As the current infrastructure of nuclear power plants in the United States continues to age, major decisions regarding how and when to repair or retire these facilities rise to the surface. According to a CNN article from last year in March, over half of the countries 104 nuclear power plants are over 30 years old. These plants have been applying for, and being granted, extensions on their operating licenses. http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/15/news/economy/nuclear_plants_us/index.htm
Prairie Island Nuclear Power facility in Minnesota is one of the plant that is over 30 years old. The twin reactors on the site began operating in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Island_Nuclear_Power_Plant Exel Energy has been working for the last few years on gaining approval to continue operating this plant until 2034. http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/17/xcel-prairie-island/
This raises a number of safety concerns including, how old is too old for a nuclear power facility and at what point has one location been exposed to an unsafe amount of radioactive waste being stored on site?
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
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.
[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.
[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?
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?
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)