Substitution and Technological Change Under cap-and-trade

Posted on | February 8, 2010 | No Comments

World Bank
by Considine, Timothy J. ; Larson, Donald F.

The use of carbon-intense fuels by the power sector contributes significantly to the greenhouse gas emissions of most countries. For this reason, the sector is often key to initial efforts to regulate emissions. But how long does it take before new regulatory incentives result in a switch to less carbon intense fuels? This study examines fuel switching in electricity production following the introduction of the European Union?s Emissions Trading System, a cap-and-trade regulatory framework for greenhouse gas emissions. The empirical analysis examines the demand for carbon permits, carbon based fuels, and carbon-free energy for 12 European countries using monthly data on fuel use, prices, and electricity generation. A short-run restricted cost function is estimated in which carbon permits, high-carbon fuels, and low-carbon fuels are variable inputs, conditional on quasi-fixed carbon-free energy production from nuclear, hydro, and renewable energy capacity. The results indicate that prices for permits and fuels affect the composition of inputs in a statistically significant way. Even so, the analysis suggests that the industry?s fuel-switching capabilities are limited in the short run as is the scope for introducing new technologies. This is because of the dominant role that past irreversible investments play in determining power-generating capacity. Moreover, the results suggest that, because the capacity for fuel substitution is limited, the impact of carbon emission limits on electricity prices can be significant if fuel prices increase together with carbon permit prices. The estimates suggest that for every 10 percent rise in carbon and fuel prices, the marginal cost of electric power generation increases by 8 percent in the short run. The European experience points to the importance of starting early down a low-carbon path and of policies that introduce flexibility in how emission reductions are achieved.

Nuclear Is The Cleanest And Cheapest Energy

Posted on | February 7, 2010 | No Comments

Washington, DC
Presidential Memorandum

Expanding our Nation’s capacity to generate clean nuclear energy is crucial to our ability to combat climate change, enhance energy security, and increase economic prosperity. My Administration is undertaking substantial steps to expand the safe, secure, and responsible use of nuclear energy. These efforts are critical to accomplishing many of my Administration’s most significant goals.

An important part of a sound, comprehensive, and long-term domestic nuclear energy strategy is a well-considered policy for managing used nuclear fuel and other aspects of the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Yet the Nation’s approach, developed more than 20 years ago, to managing materials derived from nuclear activities, including nuclear fuel and nuclear waste, has not proven effective. Fortunately, over the past two decades scientists and engineers in our country and abroad have learned a great deal about effective strategies for managing nuclear material. My Administration is committed to using this advanced knowledge to meet the Government’s obligation to dispose of our Nation’s used nuclear material.

Accordingly, I request that you establish a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (Commission) and appoint its members. Those members should include recognized representatives and experts from a range of disciplines and with a range of perspectives, and may include participation of appropriate Federal officials. The Commission’s business should be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

The Commission should conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. This review should include an evaluation of advanced fuel cycle technologies that would optimize energy recovery, resource utilization, and the minimization of materials derived from nuclear activities in a manner consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals.

In performing its functions, the Commission should consider a broad range of technological and policy alternatives, and should analyze the scientific, environmental, budgetary, economic, financial, and management issues, among others, surrounding each alternative it considers. Where appropriate, the Commission may also identify potential statutory changes.

The Commission should provide an interim report to you within 18 months of the date of this memorandum, and that report should be made available for public comment. The Commission should provide a final report to you within 24 months of the date of this memorandum. The Department of Energy shall provide funding and administrative support for the Commission, as you determine appropriate, so that it can complete its functions within these time periods. Additionally, all executive departments and agencies shall provide such information and assistance to the Commission as you or the Commission may request for purposes of carrying out the Commission’s functions, to the extent permitted by law. Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to require the disclosure of classified, proprietary, law enforcement sensitive, or other information protected under governing law. This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Federal Government To Cut GHG Emissions

Posted on | February 7, 2010 | No Comments

President Obama announced on January 29 that the federal government—the largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy—will achieve a 28% reduction in its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020. Reducing and reporting GHG emissions, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the government leads by example in building the clean energy economy. The president issued the Executive Order on October 5, 2009, requiring each federal agency to submit by January 4 a 2020 target for reducing its GHG emissions from its estimated 2008 baseline. The new target is the aggregate of the targets set by 35 federal departments and agencies.

The federal departments and agencies will establish their baseline GHG emissions by measuring their current energy and fuel use. They will achieve their GHG reductions by becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal energy. As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the U.S. taxpayer. To ensure accountability, progress will be measured and reported to the public annually.

Achieving the GHG reduction target will reduce federal energy use by 646 trillion Btu, equivalent to 205 million barrels of oil, while avoiding $8-11 billion in energy costs by 2020. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel-efficient hybrid models.

Earthquakes In The Northeast United States?

Posted on | February 3, 2010 | Comments Off

USGS
Question: Why should people in the eastern US be concerned about earthquakes?

Answer: a) Severe earthquakes have occurred in the East:

In November of 1755, an earthquake with an estimated magnitude of 6.0 and a maximum intensity of VIII occurred 200 miles off the coast of Cape Ann, Massachusetts. Boston was heavily damaged. The strongest earthquakes recorded in the continental US were not in the West; they were centered in eastern Missouri near the border with Kentucky and Tennessee. In the winter of 1811-1812, a series of three earthquakes of magnitudes 8.4 to 8.7 and maximum intensities of XI occurred near New Madrid, Missouri. These shocks were so strong that observers reported that the land distorted into visible rolling waves. They changed the course of the Mississippi River; they made church bells ring in Boston and Washington, D.C. Because the surrounding area was mostly undeveloped at the time, few deaths were reported and these events stirred relatively little attention then. In August of 1886, a strong earthquake occurred in Charleston, South Carolina. Magnitude is estimated at 6.6 and maximum intensity was X. Most of the city of Charleston was damaged or destroyed. Earthquakes in the East are not confined to these areas; they have been recorded in every State east of the Mississippi. Damaging earthquakes have occurred historically in nearly every eastern State.

b) Earthquakes of the same magnitude affect larger areas in the East than in the West:

The size of the geographic area affected by ground shaking depends on the magnitude of the earthquake and the rate at which the amplitudes of body and surface seismic waves decrease as distance from the causative fault increases. Comparison of the areas affected by the same Modified Mercalli intensity of ground shaking in the 1906 San Francisco, California, the 1971 San Fernando, California, the 1811-12 New Madrid, Missouri, and the 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquakes shows that a given intensity of ground shaking extends over a much larger area in the Eastern United States. Ground shaking affects a larger area because amplitudes of seismic waves decrease more slowly in the east than in the west as distance from the causative fault increases.

c) Eastern state’s building codes:

Modern building codes in Eastern states are not as strict as those in California and much of the West: Not only that, but older buildings, which predate modern building codes completely, are more prevalent in the East than in the West.

d) Causes of earthquakes in the East are not well-understood:

Hundreds of millions of years ago, the East coast was this continent’s active plate tectonic boundary, as the West coast is today. If the East is not now in an active plate margin, why do we have earthquakes here and why do we have them in the center of the continent? One possible explanation is that ancient faults or rifts are stressed. If this is true, what is the cause of the stress? In many areas of the East where earthquakes have occurred historically, specific faults causing the quakes have not been mapped or even identified. Another problem we encounter when evaluating earthquake risk is that we only have earthquake records for the last couple of hundred years. Establishing geologic patterns over human time scales is difficult at best.

See also:
Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismic Network
Westin Observatory at Boston College
MCEER – New York
Virginia Tech Seismological Observatory
Earthquakes & Maryland – Maryland Geological Survey

Search