Cape Wind; America's First Offshore Wind Farm Moves Ahead

The Cape Wind Project has received federal approval to move forward, initiating what will be the nation's very first offshore wind farm. The project, which will power an incredible 200,000 homes, has been delayed and challenged intermittently for years, but has finally received approval to enter into the construction phase of the project. The wind farm will be located near Nantucket Island off the coast of Massachusetts.

The project is not without its critics, however. Environmental groups argue that the project will harm what they consider a pristine ecosystem outside of Nantucket. The argument is similar to those which have arisen during proposals for large scale solar farms in the American Southwest, where concerns have arisen over the impact they may have on regional ecosystems.

This kind of argument, while not necessary invalid, is hard to wrap a pragmatic mind around. While I truly do understand the ethical and environmental problems associated with energy development of the kinds discussed here, it is foolhardy to suggest that they ought not be developed under the auspices of absolute environmental preservation. Unless we are too give up energy consumption completely there will never be an energy source which is entirely environmentally neutral. What is important is to choose the option on the positive end of the spectrum. Wind and solar farms do not contribute to climate change, do not pollute the air and water and can over time be developed to have as little environmental impact as possible. Coal consumption contributes greatly to air and water pollution, human health problems, climate change (which itself is a far greater threat to species around the planet than any disruption created by wind and solar farms) and socioeconomic depression. It is not merely foolish to oppose such projects with their limited environmental impact, but it is irresponsible. It is the imperative of our generation to change the way that we use energy, which is at the heart of nearly every environmental problem and potential solution. Opposition to the development of alternatives on absolutist grounds is not just irresponsible, it borders on being anti-environment.

Environmental Groups Suing Over Climate Change

Environmental groups and six states are suing utility companies over greenhouse gas emissions. The claim is that a recent supreme court ruling qualifies carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases as criteria air pollutants, and must therefore be controlled under the clean air act. As has been noted in this blog previously, the EPA recently began research to determine whether or not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the budget proposal that was just passed by Congress will strip funding and regulatory abilities for the EPA specifically targeted at greenhouse gas emission regulation.

As a result, the groups associated with the lawsuit are threatening to move forward with the case as a "backstop" measure to force greenhouse has regulation. While they would prefer EPA regulation or legislation, they will move forward with the suit in order force action.

Utility companies are claiming the usual industry talking points; regulation will increase cost, loss of jobs and so o and so forth. This threat is certainly an empty one, but it may very well have the intended effect of political entrapment.

Subsidizing the Oil Sands and the Real Cost of Oil

It is often noted by individuals who support continued fossil fuel use and development that alternative fuels simply are not cost effective. What is often ignored in that argument is the high level of subsidy which the taxpayer incurs in order to keep those prices down. What we pay at the pump, we think, is what we're paying for gas. This isn't correct. One of the most significant sources of government subsidy is in paying for the cleanup of environmental degradation. This fact is being brought into the nationwide debate over oil sands development in Canada.

Oil companies in the tar sands regions of Canada have left a massive tax liability at the foot of the Canadian tax payer. As it stands now, more than 10 billion in unfunded cleanup liabilities exist as the oil companies active in the tar sands region have intentionally ignored the funding requirements imposed on them. This money was supposed to be set aside in case they companies would need it for cleanup and restorations operations, but as it stands today, that money isn't there. This leaves the tax payer on the hook. At currents rates, the liability could total upwards of 6000 dollars for each tax paying citizen of Alberta.

While this is not the least bit surprising, as it seems the modus operandi of the oil industry to create externalities and pass their cost onto the tax payers, it should deeply bother any Canadian or environmentally conscious person to know that the largest corporations on Earth, and some of the most environmentally destructive, are disregarding their environmental responsibility while they take in record profits. It is necessary that environmentally exploitative companies be required to cover all of the costs associated with their actions, otherwise consumers will never be fully aware of the real cost of the products which they purchase.

National Geographic: Photo's from the Oil Sands

Obama Administration, Political Leaders Defend Nuclear Energy

Leaders in Washington defended American nuclear power this week, even going so far as to defend proposals to increase nuclear energy production. The U.S. secretary of energy and members of congress remain supportive of the Obama administration's plans to guarantee 36 billion dollars in loans for the nuclear energy industry in an effort to increase the industries role in the national energy supply.

Japanese Nuclear Crisis; Political Fallout

As the situation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant worsens, there has been a tempered response from most world leaders. German prime minister Angela Merkel announced this week that her government would temporarily suspend seven of the nation's nuclear power plants, but her response is not in line with international reaction. Czechoslovakia and France both responded by stating they would not yield to "nuclear hysteria" or reduce the role of nuclear energy in their countries futures. President Barack Obama stated he will continue to emphasize nuclear energy development, and while Chinese officials announced they would suspend nuclear energy project proposals temporarily, one can rest assured that such actions will soon be rescinded (see previous post).

The question then becomes two fold. Do American's feel that this crisis is justification to reduce the emphasis on nuclear energy, and is this incident reflective of universally applicable problems inherent in the technology ? The answer to the first question is difficult to answer. It is still too soon to know how American's feel in light of the crisis in Japan, but somewhat recent polls, such as this one from Gallup, suggest that a majority of American's support the use of nuclear power. The second question is a bit easier to address. The circumstances surrounding the destruction of the Japanese plant are unique. They were damaged by a once in a century earthquake (Japan is located in a major earthquake area) and a subsequent once in a lifetime tsunami. As a result, it is difficult to say how reflective this crisis is when looking at American use of nuclear power. What brought about this catastrophe has no bearing on potential nuclear energy problems in the U.S., though it does not mean that problems do not exist of a different variety.

While politicians will surely need to address the crisis in Japan when discussing future development of nuclear energy here in the states, it is clear that linking the disaster abroad with potential issues at home is unfair.

The Environmentalist's Carbon Dilemma; Clean Coal Technology

    In Illinois this week, officials from the well known FutureGen project announced that they will begin work on a project to refit an existing power plant with carbon capture technology. As is the way of carbon capture technologies, all carbon emissions from the coal fired plant will be trapped and stored underground in large rock formations where, advocates say, it will be safe and sound.

    But carbon capture and storage creates a dilemma of sorts for environmental activists; is this technology, which could make a significant impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, worth it in comparison to cleaner, more environmentally neutral renewable technologies ? The effects of coal powered electricity generation are not limited to carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to anthropogenic climate change. Mining practices themselves have enormous impacts on the environment, and just as significantly, can have a brutal impact on the socioeconomic status of coal mining towns.

    However, the threat of climate change is just as real, and perhaps even more significant in scope and impact. With renewable energy sources seemingly decades away from being utilized en mass, is carbon capture and storage an imperative transitional step ? Just as significantly, what impact will the successful employment of carbon capture have on the long term development of renewables ? If we are able to implement the technology successfully, suddenly our most powerful incentive to switch from renewable energy generation is lost, and the status quo and all of its environmental drawbacks are preserved. With the impending problems of climate change, is the option of not pursuing any and all possible carbon reduction technologies and practices even on the table ?

    The questions over carbon capture technology are significant for the thoughtful person. I suspect that the answers each person finds will reflect ones character. The most important thing is that you ask those questions and genuinely seek out their answers. Perhaps then we can begin a real dialogue over such a pressing issue.