbled by 62% to $3.49 billion in the first quarter of this year (from $9.08 billion from last year, AP), and meanwhile the oil company remains committed to hoiking oil out of gloopy, sticky tar sands in Canada (see this Nature story from earlier this year for a description of the stuff).

The slump is blamed on falling oil prices. According to a Market Watch report Shell “sold oil for, on average, 54% less than it did in the same quarter last year. Gas prices dropped 15%.”

The tar sands project has been roundly criticised by environmentalists, because they say getting oil out of these tar sands is a messy, carbon-intensive process. But Shell is pressing ahead with the project: “When we build projects, we take a long-term view. Oil sands is something that produces for 30-40 years and you do not get too nervous if short-term volatility drives you in a down cycle,” CEO Peter Voser is quoted by the Guardian.

Bloomberg is reporting another Oil sands company also posting huge losses – bigger than Shell’s: Canadian Oil Sands profits dropped by 86% this quarter compared to last year.

Image: US DOI

Posted by Katharine Sanderson on April 30, 2009
Categories: Energy, Financial Crisis | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, not to be confused with the Major Economies Meeting (also known as the Major Emitters Meeting) of yesteryear, wrapped up with little fanfare at the U.S. State Department in Washington Tuesday.

A holdover from the administration of George W. Bush, the meeting serves as a venue for less formal global warming talks among 17 countries accounting for some 75 percent of global emissions. Many accused Bush of using the process to undercut the United Nations process, but even critics acknowledged that the idea - bringing key players together for parallel talks on the big issues - was sound.

No major news has come from the meeting, but then again nothing was really expected. Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, says the closest the parties ever got to actual numbers - representing emissions cuts and monetary commitments - was a presentation by Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, regarding emissions trajectories and potential scenarios for stabilzing carbon dioxide levels.

But by all accounts the administration is taking the process seriously. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton kicked things off on 27 April, and President Barack Obama himself reportedly visited with the foreign delegations.

"The fact that he took time out of his schedule to actually do that is important symbolically," Schmidt says. "He didn’t talk too much, mostly listened. He mostly wanted to kind of hear their perspective, and I think that’s an important way to reach out to these countries and build some trust."

It's still early in the year, and so far international delegates are pleased to report that trust is indeed building (for a sampling, check the Washington Post's coverage). But clearly negotiators have a long way to go if they are to sign any meaningful agreement in Copenhagen this December.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on April 28, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu found himself on the hot seat once again Wednesday, as congressional Republicans pinned him down about past comments on the value of higher energy prices (previously it was coal). Representative Cliff Stearns (Republican, Florida) asked Chu about a remark he made last year suggesting that the United States would benefit from European gasoline prices. It's worked for Europe, but gas prices are a touchy issue on Capitol Hill.

In light of the current economic crisis, Stearns asked, would Chu still seek to raise gas prices on American families? Chu said such a policy would be "unwise."

"You can't honestly believe that," Stearns pressed. "You want Americans to pay for gasoline at European prices?"

"No."

"Doesn't that sound a little bit silly, in retrospect?"

"Yes."

The exchange came as Chu and two of President Barack Obama's other top environmental appointees, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday. At issue was the leading climate bill, spearheaded by Chairman Henry Waxman (Democrat, California), which would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 80 percent below 2005 levels by mid-century.

Continue reading "Chu " »

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on April 22, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Further details of what is expected in the UK’s budget on Wednesday are leaking out into the press. The Independent first reported the government’s plans for a green budget on 8 April (The Great Beyond).

Alastair Darling, the chancellor, is expected to announce a £500 million green stimulus package, including £200 million for wind turbines, hydro-electric power and other renewable energy technologies, says a report in the Times

The BBC reports that the chancellor will announce two carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. It is unclear if funding will be earmarked for these projects, though.

Continue reading "Hundreds of millions for green technology expected in UK budget " »

Posted by Natasha Gilbert on April 20, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Financial Crisis, Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Despite being one of the great green hopes for the future, electric cars still have a long road to travel before they can hope to replace their internally-combusted brethren.

To illustrate this, AFP is today reporting that agreement has been reached on a ‘common plug’ for recharging the vehicles. In a few years drivers may find themselves pulling into filling stations and saying, “Fill her up with 400-volt three-pin premium.”

That’s right; despite multiple cars being available or in development and some governments already considering thousand pound subsidies of the vehicles it has only just been decided how drivers will actually juice them up.

Continue reading "Universal plug for electric cars?" »

Posted by Daniel Cressey on April 20, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted for David Cyranoski

The Japanese press is reporting that senior ruling party parliament member and former finance minister Shoichi Nakagawa called for Japan to develop a nuclear weapons program yesterday [Sunday].

Reports of nuclear bomb ambitions aren't new in Japan, but they are always controversial.

Japan, the only country to suffer a nuclear strike, has long held a no-nuke position, and most of its populace take great pride in it. Most Japanese get nervous about nuclear energy, and power companies have been defeated often by local initiatives rejecting new nuclear plants. Observers here refer to it as a "nuclear allergy" among the populace (Referendum stalls Japanese nuclear power strategy - June 2001).

Continue reading "Japan facing nuclear future?" »

Posted by Daniel Cressey on April 20, 2009
Categories: Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted for David Cyranoski

Advocates of nuclear power in Japan, having long struggled to convince a skeptical populace of the need for more and new forms of nuclear power, have certainly had their run of bad luck.

Or maybe it isn't luck.

On Monday 13 April Hitachi admitted that data related to the heat-treatment process used for pipe welding on moisture-separator heaters, which increase thermal efficiency by removing moisture from steam, had been falsified.

Hitachi admitted the equipment, in use at two nuclear plants in Shizuoka and Shimane prefectures, was not operating as specified but maintained there are no safety concerns (which, if that's the case, makes you wonder why someone would require collecting that data in the first place).

Continue reading "Japan’s nuclear woes" »

Posted by Daniel Cressey on April 17, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Another day, another security lapse at one of the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons labs.

The Government Accountability Office is reporting yet again that there are security lapses in the complex, this time at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, near San Francisco.

LLNL is one of three DOE national labs that designs, handles and stores nuclear weapons. It also maintains stores of plutonium and enriched uranium.

Investigators found 13 specific deficiencies in the security force employed to counteract a terrorist attack. Among other problems, the security force didn't put on chemical masks fast enough, and a tank-like vehicle with a mounted machine gun failed to "competently support" the mission. Investigators also found seven instances of lapses in physical security, i.e., issues with alarms and keys and vaults.

Yet the lab was assessed with a security performance grade of 100% by the on-site federal oversight office of the National Nuclear Security Agency, the quasi-independent, but much-maligned organization within DOE that's supposed to be responsible for the weapons labs.

Posted by Eric Hand on April 16, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE – Current Nature editor Philip Campbell’s tribute, John Maddox 1925–2009, is now on our website:

It was with great sadness that I and my colleagues at Nature learned of the death on Sunday of Sir John Maddox — or 'JM', as his colleagues always referred to him.

There was puzzlement, too. Yes, John had been looking frail recently, but, well, this was JM — the perpetually restless, irresistible, unstoppable force. The editor who conducted some gatherings with 'shock and awe' as some recall. The 'man with a whim of iron' as others used to call him. And the man who survived countless cigarettes and glasses of red wine, many consumed late into the night as he wrote the week's Editorials at the last possible moment.

As Walter Gratzer, of King’s College, London, wrote recently, “John Maddox brought an old-fashioned Nature into the modern age from the mid-1960s.” (History of Nature feature.)

A full appreciation from Nature will follow shortly. Meanwhile, here is what the world is saying.

Without too much trouble I could probably fill blogs for a month with tales of John: of waiting at the typesetter while he finished an editorial way beyond deadline; of a plan to visit Mexico together when we wined and dined the very attractive press attache at the Mexican Consulate; of how he regularly set fire to his waste-paper basket. Of being sent to the wine bar with a fiver for a bottle of Chateau Thames. Of him disappearing on a Friday night and saying, as the door closed, that he wanted a thousand words from me by Monday for the following week’s issue – on anything I pleased. Of many cases of exasperation and irritation, and many more acts of kindness.

- Henry Gee, Nature editor

He was one of those fellows who shaped the direction of science for quite a long period of time with the power of one of the most influential science journals in the world. I suspect every scientist of my generation read his editorials in our weekly perusal of the journal.

- PZ Myers, Pharyngula

One of the toughest adversaries I’ve ever wrangled with is Sir John Maddox. He was hard-headed, scarily knowledgeable, hyper-articulate, unfailingly gracious even as he ripped you a new one.

- John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology

As Editor of Nature, he restored the journal to an unchallenged position as the place to publish interesting research quickly, and did so at a time when Britain’s influence in world science was otherwise declining. His judgments, sometimes quirky but never dull, were always backed by persuasive argument and a sense of humour.

- The Times

It was a mark of his skilled editorship that Nature could publish a paper on, say, the Loch Ness monster without sacrificing its authority.

“He took command of Nature in a big way,” the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said. “He had a tremendous grasp of science in the full range, from physics to biology to public affairs as they affected the world of science.”

Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society and Britain’s astronomer royal, called Mr. Maddox “a dominant figure,” adding that “he helped establish Nature’s status internationally and built it up by developing supplements to increase its coverage.” After retiring as editor in 1995, he assumed an influential elder statesman role, acting, Mr. Rees said, “as a general guru of science and scientific policy.”

- NY Times

"He adored science and talked about it all the time," she [his daughter, Bronwen Maddox] says. "He was enormously enthused by it. He was a physicist, and took to the biological sciences with enthusiasm, but I think his heart stayed in physics."

- Scientific American

Posted by Daniel Cressey on April 14, 2009
Categories: Chemistry, Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Financial Crisis, Health and medicine, Neat technologies, On Nature News | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In 2007 an earthquake in Japan shut down the world’s largest nuclear power station. Now Kashiwazaki-Kariwa looks set to re-start.

Just after the quake, Nature’s Asia correspondent wrote, “No one died as a result of Japan's latest nuclear incident and environmental damage seem have been mostly avoided. But is this testimony to successful plant design or a warning of impending disaster?”

The plant’s operator Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) says a host of measures have been implemented at the plant since the 6.8 magnitude quake, but agreement of the leaders of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa is still required before the plant can restart.

According to the Financial Times the plant accounts for 13% of TEPCO’s electricity generating capacity.

A date for a final meeting between the three groups – TEPCO, Kashiwazaki and Kariwa – has yet to be set, but approval for a test run of one of the seven reactors at the site has been given, says AFP.

“We think the safety of the reactor has been confirmed,” says Kashiwazaki Mayor Hiroshi Aida (Japan Times). “We would like to hold a meeting of three parties toward the resumption of the operation.”

However geology professor Masaaki Tateishi told AFP, “There has not been enough discussion in terms of the evaluation of geological faults near the plant, which is essential in defining its quake-resistance strength.”

Image: Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant / TEPCO

Posted by Daniel Cressey on April 09, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In early March, the National Ignition Facility fired up its lasers and emitted a 1 million joule pulse of highly concentrated light. The demonstration came ahead of schedule for the over-budget facility, which cost $3.5 billion--almost 3 times its original budget of $1.2 billion--to complete. On Tuesday, the Department of Energy gave its blessing for the facility to go ahead with regular operations, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The new facility, which is part of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, has three planned missions: It will provide a way to nondestructively monitor the health of existing nuclear weapons stockpiles, and will be used to simulate early conditions in the Universe. But it's real glamour comes from plans to trigger controlled nuclear fusion, in which the lasers would heat a small core of hydrogen atoms until they fuse together and released more energy than the laser put in.

Controlled nuclear fusion has been a goal for physicists since the discovery of lasers, but is also the butt of decades of science jokes, since its proponents have been declaring it 'just a decade away' for decades.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Tuesday that current Secretary of Energy Steven Chu told an audience in 2006: "I'm going to skip (discussing) fusion because it will probably skip the 21st century."

If it does emerge this century, it may happen simultaneously in Europe: a similar French laser facility, called Laser Mégajoule, is slated to begin operations in 2010, according to a recent Nature story.

Posted by Lucas Laursen on April 01, 2009
Categories: Energy, Physics & Mathematics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The US military could become a major player on the green-energy scene, says AFP. According to the news service, the Pentagon is actively seeking ways to save energy and to switch to renewable sources.

The Pentagon, says AFP, is already trying to reach a target of obtaining 25% of its electricity from renewables by 2025. There are strong reasons to go green beyond climate change too: a 1% decrease in fuel consumption would mean 6,400 fewer soldiers in fuel convoys at risk of insurgent attacks.

“When you don’t use as much fuel, not only does it not cost you as much, but it also saves lives and injuries of those people who would have to deliver fuel through hostile territory,” says Keith Eastin, assistant army secretary for Installations and the Environment.

AFP also notes that Obama’s stimulus package earmarked $300 million for Defense Department research on renewable energy. Some of the research from this may eventually lead to clean-tech in the non-military sector.

“Just by nature of the fact that we are big, we can be a test bed for a whole lot of things that normally wouldn't seem to make a lot of powerful economic sense,” says Eastin.

Full article: Gas-guzzling Pentagon going green.

Image: modified from aerial photograph of the Pentagon by Tech. Sgt. Andy Dunaway, U.S. Air Force / DoD

Posted by Daniel Cressey on March 30, 2009
Categories: Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last November, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a US government decision allowing Shell Oil Co. to explore for petroleum north of Alaska. On 6 March, the same court vacated its own decision, leaving everybody scratching their heads.

The original decision ordered the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to redo its analysis of environmental and cultural impacts of oil development. Unfortunately, the one-paragraph ruling issued this month didn't offer any other details, except to say that a new decision would be forthcoming at an unspecified date.

MMS opened up new territory in the Beaufort Sea to leasing several years ago, although environmental groups have been fighting the development each step of the way. Reuters reports that Shell Oil spent US$83.7 million on MMS lease sales in 2005 and 2008, along with US$2.1 billion on leases in the nearby Chukchi Sea.

What happens next is anybody's guest. Shell had initially planned to begin its exploration program in 2007, but the ongoing legal battle has pushed that off until at least 2010, depending on what eventually comes out of the Ninth Circuit.

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on March 10, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Many of Washington's top power brokers gathered at the Newseum for four hours Monday, hoping to present a unified front on energy and climate. They made it look easy: Absolutely everybody agreed that building a more efficient and advanced electric grid will create jobs, enable renewable energy development, enhance national security security and help address global warming.

"I'm struck by the tone of this meeting, and the sense of purpose," said former US Vice President Al Gore. His former boss, Bill Clinton, followed up with a similar sentiment and then added: "Finally, we've got a consensus to move." Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid called the meeting "inspirational."

So what's holding things up? As Clinton went on to acknowledge, "details matter." For all of the agreement about achieving a future powered by clean domestic energy, there are plenty of disputes about exactly what that means and how to get there.

People matter, too. While the list of attendees included much of the American left, including Congressional leaders and White House appointments, as well as representatives of business, labor and the environmental community, Republican lawmakers were nowhere to be found.

The meeting represents a confluence of interests, most notably between the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund and the oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, who is pushing a plan to develop wind and domestic natural gas resources in place of imported oil. Organizers say the purpose was to build support and showcase the growing coalition of interests.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Reid confirmed that senators would take up legislation creating a new federal requirement for renewable energy production in the coming weeks, before tackling global warming later in the year. Doing so simplifies things and gives Democrats time to garner more Republican support, he said. "We do not what global warming legislation to be a Democratic bill. We want it to be a bipartisan bill."

Reid also announced his support for increasing federal government's role in siting transmission lines (see coverage here and here), another divisive issue that frequently gets in the way of otherwise friendly discussions about bolstering the electric grid. Asked about likely opposition from state and local regulators, however, Reid appeared a little less concerned about unity: "Whatever we pass at the federal level trumps all of that."

Posted by Jeff Tollefson on February 23, 2009
Categories: Earth, environment & ecology, Energy, Policy | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

BP is teaming up with Verenium to build a commercial-scale cellulosic biofuels plant that produces 36 million US gallons of ethanol a year, though the first drops won't emerge from pipes until 2012. It's one of the largest cellulosic plants to be announced thus far (along with Mascoma's 40 million gallon proposal for Michigan); Reuters has a helpful list of all open and planned US cellulosic plants, for comparison.

The scale of these grown-up cellulosic plants seems staggering: it will take 20,000 acres (8,000) hectares of sorghum grass planted across Highlands County, South Florida, to feed the behemoth. Such plants can't get much larger, or it won't be practical to grow all the feedstock. A federal mandate, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, requires fuel wholesalers to use 1 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013, but analyst Ron Oster tells Environmental Capital (a Wall Street Journal blog) that "There is no way at all that will happen."

Verenium say they are hoping to produce fuel at $2 a gallon - on a par with gasoline - though the building cost alone is estimated to be between $250 and $300 million. And the two companies said they planned to build another full-scale facility in the Gulf Coast.

"It signals that the most sophisticated players in the industry are looking at this ... it's not just curious science but a real contributor," Carlos Riva, chief executive of Verenium, told reporters [The Guardian]. So far the partners have put $45 million into a 50-50 joint venture company.

Image: Sorghum/ wikimedia commons

Posted by Richard Van Noorden on February 20, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The reputation of nuclear energy in Russia, as elsewhere in Europe, took a mighty tumble after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. But nowhere else has the industry considered that a beauty contest might help its rehabilitation.

Russia’s sixth such contest is now ongoing. Any female between 18 and 35 who works for the industry in the former Soviet republics may enter Miss Atom 2009, reports the German news magazine Der Spiegel. And nearly three hundred have done so. Their pictures are displayed in an online gallery with text supporting their candidature – and, of course, their vital statistics. Some of the more serious beauty contestants say they hope for world peace. More career-orientated contestants say things like “I don’t need a modelling course - I am, after all, an employee of the company ‘Atomtrudesurcy’”.

Visitors to the gallery can vote online. The three winners will be selected on 5 March. They will win holidays in Cuba, Morocco and the Adriatic – “not crude money, but fun,” according to the organiser of the contest, Ilya Platonow.

Platonow told Der Spiegel that the contest, with its promotion of all that is healthy and beautiful in the controversial energy sector, should finally torpedo ‘the cliché of dangerous and threatening nuclear energy’. Russia is a major exporter of nuclear power stations. It plans to build more at home to increase the proportion of energy from nuclear sources from 17% to 25%.

Posted by Alison Abbott on February 19, 2009
Categories: Energy | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)