Archive for the ‘Coal’ Category

One Casualty of the Economic Crisis: The European Cap-and-Trade System

Photo by Takver. Some Rights Reserved

Photo by Takver. Some Rights Reserved

The price of European carbon emission certificates has plummeted in the aftermath of the global economic crisis. This week the European Parliament narrowly voted down a bill designed to prop up the price per ton of carbon emissions in an attempt to keep the once-lauded program financially viable.

Cap-and-Trade has always seemed a jury rigged method of dealing with the principal driver of global climate change. A straightforward carbon tax would be a more transparent external cost but the political challenges of instituting such a tax have largely kept it off the table. The political difficulties have been compounded by the challenge of implementing carbon taxes globally – which country wants to walk into the propeller first? Cap-and-Trade at least had the virtue of being fungible; emissions banked in one country could be spewed out in another corner of the world.

Climate policy expert Felix Matthes, of the Institute for Applied Ecology, sat down to talk with Spiegel Magazine about the stark implications of Parliament’s decision, which he sees as the death knell for EU-wide emissions reduction. The ironic result, he says, will be a return to a national, rather than regional, approach to carbon reduction with serious consequences for global efforts to reign in emissions. Noting that while right wing politicians hope to undermine climate change policy entirely, and those on the left seek more regulatory protection, he still believes carbon trading is the most fruitful means of dealing with the global reach of carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the dramatically reduced energy consumption and industrial output following the economic crisis, combined with a glut of credits from China, have resulted in a flood of certificates on the market and a corresponding precipitous decline in their price.

Powering the Cloud

Photo by Michael Graham Richard. Some rights reserved.

As technology companies expand their cloud storage services, data servers around the country are expanding and increasing their energy consumption. Several media and advocacy groups have taken note of these huge facilities’ power usage, and this week Apple has come under the microscope. Grist raises concerns over Apple’s new data center in Maiden, N.C., citing Greenpeace estimates that the facility will draw 100 megawatts of power, and noting that its power provider, Duke Energy, is “coal-heavy.”

Their criticism is based on Greenpeace statistics estimating the portion of major technology companies’ energy coming from coal. In terms of overall reliance on coal, Apple is in the lead at 55%, above rival cloud service providers Microsoft (39%), Amazon (33%), and Google (28%). A map compiling related Greenpeace data shows 52 of the largest data centers in the country and how reliant they are on coal.

Apple, for its part, highlights its planned construction of on-site renewable energy plants near the Maiden, N.C. center, to include a solar farm and fuel cell installation from which it plans to generate 60% of the center’s energy needs. They would not be the first to explore new strategies for powering their data centers, though. As we have previously posted, in a data center in Taiwan, Google runs cooling systems at night to chill liquid coolant for use during the following day. The nighttime electricity is cheaper due to low demand, and the reduced daytime electricity usage eases pressure on Taiwan’s electrical grid.

To better appreciate the energy accounting of “cloud” storage, I would like to see an examination of the efficiency cost or gain of outsourcing our data storage from individually-powered hard drives in our homes around the country to a few massive data centers thousands of miles away.

Cooling Coal’s Jets

Photo by Ulrich McCowan MacDonald. Some rights reserved.

Check out the great map published yesterday by Mother Jones, which uses data from the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal project to map the status of various coal plants across the states (existing, progressing, or blocked). The accompanying article lauds the work that Sierra Club has done to toss out “two-thirds of 249 new coal plant proposals, avoiding more than 654 million metric tons of carbon that would have seeped into the atmosphere each year.”

According to the Sierra Club,  retiring one “dirty coal-burning plant” will prevent:

  • more than 29 premature deaths
  • 47 heart attacks
  • 146 asthma attacks
  • 22 asthma emergency room visits

JP Morgan Tops List of Biggest Coal Financiers

Photo by nrdc_media. Some rights reserved.

In a study published last week by BankTrack.org (a watchdog organization that tracks the operations of corporations in all walks of the private financial sector), in tandem with like-minded environmental organizations from South Africa and Germany, JP Morgan Chase topped a list of twenty banks (of a total sample pool of 93 banks) who were calculated to be the biggest financial contributors to the coal industry and coal-based energy. The study shows that JP Morgan Chase has invested 16,540 million euros in coal since 2005, with Citi Bank and Bank of America trailing with 13,751 and 12,590 million euro figures, respectively.

“We chose to look into coal financing as coal-fired power plants are the biggest source of man-made CO2 emissions and the major culprit in the drama of climate change,” says Heffa Schuecking of German environmental group urgewald, who contributed to the study. “In spite of the fact that climate change is already having severe impacts on the most vulnerable societies, there is an abundance of plans to build new coal-fired power plants. If banks provide money for these projects, they will wreck all attempts to limit global warming to 2° Celsius.”

JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been vocal in the past about his and his company’s support of clean energy and their concerns over global warming. Yet, JP Morgan finances several mountaintop removal companies, mostly based in the southeastern United States, that do irreparable damage once the mountain has been blown to the surrounding environment, in order to expose the coal hidden within. You can read more about this practice, its environmental damage, and JP Morgan Chase’s involvement in the whole thing, at Mother Jones.

High Class European Banks Say ‘No, Thank You’ to Dirty Coal

Photo by Shandchem. Some rights reserved.

A short and sweet Environment and Climate Change Bulletin from Linklaters last week tipped us off to an interesting development in power plant financing, but left us thirsty for more details.

According to the global law firm, several international banks (including the likes of HSBC, BNP Paribas, Crédit Agricole, Standard Chartered and F&C Asset Management) have worked together with non-profit think-tank, The Climate Group, to develop guidance on the financing of new coal-fired power plants (CFPPs).

“[T]o limit dangerous climate change, coal-fired power generation needs to be substantially decarbonised by 2050,” starts off the guidance. “Financial Institutions (FIs) can help accelerate the uptake of the best available CFPP technologies by adopting policies that stipulate emissions intensity ceilings that become progressively lower between now and 2050.”

Specifically, the code recommends that banks not provide financing for plants with an “emissions intensity” above 850g of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour in developing nations, and 550g CO2/kWh in developed countries.

According to the Financial Times, HSBC and BNP each recently issued their own policies prohibiting the financing of new coal plants with emissions above certain levels (here and here, respectively), and The Climate Group reports that the others institutions involved will be also be developing policies in line with the recommendations from the guidance.

Will such a superb idea catch on in America? Linklaters remains skeptical: “While European commercial banks may consider following suit, this is likely to be a much less palatable for US and Asian banks.”

To Frack or Not To Frack?

Photo by Nigel Williams. Some rights reserved.

Hydraulic fracturing has received a lot of press since we originally reported on it (here and here), but probably nothing compared to the debate going forward.

On Sunday, April 10th, The Hill’s E2-Wire released a pre-publication version of a study from Cornell University concluding that natural gas obtained via “fracking” could be even worse for global warming than coal.

This downside is, of course, in addition to concerns about drinking water contamination in the areas surrounding hydraulic fracturing activities. The EPA is still preparing to undertake a study to “understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources.”

On Tuesday, April 11th, however, law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf published a client alert implying that hydraulic fracturing’s time has “finally come.” The alert suggested that heightened fears of nuclear fallout as a result of the crisis in Japan could mean a boost for “safer” sources of energy, and that the natural gas industry is “poised to benefit.”

Disagree? Perhaps you’ll be inspired to stand up to fracking, super-hero style.

EPA Highlights Tool for Researching Your Region’s Electricity Generation Profile; Washington Spurning, Not Burning Coal

Photo courtesy of NIOSH. Some rights reserved.

If you’re a sucker for easy-to-use, city-specific, energy-related tools, then you may or may not already know and love the EPA’s Power Profiler.

Enter your zip code, and within a few seconds you are looking at a short, but arguably substantial report that gives you the fuel mix and the emissions rates in your region, as compared to the national averages.

 

For instance, here in Seattle (home of Knowledge Mosaic Inc.), the fuel mix of sources used to generate electricity breaks down as follows:

Non-Hydro Renewables              3.3%
Hydro                                                 48.4%
Nuclear                                              3.0%
Oil                                                        0.2%
Gas                                                      12.8%
Coal                                                    32.0%

As the report shows, the high percentage of hydroelectricity generating our power means we also have lower emissions rates of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide than our “national average” neighbors.

Another perk of living in Seattle? Our relative dependence on coal is already considerably less than the national average of 48.5%, and recent news suggests coal may not have a future in Washington at all!

An announcement from Governor Christine Gregoire’s office came last week that the state had reached an agreement with TransAlta – the last-standing coal plant in Washington – to shut down both its coal-fired burners by 2025.

TransAlta currently burns over one million tons of coal per year, accounting for 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions statewide. In exchange for their cooperation, the company will be allowed in the interim to sell coal power under long-term contracts within Washington, which is currently prohibited by law. These contracts will supposedly give the company the financial stability needed to transition to a cleaner source of energy.

The agreement – the result of a directive in a 2009 Executive Order from the Governor – is expected to be signed into law as part of SB 5769, a bill backed by Democrats and Republicans alike.

So, how clean is your region’s electricity? Find out here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers

%d bloggers like this: