Student Post: North Dakota's Stance on Water: Heal, Don't Harvest

Pursuant to Federal regulations, North Dakota has developed and is currently executing its Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan, designed to address certain issues of nonpoint source pollution through watershed restoration.

Nonpoint source pollution is defined as, “any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point source" in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act.”[i] Point source pollution is defined as water pollution resulting from “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged,” but it does not include agricultural storm water discharges or irrigation return flow.[ii] An example of nonpoint source pollution found in North Dakota would be runoff from a barnyard. Congress has reserved the regulation of point source pollution to the Environmental Protection Agency, but the regulation of nonpoint source pollution has been left to the states. 

Each state is required to submit a management program to EPA, “for controlling pollution added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within the State and improving the quality of such waters.”[iii] North Dakota's “Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan,” finalized in April 2010, has the long-term goal of “initiating 20 watershed restoration projects by 2015,” with many of those projects likely to be completed around 2021-2024.[iv] Rather than cutting off nonpoint source pollution entirely, these programs focus on rehabilitating the waters, lands, and habitats that have been impacted by decades of nonpoint source pollution, and North Dakota has created some rather lofty goals for restoring the state’s watersheds.

In approximately one year, North Dakota had two successful watershed restoration projects under its belt, the Bowman-Haley Watershed Restoration and the Cannonball River Watershed Restoration, both located in the Southwestern part of the state.[v] The Bowman-Haley project, “Created 40 wetlands, enhanced 10 miles of instream/riparian habitat, restored water quality to [the] watershed, installed 25 permanent waterfowl nest structures, developed a 420-acre CRP grazing demonstration cite . . . [and effectuated] 20 to 30-year Wildlife Extension Agreements.”[vi] Meanwhile, the Cannonball River project, “restored 15 wetlands, created 179 wetlands, enhanced 45 miles of instream/riparian habitat, installed 26 permanent waterfowl nesting structures, [and effectuated] 20 to 30-year Wildlife Extension Agreements.” Id. There is no doubt that such results fall squarely within North Dakota's Management Plan purpose to “protect or restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the state by promoting locally sponsored, incentive based, voluntary programs where those waters are threatened or impaired due to nonpoint sources of pollution.”[vii]

While these programs appear to have been successful, it seems unlikely that the programs will see similar successes in other parts of the state, where land and commodities prices are at a premium. Not only does maintaining farmland, let alone development in the Western part of the state, mean less land available for watershed restoration, it means that nonpoint source pollution will continue. The most difficult part in regulating nonpoint source pollution is that mostindividualscausing the pollution are not violating the law. For example, farmers who spray their crops with pesticides are not violating a law by doing so, but those pesticides may eventually pollute certain waters through runoff. Environmental concerns are numerous, and rightly so, but a law-abiding landowner's legal right to the “free use and enjoyment of his land” cannot be ignored. North Dakota's use of incentive-based programs is just one way that states are attempting to lure farmers and livestock owners into the clean water discussion. The agriculture community may eventually come around and be more open to a compromise such as grazing/wetland rotation[viii], but North Dakota has much work left to do in order to realize its conservation goals.

With an abundance of energy production in North Dakota, in seems highly unlikely that the goals of watershed restoration would be forsaken for the development of hydroelectric systems within the state.

---

[i]“What is nonpoint source pollution?” (April 30, 2011) http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/whatis.cfm.

[ii]33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (2010).

[iii]33 U.S.C. § 1329(b)(1) (2010). 

[iv]N.D. Dep't. of Health: ND Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Plan: 2010-2015, p. 2 (Apr. 2010). 

[v]U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Habitat Restoration Projects, (May 2, 2011) http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/nd/nd5.htm.

[vi]Id.

[vii]ND NPS Management Plan, p. 2.

[viii]see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Farm Conservation Plans – a “Mini-Joint Venture”, (May 2, 2011) http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pfw/nd/nd52.htm.

Student Post: Changing Property Rights in Mid-Stream

Property rights have evolved as people began to realize that mineral rights can be owned separately from the surface rights. But the only way an owner of surface rights does not also get to own the mineral rights is when someone sells the land and seperates the two. That is a decision that the landowner makes at some point in order for the mineral rights and surface rights to be separated. The fact that splitting the two property rights is a choice that the landowner makes argues for no change in the status of the mineral rights vs. the surface rights owners.

Unfortunately, in Kentucky, courts and legislatures decided arbitrarily to change the status of property rights when they pitted surface owner against mineral rights owners. The Kentucky Supreme Court opened Pandora’s Box when they ruled in the 1956 landmark case Buchanan v. Watson (290 S.W.2d 40), effectively changing property rights midstream by holding that surface owners couldn’t prevent mineral rights owners from using strip mining to mine coal pursuant to broad form deeds. The Kentucky legislature then stepped in to try to prevent it, but the Kentucky Supreme Court held that law unconstitutional in 1987, and thus protected the mineral property rights.

However, the Kentucky legislature in 1988 ratified an amendment to the constitution which effectively restricted mineral rights owners from strip mining and invading the surface rights owner’s property rights. Now, in 1993 the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld that law, a full 37 years later. This effectively enhanced the rights of the surface owners at the expense of the mineral rights owners.

Is that fair to change property rights midstream?

Changing the nature of property rights in midstream is a bad idea. First of all, making a change in property rights holders in mid-stream distorts the values of these rights, and set a bad precedent that includes allowing courts to change property rights long after the owners of those rights have calculated their values decades earlier.

If I own property and do not want mineral rights owners to invade my surface rights, all I need to do is not sell them! Or stated another way, not buy land that only has surface rights attached to them. That is a choice I make as a rational decision maker, a calculated decision make at the time of purchase. But to change the rights of millions of property owners by a single stroke of a few pens is bad policy as it signals to property owners that you MIGHT be buying these rights, but beware that the courts or legislature can always change them.

Property rights are one of the significant pillars of a civilized world, and from the beginning of time until 1993 they could be counted on by rational decision makers and potential owners to provide stable expectations as to what was actually owned. Now that the Kentucky courts and legislature has decided that property rights no longer are sacred, who knows what you are really buying now when bidding on property?

Student Post: Getting Past Oil: Why Haven't We Already?

The narrative of the past few decades, really since the oil shocks of the 1970s, has been that of a desire to move past fossil fuels and onto newer, cleaner sources of energy. We’re all aware of the arguments for such a move so I won’t discuss those here.

We know that government has made efforts, serious or not, to encourage the development of new technologies. A myriad of subsidies and tax credits exist for just about any new technology out there.

My own feelings on the subject are that fossil fuels, through their relative abundance and energy density, still provide value that simply cannot be matched in the marketplace. In a price competitive market, emerging energies are simply not in a position to be competitive. I also take the position that fossil fuels will predominate in the coming decades because it will take much longer for newer sources of energy to compete. I think we are much farther away from a fossil fuel free society than we think.

However, over the weekend I had the opportunity to hear Peter Thiel speak. Thiel is the Silicon Valley tycoon who founded PayPal and was one of the first to invest in Facebook. Thiel, as evidenced by his estimated fortune of $1.5 billion, is a forward-thinking man but he has taken an increasingly dim view of future. He spent the majority of his fifteen presentation describing his view that innovation, the sort of large-scale, society-changing innovation of the past, has basically stagnated since the oil shocks of the 1970s. In a piece for National Review, Thiel wrote the following:

When tracked against the admittedly lofty hopes of the 1950s and 1960s, technological progress has fallen short in many domains. Consider the most literal instance of non-acceleration: We are no longer moving faster. The centuries-long acceleration of travel speeds — from ever-faster sailing ships in the 16th through 18th centuries, to the advent of ever-faster railroads in the 19th century, and ever-faster cars and airplanes in the 20th century — reversed with the decommissioning of the Concorde in 2003, to say nothing of the nightmarish delays caused by strikingly low-tech post-9/11 airport-security systems. Today’s advocates of space jets, lunar vacations, and the manned exploration of the solar system appear to hail from another planet. A faded 1964 Popular Science cover story — “Who’ll Fly You at 2,000 m.p.h.?” — barely recalls the dreams of a bygone age.

There are certainly arguments to be made in disagreement with Thiel, but it does open up the possibility, at least in my mind, that maybe we should have been a post-fossil fuel society by now. As society we like to think we’re always on the cutting edge with exciting breakthrough technologies, but who’s to say that is actually true?

For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that Thiel is correct in saying innovation has slowed drastically in the energy and transportation sector. The logical question is then “why?” Because this is only intended as a thought experiment I won’t pretend these are empirical answers, but merely hypotheses.

First, is it possible that we as a society are looking at all the wrong ideas? We look to government as the source of funding for new innovations, but government works by earmarking funds specifically designated for certain ideas. How can government, or rather the politicians within government, possess any inclination towards what has potential or not? In his speech on Saturday, Thiel made the point that government is overwhelmingly staffed by lawyers, who have little to no background in science. If government is to be a source of technological innovation, the deficit of scientists in politics is a serious impediment.

Second, does government actually warp the incentives of innovators? Thiel spoke of a failure of imagination among society at all levels. He has concluded that too many scientists and investors are content to go after the “low-hanging fruit.” It’s my contention that this is the unintended consequence of government funding specific projects. When politicians are willing to hand out billion dollar grants to clean-tech startups, in effect these innovators have already made their money. The conditions attached to these grants sets expectations too low, in my opinion. Energy startups need to be subject to the cutthroat demands of the market. It also needs to be pointed out that every scientist who works under the auspices of a government grant is one less scientist available to work for a more ambitious, more demanding company in the private sector. Again, it’s the law of unintended consequences at play.

Lastly, I think society at all levels suffers to a large extent from a regulatory bottleneck. Reading about the mishmash of federal, state, and local regulation involved in building electrical infrastructure should give one a good idea of how slow society moves when regulated. In contrast, computers and the Internet have thus far largely escaped significant regulation and they are dynamic industries.

In closing, maybe Thiel is correct in saying that society is suffering from a lack of imagination. I’m a firm believe in the credo of letting markets work, but our issues probably extend far past simply letting markets work as currently configured. If we are to get back to the day of rapidly occurring innovation in all sectors of the economy, it will require an undoing of the bureaucratic sclerosis we find ourselves mired in and elimination of the perverse incentives we throw at scientists and innovators.

Student Post: The Chevy Volt: Moving at a Snail’s Pace

While I believe it is important to take the opinions and assertions presented in “Who Killed the Electric Car” with a grain of salt, I was nevertheless surprised by the events that transpired following the release of GM’s EV-1. Growing up, I was a car fanatic, reading every car magazine I could get my hands on. I remember reading about the EV-1 prior to its release, and even seeing pictures of the concept vehicle, but my interest was limited since, as a 7th grader, I always thought other cars, like GM’s Corvette, were way “cooler.” This “cool” factor has been a pervading trend in the American automobile industry since its beginning. Americans love their cars, and they love their cars to be big and fast. Following GM’s eradication of the EV-1, the documentary emphasized the almost ironic promotion of GM’s gas-guzzling vehicles such as the Hummer H2. In a symbolic “one step forward and two steps back” approach to the alleged demand for fuel-efficiency, GM abandoned a promising innovation to return to the status quo. The question remains, however, is the paradigm shifting? Are Americans becoming increasingly serious about their need for fuel efficiency? It seems that in the last couple of years auto makers have jumped on the colloquial bandwagon in an effort to produce vehicles that use less gas. One of the most anticipated events to occur as a result of this trend was the introduction of the Chevy Volt in 2011, a vehicle that has both gasoline and electric machinery. This vehicle seemed to be the first big step in a direction back towards the electric automobile, but how has it been received by consumers like you and me?

The Wall Street Journal released a blog post yesterday on the recent news that GM will be halting production of the Chevy Volt for the next five weeks. This announcement is noteworthy for a couple of reasons. First, it compromises President Obama’s plan to have one million electric cars on the road in the U.S by 2015. The anticipation in the popularity of the Chevy Volt played a key role in the formulation of this plan. GM had initially planned to sell 15,000 Volts in 2011, but had to reduce this target to 10,000. Unfortunately, GM ended up only selling 7,700 Volts in 2011. Taking into account this disappointing reception, GM’s plan to sell 45,000 Volts in 2012 is now being reevaluated. With thousands of Volts remaining in inventory, GM is finding itself in somewhat of a sticky situation. Obama’s plan for one million electric cars on the road by 2015, 505,000 of which were supposed to be Chevy Volts, is losing speed quickly.

The second interesting issue centers on the consumer’s actual demand for electric vehicles. It is undeniable that there was significant hype on the release of the Volt. It was arguably one of the most anticipated vehicles in recent years. Yet we see that this hype has not resulted in sales. Consumers seem to be leery about taking the plunge. It should be noted that there were some safety issues with the Volt’s batteries, which perhaps left some consumers cautious, but was this really enough to drive most potential purchasers away? It seems that the consumer passion demonstrated by EV-1 owners in the documentary has not caught on yet by the modern majority of Americans. Although I believe that the paradigm is starting to shift away from strictly gasoline vehicles, it appears to be moving at a snail’s pace.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/05/gms-volt-stumble-imperils-obamas-electric-car-goals/

Student Post: Hydroelectric Power – The Three Gorges Dam

Harnessing the power of falling water to create energy has been a technique used from the earliest days of energy production.  According to the U.S. Geological Survey, currently about 7 percent of our nation’s power is produced in hydroelectric plants by power generators placed inside dams. The Great Depression and the need to provide electricity to rural areas led to public programs such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Bonneville Power Administration Act of 1937, and construction of the Hoover Dam.  In the past few decades there have been no new large-scale dam construction projects in the United States, and hydroelectric continues to make up a relatively small share of our overall power production. Worldwide, however, hydroelectric power makes up about 19 percent of energy production, with China being the largest producer. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html

While hydroelectric power is considered to be a renewable and clean energy source, it has definite advantages but also creates some negative impacts. Construction of a dam can provide a durable, constant source of energy and production can be stopped when energy is not needed. The electricity produced does not generate any greenhouse gases, and water is a clean source of fuel. However, building large dams requires surrounding areas to be evacuated and can cause significant damage to the ecological system. http://www.earthconservation.net/hydroelectric-power-plant-its-pros-and-cons.html

In China’s large and expanding hydroelectric industry, the Three Gorges Dam is the world’s largest dam facility.  The Three Gorges dam was built in order to increase production of electricity and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in China, as well as to reduce flooding. The dam harnesses the Yangtze River, which is the longest river in Asia, and was completed in 2008.  The estimated output of the dam is that it will provide approximately one-tenth of China’s energy needs. Critics of the dam pointed to ecological concerns because the dam will disrupt silt flows in the river, depriving fish and agricultural land of vital nutrients downstream. The Three Gorges project also led to the dislocation of 1.27 million people. http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/. In addition, there are considerable environmental impacts resulting from the Three Gorges Dam. In addition to fertile farm land, hundreds of factories and dumps were submerged as a result of the dam. This debris, along with upstream industrial centers, has resulted in an incredibly polluted reservoir. Changing water levels on the reservoir have triggered landslides, and there are concerns that earthquakes and other natural disasters could follow.

Are the ecological risks of hydroelectricity worth the benefits? As the world continues to look to renewable energy sources to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, the Three Gorges Dam will be one to watch. Being a relatively new dam and built on such a large scale, its impacts on the environment may not be fully realized for years.

Student Post: Old King Coal: Where is the Innovation?

The process of extracting energy out of coal to create electricity has remained fairly static since its inception. Coal is ignited which boils water which turns to steam which then turns the blades on a turbine. The process is quite inefficient with a large amount of heat produced by the coal being lost. The process also remains extremely "dirty" and harmful to the health of those living nearby and ultimately the health of all those that inhabit this planet as the undesirable particles increase their density in our air. Why is it that the energy industry, especially the coal industry, is so slow moving when it comes to improving efficiency and developing better technologies that don't have such adverse effects on the environment? How is it that a technology, a critical one at that, that has been around for over 100 years still looks almost identical to itself upon inception when things like computers, cellular phones, cars, medical advancements and countless other technologies have come so far?

Coal is one of the cheapest and most abundant resources available to provide for our country's and the world's ever growing energy demands. It is relatively cheap to mine. It has become easier and quicker to transport to power plants and it is abundant. Because of these factors, the final product is cheap for the consumers. We enjoy cheap energy. We have grown ever dependent on electricity and there will likely not be a major change to our habits.
What about the coal industry and the energy industry in general that has prevented it from evolving over time? The book discusses the early days of coal plants in London. The city would regularly become enveloped in thick smoke from the nearby coal plants. It took numerous deaths, deaths directly attributable to the plants and the waste products coming out of their stacks, before regulations came into play. Now, because of those regulations and similar ones made in the US, the undesirable byproducts of burning coal are not so readily visible. That is not to say we are necessarily burning the coal more efficiently or reducing the amount of harmful products being pumped out of the factories. Essentially, we are just doing a better job of hiding the effects from plain sight.

The problem with coal is essentially two-fold: 1) we demand cheap reliable electricity and 2) we already have such a reliance on the product. In order to shift away from coal or to reduce the amount we burn would require vast lifestyle changes by the major users of electricity. Coal accounts for such a large percentage of what makes up the world's electricity portfolio and there are either no viable alternatives (solar and wind) or no desirable alternatives (nuclear).

The coal industry is in a pretty solid position of power and influence in this country and worldwide. There really is no incentive for them to explore much innovation because they understand that the reliance on it is too great and the adverse health effects are difficult to directly attribute to it for us to completely cut our ties.

Student Post: International Coal Transportation

Today’s reading had a section on the United States’ transportation of coal within our borders. However, the United States is also a major exporter of coal. It was estimated in 2010, that the United States exported 74 megatons of coal. That would be the 4th largest exporter of coal in the world behind Australia, Indonesia, and Russia.

According to worldcoal.org, coal transportation accounts for only 16% of the coal that is consumed in the world. Most of the coal that is procured is consumed in the country of origin. That being said, over 70 countries use coal, and roughly 50 commercially produce coal. The coal needs to get from place to place.

With the increased demand of coal in the world, shipping coal over the seas has become a popular mode of transportation. However, the increase in fuel costs have led to an increase in freight costs across the board. Increased freight costs have stymied the ability of developing nations to ship coal cost effectively.

For example, the Indonesian National Shipowners Association stated that 285 vessels would be needed to handle the shipment of coal exports from Indonesia. Currently, only 75 ships are owned and used by Indonesian companies. The remaining ships are contracted out at a cost to the coal distribution centers. Thus rising the overall cost of coal.

Theenergylibrary.com states that international shipping of coal increased from 498 Mt in 1990 to 917 Mt in 2007. With the rise in international shipping there is concern because ocean transport requires five things: 1) transportation from mine to port, 2) coal handling facilities at the export port, 3) ocean carrier networks that can handle the exports, 4) coal handling facilities at the import port, and 5) transportation from port to customer.

In 1979, the National Research Council Maritime Transportation Research Board issued Critical Issues in Coal Transportation Systems: Committee Report. In this report it was emphasized that the U.S. make accurate export estimations regarding the transportation of coal. This report states: “[t]he underestimation of exports would lead to transport congestion and missed sales opportunities. An overestimation would lead to costly excess capacity at a number of shipment points.” These ideals can still be used today.

The basic theme of the research regarding international shipping relates to cost efficiency. The United States imports many manufactured goods from around the world. In connection with that, coal is a major source of energy in the nations the United States imports goods from. If the cost of energy raises the cost of production in those countries, then the cost of those manufactured products is raised here.

It is a cycle that needs to find a more efficient way to save money around the globe. Extra costs from shipping inefficiencies to port taxes have raised prices of consumer goods.

Student Post: Indian Nations and the Coal Industry: A Brief Look at What's Happened on Lands Close to Home

  Indian Nations of the United States hold vast amounts of land in federal trust that are home to large coal reserves, coal mining, and coal plants. Indigenous people of these lands deal disproportionately with the boon and bane of the coal industry. The common challenges of land and resource development are exacerbated by the poor economic situation of many of the tribes, which raise questions of environmental justice and indigenous sovereignty. Within the boundaries of North Dakota, there are four federally recognized tribes that have independent, sovereign relationships with the federal government: the Standing Rock Sioux of Standing Rock Indian Reservation south of Bismarck; the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa at Turtle Mountain Reservation; the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation of Fort Berthold Reservation in west-central North Dakota; and the Spirit Lake Tribe near Devil’s Lake.

 

 The Department of the Interior tells us that twenty-five Native American reservations in the United States have coal reserves. Of these twenty-five, three nations are located within our home state or close to it: the Fort Berthold reservation of central North Dakota; and the Northern Cheyenne and Crow out of eastern Montana. All three tribes have coal reserves for potential development, or currently have mining operations in place for lignite coal. Fort Berthold Reservation in particular has been referred to as the ‘Saudi Arabia of America’ for its rich holdings in lignite and petroleum. North Dakota has the second largest lignite coal production in the U.S. and lignite coal reserves in Western North Dakota are used to generate about 90% of the electricity consumed.

 

  Mining and burning coal have a unique impact on Native American lands and people due to the particular socio-economic and cultural situation. Significant poverty on Indian reservations often influences the choice to develop coal resources, yet because of the special relationship the tribes have to the land as sacred, there is often deep resistance to development and to the resulting damage and pollution to the land and people. There are few social services on many reservations and development often strains the infrastructure. Historically, the development of coal on Native American lands has been guided by treaties between the federal government and tribes. In the past, the Bureau of Indian Affairs arranged and managed coal development land leases. Today, many tribes prefer that their tribal government or an entity of the tribal council independently manage their coal resources, with contracts subject to review by the Secretary of Interior on tribal trust lands. Tribal lands have been the sites of some of the most protracted battles against coal development. Some tribes have taken legal action against the government to cancel the federally administrated leases because of unfairness or exploitation of mineral leases. An example of this is the Northern Cheyenne tribe of Montana.

 

  The lands of the Northern Cheyenne tribe of southeastern Montana are surrounded by five large strip mines, Montana’s largest coal-fired power plant, the Colstrip Steam Plant, and Montana’s only active drilling site for coal bed methane. The coal reserves under the reservation are some of the largest held by any tribe in the country, estimated between 20 and 50 billion tons of low-sulfur coal. The Northern Cheyenne have a long history of successful resistance to outside development of their land. From 1966 to 1971 the tribal council signed leases with coal companies including Peabody Coal, Consolidated Coal, and Amaz Coal. Acting as trustee for the tribe, the BIA failed to complete an environmental impact statement, sold the exploration rights for around $9.00 per acre and agreed to royalties for the tribe of only 17.5 cents per ton in long term mineral leases. The tribe successfully fought to have the leases cancelled in 1973, forced the corporations to pay about $10 million in damages, and regained 7,000 acres of land that had been purchased for mining. The Northern Cheyenne also successfully used the Clean Air Act to stop the expansion of the Colstrip plant, forcing the utilities to equip the plant with the best air-pollution scrubbers in 1977. In addition, the Northern Cheyenne managed to void coal leases on three sides of the reservation in 1982, cancel the permit of a new coal mine east of the reservation in 1997, and retain ownership of all subsurface rights on the reservation.

 

  For thirty years, the Northern Cheyenne tribe fought the development of coal on the reservation, but the dire economic situation within tribal boundaries led to increased support for small-scale development in recent times. As of 2003, 87 percent of Northern Cheyenne on the reservation were living in poverty, with a 65 percent unemployment rate and annual income of $4,479. Dire economic struggles and the associated social problems from poverty drove many Northern Cheyenne off the reservation. On November 7, 2006, the tribe voted 664 to 572 in favor of developing coal on the reservation, and at the same time voted 365 to 841 against coal bed methane drilling.

   

  Today, the Colstrip Steam Plant is coal-fired power stations owned primarily by Puget Sound Energy and operated near the Northern Cheyenne reservation in Colstrip, Montana. Colstrip would never have been founded if it weren’t for the fortune of dirty coal that lies beneath the town and the neighboring reservation. It adds up to an approximate value of $355,000 per acre. Aerial photographs taken around Colstrip from the 1980s until today demonstrate the damage the coal mining and coal plant have wreaked on the landscape. The Colstrip Steam Plant is ranked the ninth dirtiest plant in the nation, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions and fly ash. It is ranked the eleventh dirtiest in the nation, in terms of mercury pollution, and the number one mercury polluter in all Western states. The well water in Colstrip is notorious for smelling like sewer; feeling oily, and gritty from sediment.

 

  The coal plant’s carbon dioxide scrubbers pump ash slurry into an elaborate pond system at 7,500 gallons per minute; a rate of 964,000 tons of waste annually. State and company records revealed the waste ponds that border either end of town as the top culprits for leaking pollutants since 1979. Company records show efforts to maintain the lining of waste pits has failed eighteen times. These issues didn’t come to light until 2003 through the discovery process in litigation between Colstrip residents and PPL Montana (who operates the plant), Avista Corp., PacifiCorp, Portland General Electric, NorthWestern Energy, and Puget Sound Energy.

 

  In 2010, Abt Associates issued a study commissioned by a nonprofit advocacy organization, the Clean Air Task Force on the effects attributable from coal-fired power plants. Fine particle pollution from coal-fired power plants is a mixture of soot, heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. The most dangerous of this pollution is the tiniest particulates, as they evade our lung’s natural defenses, enter the bloodstream, and can be transported to organs. The elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease are at the greatest risk. This study found that 13,500 deaths and tens of thousands of cases of chronic bronchitis, acute bronchitis, asthma, congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, ischemic heart disease, and pneumonia every year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. coal plant emissions. These deaths and diseases show coal’s external costs: the harm inflicted on the public, and particularly low-income and minority populations. The Abt Associates study assigned a value of $7,300,000 to each mortality in 2010 from coal particle pollution. The monetary valuations ranged from $52 for an asthma episode treatment, to $440,000 for a case of chronic bronchitis. This story is a sobering example of the complex legal facets attorneys and legislators face in regulating the industry, regulating the environment, and advocating for both the energy companies and the welfare of community residents.

 

Sources:

·           Interview with Winona LaDuke, April 19, 2004, available at: www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/04/19/laduke/index.html

·           www.nma.org/statistics/coal.asp

·          www.mhanation.com/main/history/history_jtac.html

·          Bob Struckman and Ray Ring, A Breath of Fresh Air, High Country News, January 20, 2003, available at: www.hcn.org/serlets/hcn.Article?article_id=13658.

·          Clair Johnson, Northern Cheyenne Coal Future ‘Delicate Issue’, Billings Gazette, November 16, 2006,available at: http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/11/16/news/local/45-coal.txt.

·          Clean Air Task Force interactive table, Find Your Risk from Power Plant Pollution, February 2011,available at: www.catf.us/coal/problems/power_plants/existing.

·          Kristen Lombardi, The Center for Public Integrity, Problems Related to Coal Ash at the Cosltrip Steam Plant, February 19, 2009, available at: www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/1144/.

·          Brendon Bosworth, Montana’s Colstrip Power Plant Among Worst in the Nation for Mercury Emissions, Says Enviro Group, January 31, 2011, available at: www.newwest.net/topic/article/montanas_colstrip_power_plant_among_worst_in_the_nation_for_mercury_emission/C618/L618.

Student Post: Going the Extra Mile for Cleaner Coal: Is It Worth It?

Great River Energy is a Minnesota-based wholesale cooperative that serves roughly 650,000 customers in our area. Since 2007, the company spent $437 million to construct and put into operation a coal-fired plant in Spiritwood, ND. Now, Great River is shutting operations down at the plant.

As we have learned in our readings, burning coal is the economically productive function of coal. Combustion produces steam, which drives a turbine, and this turbine then produces electricity. Coal combustion, however, is also a major source of air pollution. Further exacerbating environmental concerns is that coal is accounts for roughly 50% of the nation’s energy source. To combat the dangerous levels of air pollution resulting from coal-fired plants Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and established the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) in 1970.

The CAA requires plants to have pollution controls in place to limit their emissions. Well, coal is in great abundance in the United States but it is known as a “dirty fuel.” This basically means that energy companies must expend a greater amount on pollution control if they are burning coal rather than other fuel sources such as oil or natural gas. Additionally, electricity industry incentives have changed so much over the last three two decades that competitive pricing has replaced the once administratively set energy rates. This in turn has led energy companies’ incentive to invest in cleaner, more efficient (and costly) energy sources to wane. An increasing number of states are rejecting applications for new coal-fired plants citing environmental concerns. Thus, the cheaper alternative of coal-based energy has not been growing at the same rate as other power sources.

Coal plants require larger investments, and that is precisely what we saw with Great River Energy’s Spiritwood plant. Great River certainly believed that the investment was well worth it. In the mid-2000s, the company faced a strong growth in demand for electricity, so it decided to build Spiritwood as a long-term, valuable asset to meet this forecasted demand. According to Great River’s web site, Spiritwood also boasts the use of the best, state-of-the-art technology to make the plant “one of the cleanest coal-based power plants in the world.” Its fuel source is lignite coal mined at the surface, and then dried and refined nearby utilizing a proprietary method called DryFine. DryFining is a process in which waste heat from the plant is used together with a proprietary fluidized bed drying process to remove moisture and impurities from the feedstock lignite to produce refined coal. The DryFining method results in less fuel being burned, reduced emissions, and overall lower maintenance costs. Unfortunately, despite all of its innovation, Great River was still subject to the fickle economy and the recession.

Great River stalled the production date of the Spiritwood plant as a result of weaker demand and the recession; however, the company still believed in the value of the plant in the long run. Great River has said that it will delay further operations at the plant at least until 2013. As of last November, plant employees began a “protect, preserve, and maintain mode” that has tacked on an additional $30 million to the nearly half a billion dollar price tag. The budgeted $30 million is to cover the costs of maintenance, and to cover bond interest and depreciation.

Is there a lesson to be learned? Well, Great River Energy was still keeping the environment in mind, and in alignment with federal regulations. The company developed a refinement process and other innovative technologies, at great cost, to more efficiently produce electricity in an increasingly cost- and environmentally-conscious world where oil and (especially) natural gas producers are looking to emerge as the dominant players in commercial and residential energy production. Carbon taxes or offsets have made it more expensive to operate, however, North Dakota and Minnesota provided exemptions and other incentives for the Spiritwood plant.

According Brad Crabtree of the Minneapolis-based nonprofit, the Great Plains Institute, Great River was penalized for its environmental innovations. The extra investment in “resources to do the right thing environmentally and [] build the most efficient advanced-combustion power plant in the Midwest” was largely ignored by the marketplace.

Ultimately, the market has the final say. Despite considerable efforts, the decrease in growth, demand, and electricity prices coupled with the loss of a major would be customer severely weakened the Spiritwood plant’s potential.

Sources:

Great River Energy, StarTribune

Bosselman, et. al., Energy, Economics and the Environment, 3rd Ed.

Student Post: More realistic US oil reserves

With high gas prices, many on the right call for more drilling, exploration, and leasing and many on the left call for investment in renewable energy which will be cleaner and cheaper in the long run. Recognizing that the solution of drilling more holes in the ground will be unlikely to lower gas prices over the long term in any significant way and therefore research in renewables is warranted, it is still helpful to be realistic about how much oil could be recovered and therefore how quickly this switch may come.

That is why I found this article (link at the bottom) from the Institute for Energy Research so interesting. IER is a non-profit group that conducts research and analysis on energy issues that has in the past been funded by groups like Exxon and the Koch brothers which may tell you a bit about why they generally advocate for free market energy solutions and non-intervention by government in the energy markets. Now back to the article.

In the article it criticizes the Obama administration for picking the statistic that the United States has 2% of the proven oil reserves in the world as a reason to promote investment in renewables by way of showing we can’t support fossil fuel use without going out into the international market which has proven volatile in the past. However, the article goes on to show that proven reserves are a small subset of the total recoverable oil the United States has. I was particularly struck by the statistic that in 1944 the US had 20 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and as of 2010 it had 20.7 billion barrels of proven reserves. In that interim period the US produced about 167 billion barrels of oil. Now this doesn’t really prove anything going forward but it does show that the proven reserves statistic is a poor measure of how much oil could really be recovered. In fact the article points out that North Dakota’s proven reserves have increased 25 fold over 13 years.

The article states that technically recoverable oil numbers about 1,442 billion barrels of oil in the United States. That is about 75 times the proven reserves statistic. That technically recoverable oil statistic obviously does not mean that we could pull it out of the ground tomorrow or that it would reduce gas prices as some might claim. Much of that reserve requires the higher oil prices we have currently and maybe even higher in the future to be recovered profitably. However, the thing that I believe is the takeaway from the article is that we should be realistic about what reserves we have. This will lead to a more sensible time frame for an eventual move away from fossil fuels, and take out some of the urgency that we have seen in the last decade which it seems has led to some poor policies and even worse investment decisions through government programs.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/13/exposing-the-2-percent-oil-reserves-myth/

Student Post: The Real Cost of Coal

The Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment wrote a report highlighting the externalities of the use of coal. The report is titledMining Coal, Mounting Costs: The Life Cycle Consequences of Coal.

It focused on the actual costs of coal to society, including things such as land disturbance, public health effects, fatalities in transportation, emissions, mercury impacts, subsidies, abandoned mine lands, and contribution to climate change.

The report estimates the “total annual economically-quantifiable cost of coal” to range from $175 Billion to $523 Billion in yearly additional costs, with a “best” estimate of $345 Billion. Taking these costs into consideration, the report also estimates that the added costs consumers pay for coal-fired electricity is between $0.09 to $0.27 per kWh, with the “best” estimate being an additional cost of $0.18 per kWh.

Measurable Consequences of Coal

The study identified 12 measurable consequences related to the life cycle of coal. The following is a brief overview of several of these consequences:

Underground Effects
Over 100,000 miners have died from mine accidents since 1900 and over 200,000 have died from black lung disease. The costs of these deaths and diseases was largely internalized within the industry, however, as recovery from companies has become more difficult (due to their dissolution) the federal government and states are increasingly bearing these costs through public health services.

Effects to Coal-Mining Regions
There is evidence that in heavy coal mining areas, a higher than normal rate of deaths from lung cancer, heart, respiratory, and kidney disease exists. Some of these costs were historically internalized by offering health insurance and other health benefits to mine workers. However, in the case of community members and other not directly involved in mining operations, it is more likely that these costs are external: i.e. borne by the public in general rather than the responsible party.

Rail Transport Costs
The report claims an average of 246 deaths yearly result from accidents during the transportation of coal, including rail traffic, truck traffic, and power plant operations.Traditional tort principles of negligence provide a fairly direct means of recovery for victims of such accidents. However, monetary compensation for the loss of life is inadequate to account for many objective variables (such as lost economic productivity) and the almost unlimited value of human life.

Air Pollution Costs
The Harvard study estimates that “particulates and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur kill 24,000 people annually”. The value of these lost lives is not definitely ascertainable; however, the study estimates it at approximately 187 Billion each year!

Subsidies
There is a significant amount of government involvement in regulation in the coal industry. From tax cuts, special deductions, and outright subsidies, the coal industry is far from a “free market” economic model.The study emphasized that there are many external costs the use of coal, and these subsidies are a perfect example. Manipulation of tax code, government backed loans, and direct subsidies to companies are all additional costs of coal indirectly imposed on society.

Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation
Abandoned mines are prevalent in North Dakota and other coal-producing areas in the United States. While marked efforts have been made to “reclaim” these areas, the marks of coal mining from decades past can still be seen in numerous locations in western North Dakota.
Conclusion

This Harvard medical report should make people skeptical of claims made by advocates for the coal industry who argue that coal is perfectly safe and with no harmful externalities. While coal-powered electrical generation is vital to meeting the current electrical needs of society, the results of this study are yet another reason to look into moving more of our electrical generation needs to cleaner and more sustainable sources.

Student Post: The Clean Air Act and Trans Boundary Pollution

Within in this section of the book it was mentioned that the mining of coal can have severe effects on the environment, which reminded me of another class where we discussed the problem of regulating pollution across the borders of different states and Indian country. This problem arises out of the natural spread of pollution across man-made borders through the movement of wind, water, and various other modes of transportation. To help limit the different environmental laws among jurisdictions, the federal government passed different Acts which help set more uniform standards. In regards to coal production, the Clean Air Act would be one of the more applicable environmental laws used, and is also a great example of an Act with Trans boundary effects.

In implementing the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency created a three class system in which each state can determine what class they wanted to be part of and thus which standards to be applied to them. The three different classes that were used are: class I areas, which would have nearly any negative change in air quality be considered significant; class II areas, which would have deterioration accompanying moderate well-controlled growth be ok; and class III areas, which would allow deterioration right up to the national minimum standard. Some of the determining factors for the designation of these classes were the environmental, economic and social effects that designation would have on the area, but despite the variation in these factors the vast majority of the United States is still identified as a class II area.

One of the major factors of why the majority of the United States is designated as class II is because one state’s designation can affect the amount of pollution that another state can produce. Let’s pretend that North Dakota was a class II area and Minnesota was a class I area. If North Dakota had a coal facility that was producing an amount of pollution that was ok under class II standards, but not for class I standards, Minnesota could potentially force the facility to meet class I standards despite being physically located in a class II area. For this argument to work Minnesota would have to show that the pollution from the coal facility is dropping the air quality within Minnesota’s borders to a standard below a class I designation.

The benefit of this system is that pollution is a trans-boundary problem and there needs to be a way for different states and jurisdiction to resolve their issues for different environmental standards. There is of course the problem that a downwind state can theoretically have a lot of control on the upwind state’s economy through imposing higher or lower environmental regulations. This problem is less likely to occur do to the fact that that state will also be bound by those same environmental regulations, effectively causing the same problem for their own state. Where the problem arises is if the state or jurisdiction doesn’t have the same economic or environmental goals as the bordering jurisdiction, which can be seen in some cases between the State and Indian country regulations. Despite what may appear to be unfair regulations, I overall believe that their needs to be some kind of check on upwind jurisdictions where it may be easier to justify higher levels of pollution because you don’t have to deal with the accumulated side effects and this Act helps provide that check.

Student Post: We’re Doing This for Your Own Good

We’ve talked about the plan of increasing taxes on gasoline and then reducing payroll taxes so that workers have an incentive to use that extra income to adjust their transportation decisions so they can keep some of that extra income.

I see a few problems with this method of kicking up the search and implementation of non-gasoline fuels, but I’ll focus on only one. This plan gives workers too much leeway with their extra income. The workers could use this extra income to fund other forms of transportation fuels; that’s one option. However, given the state of the other options, it seems more likely that workers will go with gasoline because it’s easier than hurdles of the up-and-coming fuels. Some alternative fuels require buying a new vehicle or upgrading an older vehicle to run on a new fuel would likely more than offset the tax break. And, because there are so few fueling stations, workers would have to overcome psychological hurdles too. Workers are likely to either spend their days worrying about where to find the new fueling stations or fretting about whether their car will be able cover all the miles of their commutes on a single charge. Given these psychological hurdles and Americans’ proclivity for the status quo, the best bet is that this extra income will go to purchasing the higher-taxed gasoline. With these psychological hurdles, it seems like if we really want to find fuels other than gasoline, this extra income needs some steering.

By dropping the second part of this plan, the extra income from the gas tax goes to the government. Now I might be naïve, or a socialist, or think like those soft Europeans, but I think by giving this tax revenue to the government and requiring this income actually fund fuels besides gasoline we could get to fuels besides gasoline faster. This money would infuse the emerging markets with the capital they need to build their physical infrastructures or brainwash us (Americans) into believing these alternative fuels are fun, easy to use, and potentially not as bad for the planet. Now, there are likely decreases in other areas of government income because this tax will affect how consumers spend their money. So the government may receive fewer dollars from sales taxes because we may have to cut back on buying things like the latest and greatest iProduct. But remember, we came from a generation without cellphones or computers and somehow they survived long enough to bring us into existence. Essentially, if we want fuels other than gasoline, we’re going to have to pay somehow. If we’re too set in our ways to change, even for a cause we claim to support, it makes sense to have someone (Uncle Sam) twist our arms a little to get there.

This might sound like an assault on freedom of choice or, even deeper, on free will, but people don’t have the best track record exercising those powers to benefit others. Enron. Another example is a psychological experiment I read about.

An actor is hooked up to a machine. The subject believes the machine gives the person a shock (the subject doesn’t know the person hooked up to the machine is an actor). The psychologist performing the test tells the subject to shock the actor whenever the actor answers a question incorrectly. The psychologist tells the subject to increase the strength of the shock with each incorrect answer. In this experiment, the psychologist would ask the actor questions and the actor would answer the questions incorrectly to the point where the subject believed he or she was delivering a lethal shock to the actor. Nearly all of the subjects delivered this shock. The psychologist would simply tell the subject to deliver the shock. If the subject questioned the psychologist, the psychologist would respond by telling the subject he had to follow through with what the experiment required. The subjects were interviewed after the experiment and were asked why they went along with killing someone because they were told to, not forced or coerced, but simply told to. Most said because it was easier to follow directions and the psychologist was an authoritative figure.

This could be an analogy for our relationship with gasoline. No one is forcing us to buy it, but we keep buying anyway because it’s easy; it’s what the carmakers tell us to buy; and the government rationalizes the choice economically with subsidies.

Student Post: Electric Cars! Or not...

Watching the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car” in class on Thursday brought up a few interesting ideas that I hadn’t thought much of recently. With the discussions we have had in class about various types of cars and how much pollution should be allowed, I found the film’s view of electric cars to be a nice refresher on their history.

The first part of the film that went through the history of electric cars really surprised me. I had no idea how prevalent electric cars had been when the automobile industry really started up. With the lower costs of oil and all of the reasons stated in the film, it is easy to understand how electric cars faded in the past, but it was interesting to see how the film went about explaining how the more recent round of electric cars met their end.

With the more recent rise and fall of GM’s EV1 and other companies’ similar attempts at electric cars still in the recent past, it’s interesting to see the path that automakers have taken us down. With all of the technological advances we’ve had since the 1900’s, it’s amazing that we haven’t figured out how to get cleaner and more efficient vehicles on the road.

Regardless of who is to blame for the recent failure of pure electric cars, I would think that the automobile industry will soon be forced to develop better vehicles that either get dramatically improved gas mileage or that are better hybrids with electricity, hydrogen, or whatever power source they can come up with. Increased gasoline prices are becoming a bigger issue again, and consumers will be doing everything they can to save money.

The film and the discussions we have had in class have also caused me to think more about public transportation. In much of America it seems there is no practical way to make it useful on a large scale, but in bigger cities there is a lot of room for improvement. With the technology that is out there for electric or hydrogen vehicles, why can’t public buses and trains run on this cleaner energy? If public transportation is advertised and promoted as being environmentally friendly in these ways, more people might be willing to take the electricity-powered bus rather than drive their own gasoline-powered car.

I realize that there is currently a lack of infrastructure to really put that into effect, but it can’t be a bad idea to consider broader transportation issues like that instead of only thinking about individual cars.

Student Post: Differences between American and Irish Household Energy Uses

In the current climate in which we find ourselves in the US, there seems to be a trend toward reducing consumption of energy and installing energy efficient appliances and systems that require less energy. In Europe, it seems that people have been more energy conscious for a very long time. In Ireland, for example, where my wife spent a good part of her life, energy was an area where people tried very hard to reduce their consumption. In Ireland, people rarely, if ever use a dryer to dry their clothes; they still hang their clothes to dry. In fact, many of the dryers that are found in Ireland leave a lot to be desired by American standards. Drying your clothes in an Irish dryer has about the same force as having an asthmatic breathe hot air on your damp clothing.

There are a number of ways in which energy efficient methods are found in the average Irish home. One way people dry their clothes is by hanging them in racks placed in the same closet as the water heater and furnace. In this way, the residual heat from the furnace and water heater heats the room and dries clothing.

Another interesting difference between Irish and American household energy uses regards hot water consumption. In the US, we have large hot water heaters that keep a large supply of hot water hot all the time. In Ireland, this is not the case. In Ireland there is what is known as an immersion, which is a water heater that heats water for smaller uses. When you want a shower in Ireland you must turn the immersion on to bath which heats a larger quantity of water. This practice is outlined in a rather funny routine by Des Bishop an Irish-American comedian in the following clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52bna-tn_dY (warning-there is some adult language).

Recently, Electric Ireland announced that it would introduce a new “low user standing charge” where households that used less than two units of electricity per day would be subject to a fee of some 15 cents or some 60 Euros a year. (See the following link: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/esbs-low-usage-fee-will-hit-mostly-holiday-homes-3032901.html) This charge will affect mostly homes that are left vacant and holiday homes. This charge is levied, according to Electric Ireland, in order to make up for losses due to reading meters and other service costs. I had never heard of such a thing, and found it odd. I found that there is the same thing in the US.

Student Post: Current State of the Electric Car

The latest “global recession” seems to have jump started another round of interest in electric vehicles. After the EV1 program, which was discussed in ‘Who Killed the Electric Car’ ended in 2002, and most electric cars were withdrawn from the American car market. There was little activity after this until Tesla unveiled the Tesla Roadster in 2006, which became available to consumers in 2008 for over $98,000.

After gas prices went over $4.00/gallon in July of 2008 more focus was put on smaller and less fuel consuming cars. In 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made two billion dollars available to invest in electric car technology and the department of energy gave eight billion in loans to Ford, Tesla, and Nissan to promote electric car development. As a result of this slightly more affordable electric cars were put on the market.

Currently on the market in United States is the Chevy Volt, The Mitsubishi i, the Ford Focus and the Nissan Leaf. The Nissan Leaf is available for around $28,000. The overall prices of electric cars should continue to go down with the advancements in battery technology. A company called Envia has created a battery that has twice the capacity of the current batteries, when these batteries can be used (a lot of work is still needed) they predict that the current average price of $10,000/battery will be able to be cut in half.

The Federal government currently allows for up to a $7,500 tax credit with the purchase of a new electric car, but there is still the issue of informing consumers about these incentives and options. Things such as the movie ‘Revenge of the Electric Car’, by the same people who made ‘Who Killed the Electric Car’ having been released in January are making an attempt to inform, as well as community efforts such as Bloomington-Normal, IL which has taken the steps to market themselves as EVTown, “a model electric vehicle community”.

Considering How long the electric car has been around and how slow the technology has been to progress, the latest incentives given to companies and consumers as well as the heightened price of gas which has consumers conscience of the type of vehicle they are purchasing gives hope that the electric car will continue to make advances and become a much more common and affordable source of transportation.

Sources:
http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/39806/
http://www.evtown.org/home.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml

Interesting Timeline of the History of the Electric Car: http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

Student Post: VROOM!!!!!....VROOM!!!!!......You have got to be kidding me!

It appears that now even race car fans can enjoy their hobby while doing their part to help the environment. Both Toyota and Audi have recently released prototype hybrid racers. Both of these vehicles will make their debut into the racing scene later this year.

The Audi R18 e-tron quattro, besides sounding like something from a science fiction movie, is the world’s first all-wheel drive diesel hybrid endurance racer. According to the article cited above, I can now use the words “diesel”, “hybrid”, and “awesome” in the same sentence.......thanks for that. This vehicle uses electric motors to store energy from braking. It can then use that energy, at speeds above 75 mph, to assist the vehicle’s diesel engine.

At this time, less is known about the Toyota hybrid racer. It appears to work in a similar fashion by collecting and storing energy from the vehicle’s brakes, engine, exhaust, and even the suspension system. The stored energy is then used to increase fuel efficiency or “deliver a boost in power”.

I find it interesting to see these companies dedicate their resources to developing hybrid vehicles for potentially the smallest class of the driving public, high performance race car drivers. I am no expert, but I feel safe in assuming that no matter how fuel efficient you make a race car........it is still not going to be fuel efficient. This seems like a bad business decision. I fail to see a reason for a hybrid race car. Not when there are a significant number of people in the general driving population who would drive a hybrid if the technology was developed to produce a reasonably priced vehicle. If your goal is to provide fuel efficient vehicles to the public at least partly to help the environment, Hybrids racers seem like a better idea once the bigger market is tapped.

Now I understand that much of the technology behind developing a hybrid race car probably overlaps with the technology used to manufacture a hybrid for the general public. In fact, it is conceivable that testing the boundaries of a hybrid vehicle in such a manner will do a great service to the development of an affordable hybrid for the general driving public. If this is the case, I am much less alarmed. The articles I read did not touch on this.

Ultimately, at a critical time when the hybrid vehicle is potentially positioned to go mainstream, developing a hybrid racer seems like a risk. My position remains the same: Vehicle manufacturers, quit playing with your toys and build me a hybrid vehicle I can afford.

Cites:
http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/02/29/audis-awesome-diesel-hybrid-racer/?cmpid=cmty_{linkBack}_Audi%27s_awesome_diesel_hybrid_racer

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/01/19/toyota-hybrid-racer-hits-track/?cmpid=cmty_{linkBack}_Toyota_hybrid_racer_hits_the_track