Comments Reply: Cost of Energy

August 16, 2009 No comments »

In reply to comments on the More Coal Industry Propaganda post.

You are right, Jesse, the cost of power is important. Legislation does drive up the price of dirty energy, but it only brings the cost closer to the true social costs of power from coal. If you are a believer in the free market, then with some other economic principles you are likely to see that as prices go up, consumption goes down. Demand for electricity is elastic, just like the price of gas. When the cost in the US went up in 2008, consumption went down, causing the prices to drop again. It’s arguable that the cost of electricity generation does not fluctuate enough for there to be a dramatic effect, but that’s only true if there is only a single source of power.

As clean technologies become *relatively* cheaper, they are more cost competitive. For one, the economies of scale make clean technologies cheaper as more is bought. I did say relatively cheaper because even with prices stay the same, they become more competitive as the others go up. Even if clean options do not become more widespread, energy efficiency subsidies are being introduced, which will also benefit low income consumers and offset a large amount of the costs introduced by emissions legislation.

Energy markets right now are not free because there are a lot of subsidies and tax incentives for energy producers that are not incorporated in final energy prices.  The coal industry is very dependent on the railroad industry, which has been highly subsidized by the US government.  Oil companies receive tax incentives for exploration, and in states like CA have to pay disproportionately low taxes on sales of what they find.  Ignoring the cost of wars in the Middle East (because they were about terrorism, right?), the US protects shipping lanes used to import oil from the region, at no direct cost to oil companies.

The solution to saving money when coal gets more expensive is to stop using coal.  Many (not all) power companies offer options for consumers to buy their energy from renewable sources.  If that’s not an option, first reduce wasteful energy consumption.  Second, use subsidies to make your home more energy efficient.

The coal industry is right in that consumers should care about what they pay for energy.  However, keeping coal prices artificially low is not the answer.

More Coal Industry Propaganda

1 comment »

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/14/14greenwire-new-coal-ads-emphasize-energy-costs-in-bid-for-8610.html

The Coal Industry is back spending millions of dollars trying to sway public opinion of coal power by talking about “the importance of low-cost electricity.”  Fortunately for those in favor of the climate bill (despite its flaws), it does not have the same scare factor as “death panels” or that “politicians are out to kill grandpa” seems to be pervasive in debates about health care reform in the US.

Cap and Trade Creators for Carbon Tax

No comments »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125011380094927137.html

The most unlikely critics of Cap and Trade are its creators.  They are in favor of the Carbon Tax because they believe it would be more effective and flexible.  I agree, and not just because the creators think the tax is better.  The primary reason is that Cap and Trade has the potential to pay polluters once they drop below the cap.  There are many things wrong with Cap and Trade for CO2, but incentives for reducing emissions under Cap and Trade fall off much faster than they do with a Carbon Tax.

Update: Found this article talking about how in the Senate version of the Climate Bill, many of the earlier Carbon permits will be free to “help in the transition.”  That is precisely what we DON’T want.  If there is not pain, there will be no incentive to clean up.

There is No Such Thing as Clean Coal

August 11, 2009 No comments »

I’ve touched on some of the various health statistics associated with coal in other articles, but did not really get into the reasons why coal fired power plants cause the issues, or what the specific problems are.  To recap, there are more than 23,000 deaths in the US every year that can be attributed to emissions from coal fired power plants.  The main problems caused by the emissions are respiratory issues, such as asthma and chronic bronchitis.  DOE Air Quality Research also shows that there is a “positive correlation” with heart disease and lung cancer.

“Positive correlation” is another way of saying that we know the emissions cause illness, but it’s extremely difficult to scientifically prove a direct link.  Other studies show that emissions from power plants are the primary source for Mercury exposure in humans, in the form of Methylmercury, which can cause neurological symptoms.  More specifically, the EPA says, “Methylmercury exposure in the womb, which can result from a mother’s consumption of fish and shellfish that contain methylmercury, can adversely affect a baby’s growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb.”

The health effects of coal power plant emissions are well known and well documented.  However, they are often either completely overlooked or even ignored when the US Coal Industry uses the term “clean coal.”  The primary argument used to justify the name “clean coal” are chemical scrubbing of *regulated* pollutants and Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).  Coal plants have been required to scrub emissions from regulated pollutants since the Clean Air Act, and the only thing new since the launch of the “clean coal” campaign was the hope of CCS.  Mercury has only recently been regulated.  On March 15, 2005, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which established gradually decreasing caps.  Emissions from coal fired power plants still contain toxins that are not currently regulated, so until everything is captured, they cannot be clean.

Even IF all emissions from coal fired power plants are eliminated (will never happen), and everything is captured and sequestered, the waste needs to be stored.  The volume of the waste is too large for any permanent storage, and toxic spills like the one in the Tennessee Valley will continue to happen.  Mining coal is dirty, burning coal is dirty, and disposing of the waste products are dirty.  Power from coal will NEVER be clean.

Organic Food Study Results Misinterpreted

August 6, 2009 No comments »

There have been a lot of recent coverage on reports, like herehere, herehere and many more, that state that organic produce is no better for you than conventionally farmed produce.  The recent report by the UK Food Standards Agency came out that stated organic produce has no *nutritional* benefit above and beyond other crops.  Coverage of this report was blown out of proportion, and the interpretation by main stream media was that there is no reason to buy organic.  I can personally believe that there’s no nutritional benefit because the widespread use of fertilizer should be adding nutrients to plants (in addition to other things).

There are still other health reasons to buy organic, which are not related to nutritional content.  Many reports on pesticides used in the US focus on cancer only.  If you read the results carefully, they state that there is no proof that they cause cancer, not that they do not cause cancer.  These studies do not tell the full story for a few reasons:

  • It is unethical to try to give humans cancer in trials
  • It is *extremely* difficult to prove a direct link to any disease
  • It is hard to cause cancer immediately, as cell defects take time to grow into something harmful
  • Many harmful effects are a result of bioaccumulation
    • There are no long term exposure studies
    • Studies focus on *acute* toxicity, or only high doses all at once
  • Cancer is not the only problem caused by pesticides

One of the ongoing problems due in part to pesticides is male infertility.  Many pesticides are responsible for endocrine disruption because they mimic estrogen in the body.  One major highly publicized example in the past was high instances of sterility among fruit plantation workers in the Phillipines, caused by the pesticide Nemagon, which was manufactured by Dow Chemical Company.  The most serious incident related to direct impact from pesticides was on December 3rd, 1984 in Bhopal, India, where more than 2,200 people died and more than 500,000 people were exposed to toxic gases.

Advocates for the pesticide industry would like everyone to believe that events like this could never happen again, but the fact is that the sale of many harmful pesticides were only banned for sale in the US.  Banned pesticides can still be manufactured in the US, or by US companies, if they are sold to other countries with fewer restrictions.  While traditional farming is not the pesticide industry, they are the largest customer and cannot be dissociated from previous disasters.

Every generation of pesticides is supposedly safe for everyone, until long term effects are discovered from use, not in the lab.  The most recent generation has not been found to directly cause cancer, but they still cause infertility and birth defects . . . . but hey, it’s not cancer, right?

(Update: I have intentionally omitted environmental impact.  That post would be long enough on its own)

As Expected, Cash for Clunkers Increased Green Car Sales

August 5, 2009 No comments »

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/08/04/surprise-hybrid-sales-rose-in-july-thanks-to-new-prius-cash-fo/

Highlights:

  • 35% increase in hybrid sales
  • Prius, Escape, Fusion, RX400h, Altima and Camry all saw gains
  • Honda Insight still not selling

Eco Cars That People Want to Drive

August 3, 2009 No comments »

Rather than just ripping on the Nissan LEAF, I will atone by providing links to some Eco-Friendly Cars that I think people would love to drive:

Eco Cars that Go Zoom
5 Eco Cars Faster than a Porsche 911

[Via TreeHugger]

Success Factors for the Nissan LEAF Electric Vehicle

1 comment »
Nissan LEAF Nissan Versa

I recently posted that the new Nissan LEAF Will Fail.  That’s blasphemy to some in the green community, as I’m saying something negative about an electric car.  I truly would like to see everyone driving an electric car.  I write a lot about biofuels, not because I think they are a final solution, but because they are practical now and are better than petroleum based gas and diesel.  To be truly green, we will all need to be driving electric cars that are charged on renewable energy.  Unfortunately for us, it’s going to take a long time for everyone to drive an electric car.

Before everyone is in an electric car, they need to be practical and affordable to everyone.  Nissan estimates that the final selling price will be between $30-40k, and the battery will need to be leased for an extra $10k overall.  Even at the low end of the target, if the battery were included, $30k is still out of reach for most US consumers.  I have no doubt that there are people that want the Nissan LEAF.  However, when there is a price difference that’s only a few thousand dollars for a hybrid and a standard gas model, the lower price drives consumers to the gas model.  The Honda Accord Hybrid was even discontinued because of lack of sales.  The LEAF is essentially the same body style as the Versa hatchback, but it will be at least twice as expensive.  (Google Images: Versa Hatchback, LEAF)

While there are consumers that will buy the LEAF for the fact that it is electric alone, the majority will be evaluating based on the overall value.  There would be a $20-$30k premium for being electric, which will be too much for the market.  Not everyone makes their decision only based on green factors.  The decision to buy a hybrid is often based on the payback period, or how long would the gas savings take to cover the premium paid for the hybrid model.  The purchasing behavior was observed in 2008 when oil and gas prices spiked to record highs, and hybrid sales soared.  When gas prices fell again, the overall economy was worse, but hybrid sales fell off disproportionately compared to gas only models.

The fact that there is a gas alternative of what is essentially the same car to consumers is very bad for the LEAF, especially when it can only travel 100 miles on a charge.  If the Nissan LEAF had the range of a Tesla, it would have a better chance.  The Versa gets ~32mpg (real world estimate) with a 13.2 gallon tank, or a range of more than 400 miles.  If you do the same comparison with the Tesla Roadster’s nearest equivalent, the Lotus Elise, it’s much closer.  The Elise gets ~22mpg, with an 11 gallon tank, or around 240 miles.  The Tesla’s estimate range is 244 miles, almost exactly the same.  In addition, the Tesla is a faster car.  There is no loss of range, and there is a performance increase.  The LEAF gains neither of those advantages.

In addition to the price compared to the gas alternatives for the same model, market success will also be based on alternatives at the same price.  When the Nissan LEAF is released, the Tesla Model S will be around the same final price.  I have been in the Model S, and I have also been in a Versa.  I doubt the interior of the LEAF will be the same as a current model Versa, but the Model S prototype had a better fit and finish than any Nissan I have been in (I have never been in a GT-R).  The Model S is a luxury sports sedan, targetted in the price range of what would realistically be competition.  At the same price, the LEAF will essentially just be an economy car that happens to be electric.

Honda made similar mistakes with the Civic Hybrid.  They essentially offered a Civic that happened to get better gas mileage, but charged a price premium that was higher than people looking for an economy car could afford.  On the other hand, the Toyota Prius was its own car.  There was no gas alternative to the Prius, and it a car that people bought because it was a good car.  My previous car was a Lexus, and the fit an finish of my wife’s Prius (Nav, Touring, Leather, etc) was very close.  The lower packages are not quite as polished, but still very good for the price range.  The finish of the newest generation Prius is even closer to that of a Lexus.

A car will only be successful if it is something that people want to drive, unless you use the word “success” very loosely.  Many in the green community would have defined the General Motors EV1 a success, merely because it was a functional electric car, the people that owned it loved it, and there was a long waiting list to buy it.  However, the EV1 was not something that could be sold to the mass market, and it did not have any EV competition.  I do not doubt that the Nissan LEAF will be a better car than the original EV1, but there is now more competition and there will be a better alternative at around the same price.

Prediction: Nissan LEAF Will Not Succeed

August 2, 2009 No comments »

Business Insider reports that Nissan has recently unveiled the LEAF, an electric car scheduled to be released in late 2010.  The estimated price tag is between $30k-$40k, and a lease on the battery for an estimated additional $10k.  With a total estimated price of around $50k, it will not be able to compete in the market with the Tesla Model S, which is a much nicer looking car and has a longer range.  Nissan does have one thing that Tesla does not, an existing manufacturing and distribution infrastructure.

The Tesla Roadster, even with its much higher price, has been back ordered since it was released because they cannot be manufactured fast enough.  Because of Nissan’s existing infrastructure, barring materials shortage, they will be able to much more easily leverage the economies of scale and eventually reduce manufacturing prices.  However, until they can reduce the sticker price, the car will not be successful.

Nissan has the potential for greater reach because of their existing dealerships, but if the value is not there, then consumers will not buy the LEAF.  Tesla sales continue, not just because they are electric, but because they are desirable cars.  Nissan will be able to manufacture more than Tesla, but at the same price, they are going to have a tough time selling something that looks like a Versa (MSRP ~$15k).

Comments: GreenPoint Rated Homes Not Healthy

August 1, 2009 No comments »

We got some comments on the Green Does Not Always Mean Healthy post that were worth calling out.  Apparently GreenPoint rated new homes have higher levels of formaldehyde than the notorious FEMA trailers.  New construction can be the worst because offgassing declines over time, and air circulation eventually clears it out.  The products to either avoid, or pay special attention to the materials used, are pressed wood products.

Thanks, Nat, Becky and Linda!