From Reuters:
Ailing U.S. oil refiners could face a crippling period of contraction under a House-approved climate change bill, making the country more dependent on imported refined products…
The bill is “going to put them out of business,” said Phil Flynn, analyst at PFGBest Research in Chicago. “I think you’re going to see refiners close down, especially in this environment we’re in right now.”
Germans say “not under our backyard” to carbon capture and storage, reports The Guardian.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s legislative proposal to revive offshore oil drilling went down to ignominious defeat as the California Assembly stripped the provision from a budget bill drafted to close the state’s $26 billion budget, reports Greenwire.
And to think that last year at this time, some were crowing about how an agreement with the greens had been reached to revive California drilling.
North Carolina legislators are split over a bill banning wind turbines that ruin the beauty of the mountains, reports the Winston-Salem Journal.
Maryland’s bright green Gov. Martin O’Malley banned wind turbines from state park lands for aesthetic reasons in 2008.
Does this mean that the planetary emergency is over?
“Two independent studies have found direct emissions from producing, transporting and refining oil sands crude are in the same range as those of the other crudes refined in the United States,” reports the Alberta Energy Research Institute.
These are important studies as the greens are moving to block the import of oil produced from Canadian tar sands. The 2007 energy bill, for example, prohibited the U.S. government from purchasing oil from sources (read “Canadian tar sands”) where the greenhouse gas emissions are greater on a lifecycle basis.
Check out these new policy briefs from Carnegie-Mellon University that discuss the legal and regulatory hurdles ahead for carbon capture and storage.
This excerpt from a ClimateWire story (“Carbon Capture: Consultants help companies tap into stimulus dollars,” July 17) describes the real energy crisis:
Take the case of Joe Tondu, president of Tondu Corp., an independent power generator looking to construct new plants.
Tondu said his firm couldn’t build coal plants because no one would approve its permits, and it couldn’t build carbon-capturing coal plants because their costs remain too high.
When the company struck out to invest in renewables, it met another roadblock: To get stimulus funds from the Department of Energy, Tondu would have to get an environmental impact review for each project. That would have offered local interests “a huge opportunity to stall your project for years and years and years,” he argued, and it ultimately derailed the company’s plan.
“It’s almost unbelievably easy to slow down … it created another hurdle we just couldn’t get through,” he said
We’re not running out of energy. The crisis is being caused by the government and greens who have choke-holds on the ability of businesses to produce energy.
The Sierra Club and other green groups petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop the construction of a second reactor at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar Plant in Tennessee.
WBIR TV (Knoxville) reported,
“TVA keeps pushing for more nuclear reactors in spite of massive cost overruns they always have when they build them,” said Bill Reynolds, a member of the Tennessee chapter of the Sierra Club, in a written statement.
The group also raises concerns about the safety of the reactor design.
Waxman-Markey was a win for the East in the brewing battle over renewable energy jobs, the New York Times reported yesterday.
Eastern states oppose a super-high voltage transcontinental grid that would reduce the need for wind farms in their region. Waxman-Markey blocks the federal government from overturning eastern state objections to new transmission lines.
Excessive reliance on wind power jeopardizes the UK’s energy security says, the business advocacy group CBI.
According to a report in the Financial Times, CBI warns,
Britain will see rapid growth both in wind power and in new gas-fired power stations – needed when the wind is not blowing.
That will make the country more dependent on imported gas, from Russia and elsewhere, more exposed to volatile commodity prices, and less able to cut the CO2 emissions produced by burning fossil fuels.
Instead, the CBI wants more help for investment in new nuclear reactors and “clean coal” power stations that can capture and store emissions.
It’s too bad that CBI doesn’t yet understand that, if CO2 emissions are all it’s worried about, then coal is already “clean.”
Waxman-Markey’s emissions reductions goals will be more difficult to meet than previously thought, warned the electric utility industry in a July 6 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV).
Edison Electric Institute chief Tom Kuhn wrote,
“H.R. 2454 would require a reduction of GHG emissions of 3 percent below 2005 levels by 2012–only three years from now. In reality, accounting for growth in electricity demand since 2005, the 2012 requirement is closer to a 10 percent reduction in projected GHG emissions. Achieving this near-term reduction would impose an abrupt and significant price increase on electricity consumers. The House bill also would require a very aggressive 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions below 2005 levels by 2020. Again, we support a more reasonable and achievable 2020 target that will help cushion the cost impact on our consumers.”
So does EEI oppose Waxman-Markey? Amazingly, the answer is no. Instead EEI suggests: (1) price collars,
“We also strongly support inclusion of a price ‘collar,’ consisting of both a floor and a ceiling on emissions allowance prices, in climate legislation. This critical consumer protection measure would help limit economic harm to energy consumers, U.S. workers, and the economy, while discouraging market manipulation and encouraging technological development.”
(2) more free carbon allowances,
“Under H.R. 2454, allowances would sharply decline from 35 percent to zero over a five-year period from 2025 to 2029. Such a swift phase-out will lead to abruptly higher energy prices for consumers. Instead, we recommend a longer phase-out period of at least 15 years to help protect consumers from sudden energy price shocks.”
and (3) greater ability to participate in the fraudulent carbon offsets market,
“In addition, a number of improvements are needed in the offsets provisions. In the early years, offsets will be one of the few tools utilities will have for meeting targets. Quantitative restrictions, such as the 20 percent discount for international offsets, should be eliminated both to bolster the supply and to lower the price of domestic and international offsets. Moreover, a number of severe qualitative restrictions should be either eliminated or eased in order to assure a full and affordable supply of offsets.”
Like the American Chemistry Council’s Cal Dooley, EEI’s Tom Kuhn is ready to sell-out America to get a deal that he naively thinks will work for his industry.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is “days” away from releasing a Senate version of the Waxman-Markey bill that just passed the House, according to Carbon Control News.
Based on comments from Sen. John Kerry made at a July 8 hearing, the Senate version will “revise” [read “water down”] the Waxman-Markey imposition of tariffs on goods from countries that don’t reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
Click here for a new GAO report on trade options for climate legislation.
Unions won’t be happy about a retreat on tariffs…