Twitter headlines« Port of LA and SCAQMD Partner on Electric Tow Tractor Demonstration Project | Main | GE’s Weight-Reducing Contributions to the Chevrolet Volt »
US Senators Introduce New Climate Change Bill
13 January 2007
US Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John McCain (R-AZ), with co-sponsors Susan Collins (R-ME), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Barak Obama (D-IL), and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The new bill—S. 280—contains a declining cap provision that cuts greenhouse gas emissions steadily over time, managing costs while effectively reducing pollution.
Lieberman and McCain have introduced climate change legislation twice before—first in 2003 and then again in 2005. The 2005 version of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would have capped US greenhouse gas emissions at year 2000 levels without mandating further reductions. The new bill caps the greenhouse emissions of the electric power, industrial, transportation, and commercial sectors of the economy at year 2004 levels by 2012. It then lowers that cap steadily, to cut total US emissions by two-thirds from year 2004 levels by 2050.
Under the proposed legislation, greenhouse gas emissions would be cut from 6,100 metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2004 to about 2,100 metric tons in 2050.
In his remarks to the Senate on the bill, Senator McCain asserted that there are five essential elements to “any responsible climate change measure”:
Rational, mandatory emission reduction targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and have both environmental and economic integrity. We need policy that will produce necessary outcomes, not merely check political boxes. The goal must be feasible and based on sound science.
A market-based cap and trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow the trading of emission credits to drive enterprise, innovation and efficiency. “Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators in effecting sustainable change.”
Mechanisms to minimize costs and work effectively with other markets.
Spurring the development and deployment of advanced technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part of the equation, according to McCain.
Facilitating international efforts to solve the problem.
The bill’s support for more subsidies for nuclear power generation generated disagreement among some organizations who otherwise support the provisions of the bill, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
This first global warming bill of the new Congress shows our leaders in Washington are declaring that the era of delay has ended and the year of action has begun. They know what the American public already knows: to protect the climate, the United States must start cutting global warming pollution now and reduce emissions steadily over the coming decades.
While the bill’s environmental objectives are a strong advance, one provision remains misguided. Despite the provision of billions of dollars in subsidies to the nuclear industry in the 2005 Energy Policy Act and over $85 billion in historical subsidies, the bill introduced today contains additional nuclear subsidies that NRDC continues to oppose. Additional giveaways to an industry made up of some of the world’s wealthiest firms are neither necessary nor warranted.
—Frances G. Beinecke, NRDC President
McCain countered that objection by arguing:
I know that some of our friends here in the Senate and in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though today it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the US and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland B countries that are not exactly known for their environmental disregard. The fact is, nuclear energy is CLEAN. It produces ZERO emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities.
The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet.
S. 280 now goes to the Environment and Public Works Committee, where Lieberman will chair a subcommittee on climate change.
The day before the introduction of the new bill, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) had published a report assessing the impacts of a proposal that would regulate emissions of greenhouse gases through an allowance cap-and-trade system. The EIA prepared the report in response to a 27 September 2006 request from Senators Bingaman, Landrieu, Murkowski, Specter, Salazar, and Lugar.
The program evaluated by the EIA is less stringent than that proposed in S. 280, and targets greenhouse gas intensity, rather than absolute levels of emissions. The targeted reduction in GHG intensity would be 2.6% annually between 2012 and 2021, then increase to 3.0% per year beginning in 2022.
According to the EIA, such a plan would have a negligible effect on the economy. Among the conclusions:
Costs to the US economy would total 0.1% of GDP through 2030. Cumulative GDP is projected to double from 2006 to 2030.
No substantial increase in electricity prices. Electricity prices would rise by less than 11% by 2030.
Coal use would grow by 23% by 2030 compared to 53% without the program.
No substantial shift to natural gas in generation. Natural gas demand is projected to increase by a mere 1% by 2030.
A meaningful boost for renewable energy. Non-hydro renewable electricity generation would rise by 53% by 2030.
Emissions are lowered by 5% (372 million tons) in 2015 and 11% (909 million tons) in 2025, and 14% (1,259 million tons) by 2030 compared to the reference case.
That 2030 target figure, however, still represents an absolute increase in greenhouse gas emissions of 18.4% over 2004 levels.
Resources:
“An Ambitious, Centrist Approach to Global Warming Legislation”; David D. Doniger, Antonia V. Herzog, Daniel A. Lashof;; Science 3 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 764 - 765 DOI: 10.1126/science.1131558
January 13, 2007 in Climate Change, Policy | Permalink | Comments (32) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | January 15, 2007 at 12:26 PM
The real key is wind and solar power. People worry about the storage of excess electricity. The solution is actually quite simple: As battery technology improves in energy density, cars will move towards an electric dominant drivetrain with a small high efficiency ICE in a series hybrid configuration. A 50 KW*hr will give an average range of 200 miles per charge. If every car driven in the US had such a battery, we would have 50 KW*hr/car * 100,000,000 cars = 100 GW*hr of energy storage.
Thin film photovoltaics will drop the price of solar power to levels that can compete with coal in the next two decades.
Posted by: Freddy | January 15, 2007 at 05:49 PM
Good comments in this thread. I have a nuclear waste question: If the waste is very "hot", i.e. very radioactive, then it is necesarilly decomposing rapidly, and will soon be in a safer, less radioactive state. But if its half life is very long, such that it "will be dangerous for 100,000 years" like some people say, then it is decomposing very slowly, thus isn't very radioactive, thus isn't really that dangerous. So are all the claims of wastes being dangerous for ridiculously long times just based on a dubious claim of danger for very low levels of radioactivity? It seems to me that for anything you can't reprocess, you could just let it sit around for a hundred years, glassify it, dilute it enough to avoid criticality accidents and throw it in a deep mineshaft. What am I missing?
Posted by: George | January 15, 2007 at 09:41 PM
George:
Your comment is correct. Spent fuel rod is ten times less radioactive only after 1 day out from reactor core, and 100 times less radioactive after one year. In about 500 years it becomes less radioactive then initial uranium packed into it before going into reactor. These numbers differ for different reactors and technologies (non-enriched uranium used in CANDU reactors, enriched used in other reactors, also depends if spent fuel reprocessing is used), but generally are indicative. Some developing technologies are capable to destroy (in fact burn in specialized reactors or part of reactors) most of radioactive materials generated in usual reactors. Very interesting site with tons of useful links is:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
Posted by: Andrey | January 16, 2007 at 12:06 AM
When they get type 4 reactors online the idia to to cram all excess power through the h2 generator to make vast amunts of cheap h2 stores in low pressure tanks till its needed then either piped as fuel or burned or cramed into massive stationary fuel cell plants to make power.
The key there being that a type 4 reactor uses no more fuel then any other reactor yet makes more electricity then the oldep that it can then be used to make electrity later on thats STILL cheaper then the electricty that was used to make it.
Posted by: wintermane | January 16, 2007 at 08:52 AM
Nuts I messed that post up.
In short and sweet.
A type 4 reactor is soo good at making h2that you can takesay 1 gwh of energysay from excess solar or wind or wave power and cram it into the h2 generators.
The result even after everything is later on you can turn it back into MORE or about rhe same 1 gwh as you started with.
And unlike batteries they already know how to store huge amounts of h2 they already do it today.
The only needed part is the reactor and either a h2 powered turbine generator or massive stantionary fuel cells. Both of wich are rather mature tech.
Posted by: wintermane | January 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM
#1.FYI: H2 fuel requires energy to produce in the first place. (ever hear of: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but, merely changed in form"? How much energy does it take to produce enough H2 to run an automobile 50 miles? ...research the FACTS please!
#2.FYI: To back up the unreliability of wind power, refer to #1.
#3.FYI: Nuclear related deaths are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than fossil (coal, petroleum, natural gas,...) deaths INCLUDING cancer related deaths. ...again #1 FYI ...research the FACTS please!
#4.FYI: Nuclear waste? Are we serious? Compare the direct damage that the petroleum industry has caused this planet to the nuclear waste damage.... I challenge all to find more nuclear waste in our neighborhood garbage cans as opposed to petroleum related waste. By the way... since our proximity to nuclear waste seems to be such an issue: Have we ever examined our smoke detectors lately? Ever hear of Americium? How many lives have smoke detectors saved? Yet many pass by it every day....
FINAL POINT: Compare the Total Carbon Footprint of nuclear energy run manufacturing plants to ANY fossil fuel run manufacturing plant. The difference, with current technology, is about what congress has found to be at... about 35%. Sure wind, and photovoltaic, and such is fairly clean, BUT, they DO NOT produce enough power to drive a medium to large manufacturing plant.
PS. E=mc2
Posted by: Arthur Breaux | November 03, 2007 at 03:40 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d8342c8e2f53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Senators Introduce New Climate Change Bill :
Adam -
opponents of nuclear fission often claim that uranium supplies will only last another 20-30 years. As others have pointed out, this applies only to readily available supplies, not to reprocessing nor to newly mined ore, including uranium from the oceans and thorium.
The issue isn't getting hold of enough fuel. It's finding someone willing to live near the waste; note that the various forms of reprocessing reduce waste volume but actually increase its specific radioactivity through concentration and/or transmutation to isotopes with shorter half-lives. At present, there are few who would voluntarily live anywhere near a long-term repository for such waste. Perhaps that's irrational, considering the potential or actual damage caused by CO2, but allaying people's fears is almost always much harder than inventing new technology.
Wrt hydro: it's great but no panacea. Here in Austria, we derive over 50% of our energy from it. Our railways all use hydro power. Unfortunately, not every nation is blessed with mountain ranges that receive plentiful precipitation. Also, dam construction does raise significant environmental issues of its own, and not just because engineering mistakes can lead to catastrophic failure. The land upstream is permanently inundated, including settlements and wildlife already there. Downstream, erosion patterns and ecosystems change drastically. The larger the dam, the greater the impact. Examples include Hoover dam in Nevada, the Aswan dam in Egypt, the Itaipu dam in Brazil, the Akosombo dam in Ghana and the new Three Gorges dam in China.