Charley called up my office to ask about my position on coal-to-liquid technology and efforts in the Senate to promote it. Let me lay it out for you here in person:
I’m against it. Strongly.
Coal-to-liquid technology is a step backward in our fight to control greenhouse gasses. With CTL, there are actually two streams of carbon emission exhausts, at the production plant producing the liquid and from the vehicle burning the liquid as fuel. The total “well-to-wheels” emission is therefore much higher from CTL than regular petroleum.
A study from Argonne National Laboratory, a research arm of the Department of Energy, shows that every gallon of liquid fuel from coal produces as much as 2.5 times the global warming emissions as every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel from crude oil. Even if we use carbon sequestration at the production plant, CTL emissions are still 17-25% higher.
This is just the wrong way to go. Our climate crisis is growing ever more urgent, and putting federal resources into pathways that make the problem worse is not a good option. We were not elected to the majority last fall just to do things a little better than Republicans; we were elected to actually fix these issues and go in a bold new direction. As I said in a speech last week:
We weren’t elected to be like Republican Congresses of the past, only a little more progressive. No — if we merely tinker around the edges of energy policy or climate change, or write an energy bill indistinguishable from the ones we criticized Republicans for passing–then we have not earned our majority.
The energy bill the last Congress passed was a hollow exercise masquerading as a new direction while giving the majority of the spoils to the same old special interests. It had no guiding national goal, no tough decisions, no change in priorities–just a collection of logrolling, back-scratching subsidies for any industry with the clout to get a seat at the table and a share of the pork.
There’s no reason why we shouldn’t take more effective action on global warming that will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We can raise CAFE standards in an aggressive way. We can require that 20% of our energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. We can encourage efficiency and conservation in a myriad ways. All of these will be effective on reducing our dependence on oil and will help to halt the warming of our planet.
So-called “solutions” that take us in the wrong direction aren’t “solutions” at all.
I’ll have a few moments at a couple of different points in the day to check back in, so I’ll respond to some of your questions and comments then.
<
p>
Thanks.
Senator Kerry,
<
p>
Thank you for your message and willingness to discuss this issue. From my limited research on this issue, it appears that opposition to the Coal-to-Oil initiative is a no-brainer from an Environmental perspective. Being that the Democratic leadership should be making strides to fund alternative sources of energy and progressive environmental concerns, what do you see as the justification for Democratic proponents of this matter. I am certainly not asking you to speak for any of these supporters, but I was curious how any Progressive-minded Democrat could be in favor of a measure that seems to be a step backward in the environmental arena.
Well, like you said, I can’t really speak for them. There are probably a lot of different reasons. But it’s always good to try to see the reasons why someone might support something, not only to respond to their arguments, but to understand their decisions before judging. I think some people see many national security problems stemming from our addiction to oil, then they look at our own large reserves of coal, and they see a way out. I don’t agree. As I said in the post, I think there are better ways to deal with our addiction to oil that don’t increase the carbon we send into our atmosphere.
If you see Senator Obama any time soon, can you ask why he thinks it’s such a good idea? It’s starting to be embarrassing to those of us who support his candidacy for President. If he doesn’t clean up his position on the most important issue of our day, his huge strengths in every other area may amount to nothing come February.
I guess there’s no need now. A day too late.
I’m happy to hear that you are opposed to coal-to-liquid. But what are you doing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Have you filed any bills promoting higher standards? Have you done anything to push the federal government to reduce its own energy usage?
<
p>
What are the bills in the Senate now that we should be watching and pushing for? Who is blocking progress and needs to be contacted?
<
p>
You say we can raise CAFE standards and increase renewable energy production. Is the Senate doing anything to make it happen?
<
p>
Please show clear leadership on these issues. Global warming is one of the most serious threats facing the world right now. We need the government to take serious action.
That’s quite a few questions, but let me try to give you the basics, since I agree with you completely. In fact I think you can argue it’s THE most serious threat to the world instead of just one of the most serious threats, because our energy mess doesn’t just contribute to climate change (where we have just ten years to act according to the best scientists I’ve talked with) and which funds terrorists every time we fill up at the pump.
<
p>
In my speech at the National Press Club last week I challenged my Senate colleagues to catch up to the American people on energy and start to take some decisive action on climate change. As far as I’m concerned, a serious energy bill must include three components: 1) a major increase in the efficiency of all sources and uses of energy, from pickup trucks to fluorescent light bulbs; 2) dramatic incentives for all renewable energy sources, including the requirement that at least 20% of our energy come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020; and 3) a comprehensive plan to get clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration off the drawing board and under construction.
<
p>
I’m currently working to get all of those enacted in the energy bill currently under debate in the Senate, including a significant increase in the CAFE standards with light trucks and SUVs being included in those standards. In fact, this afternoon I’m forcing a Senate vote on my long-time legislation, offered as an amendment, to mandate we get 20% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. (If it sounds familiar it’s because I’ve been pushing for it since 2002 ? and I campaigned on it all across the country for two years. I’m pretty invested in this if you can’t tell!) There is opposition from various directions to each of these efforts, but the common thread is opposition from big money interests who are profiting from the way things are and don’t want them to change. That’s always the problem when we try to force change and citizen action is the best way to counter that. But follow the debate ? I’ve got three big amendments to get things done and later this month in the Finance Committee I’m pushing to eliminate some unbelievable tax breaks to big oil and instead fund renewables. Quick question: were any of you at my speech at Fanueuil Hall a year ago on this energy plan? If so you know I’ve had a strategy to push the curve on these issues for a long time ? hopefully we get there and finally I’ll have an energy bill I can vote ?yes? on ? this is not a time for half measures.
Will you support S.309, the Boxer-Sanders bill, the strongest bill in the senate right now?
Cosponsors:
Daniel Akaka (HI), Russ Feingold (WI), Daniel Inouye (HI), Edward Kennedy (MA), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Patrick Leahy (VT), Robert Menendez (NJ), Jack Reed (RI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI).
(If there are others I’m not aware of, let me know)
I welcome all attempts in the Senate to take strong action, and there’s a lot I like in the Boxer-Sanders bill. And actually just last week Bernie and I sat down for a meeting off the Senate floor to strategize on the energy bill and climate change, he’s made a real mark here as a freshman Senator. I’ll support his bill when it comes up for a full vote. I think the bill I brought forward with Olympia Snowe is the best, strongest bill we can move through the Senate, and it’s based on the latest science-and the fact that it’s strong, tough, and bi-partisan makes it unique. A lot of the other bi-partisan bills out there have long since passed their expiration dates, as they say …
As Demredsox indicated, the Boxer-Sanders bill is the strongest piece of legislation in the Senate currently and Senator Kennedy is a co-sponsor of this legislation. Why would you settle on a weaker bill at the outset of the legislative process? Why wouldn’t you sign on with 17 of the most progressive Senators in sponsoring this bill co-introduced by a Freshman Senator?
Instead you have taken a position of weakness in the name of bi-partisanship. I sense that you have not fully embraced the most progressive bill in the Senate. It reminds me of the position on the Attorney General vote the other day whereby you were content with a no confidence vote when it is clear that a more drastic action was called for.
Additionally, why didn’t you insist on bringing global warming and climate change issues into the Presidential Debates in 2004?
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the United States Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
This energy issue and finite fossil fuels dillema didn’t just surface. The entire deliberating body of congress has been derelict in their responsibilities re this matter while accepting huge amounts of $$$$ from the oil companies.
<
p>
It wouldn’t have taken a lot of effort to go on record
fifteen years ago supporting and pushing the house to authorize the expenditure of several billions of dollars for research and development for alternative sources of energy each and every year.
<
p>
So now the horse is out of the barn. To add insult to injury, your esteemed colleague is doing everything in his power to torpedo the cape wind farm and you remain noncommital.
<
p>
Senator Kerry, your constituents are very unhappy for many reasons.
Thank you, Senator, for working toward solutions to the dual problems of energy security and reducing climate change. As you note, the issues are complex enough that we’ll need a grand vision with an array of actions.
<
p>
I worry that we won’t be able to solve either the energy security or the climate change problems unless we break our dependence on the centralized supply of energy. We likely can’t do this across the board, but I would like to see us work hard to find technologies that allow us to large energy companies, whether they be oil and gas, or electricity suppliers. Just as the decentralized structure of the internet has proven to be a transformative force (largely for good), so a decentralized structure for energy would be a powerful tool for national security and for continued technological change. I’m not sure how to make this happen, but community-based or even household-based energy production, from renewables, fuel cells, or some technology that doesn’t yet exist could be part of reaching our national goals for energy security and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Ending energy oligopolies could open the door for a lot of entrepreneurial activity. And small-scale, decentralized power production removes an array of large targets for foreign and domestic bad guys.
<
p>
Personally, I’d love to see a windfall profits tax on the energy giants, with the revenue generated going to a Sustainability Venture Fund–a Manhattan project to fund research and commercialization of new ideas to help achieve national goals. I understand this would likely be political poison, but we need to unleash the power of research in our universities and labs, and we need to unleash the power of entrepreneurs to commercialize transformative technologies. Those powers are our national competitive advantage. Here’s a place where government can help, but help will be over the mighty objections of the energy titans.
<
p>
Coal to Liquids, in my view, is just a distraction from the array of actions we need to take- a short-term, expensive “fix” that at best, stalls our day of reckoning on taking real action on climate change.
Other than rooftop solar cells and backyard windmills, decentralizing energy production doesn’t make much sense. It is much easier to make a high efficiency 50MW power plant than it is to make a high efficiency 100kW power plant. To the extent that we continue burning fossil fuels, we want to do so in centralized locations. The larger plants are more efficient and it is easier to control the pollution. For example, it is somewhat feasible to have carbon sequestration on a few large power plants, but it would be nearly impossible if everyone had their own power plant. It is also a bad idea in many ways for individuals to be running their own nuclear power plant, and most people don’t have enough rivers running through their property for hydroelectric power.
<
p>
This is not a technology issue, it’s a science issue. You just simply can’t produce power in a large number of locations as efficiently or with as much pollution control as you can in a small number of locations. There is sort of an exception for wind and solar, but even then the energy can be produced more efficiently by choosing the best sites and putting everything there.
<
p>
The most useful action the government can take on decentralizing energy production has to do with electricity metering. Forcing utility companies to use net-metering and possibly time-of-day metering would make it easier for people to benefit from installing solar panels and windmills. Providing subsidies and low-cost loans would further encourage people to install local renewable energy production. Search for comments and diaries from stomv for more details on what this means and how it would help.
I doubt that most zoning laws would permit the construction of backyard windmills (height limitations).
<
p>
I agree with you that it is more efficient, in terms of construction costs as well as the ability to control pollution to have fewer high-output power plants than a lot of lower-output power plants. The ability to control pollution was shown in the early 1970s, when coal-fired power plants were essentially required to install scrubbers to reduce emissions of sulfate aerosols and other particulate matter, the result being far less sulfur in the atmosphere and substantial reduction in acid rain.
<
p>
On the general issue of coal liquefaction, there are a number of issues. Energy independence (independence of foreign oil), CO_2 emissions (greater with coal liquefaction) and one that is not usually raised, namely, why not use up their resources (meaning middle east oil) as long as they are willing to sell it to us, and conserve our resources (meaning coal) until after they are on the downward spiral of resources.
<
p>
As an aside, does anyone know whether the IRS or the MA Dept of Revenue allows for depreciation for photovoltaic panels that can supply electricity to the grid? It seems to me that they should, since they are used in the business of generating electricity. Depreciation over five or so years makes sense.
I think you’re underselling the potential for some level of decentralization. I doubt that we now have the means, but GE, Panasonic, and others are piloting fuel cell projects that generate enough electricity to power individual homes and factories (Links are to the projects). We know the science that would indeed allow us “to produce power in a large number of locations as efficiently” and “with as much pollution control as you can in a small number of locations.” We just need to be able to turn that science into commercial reality.
<
p>
I don’t think stationary fuel cells are the whole answer, but with solar, wind, geothermal, and other appropriate technologies, they can significantly reduce our consumption of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The technology is achingly close to commercialization, and governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan are working with industry to seed the technological changes needed to see new methods of power generation to market. Our government, on the other hand, seems content to cede technology leadership to other countries.
<
p>
With all due respect to jkw, our model of energy distribution is more a business model than a scientific model. I agree that until now, there have been economies of scale, and that a top-down model of distribution has been the most efficient. I just don’t think that has to be the case for all time. We used to think you needed phsyical stores to sell stuff, and that there was room for only 3 network newscasts.
<
p>
The whole business of rethinking energy both for security and for climate change is one of the biggest examples I can think of of an opportunity for disruptive innovation (see the work of Massachusetts’ own Clayton Christensen for a much fuller explanation). We can and should tinker around the margins, but we also need to re-examine our most basic assumptions about the way we obtain and use energy. Government can help American firms take the lead here, just as it helped American firms lead the internet revolution.
Fuel cells don’t produce energy. They allow you to store energy in the form of hydrogen (or some other fuel) and then extract it later. In order to power your house with fuel cells, you need to have some mechanism for transporting hydrogen to your house. This brings you back to the centralized distribution of energy problem. If you are generating hydrogen by electrolysis, you are already losing more energy than you do by sending the electricity through wires to your house. And that is before you count any energy losses from distributing hydrogen.
<
p>
Fuel cells have their uses. They make sense for cars because nothing beats the energy storage density of burnable fuels. But they aren’t going to decentralize energy production. They also aren’t likely to help with reducing pollution, unless someone comes up with a low-energy, low-pollution method of producing large quantities of hydrogen.
<
p>
The main thing fuel cells could help with for electricity production is smoothing out demand. We could build large energy storage facilities that convert electricity into hydrogen when demand is low (and electricity is cheap) and then convert hydrogen back into electricity when demand is high (and electricity is expensive). But that still makes more sense to do on a large scale, rather than having everyone do it at home. I don’t think there are any legal barriers to someone doing something like this.
A cheap and efficient way to store electricity would revolutionize the economics of power production by making feasible many distributed-generation projects. Saying that “the main thing” efficient fuel cells could do “is smothing out demand” understates this by an order of magnitude.
<
p>
(Plus, it smooths out supply, not demand–but I know what you mean, I think.)
It would revolutionize things. Which is how you can tell that right now, fuel cells don’t provide a cheap and efficient way of storing energy. As far as I know, the only low-pollution method we have of converting electricity into hydrogen is electrolysis. The efficiency for converting electricity to hydrogen to electricity seems to be about 30-60%, though it depends on the details.
<
p>
The fuel cells would generate more electricity when demand is high and the electrolysis would use electricity when demand is low. That seems more like smoothing demand than smoothing supply.
In addition to solar [which, based on current state-to-state laws allows people to economically use solar to reduce their demand, but not to become a net supplier], cogen is where we’ll see advancements. It’s particularly attractive for natural gas customers.
<
p>
Honda is releasing a natural gas boiler that both (a) heats air, (b) heats water, and (c) generates electricity. It’s elegant because it’s able to generate a relatively small amount of electricity at virtually no extra cost because it’s using the waste heat from (a) and (b), and further it can be used to generate even more electricity, which is both economically and environmentally efficient during times of peak load, when the grid is willing to pay large dollars for each kWh produced, and when the peaking plants [which burn diesel fuel] are turned on to meet the peaking demand.
<
p>
If Congress writes friendly laws to allow people to become small net-meter producers [instead of the current net-meter non-demanders], then we will see a more widespread distribution of small generators, and they’ll have the added effect of boosting supply when demand is highest, which will help to reduce the need to build or operate peaking plants.
I welcome Mr. Kerry to these discussions and hope that it is only the beginning of many postings on the issues facing our country and the world.
<
p>
Yesterday, I posted a summary of my energy plan and it includes the decentralization of power as well as very ambitious goals for renewable energy. The editors did not post it on the main page of this blog, but it can be found by clicking my name.
<
p>
I also spoke about my energy plan last night before the Beverly Democratic City Committee and I wish to thank the members of the committee for the invitation and the warm reception I received.
<
p>
For over twenty years, the Federal Government has been dragging its feet on a renewable and independent energy plan and if one had been established, our involvement in the Middle East would have been lessened.
<
p>
In any event, the people of this country are extremely frustrated with the bottlenecks in Washington D.C. as evidenced by the latest polls that were released yesterday. It is time to start thinking outside the box and my energy plan does a lot of that.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
the new sciences for alternative forms of energy. This is a matter of survival. I do not wish to have my existence, my children’s nor my grandchildren’s resting on the profits of some oil company.
<
p>
Our government, since the oil availability crisis that President Carter precipitated, has been guilty of gross negligience re providing our nation with, at the very least, the research for alternative forms of clean energy.
<
p>
Perhaps it is the law of unintended consequence of democracy, but our government and our representatives have been in bed with the oil companies for fifty years. Now we find ourselves where the rubber meets the road, and those most culpable are doing the loudest whining.
<
p>
Enough! Start funding MIT, Cal Poly, and the remainder of the finest engineering schools with comparative Manhatten Project funding to resolve this crisis NOW!
First of all, thank you so much for addressing the MA-netroots.
<
p>
With regard to your point:
I think that sounds like a reasonable goal. What new renewable sources can be generated right here in Massachusetts? For a reminder, here is your response to Cape Wind back in May.
<
p>
We already have a governor who is making our buildings more energy efficient, and a Governor who has approved of the project back in March. Has your position on Cape Wind changed at all?
<
p>
It’s clear to me that you’re right — coal to liquids is no solution at all. But it seems that we could have bolder leadership when it comes to things that can be part of the actual solution.
I am excited to see you (Senator Kerry) take the time to engage in this discussion, and I am very, very relieved to hear about your stance on coal-to-liquids.
<
p>
But this discussion almost inevitably leads to Cape Wind. I have a hard time understanding the “wind power is good; Cape Wind is bad” argument. I understand that every potential site for wind power has its own unique characteristics, but I fail to see what is so overwhelmingly unique about the proposed Cape Wind site (other than one would be hard-pressed to design a better site for wind power- near population, but not too near, very windy but protected from open ocean waves, shallow, etc.).
and let me make clear that one of the reasons I asked about Cape Wind isn’t because I’m trying to play a “gotcha” game with the Senator. It’s because I do agree with him on so many things, especially when it comes to the environment, that I really don’t understand his position on Cape Wind.
That question was asked during the Q&A session of Senator Kerry’s speech at the National Press Club.
<
p>
The JK blogging community live-blogged it here. There are 3 comments by bloggers that talk about his answer to the Cape Wind question here, here and here.
<
p>
The CSPAN video of Senator Kerry’s address and the subsequent Q&A session is available on the CSPAN site.
<
p>
You can go page back through Recent Programs till you get to the programs presented on 6-6-2007 or copy and paste this into your browser window which will work if you have realplayer loaded.
<
p>
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/energy/energy060607_kerry.rm?mode=compact
<
p>
The speech and the Q&A session were both enlightening.
clicked on the wrong “reply to”. Meant to reply to afertig.
Edward Moore Kennedy and his his snotty neighbors.
<
p>
To be blunt, they are rich and powerful and you do not amount to a yellow hole in the snow!
I have a hard time understanding the “wind power is good; Cape Wind is bad” argument.
<
p>
…is the standard NIMBY argument. Just like those people who believe in “tough on crime” via imprisonment not wanting a prison constructed in their city or town.
<
p>
I’ll admit to have been ambivalent about Cape Wind. As far as I can tell, there are three relevant arguments in opposition to Cape Wind: (i) danger to migratory birds, (ii) danger to sea navigation, and (iii) obstruction of view. A fourth one might be the possibility of pollution from construction and a fifth one might be noise, but I don’t recall seeing anyone raise those issues.
<
p>
From what I have read, studies of other windmill farms show that (i) is far less an issue than I had believed. Regarding (ii), I don’t know enough about placement of the windmills to opine, but I suppose that that had been considered by the developers. And, regarding (iii), I, for one, don’t really care whether their view is obstructed. I’ve been past the windmill farm near Palm Springs CA, and it is a sight to behold.
Raj, Cape Wind has essentially aced the environmental review, including impacts on birds and marine life. The outstanding issue is the aesthetic impact, how it looks, mostly from Hyannis.
<
p>
I believe this is a legitimate concern, and that claims of place–in this case, the unique natural and historical heritage of Nantucket Sound–deserve serious consideration. NIMBYs? Well, some “back yards” should not be touched.
<
p>
However, that does not mean that these claims should always prevail. I don’t see that this is one of those special cases.
<
p>
Neither the site or the potential insult to it rise to the standard to forgoe the environmental benefits of this project. This is not strip-mining Mt. Rushmore–if the country really comes to hate the view of the turbines from Hyannis (which would suprise me) it can remove them. Every place in New England, if not America, has a unique historical significance.
<
p>
So I think your typology of possible objections to Cape Wind (i – iii) is accurate, but the technical questions have pretty much been answered in Cape Wind’s favor. Always barring new science, of course.
<
p>
That is one of the reasons why the project has broad support in Massachusetts and even on Cape Cod.
Windmills off in the distance, or plane loads of coffins returning from the middle east? I’d rather see windmills, and yes, you can put one in my back yard if you’d like…
NIMBY is okay when it’s protecting the wealthy, beautiful property… but not in poorer cities.
<
p>
I say if the people of Hyannis and Nantucket are so concerned about a few wind turbines that 90% of the time won’t be seen and when they do, will actually be quite pretty, we build them a nice, large nuclear powerplant and coal burning plant instead.
<
p>
Let’s make it a choice and see which one they go for.
but not me. Did you read what I wrote? Sheesh.
…your response to my comment was somewhat ambiguous. That’s why I didn’t respond to your comment.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, all of these sitings are a balance among a number of issues. I’ve never been to the islands, and have no idea where the touristy areas are. If siting of the proposed Cape Wind would hurt property values or the tourism industry, that is one variable that might be taken into account. But that variable isn’t the be-all and end-all of the issue as to whether it should be allowed to be sited there.
When something is complex, I have to learn to grunt “doubleplus ungood” rather than, for goodness sakes, discuss it.
<
p>
I just think that a reasoned refutation of an argument–in this case the specialness of the view from Hyannis–is more effective than just shouting “NIMBY.”
<
p>
Ryan has done this to me before–responded to by saying, “So, you want [the opposite of what I actually want]!”
<
p>
Not that I’m keeping track or anything.
The best defense, however, is usually a good offense on a blog — without being, well, offensive 😉
Hi All,,,I have also been past that wind mill farm near Palm Springs Ca.,,I love the NATURAL beauty of this country,,(that is why I was there,,and almost everywhere in this country, (exploying it),,,but that huge AREA of those windmills spread out over a HUGE distance of pure natural and prestine land was (in my humble opinion) disturbing and it ruined the natural beauty of the area (it was HUGE, with miles after miles after miles of them) sort of like eye pollution,,, BUT, OBVIOUSLY,wind power and other prestine energy powers are the way to GO !!!! NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT!!!!!!!!!! But in my humble opinion,,protecting pristine areas in this country, where, if a native American from 500 years ago came back he/she would still be able to actually recognize the place,,, is very important to me.. ( not alot of those places are left) ,,,,but at some point when do we consider eyesight pollution in the same category of air pollution and noise pollution.,,,I STRONGLY agree we need clean and healthy ways to TOTALLY change our energy sources,,,,,but if we could cut down on ( in my humble opinion), the “eye pollution”,,,,,that would be better.,,,,,,if you read this thank you,,,,Paco
I don’t usually see large structures jutting off the ocean in the waters of Massachusetts. Maybe there’s one or two, but it seems to me as if our coast is well protected.
<
p>
We have a very legitimate, safe plan for Nantucket sound which would power 2/3rds of Cape Cod.
<
p>
The vast majority of the people in this state support it.
<
p>
A large majority of people in Cape Cod and the islands support it.
<
p>
It needs to pass.
<
p>
From the areas closest to where the turbines will be, the turbines will be no closer than a thumb print in the horizon. Furthermore, 90% of Cape Cod will never be able to see it. These arguments are bogus.
<
p>
Just put the things up already.
re you observations: CONCUR. I have personally seen the wind farms in CA from the ground and have flown close by. They are actually quite intrigueing. The arguements that Sen. Kennedy/Rep Delahunt et al raise are laughable.
<
p>
In thirty years (hopefully less) after we have successfully developed fusion energy take them down.
… your own questions, are you still ambialent? Why?
<
p>
I’m pretty sure that (ii) is not an issue. They put the project up for Coast Guard review on the basis of concern (ii), but I’m pretty sure that it had nothing to do with the merits of (ii) (As I rememnber, the Coast Guard didn’t really want to get involved) and it was really an attempt to involve another agency in order to create more chances to kill it.
<
p>
(iii) isn’t really much of an issue either.
<
p>
Did you get a chance to review the Patrick position paper on Cape Wind that was produced during his campaign?
After having answered your own questions, are you still ambialent? Why?
<
p>
Probably because none of this will affect me personally. Not enough to become exercised one way or the other about the outcome.
<
p>
I’ll elaborate a bit more on my item (iii), the view obstruction issue. Although I might not be offended by the sight of a windmill farm in Nantucket sound–even if I were vactationing there–others might. Their opinions might be considered, although I’m not sure that, when a balancing of factors is taken into account, their opinions should stymie the project.
<
p>
Moving up a bit to MCRD, I doubt very seriously that fusion reactors will come on line within my lifetime or yours. They might if the US government were to put the equivalent of a Manhattan Project into place, but it has shown no evidence of any interest in doing so. Aside from that, there just aren’t enough physicists with the requisite training to throw into a Manhattan Project-like project.
As I’ve said before, I’m a strong advocate for wind power, I’ve voted for it, I’ve walked the walk, and it may turn out that the current siting for Cape Wind is the best place to put it. But there’s an Environmental Impact process to decide that – and we have to let the process work itself out. We rightly criticize the Bush administration for putting politics above sound science and careful study, and I just want to make sure this gets the deliberation it deserves. This is a test case for projects like this around the country, so it’s important to get the process worked out satisfactorily. Just think about it this way: if the siting ends up wrong, the opponents of wind power will have a field day for years to come. That’s not good for anyone who believes in alternative energy.
IF the Cape Wind project passes Environmental Impact muster, will you lend the project active support, or find some other reason to withhold judgment?
Senator Kerry,
<
p>
In all due respect, leadership is about taking stands on issues not waiting to see how the wind blows, pardon the pun. Either you are for cape wind or you are against cape wind.
<
p>
You can’t be against it before you are for it. Or maybe you can, that seems to be par for the course doesn’t it.
Senator please. Take a look at the wind farms that are going up around the country, specifically S. Texas.
Texas will very shortly be #1 in the nation re wind generated electrical energy.
<
p>
If Massachusetts doesn’t get with the program, we will be soon visited with an increasing flow of residents fleeing this commonwealth to states that are quite simply more affordable. When you figure into the equation cleaner air and the reliability of continued sourcing of electrical energy, it is a no brainer.
<
p>
Many years ago Canada took advantage of their hydro/electrical capability and are now and have been exporting electrical energy.
First off, thank you for posting this and for your steadfast leadership on environmental issues. Having spent the last decade trying to clean up the Salem Power Plant, I am acutely aware of the many other “life cycle” issues associated with coal that often get overlooked, such as the few I mentioned in my “Dracula” piece yesterday here at BMG.
<
p>
By now you’ve probably heard the good news (reported in today’s LATimes) that your colleague, Senator Barak Obama, has changed his position on coal to liquid fuels. Fantastic. What concerns me is that there’s still a strong push to subsidize coal gasification for electricity and coal to gas for pipelines here in Massachusetts. From The Boston Globe:
<
p>
<
p>
This, with no feasible way to sequester is a huge step backwards–or over the cliff, as the case may be. We’ve got a heck of a lot more wind and sun than we have coal in Massachusetts. Why would we build more coal plants?
First off, your point about carbon sequestration is a really important one. With so much of our energy being produced by coal, without good technology to make coal cleaner and to capture and sequester the carbon produced, we don’t have a prayer of getting on top of our climate crisis even without new plants. I’ll have an amendment on the energy bill this week or next to get more resources put toward sequestration projects, so we can get it deployed as quickly as possible.
<
p>
And, as you mention, without that there are major problems with building new coal-fired power plants. That’s why I was working in the Commerce Committee – and with the environmental community – to stop a plan that would have built multiple new coal-fired plants in Texas without the state of the art technology and scrubbers needed to make it clean. In fact, I have a bill to ban building new plants with the carbon capture and sequestration technology. We can’t ignore coal as a part of the fuel mix, but we also can’t make the problem worse by building more plants using 20th century technology that emits high levels of carbon into our atmosphere. I also hope you’ll get on board my legislation to make the Capitol Complex green – so Washington starts walking the walk on clean energy.
Senator Kerry, if you want to wait until CO_2 sequestration technology becomes commercially available to allow permitting of coal-fired power plants, you won’t allow permitting of oil or natural gas fired power plants either. Oil and natural gas fired power plants throw off CO_2 also. And both they and coal-fired power plants throw off water vapor, another greenhouse gas. What would you suggest as a substitute?
<
p>
Coal-fired power plants have done a decent job at scrubbing particulate matter (sulfate aerosols and fly ash) from their emissions–the first of which led to the substantial decrease in acid rain in the 1970s.
Coal is substantially worse, per unit of energy production. According to nuclear tourist (the first website I found with this information), a 1000MW power plant operating for a year produces 6 million tons of CO2 if it burns coal, 5 million tons if it burns oil, and 3 million tons if it burns natural gas. If your objective is to reduce greenhouse gasses, you should oppose coal when other options are available. Shutting down all the coal power plants in the country over the next 10 years would substantially cut our greenhouse gas emissions, even if we replace all of them with natural gas power plants (replacing them with oil plants would help some, but not much).
<
p>
The real solution is cap and trade. Rather than mandating that various power plants be closed and dictating what technologies will be used, we should just simply make companies pay for whatever carbon dioxide they are going to produce. Reduce the number of carbon permits available for each year and let the companies figure out what to change. I bet the coal plants would close pretty quickly, but there might be some other way of reducing our carbon output that would be more (economically) efficient. But the caps should include everything, even gasoline and home heating uses. And of course any carbon sequestration plants would be able to sell carbon permits based on how much carbon they pull out of the air.
and the replacement of power loss to the national grid will come from where?
nat gas, wind, biomass, biogas, solar, etc.
<
p>
Note that the order of the answer is approximately the order of capacity of new plants.
<
p>
Also note that conservation could shut down a few plants all on its own. That would take serious leadership on the part of the federal and state gov’ts to seriously improve building codes, raise efficiency standards of appliances and lighting dramatically, etc. But, it could be done.
<
p>
Demand grows between 1% and 2% per year. We could easily out-build that with the capacity listed above. It wouldn’t shut down all coal fired plants instantly, but it might be able to shut down the 5%-10% which pollute the most CO_2 per MWh of electricity generated, ie get the most bang for the buck.
<
p>
And yes, it would drive up the price of electricity and the price of natural gas.
<
p>
Methinks the most efficient way to do this: charge a tax on coal equal to approximately $0.03 per kWh of electricity. It’d be enough to bring lots of new non-coal power online, helping to close down coal-fired plants.
…I’ll just let you know that I am usually dubious about statistics that come from an source that is pushing a particular industry–in the case of your citation, the nuclear power industry.
<
p>
I’ll mention one other caveat. The only way to transport over long distances and store natural gas–particularly without the risk of explosion–is by liquifying it (LNG). Liquification for transport and for storage requires energy in addition to the cost of transport, and that would likely add to the CO_2 burden.
When it comes to energy per unit CO2, natural gas > oil > coal.
<
p>
It’s a matter of chemistry (and I’m rusty, so forgive me if I screw this up). Natural gas is basically CH4; it has lots of hydrogen and energy-rich C-H bonds per C atom (4:1). Oil is basically a bunch of longer alkanes and such like octane (C8H18) with closer to 2:1 C-H bonds to C atom (plus the C-C bonds). Coal is even bigger and more complicated organic compounds, with even more carbon per unit chemical energy.
<
p>
The following was pulled from a natural gas site, but the original source was the EIA and the data looks correct to me:
<
p>
Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant – Natural Gas – Oil – Coal
CO2 – 117,000 – 164,000 – 208,000
<
p>
I don’t know the numbers on energy to liquify natural gas, but it’d have to be huge to eat up the gaps to oil & coal.
<
p>
Natural gas is really low emissions for CO2 and a bunch of other pollutants. It’s clearly the cleanest fossil fuel, by a good margin. Problem is, it has a host of practical problems and constraints (availability, transport, tendency to blow up, etc.).
Well, natural gas has a tendency to blow up, probably because it’s constrained in some unnatural way. My dictionary defines “gas” partly as “any airlike substance that moves freely to fill any space available.” By its own nature, it’s probably not meant to conform to somebody else’s standards and limits. So it shouldn’t be a reflection on the substance itself that it has a tendency to “blow up.” Not that you meant it that way.
<
p>
But maybe you could say more about what are the causes of natural gas explosions and so on. I did work for EPNG, El Paso Natural Gas, for a brief time. We worked on the Carlsbad natural gas explosion; so I do have a tiny bit of knowledge about the potential consequences of mistreating that particular substance.
I actually have an example of that very thing from the time I wrote the posting above and went downstairs to gather my laundry out of the washing machines, only to find that somebody had removed it to put their own laundry in. I was maybe five minutes late in meeting the close of the cycle.
<
p>
So there are a lot of tricks in the process as well, unfortunate mixes of chemistry and so on that need to be taken into consideration. It’s rather complex and it’s worth discussion. But back on the subject, is natural gas meant to tolerate these kinds of “unlike” substances?
Thanks so much for this response and your leadership.
<
p>
Thanks especially for your work on that TXU boondoggle. I’m not particularly hopeful about sequestration because of lack of effectiveness (leaky mines) and efficiency (mega $$$ to bury in the deep ocean) but I might have poopoo’d space travel before its time too. So, I’ll trust you that those dollars get into the right hands.
<
p>
A pet peeve of mine–although not at all with you–is this: Given the limited availability of funds for energy technology, we need to better subsidize the truly renewable energy projects so they can become scalable like their destructive fossil fuel counterparts. Even if they could just come close, it would make all the difference. In this day and age, why are we paying Exxonmobil corporate welfare? It makes no sense.
<
p>
For the life of me too, I can’t figure out why here in Massachusetts we’re considering State Senate Bill 1940, which will give gasified coal plants an alternate renewable portfolio standard that will, as I understand, subsidize construction of new coal refineries and burners here in the state. That plus all of the coal subsidies coming down the Federal pike, in a state where high tech and brain power, wind and sun, are more of native natural resource than coal,,,,heavy sigh. It’s not really your realm, Senator, but just another example of why I lose hope that we have the will to save ourselves.
<
p>
Thanks for engaging the grassroots, Senator, and keep up the great work! You and Teresa make me proud to live in Massachusetts.
It’s no wonder Senator Kerry’s numbers in Massachusetts are on a very steep climb; if he keeps posting information like this, they’ll get even higher.
<
p>
He’s right, we’ve got to fix these problems. If Senator Obama wants to reduce foreign independence on oil, let’s start by mandating every SUV/truck/van/etc. sold in this country be a hybrid within 3 years – and every vehicle get 30 miles to the gallon or better.
This has been an excellent conversation so far. In the last two months, I’ve learned more about environmental issues of all kinds, including this particular issue of coal-to-liquid transformations. It appears that there are some people writing to this blog who are very knowledgeable in the field of energy development, fuel production and so on. I myself am a beginner, but so are so many others in the field. We have a lot to learn together if we are going to advance the causes of environmental protection that are so needed in the world today. So thanks everyone for your comments and your developed reasoning. The more dialogue in these areas, the better.
the messy Salem Station plant. That is yeoman environmental duty.
<
p>
They use a trash – energy incineration plants heavily in Japan with emissions improvement being a development goal.
<
p>
http://www.enecho.me…
<
p>
This seems to be a promising area for research and industry in Massachusetts.
What climb? How about a cite!
<
p>
I read nothing but platitudes here. I want to see action not read double speak and Washingtonian babble.
<
p>
This matter should have addressed decades ago and not as a matter of convenience, or because of an impending election. The standard re election pap is old. Massachusetts voters want action or we can attempt to find someone who will indeed listen to the people and not some corporate potentate with a fat wallet.
I’m kinda proud to watch the first debate of the 2008 Massachusetts Democratic Senate primary unfold right here on BMG. Senator Kerry will you debate your primary opponent and can you respond to his criticisms of your leadership both during your long Senate career and during the 2004 campaign? I agree with you on the issues Senator, but a lot of us feel that you let us down in 2004 and we have some concerns. Thank you for your leadership on coal and being here though.
Thank you for illuminating the usefulness of dialogue. I share the frustration many of us felt about the vote on Iraq, the flip-flopping on the issues and the lack of conviction displayed during the last Presidential election.
<
p>
In order to have thoughtful evaluation of the issues, as well as the potential solutions, we need to have debates. I am willing to begin immediately.
<
p>
Ed O’Reilly
Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate from, and for, Massachusetts
<
p>
His “let down” in 2004 is nothing next to his cave-in vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. That one is unforgivable, no matter what excuses come later.
<
p>
My major concern is that John Kerry issues ‘talking points’ that sound good, but don’t reflect real leadership, i.e., out-front, vigorous, pushing the envelope. We need a senator who isn’t trying to run for president.
Who feels that John Kerry “let us down” in 2004? We were disappointed, of course, that he didn’t become president at that time, but it isn’t John Kerry’s fault. I’m sure he was equally disappointed. We were let down by a voting system and by a Democratic process that cheated us, basically; and I think that is the general consensus. But nobody feels that John Kerry let us down. I just hope we have learned our lesson, basically, and we will have some way to control the voting process by next election.
I have never seen this kind of engagement by a national politician with his local netroots — taking questions, posting thoughtful answers (maybe it has happened elsewhere, but I haven’t seen it; others are no doubt better informed). Damn impressive, in my opinion. Since the Senator no doubt has a lot going on, I’d just like to extend an invitation to members of his staff to continue the discussion if they have time.
for your consistent, forward-looking leadership on the environment. You have been an early advocate for the environment, fighting for reform for more than 35 years, and often decades ahead of the curve on these issues. Thankfully, at long last, the country is finally starting to pay attention.
<
p>
We are very lucky to have you as our senator for our state, and as a national and international leader on this and other issues. Knowing that you are continuing to fight for us, with courage, patriotism, and grit, gives me a ray of hope that all is not yet lost for our country.
<
p>
I agree with you 100% on all of your environmental initiatives, and also on your approach to Cape Wind. (Folks, as a California native, I can tell you that siting of wind farms IS important: Californians learned this early, the hard way. For very, very, good reason, Cape Wind, or any wind farm, absolutely needs to go through the same environmental impact assessment as ANY large project. Sen. Kerry quite correctly pointed out that if Cape Wind DID have a negative environmental impact, it would set wind power back decades.So it’s very important to assess that impact thoroughly, before the project is built. Also, the last I heard, at the Cambridge This Moment on Earth booksigning, in April — I have not yet seen his recent Press Club speech –the site that Sen. Kerry has favored for a windfarm is actually CLOSER to his Nantucket home than CapeWind. So, please, enough with the off-base “NIMBY” accusations. )
<
p>
There’s a lot of opinion floating around the blogs and the live Q&A’s about the Cape Wind project and Sen. Kerry’s nuanced position on whether it should or should not be built as currently proposed.
<
p>
Facts seem to be in shorter supply, though. So I did some research into the complex and often contradictory issues involved, and wrote up what I believe to be an accurate and balanced overview essay about it:
<
p>
http://blog.johnkerr…
<
p>
Please feel free to drop by his blog, read what I wrote, and add your own $.02 on the Cape Wind conundrum to the comments thread there.