In yesterday's New York Times, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection chief Daniel Esty and Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter issued a call for an "emissions charge" (i.e. a carbon tax) to address the nation's oil dependence and climate risks, joining a long line of others who continue to do the same. Specifically:
The best way to drive energy innovation would be an emissions charge of $5 per ton of greenhouse gases beginning in 2012, rising to $100 per ton by 2032. The low initial charge, starting next year, would make the short-term burden on consumers and businesses almost negligible.... Our proposal would apply to all greenhouse gas emissions, so that everybody, and every fossil-fuel-dependent form of energy, would be included...Yes, these costs would be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments.
It's the neoclassical view that's reverberated throughout the debate for years: get the prices right, get government out of the way, and let the market do its thing. Andrew Revkin has a point when he refers to the piece's "retro feel."
Increases in carbon-intensive imported goods have negated cuts in carbon emissions by developed countries since 1990, finds a new report published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The Kyoto Protocol assigns emissions from the production of goods to the country where production takes place, rather than the country where the goods are consumed. In the past decade, however, developed countries have increasingly replied on carbon-intensive imports from developing countries, where binding emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol are not in effect.
By not including the offshored emissions involved in the production of imports, this territory-based emissions accounting paints a misleading picture of the overall carbon emissions of developed economies.
According to standard data, developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country, and exports subtracted - the true change has been an increase of 7%. If Russia and Ukraine - which cut their CO2 emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse - are excluded, the rise is 12%.
Newt Gingrich has joined a growing group of innovation hawks in recognizing the importance of federal innovation investments in driving U.S. economic growth. Speaking at a Brookings Institution conference, the former Speaker of the House argued against making across-the-board cuts to government spending and acknowledged that we need to preserve key federal investments in science and technology research.
'One of them [the Republicans' ideas for addressing the deficit] is cutting investment in science and research,' Mr. Gingrich told a Brookings Institution conference. 'It's essentially like saying I want to save money on your car [so] we're not going to change the oil. And for about a year I can get away with it, then the engine will freeze, and we have to change the engine.'
In short, Mr. Gingrich argued: All government spending is not created equal. All government spending is not evil. And Washington's approach to budgets is imprudently starving the future.
In advocating for critical federal investments in innovation, Gingrich echoes the innovation-centered federal strategy outlined by President Obama is his State of the Union speech earlier this year.
Gingrich is strongly critical of the parts of his party's recently released 2012 budget proposal that would strip critical funding for innovation across the federal government.
The use of nuclear power has avoided the emission of 38 billion tons of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the nuclear industry, estimates data journalist David Kroodsma over at Climate Central. These 38 billion tons amount to about 8 percent of the cumulative C02 the world's population has added to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels over the past 160 years.
Kroodsma's post, excerpted below, also includes an interactive map of all nuclear power facilities ever connected to the grid, and some that are planned for construction in the next few years.
Today, nuclear power plants worldwide operate on average about 80 percent of the time. In earlier years, they were shut down for longer periods, with closer to a 55 percent in service rate. Given these operating percentages, let's assume for estimation purposes that nuclear power plants throughout their entire history have operated on average at 70 percent of their capacity. In that case, the nuclear power industry globally has produced about 60 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.
If these power plants had not been built, let's assume the electricity would have been generated instead from a mix of coal, natural gas, and hydropower in the proportions that these are used today (roughly 2:1:1). Given how much CO2 these sources emit on average per kilowatt hour (natural gas: 590 grams of CO2; coal: 907 grams; hydropower: 0 grams), we can estimate that each kilowatt-hour of nuclear power avoided about 600 grams of CO2 from entering the atmosphere.
That means that the nuclear industry has avoided emissions of about 38 billion tons of CO2. That is one third more CO2 than humans put into the atmosphere every year from burning fossil fuels. It is also about one-twelfth of the cumulative CO2 people have added to the atmosphere during the past 160 years from burning coal, natural gas, and petroleum. This is a rough estimate, yet it shows that nuclear power has played a major role in lowering CO2 emissions.
The U.S. manufacturing sector is in crisis and its decline is not natural or desirable, according to a new report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. To help regain its footing, the U.S. needs a national manufacturing strategy to help enhance its manufacturing competitiveness with other countries around the world.
The report, "The Case for a National Manufacturing Strategy," argues that the declining manufacturing sector is due to a loss of international competitiveness, in part because the United States has long lacked a manufacturing strategy to make the United States an attractive location for advanced manufacturing, strategies that many other nations have enacted.
There remains a lot of debate about whether a healthy manufacturing sector matters to the U.S. economy, or even whether the sector is actually in decline. The ITIF paper, written by ITIF Senior Analyst Stephen Ezell and President Rob Atkinson, notes that this lack of consensus has stifled efforts to address America's manufacturing challenges:
"Until there is a consensus that manufacturing is important, that it is not healthy, and that a national manufacturing policy is needed, it will be difficult to create a platform for reframing the conversation. Meanwhile, other nations are putting in place manufacturing strategies that include key components such as tax incentives and large investments in research, skills development, infrastructure, and technology transfer and technical assistance. Every day we do nothing we risk falling further behind."
The Heritage Foundation recently proposed a near dismantling of the Department of Energy in the name of budget deficit reduction. But their proposal includes numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies to justify eliminating programs vital to the United States energy innovation system. In response, the Breakthrough Institute, along with ITIF and Americans for Energy Leadership, detail point-by-point the fundamental inaccuracies of Heritage's proposal.
Last week the Heritage Foundation released a policy "backgrounder" report calling for a near-dismantling of the Department of Energy's research budget, including key energy innovation programs that are investing in scientific breakthroughs needed to make clean energy technologies more reliable and affordable. The report suggests that innovation spending increases at DOE are dangerous contributors to the national deficit and inferior financing mechanisms to private sector investment in energy technologies.
The Heritage proposal calls for (1) fully eliminating the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, slashing the $3.2 billion budget, and eliminating proposed advanced nuclear energy technology programs from the Office of Nuclear Energy; (2) eliminating the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and reducing other applied programs like the Office of Nuclear Energy; (3) cutting $1.59 billion from the Office of Science, including the elimination of two of the four Energy Innovation Hubs, elimination of the 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs), elimination of the Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists Program, and a broad range of other cuts to basic energy sciences; (4) eliminating the power marketing administrations; and (5) cutting the administration's FY2012 budget request for ARPA-E from $650 million to $300 million. However, the white paper contains numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies about federal investment in energy innovation.
The Breakthrough Institute, along with our colleagues at ITIF and Americans for Energy Leadership, have produced a Counterpoint that documents the misleading statements and inconsistencies in the Heritage report. The full Counterpoint is reproduced below, and you can download a PDF copy here.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has released updated figures on the levelized cost of different energy sources. Here's the latest in our irregular Friday Factoids series, provided as usual without comment...
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the statistics and forecasting agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, a substantial price gap remains between the levelized cost of new renewable electricity sources and conventional fossil fuel power plants, though that gap has narrowed since the EIA published its 2010 numbers last October. Their cost estimates are for new power generation equipment constructed in 2016 and reported in 2009 constant dollars (see graphic below).
Electricity from new onshore wind power, for example, is still a bit more expensive than electricity from new conventional coal-fired power plants, and 47% more expensive than electricity from a conventional natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant, according to EIA estimates. Wind power built offshore a whopping 150% more costly than onshore wind, says the EIA.
True, we must reduce low-priority discretionary spending, both defense and domestic; slow the projected growth of Medicare and Medicaid; and restore Social Security to fiscal soundness. But we also need to care for an aging population and invest in the skills, research and modern infrastructure that power economic growth.
Alice Rivlin, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, former Federal Reserve Vice Chair, and member of the Presidential Debt Commission.
See also: "Losing the Future?" a Breakthrough Institute staff editorial, April 14, 2011
It's not too late for President Obama to return to the clear path to "winning the future" articulated in his State of the Union. But righting the nation's economic trajectory demands a concerted and consistent effort to help Americans understand and embrace the difference between spending and investment, and to recognize that a growing economy fueled by new innovations, new technologies, and new industries is an essential component of any strategy to tame the debt.
"The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. ... We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology, an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people."
With those remarks at the heart of his State of the Union address - and a 2012 Budget proposal to back them up - President Obama drew a line in the sand and articulated a vision of American economic renewal fueled by key investments in the kind of public-private partnership that brought us the railroads and jet aviation, microchips and the Internet, countless biomedical breakthroughs and a portfolio of clean energy alternatives.
As we wrote in January, "Obama's [State of the Union address] was a rejection of proposals to cut federal spending across the board, as he finally made the case before the American people about why public support for innovation is critical for the country's long-term prosperity."
It was a plan to "win the future" and restore American prosperity that embraced the crucial distinction between government spending - consumptive, transitory, and sometimes even wasteful - and public investment - that small portion of our federal budget that catalyzes the enduring innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth that makes this nation strong. We hailed the speech as "Obama's breakthrough" moment.
But that was January...
Today, we're veering closer to a very different vision of America's budgetary future, one that seems to embrace the logic of "across-the-board" spending cuts proffered by Republicans, including decreasing budgets for major national research agencies and clean energy innovation programs.
Budget Deal Cuts Investment in Innovation
Late on April 8th, President Obama's negotiators gave his imprimatur to a compromise to fund the government through the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would see federal investments in energy innovation fall by nearly 11% (or $325 million) below 2010 levels while stripping over $1 billion from the budgets of the nation's major non-defense research agencies.
These cuts amount to a veritable funding cliff, when one considers the nearly simultaneous expiration of the temporary investments flowing to innovation agencies in 2009 and 2010 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
If this is the opening battle in the war to win America's future, it is a clear defeat.
A budget compromise to fund the government through the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011 would reduce federal energy innovation investments by 10 percent relative to 2010 funding levels. At the same time, the Continuing Resolution would make across the board cuts to each of the major non-defense research agencies.
The House Appropriations Committee released the text of the legislation this week after an agreement reached over the weekend between Congressional Republicans and Democrats and the President that avoided a looming government shutdown. While final passage of the bill must still be secured in the House and Senate, the negotiated compromise is expected to find passage shortly.
The 2011 budget resolution would cut $325 million in federal energy innovation spending and over $1 billion from major non-defense research agencies over 2010 levels (see Figures 1 and 2 below). Cuts to agency operating budgets will be even more severe when combined with the expiration of temporary American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds that have been flowing to energy innovation and non-defense research programs during 2009 and 2010.
While ultimately keeping budgets at a higher level than those proposed by HR 1, the House GOP's 2011 budget proposal released in February, the negotiated Continuing Resolution would cut the budgets of most of the major non-defense research agencies by at least 1 percent of FY2010 levels, and, in the case of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), by as much as 13 percent.
The final budget figures for key innovation agencies reflect the overall direction proposed by Republicans - including some degree of cuts to all major innovation agencies - and a repudiation of the increased investments in key research activities planned by President Obama. Energy innovation programs are funded in the CR at levels 14% below President Obama's FY2011 budget request and 30% below President Obama's 2012 budget requests, while funding for the major non-defense research agencies are 5% (and more than $3.3 billion) below levels proposed by the Administration for FY12.
Carbon dioxide emissions in Germany may increase by 4 percent annually in response to a moratorium on seven of the country's oldest nuclear power plants, as power generation is shifted from nuclear power, a zero carbon source, to the other carbon-intensive energy sources that currently make up the country's energy supply.
The German government announced today that it will shut down seven of the country's seventeen nuclear power plants for an indefinite period, a decision taken in response to widespread protests and a German public increasingly fearful of nuclear power after a nuclear emergency in Japan. The decision places a moratorium on a law that would extend the lifespan of these plants, and is uncharacteristic of Angela Merkel, whose government previously overturned its predecessor's decision to phase nuclear out of Germany's energy supply.
The seven plants, each built before 1980, represent 30% of Germany's nuclear electricity generation and 24% of its gross installed nuclear capacity. Shutting down these plants, or even just placing an indefinite hold on their operation, would be a major loss of zero-emissions generation capacity for Germany. The country currently relies on nuclear power from its seventeen nuclear power plants for about a quarter of its electricity supply.
The long-term closure of these plants would therefore seriously challenge Germany's carbon emissions efforts, as they try to meet the goal of 40% reduction below 1990 carbon emissions rates by 2020.
On Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, a plan that would strip federal funding for energy innovation. If enacted, the budget would seriously threaten the country's clean energy competitiveness and damage innovation, the engine of economic growth.
A long-term Republican budget plan released this week by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin calls for drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies.
Under the Republican plan, overall discretionary funding for energy programs would fall to about $1 billion per year. President Obama's 2012 budget, meanwhile, would provide about $8 billion to support clean energy research and deployment.
Mr. Ryan's proposal calls specifically for "eliminating welfare for energy companies." The proposal does not include details on which subsidies would be curtailed, but its references to "uncompetitive" energy sources clearly point to wind and solar power, which typically generate electricity at a premium to fossil fuels like coal.
Clean energy advocates criticized the Ryan proposal, calling it a short-sighted plan that would cede dominance in the fast-growing clean-tech market to countries like China and Germany.
"The Ryan budget has handouts for big oil and a slammed door for the emerging technologies of the future," said Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization. "It's bad for American competitiveness, innovation and job growth."
See this four-part series for an analysis of the budget battle and its implications for federal investments in energy innovation:
Post updated to include a geothermal power replacement scenario, adjust costs for coal-fired power plants, correct a land area figure, and outline major assumptions utilized in calculations.
Phasing out Japan's nuclear fleet would increase carbon emissions by at least 414 million tons, a 10% increase over current carbon emissions, as the country shifts electricity generation to more carbon-intensive LNG and coal-fired power plants. Replacing projected nuclear power generation in 2030 with power from coal or LNG would add at least 25% and as much as 37% of current emissions to the country's future carbon output.
As Japan struggles to resolve the ongoing crisis at its Fukushima Daichi nuclear complex, the implications of the crisis on the future of nuclear power remain unclear. Japan, a country with few domestic energy resources, relies heavily on nuclear power production to meet its electricity demands. In 2009, nuclear power was responsible for 27% of domestic electricity generation.
Before the crisis at Fukushima, Japan aimed to roughly double its nuclear capacity by 2030 to provide 50% of its total electricity generation. This expansion of nuclear power was a key component of the nation's climate change mitigation efforts, which include a targeted 25% reduction in CO2 emissions relative to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
Phasing Out Current Nuclear Generation
If Japan were to phase out its nuclear power fleet, it would likely ramp up production from its natural gas-fired and coal power plants. The country is already dependent on natural gas and coal for the majority of its electricity generation, as roughly 26 percent of the country's electricity comes from natural gas, and another 28 percent from coal. The number of natural gas plants in the country increases yearly, and Japan remains the world's largest importer of both liquefied natural gas and coal.
Below, we've estimated the impact on overall current carbon emissions if Japan were to completely phase out production of electricity from its current fleet of nuclear reactors. Three scenarios project the effect of replacing lost generation either entirely by coal generation, entirely by generation from liquefied natural gas, or by an equal split of both.
If nuclear power were to be completely taken out of Japan's power supply, the country's carbon emissions would rise by at least 414 million tons over current emissions. Carbon emissions would increase by at least 10% and as much as 17% across the entire economy, while power-sector emissions would soar by 29% to 49%, depending on the mix of replacement power.
The final death toll from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan is expected be 20,000.
The natural disaster left 4.4 million homes without electricity in Japan and 1.5 million without water.
A dam in the province of Fukushima burst the night of the tsunami, washing away a reported 1,800 homes and leaving several people dead.
A bullet train on a coastal line was washed away by the tsunami, its 400 passengers are missing and presumed dead.
The Cosmo oil refinery, near the city of Ichihara, Chiba, experienced a massive blaze after the earthquake hit. The fire at its natural gas storage tanks took 10 days to fully put out.
The Chernobyl disaster, as of 2008, killed 64 people, according to the United Nations. UN officials say that the death toll could be as high as 4,000.
Breakthrough Institute President Michael Shellenberger debated the future of nuclear power today on KQED Radio'sForum, joining host Dave Iverson and the Sierra Club's David Hamilton to discuss the impacts and implications of the Fukushima nuclear crisis in Japan.
The Breakthrough Institute welcomes listeners of KQED and other readers interested in exploring the relative risks and benefits of nuclear power and the future of this low-carbon energy source.
Listen to the debate here:
Alternately, you can download the mp3 directly by clicking here.
