Morgan McCollum: Summary of Clean Coal & Carbon Capture and Storage Report

Coal: Global Warming’s Biggest Scapegoat

Coal has been deemed the dirtiest of all fossil fuels emerging as the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. When coal is burnt, it releases emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and other harmful emissions such as mercury that are then released via flue gas—the clouds that rise out of smoke stacks. These emissions have a direct impact on global warming, contribute to approximately 24,000 premature deaths a year in the United States alone, and can harm areas thousands of miles away via acid rain. Even the process of retrieving coal has its flaws—entire mountaintops are removed in search for large quantities, and the coal mining process can be highly hazardous. However, due to its relatively easy access, large quantities, and low cost relative to other energy sources, coal is likely to remain a power source for the foreseeable future.

What is clean coal?

Due to heavy protest and concern, the coal industry with help from scientists and politicians has revamped its image with ‘clean coal’ technology. An oxymoron of a term, Al Gore once said, “Clean Coal is like a healthy cigarette, it doesn’t exist.” Clean coal has been manipulated to mean anything that the industry wants it to mean, but it certainly does not mean carbon-free. Not a single coal fired power plant is emissions free, and almost none can do anything about carbon dioxide emissions, one of the leading proponents of global warming. However, it is good to look into the technologies because many are at least slightly better than burning dirty coal, and it is important to see which ones are most worth the investment. There are four main categories of clean coal technology:

Coal Washing: Literally what its name suggests. Crushed coal is washed prior to its burning so as to lower the level of sulfur and minerals within the coal.

Pollution Control Methods: There are several types of pollution controls that are each designed to control a particular type of emission. Electrostatic Precipitators can be installed to reduce particulate matter pollution, NOx burners reduce NOx emissions, and flue gas desulphurization can reduce SO₂ emissions. Flue gas desulphurization, also known as scrubbing, has become a commonly used procedure in coal-fired power plants. Scrubbers are installed in the smokestacks of power plants where they then remove sulfur from the flue gas by using a sorbent—usually lime or limestone. It remains one of the most commercially used emission control methods and can easily be installed into existing plants.

Efficient Combustion Technologies: These involve improving the overall efficiency of the coal burning process. For example, Supercritical Pulverized Coal Combustion increases the thermal efficiency of a plant 35-45%, meaning that more coal can be burnt at a given temperature. Another method is Fluidized Bed Coal Combustion, in which coal can be burnt at relatively low temperatures.

Carbon Capture and Storage: To date, CCS is not commercially available and is highly expensive. Carbon Capture and Storage will involve three main steps: capturing carbon dioxide emissions from the flue gas within the smokestacks, compressing it from a gas into a liquid, and finally transporting that liquid through a pipeline to a repository underground where it will be stored for centuries. To date, there are methods of capturing CO₂ (such as chemical absorption), but unfortunately the CCS process has two major problems. First, is that it requires a lot of energy; between removing the CO₂ and collecting it for storage, twenty five percent more coal would have to be burnt to produce the same amount of electricity as before CCS was implemented. To produce this amount of coal, more energy would be required in mining and transportation—offsetting the environmental benefits of CCS. Second, coal fired power plants produce 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year. In order to capture this amount of CO₂, 30 million barrels of the liquid would have to be filled every day. This number is higher than the number of barrels filled by petroleum products and it took approximately a hundred years to build the infrastructure the US currently uses to transport petroleum. Would it be possible for an even larger infrastructure to be built for CCS? Not to mention that this does not even include the problem of where the storage facility to be. It would be quite possible for the carbon dioxide to be pumped under the ground only to escape years later. And if it is pumped under the ocean, it is possible that the carbon dioxide would lower pH levels, affecting marine life. Thus to date, carbon capture and storage lacks the planning, infrastructure, and knowledge base to be a practical clean coal technology.

And if you didn’t feel like reading all that technical stuff, just read this:

I am attempting to condense a ten-page paper into a blog post, so not all my information can be put in here. However, there are some important points (and some personal opinions) that I would like to state. There are four main categories of clean coal technology, and many sound like promising technologies until one asks the question: where do the pollutants go? Like all magic tricks, to the viewer's eye the object may have ‘disappeared,’ but the magician knows that the rabbit has moved from inside the hat to under the table. Clean coal methods work by removing pollutants from the flue gas but they can't just "disappear," they have to be released somewhere else in the environment. When coal is burnt, these contaminants will inevitably be burnt as well, and they will have to go somewhere even if that isn’t directly into the atmosphere via flue gas.

Second, carbon capture and storage is far too expensive to be a viable option at the time being. It can increase the cost of a power plant anywhere from 20-90 percent—the lack of knowledge and experience is why that percentage is so uncertain.  Third, I believe that technologies that improve the overall efficiency of the plants are the best technologies to be pursued. They result in less coal being excavated and less coal being burnt while achieving the same amount of electricity generation.

I believe funding can and should be spent on other investments besides coal. There are renewable energy sources and there are natural gas sources that produce half the amount of CO₂ as coal. One type of renewable energy source I have come across recently is BioCoal. It is created from biomass and then treated to create a renewable coal. It meets all renewable fuel and CO₂ reduction regulations, and is carbon neutral. BioCoal advocates state that it can be put into power plants today with no changes necessary. Do I believe this will actually ever happen? No. But it’s just a thought.

And lastly, energy conservation, energy conservation, energy conservation. Simply providing more incentives for the public to purchase LED lighting, energy efficient appliances, and better insulation for their housing would help significantly reduce the amount of coal needed to b burnt, and therefore the amount of CO₂ emissions into the atmosphere. This can be done today and requires far less time, research, and money than CCS technologies. Coal certainly is not disappearing anytime soon, but it is important to remember that it is exhaustible, and we should be thinking ahead to the future.

Sources

1.     Dowdy, Sarah. "What Is Clean Coal Technology?." http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/clean-coal.htm

2.     Snell, Marilyn B. "Can Coal Be Clean? New Ways to Burn a Dirty Old Fuel." Feb, 2007.http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200701/coal.asp

3.     US Department of Energy, "Clean Coal Technology and The Clean Coal Power Initiative." http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/

4.     Green Peace Briefing, Climate, New Zealand, ""Clean Coal" Technology." http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/new-zealand/press/reports/clean-coal-technology-briefing.pdf

5.     Garber, Kent. "Why Making Coal Cleaner Will Take Years." U.S. News & World Report, Apr, 2009, 66-68.

6.     Balat, M. "Coal-fired Power Generation: Proven Technologies and Pollution." Energy Sources Part A: Recovery, Utilization, & Environmental Effects 30, no. 2 (2008): 132-140.

7.     James, Meigs B. "The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis." July 14, 2011.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/4339171

8.     NMA: The American Resource, "Clean Coal Technology." http://www.nma.org/pdf/fact_sheets/cct.pdf

9.     Berman, Ari. "The Dirt on Clean Coal." Nation 288, no. 14 (2009): 17-21.

10.  Troy, Phaedra F. "Clean Coal Creates Emerging Job Market." Power Engineering 114, no. 12 (2010): 6-7.

11.  Bradsher, Keith. "China Outpaces US in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants. The New York Times". (May 10, 2009), http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html.

12.  "China's Energy Pattern in Low Carbon Era, China Chemical Reporter". 21. 11 (2010), 9-10

13.  Fairley, Peter. "China's Coal Future. Technology Review". 110. 1 (2007), 56-61

14.  Markham, Derek. "Can Bio Coal Turn Coal Power Plants into Green Energy Producers?." Dec 28, 2009. http://greenlivingideas.com/2009/12/28/bio-coal-turn-coal-power-plants-green-energy-producers/

Morgan McCollum: China at a Crossroads: Distress over Democratization or an Omen of Collapse?

The Kissinger Institute on China and the United States Presents:

China at a Crossroads: Distress over Democratization or an Omen of Collapse?

August 4, 2011

Dr. Wu Junhua began studying China’s macro economy after receiving her PhD from Tokyo University. However, she began to realize that one cannot study China’s economy in a vacuum—history, reform movements, and psychological perspectives must also be addressed. In psychological terms, Dr. Junhua claimed that China currently struggles a type of schizophrenia, coining the term “Two China’s.” One personality of China is confident and rising as a super power, while another personality of China lives in fear of a total collapse. One side is pushing for greater reforms and a call for greater civil rights, while another side can be seen as a revival of the Mao Zedong Cult. She also argues that there appears to be two ways that China could potentially move forward in the future. The government could pursue policies of political reform corresponding with international policies, or the government could pursue policies of political reform while becoming stricter with international influence and policy. She predicts that China will follow the latter—attempting internal reform, but being even more cautious when it comes to external reform. One part of the lecture that I found most interesting was the answer to why China so desperately needs internal reform, even over external reform.

In 2010, the overall budget to maintain domestic order (i.e. police) was greater than the military budget. China is currently more concerned with internal conflict than they are with external disruption. Dr. Junhua cites a few cases that have caused citizens recently to question and rebel against their government. First, in December 2010 was the death of dissident Qian Yunhui. Yunhui led a six-year campaign to protect his neighbors in a land dispute, where Chinese officials attempted to illegally seize land—a common occurrence in China. Yunhui was found dead under the wheel of a truck, and the Chinese government called his death a normal traffic accident. However, the public questioned their government, with villagers claiming they saw four men in security personnel uniforms holding the man down to the ground while the truck then drove on top of him. When photos were released, the public was in horror of his gruesome death and began to question their officials. In addition, villagers who had arrived immediately on the scene of the death would not allow the police to remove the body, which caused a riot between the two.

The New York Times claims that Qian Yunhui’s death caused even more public unrest because it followed the injury of one college student and the death of another, when the two were run over by the son of a deputy police chief.  As the son fled the scene he shouted, “Sue me if you dare, my father is Li Gang!” These words directly highlighted “official corruption and nepotism.”

Finally, two bullet trains collided in Zhejiang, China in late July of this year. One train fell off the bridge killing at least 35 and more than 200 were injured. China has rapidly been expanding its high-speed train network, but reports have found that the lines were not safe enough. Public outrage still continues to run high in China, and distrust in public officials who propose and implement these trains is widespread.

It is clear that the public is better off overall now that it was years ago. The revival of the Mao Zedong Cult is not a threat, and the standard of living has improved dramatically for many citizens of China. However, as the government continues to disappoint, and Internet users increase, the government will have to make reforms or continue to face the wrath of its citizens. A version of twitter has emerged in China, and it receives 10 million new users a month. These advances have opened the lines of free speech in China. Some claim that reforms will not be made by the new government in 2012, but rather will wait until the next cycle of government officials in 2022. However, Dr. Junhua claims that China does not have ten years to wait for this type of reform, citing the above as examples of an already increasing internal unrest.

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/asia/29china.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14262276 

Morgan McCollum: What Is the EU’s New Airline Carbon Cap and What Does it Mean for the World?

As I look for daily environmental news for the European Union, one story continues to pop-up: the EU’s recent decision to regulate airline emissions. The EU doesn’t just want to regulate their own airline emissions, but rather, the new law will mandate that any aircraft from anywhere in the world flying to or from Europe must abide by these emissions regulations. The new plan under the EU ETS states that starting in 2012, airlines will be brought under a carbon cap in which by 2013 airlines must reduce their emission 3% below 2004-2005, and 5% by 2020. Currently, airline emissions account for 2-3% of all greenhouse gas emissions.

            The projected law has sparked widespread debate across the globe. American airlines have taken the law to the European Court of Justice and hired lobbyists to help push American laws against the cap regulations. House Representative John Mica of Florida has proposed the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011, which would prevent US aircraft operators from abiding by the European statute. Under this law, the US aviation operators would not be penalized for not abiding to a unilaterally imposed European regulation. Other countries such as China, India, and Russia have all opposed the bill as well. India has threatened to file complaints to the World Trade Organization stating that the law would be unfair to developing countries. Overall, these countries state that the law could end up costing them each around 4 billion US dollars. Almost every country feels that the EU should withdraw the cap until a consensus is reached via international negotiation, possibly at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

            So which side deserves to win? It is difficult to say. The goal is certainly a worthy one that directly addresses the issue of rising air travel and greenhouse gas emissions. If airlines make changes to reduce their emissions—whether via fuel-efficient airplanes or investment in biofuels, overall savings will not be immediate, but in the long-run savings on fuel costs could be between 15-35%. Second, almost all countries have made pledges to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, yet their protests to this new regulation make them seem hypocritical. Here is finally a concrete solution to help all countries reduce their emissions, and almost none want to take it. This is not a solution that the European Union can go in on alone—the emission trading must apply to all airlines or none. Simply regulating the European Union’s airline emissions would not be enough change to make a dramatic difference, and it would be economically detrimental to the country and European Airlines such as Virgin Airlines. Finally, while countries are calling for international negotiation on the issue, these negotiations have occurred time and time again, and historical evidence proves that almost nothing is ever accomplished. If the European Union brings these emissions rulings into negotiations, they will likely never pass.

            On the other hand, it is quite easy to see the opposite side of the argument. Anyone who has traveled in the past few years has watched how airline prices have skyrocketed, and not just ticket price, but airlines now charge for baggage, food, blankets, headphones, basically anyway they can to make a profit. To now add a carbon tax would be to increase pressure on airline profits, and that pressure would be placed on the consumer. It is predicted that the average flight to Europe would now cost about $6 US per passenger; that adds up. The overall fine for violating the plan would be approximately 100 Euros, or $142 per every ton of carbon dioxide that airlines emit above the limit. The National Airlines Trade Group predicts that this could cost the US airlines at least 3 billion through 2020. Second, while advancements in biofuels are taking off, they are not yet commercially available enough yet to be a practical solution to hit the 2013 mandates, and purchasing a new fleet of efficient airplanes could take 5 years. In addition, deeper information about the cap is still widely unknown. If the European Union collects cap money from airlines that don’t follow the emissions guidelines, where does this money go? And second, how is this money even going to be collected? In addition, countries that cut emissions by greater than 5% can sell their allowances, which some argue will cause international trade disputes. At the end of the day, no country likes to be told that they must do something when they have had little to no say in the matter.

            The question is: what is going to happen? The cap and trade law has gone to European court, where many predict it will pass. Some airlines have already begun to accept this fate: American Airlines just placed the largest order in history for 460 new, fuel-efficient airplanes. These airplanes would abide by the regulations, making American Airlines the most fuel-efficient fleet in the US. As of right now, the bill proposed by Representative Mica seems more of a statement than anything else—the Senate has not yet produced any form of a bill dealing with the issue. Whether or not the ruling will pass, it is hopeful that like American Airlines, airlines begin to pay more attention to green issues at hand. Greener fleets or technologies like GPS systems can reduce flight paths and reduce fuel costs, lowering emissions. As of right now, one of the best bets would be to postpone the implementation of the law, attempt to reach some sort of international negotiation, and ask that each country attempt to reduce their airline emissions even without the tax in the time being. It’s a sticky issue—both sides have valid arguments, and if not careful, this cap could result in a scuffle between several countries, hence why many figureheads have failed to comment on the issue. In my humble opinion, however, this seems like a promising global emissions reduction plan, and it would be a shame to not see it passed and followed.

Sources: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-eu-has-the-right-idea-in-regulating-greenhouse-gases-from-airplanes/2011/07/08/gIQADGLn7H_story.html

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/avd/2011/07/21/07.xml&headline=U.S.%20Lawmakers%20Say%20EU%20ETS%20Is%20Illegal

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-threatens-to-move-WTO-against-EU-s-carbon-tax/Article1-726730.aspx

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/uk-column-airlineemissions-goldmark-idUSLNE76P02I20110726

http://www.eraa.org/newsroom/news-releases/664-emissions-trading-must-apply-to-all-airlines-or-none

Morgan McCollum: Same Bed, Different Dreams?: The New Philanthropy and Civil Society in China

Over the past few decades, specifically since the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, civil society in China has been on the rise. What may seem like a contradictory statement: the co-existence of a communist government and a non-governmental organization has seemed to become a reality…or has it? Dr. Shawn Shieh, director of the China Development Brief (English) addressed the struggles non-profits have had gaining a definitive place in China, and in the eyes of the public.

Dr. Shieh began his presentation with what he deemed the “appetizers” by defining what exactly is the non-profit sector? By definition, non-profits are designed to fill gaps in service delivery that the government cannot provide. In the United States, this is done via fundraising, charity events, and advertising. In China, non-profits struggle to fit this definition. To begin, the oxymoron of non-governmental organizations in China is that they are rarely non-governmental. On one side of the spectrum, there are entirely government owned agencies, such as public institutions and state owned enterprises. In the middle there are quasi government owned agencies, such as neighborhood committees, mass organizations, and GONGOs (government owned non-governmental organizations—say what??) And then there are non-profits that are registered with the Civil Affairs Bureau, non-profits under the guise of businesses, and unregistered non-profits. Because of this wide spectrum, in which most are self-proclaimed “non-governmental agencies,” there is no clear definition as to exactly what is a non-profit. There also is no clear count of the number of non-profits within China, due to the number of unregistered NGOs and non-profits registered as businesses. Thus there are estimated to be between half a million and as many as 2.5 million grassroots associations in China. This leaves China with about 1 foundation per 650,000 people compared to the United States’ 1 foundation per 3000 people.

Based on an analysis done by Dr. Shieh on the current state of the non-profit sector, what are some of the findings? Dr. Shieh first discussed non-profit funding. Most non-profits in China are not allowed to publicly ask for funding and may not have a place for donations on their website. This of course leaves the question: how do these non-profits survive? The answer is that most non-for-profits are also literally no profits. Employees can barely be paid, and more funding does not go towards management training, etc, but rather towards the implementation of specific projects. Thus the non-profits run solely project-to-project and generally cannot attract the highest quality of staff.

Another issue regarding funding is where it comes from. The Chinese government tends to be more skeptical of international funding as opposed to domestic funding. In order to remain in favor with the government, finding local funding is the best solution.

A second finding is that certain types of non-profits have found more success than others. Environmental and education based non-profits have found far more success than those of legal aid and advocacy. Thus there are gaps in the services non-profits can provide. Also, for a brief comparison, environmental agencies in China receive an annual budget of about 30-50 RMB (4.6-7.7 million US dollars) compared to 3 billion in the United States.

Finally, many of the government owned non-profits lack transparency and accountability. Therefore, when scandals arise, such as a recent one with the Chinese Red Cross, non-profits lose appeal to the general public. An environment of giving and community service is not born over night. It must become engrained as a way of life, and that is difficult for the public to digest when many non-profits lack transparency and accountability. Overall, the future of the non-profit sector in China is still uncertain, but contrary to what many news stories portray, they at least do exist and are gaining ground.

For more information, visit Dr. Shawn Shieh's blog: www.ngochina.blogpot.com, his website: www.chinadevelopmentbrief.cn, or read his recent publications State and Society Responses to Social Welfare Needs in China: Service the People (Routledge, 2009) and "An Emerging Civil Society: The Impact of the 2008 Sichuan Earthquake on Grassroots Associations in China" (The China Journal, January 2011).

Morgan McCollum: Looking to Afghanistan to Understand the Importance of Natural Resources

Review of:

"International Symposium on Harnessing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding:

Lessons from US and Japanese Assistance"

On Wednesday, July 20^th, I attended the International Symposium on Harnessing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding. The concept behind the symposium is that natural resources can and usually do play a significant role in post-conflict areas. The availability of natural resources can lend a hand in peacebuilding efforts, and can also be destructive to peacebuilding efforts. One example of positive natural resource use is giving excombatants access to arable land. However, with over 45% of post conflict areas falling back into conflict, the lack of natural resources can be an even more important issue. For example, the lack of water can be a detriment to the peacebuilding process. Natural resources, or the lack there of, tend to be neglected in the peacebuilding process, but can easily push an environment on the brink of chaos back to complete instability.

One of the most current examples of the importance of natural resources in a post-conflict area is Afghanistan. Two areas that Afghanistan struggle with are the implementation of roads, and the trafficking of drugs.

Professor Jon Unruh of McGill University states there are clearly many pros to building a road, including increased communication, travel, possible increased standard of living, etc. However, there is also the risk that building a road will add to the insurgency in Afghanistan. One example of this is that city dwellers that require the court system will now be able to travel to Taliban areas and use their courts, which often are easier and more corrupt. In addition, the implementation of a road has been linked to land grabbing, based on a study of nine provinces residing along the Ring Road. There is also the added risk of landmines and explosives being located on the roads, and the potential increase of military presence. This is a question of how land can and should be used, and whether roads will help with the peacebuilding process, or work entirely against it.

One of the biggest issues affecting our world at large is the trafficking of drugs. Mr. David Catarious discussed the role that Afghanistan plays in supplying 80 percent of the world’s opium supply. Poppy plants secrete latex that can then be extracted and turned into heroin. The heroin is then trafficked from Afghanistan to Russia and Europe and all across the world. Poppy plants have been found to be one of the most, if not the most, lucrative crop in Afghanistan. Not to mention it grows easily and can be grown in between various harvest seasons. Thus, it is difficult to convince farmers in Afghanistan to stop growing the crops; especially when the farmers themselves are not the ones trafficking the drugs. There is a large need for education and a need for higher value crops to be introduced to the land. It is a question of whether a. the land should be saved, and farmers should be educated, b. farmers should be allowed to continue to grow poppy, or c. the land should be eradicated entirely. One man asked a question that likely was on many people’s minds: as American citizens, should we care about the poppy farmers? Or rather, should we care about our youth that are dying every day from drug use? From an American citizen standpoint, should we not just go in there and eradicate every single poppy plant and not care if we harm another country’s farmers?  It’s clearly a perplexing issue.

While the meeting overall did not contain information on natural resources and China, the topics, including the two listed above, provide provoking lessons. It is clear that the potential is there for natural resources to a. cause initial conflict, b. aid peacebuilding efforts, or c. complicate peacebuilding processes. Thus, it is important for all countries to carefully analyze and protect their natural resources, for the continued disappearance of them could eventually lead to disaster. Looking to Afghanistan as an example, I leave with the question: are one country’s natural resource concerns solely its own, or are they a global problem?

For more information, a final copy of Harnessing Natural Resources for Peacebuilding: Lessons from US and Japanese Assistance, edited by Carl Bruch, Mikiyasu Nakayama, and Ilona Coyle, is scheduled to publish in August 2011.

Morgan McCollum: Summary of Biogas Presentation

Summary of Biogas Presentation

What is biogas?

When organic waste is allowed to decompose without oxygen, it produces a gas mixture of 35-50% methane, 20-45% carbon dioxide, among other gases. This mixture is called biogas. Organic waste may include sewage, municipal solid waste, agricultural and industrial waste, and animal manure. The gas can then be used for electricity, to heat homes and buildings, and fertilizers.

Biogas and the United States

There are currently 541 landfills in the United States producing electricity onsite via anaerobic digesters. However, the EPA estimates that 510 additional landfills have the potential to do so as well. In addition, the EPA estimates that over 8,000 farms could support these digesters. Conflicts arise due to high initial costs to producing anaerobic digesters, lack of government funding, and lack of an outlet to sell generated biogas. Thus, biogas has not taken a very strong foothold in the United States.

Biogas and China

China was one of the first countries to begin using biogas. Recently, China established the National Rural Biogas Construction Plan and in 2010, aimed for a goal of 1 in 10 rural households to use biogas.

Biogas acts as an alternative to wood burning, which many rural homes use because they cannot afford kerosene or coal. This will reduce indoor air pollution, and can also decrease the time and energy required by women to gather wood and cook. With this additional time, women can obtain jobs, increasing a home’s income, and also increasing the potential for leisure time. With an increased standard of living, there will be a decrease rural to urban migration. In addition, biogas will provide a safe way to dispose of manure, decreasing the likelihood of disease caused by e-coli.

China also has no shortage of garbage, recently surpassing the United States as the largest producer of household garbage. Landfills and incinerators are consuming too much land, and incinerators can release many cancer-causing dioxins.

Is Biogas a Future?

Biogas is extremely beneficial to certain sub-sets of the population. In China, biogas is great for the rural sector, and farmers and landfills in the United States can use it on-site as well. It is particularly useful in developing countries, where fuel is mainly used during the cooking process, and small biogas units can be made solely out of plastic tank and some tubing. Biogas is not a large-scale solution, but with experts estimating a need for liquid gas to extend about 50 more years, it may be a worthwhile investment, especially in China and other developing countries.

More information can be found from the Department of Energy: “Clean Cities Now;” the American Biogas Council; www.biocycle.net

Morgan McCollum: "German Foreign, Security, and Energy Policy Reset? The Green Party Perspective"

German Foreign, Security, and Energy Policy Reset? The Green Party Perspective

July 13, 2011

CSIS, DC

Jurgen Tritten is currently the Chairman of the Parliamentary Group of the Green Party in the German Bundestag. On July 13, 2011, he spoke on a number of issues affecting Germany, including the recent decision to shut down all nuclear power plants by 2022.

Over the past few days, news has been released that Germany has sealed the fate on the future of nuclear power within the country. Parliament has declared the immediate shut down of seven nuclear reactors, followed by the phase out of all nuclear power plants by 2022. This will result in the disappearance of 23% of previous energy supplied to Germany.[1] Possible adverse side effects include a deficit of energy within Germany, leading to an increase in energy imports from France and the Czech Republic, as well as decreased exports from Germany to countries such as the Netherlands. In addition, there is the increased risk of higher energy prices for the EU as a whole.[2]

Many view this decision to shut down all plants as a rather rash decision following the events at Fukushima, Japan. Mr. Tritten argues the opposite. For starters, he says, the decision to shut down nuclear power plants is not a new one. Germany has started closing down plants since the Nuclear Consensus of 2001—10 years ago. In addition, while Germany is the first EU country to phase out nuclear energy entirely, the EU as a whole has seen a decline in nuclear power plants.

One of the biggest issues with nuclear power, Tritten states, is that no one wants to invest. Nuclear power plants are not competitive price wise, with other forms of renewable energy more market compatible.

 Finally, one of the reasons renewable energy has become so popular is due to increased national security—mainly due to less reliance on foreign countries. However, with Fukushima as an example, nuclear energy does not provide energy security.

So, is there a need to worry about Germany’s decision? Tritten says no. Germany currently invests 30 billion Euros per year on renewable energy technology. Due to binding EU renewable energy targets, 20% of energy in 2020 must be from renewables, and Germany has already invested much time, research, and money, into other forms of renewable energy. Tritten says that the EU is also lucky due to the presence of a European power grid. This allows energy to be imported and exported across the EU easily. For example, France needs a lot of imported energy in the summer, because for safety reasons many nuclear plants must be shut down due to the heat.

Mr. Tritten is very positive that Germany’s recent decision was the right decision. Overall, it will be very interesting to see how all turns out for Germany in coming years, if recent environmental decisions will help or hurt the Green Party, and if other countries follow in Germany’s example.

---

[1] http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/ElectricPower/8094672

[2] http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2011/7/Pages/Germany-Unplugged.aspx