Clean coal and nuclear are cornerstones of Sen. Graham’s clean energy proposal. (image: treehugger.com)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), part of a trio including Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) working on compromise climate legislation, has begun circulating a draft of his own bill that would establish a clean energy standard for utilities, reports The Hill’s E2 Wire blog. Graham’s draft (full text available here) may or may not be included in any broader legislation that Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are working on, and could move forward as a separate bill.

The notable feature of Graham’s clean energy standard is its inclusiveness—renewable sources like wind, solar, and biomass would qualify as clean energy, but so would nuclear power and coal plants that capture and sequester carbon emissions. His proposal would require utilities to produce progressively more electricity from clean sources: 13 percent in 2012, 25 percent in 2025, and 50 percent in 2050. While many Democrats and environmentalists oppose a standard that considers coal and nuclear to be “clean,” many Republicans insist that only coal and nuclear will allow their regions to produce the energy they need.

Climate legislation has faced a slew of setbacks, and Democrats have indicated a willingness to make concessions to nuclear power, clean coal, and offshore oil and gas drilling in exchange for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions. Whether Graham’s draft bill is merely the first step in renewed debate over climate and energy legislation or the foundation of a future Senate bill remains to be seen.

Support for domestic oil drilling and nuclear energy expansion was a point of common ground in the President's address and the Republican response. (image: cbc.ca)

In his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, President Obama urged the U.S. Senate to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation, and turned away from any discussion of cap and trade or putting a price on carbon to focus on job creation and energy independence. Such legislation can put Americans work today, “building the infrastructure of tomorrow,” said Obama.

Framing clean technology in terms of national competitiveness, Obama went on to say that “There’s no reason Europe or China should have…the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.” Building the facilities to create clean energy and offering homeowners rebates for making their homes more energy efficient will create those jobs in the US.

China and India, Obama said, are “putting more emphasis on math and science,” and investing in clean energy, “because they want those jobs.

“No area is more ripe for innovation than energy,” said Obama. However, when he named the types of energy that would drive job production, he did not include many of the renewable sources of energy that the environmental movement considers central to the future of US energy. Instead of wind and solar, Obama called for expanded nuclear power, offshore oil and gas development, advanced biofuels, and clean coal technology. Focusing on these sectors of the energy industry represents the Democrats’ compromise position, since they have already tried to entice Republican support for the climate and energy bill by offering concessions for offshore drilling and nuclear energy.

Mention of advanced biofuels holds special relevance for the heating oil industry and heating oil consumers. Biofuels may represent the future of the heating oil industry, and industry pioneers such as Hart Petroleum are leading the way to the development of cleaner heating fuels. The Department of Energy has already awarded a great deal of money to biofuels research, and Obama’s inclusion of biofuels in his State of the Union address indicates that such favorable funding is likely to continue.

Ensuring that innovation in energy moves forward “means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America,” said Obama. He also expressed gratitude to the House of Representatives for passing the Waxman-Markey bill in June of last year, which included provisions for cap and trade, and urged a bipartisan effort (such as that led by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman) in the Senate this year to do the same.

Incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for America’s future, Obama said, because “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.”

In an effort to reduce the deficit, Obama stated that tax cuts for oil companies will be discontinued, which could lead to increased costs that will be passed on to heating oil consumers.

As an indication of how President Obama’s proposals on energy aimed to find common ground, Republicans seemed to agree that innovation and clean energy have key roles to play in America’s economic future. In the Republican response to Obama’s speech, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said that all Americans can agree that the country must become more energy independent.

“We are blessed here in America with vast natural resources and we must use them all,” said McDonnell. He went on to say that technological advances can “unleash” alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear power, which can lower energy costs.

However, McDonnell said, the Obama administration’s policies delay offshore production and hinder the expansion of nuclear energy. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats also want to impose what McDonnell called “job-killing” energy taxes in the form of cap and trade—objections that Obama had hoped to steer clear of by avoiding any mention of cap and trade.

Members of both parties can certainly agree with McDonnell that, “Now is the time to adopt energy policies that create jobs and lower energy prices.”

The "energy roof" spans two buildings at the University of Perugia. (image: coop-himmelblau.at)

The “energy roof” at the University of Perugia wasn’t just designed to look cool (although that doesn’t hurt)—it’s also designed to maximize wind and solar power. As designboom explains, the roof marks the entry point of an underground archeological passageway, and provides all the energy that the passageway needs. The multilayered roof is the creation of Coop Himmelb(l)au, and has solar cells on top (which also provide shade for pedestrians below) and five wind turbines in the middle to provide more energy.

As Mark Scott of BusinessWeek says, many people probably couldn’t find the Federated States of Micronesia on a map. Many might not even know that Micronesia is a nation. But as a small island nation in the Pacific, Micronesia feels especially threatened by global warming, which could raise ocean levels and take Micronesia right off the map. So it’s threatened to sue the Czech Republic over the renovation of a coal-fired power plant. The move is probably more of a public relations move than anything, but any success on Micronesia’s part could make utilities companies around the world a little nervous.

Many people have tried to understand how nations rich in oil, one of the world’s most valued commodities, can still end up poor. In an attempt to understand the “resource curse,” the Economist’s Free Exchange blog discusses a study of Brazil that tracked where oil revenues did wind up if they weren’t creating general prosperity. The conclusion: money was siphoned off by municipal workers, whose houses, on average, increased in size as oil revenues increased.

There are many plans to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases: cap and trade, clean coal, algal biofuel, and now, breeding sheep that don’t burp. Every burp from a sheep adds methane to the atmosphere, so Australian scientists have set out to breed a special non-burping sheep, reports Stephen Messenger at TreeHugger. If it works for sheep, cows might be next.

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. (image: ingodisourtrust.wordpress.com)

The Washington Post reported that the senators who were attempting to draft a second bill to cap greenhouse gas emissions released a “framework” of the legislation on Thursday. However, the legislators offered few details about their ideas, and said that they were open to negotiation.

When UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with a bipartisan group of senators at the US Capitol on Nov. 10, he urged the Senate to act on climate change before the UN climate change summit. Although Ban acknowledged that the Senate was unlikely to move that quickly, he urged the Senate to draft principles to establish pollution reduction goals, because such a framework would be a sign of commitment to reducing carbon emissions on the part of the US.

The nascent bill, authored by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), is intended to send the message to delegates at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen that “the movement for climate change legislation in the United States Senate is alive and well,” Lieberman said at Thursday’s press conference announcing the framework.

The senators proposed cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by about 17 percent of 2005 levels, the same goal put forth in the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House and articulated by President Obama last week. In addition, although the senators said that they do not support the name “cap and trade,” they pledged continued support to the concept of a cap and trade system, in which regulated industries could purchase and trade carbon credits as needed. They also said they support expanded offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, more nuclear power plants, and more funding for research to reduce coal plant emissions.

The ideas proposed by Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham last week have similarities and differences to those in the Kerry-Boxer bill, which went before the Senate’s Environmental and Public Works, Finance, and Energy and Natural Resources committees last month. Although both bills require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the Kerry-Boxer bill requires an emission reduction of 20 percent, not 17 percent, by 2020. However, some legislators, chief among them Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), argue that 20 percent is too aggressive.

Although Kerry-Boxer itself does not contain provisions for nuclear power, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), a bill written by the Senate’s Energy Committee in June as a companion to the bill, does contain such provisions. Democratic support of nuclear energy is largely seen as a compromise for Republican support of carbon trading and emissions caps.

Environmental groups showed mixed reactions to the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham proposal. The ocean preservation organization Oceana said an increase in offshore drilling could create a higher risk of spills, although other environmental groups said an agreement that included a key Republican was a step forward.

Kerry said at Thursday’s news conference that the three sponsors would have to discuss their framework and ideas with Senate committee chairmen, and that he did not think a bill would be voted on until the spring.

Christophe de Margerie, the opinionated CEO of Total. (image: oubangui.wordpress.com)

Cristophe de Margerie, the CEO of French oil giant Total, is not one to bite his tongue—in September he said that oil should be priced below $60 a barrel. In an interview with the European Energy Review published on Wednesday, de Margerie weighed in on the future of hydrocarbon, peak oil, and working with oil-producing nations.

While many of the world’s politicians and pundits are calling for a drastic reduction in the amount of carbon the world produces, de Margerie says that there will always be a need for oil and gas. And while Total has expanded its portfolio and invested in nuclear, clean coal and biomass projects, it has completely steered clear from developing and wind and solar farms.

As he said:

Hydrocarbon production will remain essential in supplying humanity’s energy needs for a long time. The fact is that the world needs increasing amounts of energy. Thus when I hear people who are against hydrocarbon production and against nuclear too, I can only say, you are against the future.

Where many experts claim that we are running out of oil, de Margerie says that’s not true. Instead, he says, we’re running out of the capacity to produce oil. There are plenty of areas with untapped oil reserves—Venezuela, Canada, Brazil, the Gulf of Guinea, and even the Middle East come to mind. He estimated that, within a few years, the world will need to produce over 100 million barrels a day to meet its energy needs; right now, about 84 million are generated. But unless there are investments in the aforementioned places, these reserves won’t be tapped in time to meet the growing demand, and, in his words, “without energy, there will be no growth.”

De Margerie also said that western oil companies and foreign oil producing nations will always be joined at the hip, and the spirit of cooperation between the two must grow. For instance, de Margerie said that Total would be interested in working with Iran if the time was right. He also spoke at length about Total’s involvement in developing natural gas and oil fields in Russia. In the past, Russia has courted Western investors to the projects, only to force these firms out once they near completion. He said that, on a new project Total is embarking on, the French company is working with Gazprom, Russia’s biggest and most important energy firm in order to protect itself, and other companies should not expect to do business without taking similar precautions:

Russia is Russia. It is not New York. It is not even Paris. How surprising! Russia is a producing country. They want to benefit from the oil and gas they have. Why did we think it would be different? Are we naïve or arrogant or just stupid?

While many will disagree with his statements, it’s certainly refreshing to see someone in de Margerie’s position speak so frankly. In this era of carefully managed public relations, he’s not afraid to be politically incorrect.

Secretary Chu, signaling what might be the amount of time the US has left to cut its energy consumption. (image: nytimes.com)

According to an interview conducted last month on NPR’s Morning Edition, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu (read a detailed profile here) said he is optimistic about efforts to reduce the nation’s energy consumption levels.

But, he said, something must be done soon.

Chu said that the average human being requires around 2,500 calories (which are, after all, a way to measure energy) a day to live a healthy lifestyle. But the average American uses far more than 2,500 calories a day when factoring all of the electricity we need to live our daily lives. In fact, Chu said, the typical American uses the energy equivalent of 100 servants, proof that too much energy is wasted.

Chu said that that the rest of the nation should look to California for guidance on how to handle energy consumption. After the oil shocks of the 1970s, California passed legislation, including the strengthening of appliance efficiency standards, that helped the state cut back on its energy usage. Chu said that the average electricity use per person in California has remained the same since the 70s while in the rest of the country that rate has risen by 50 percent.

Chu said that America had the potential to produce as much as the nation currently does while using half the energy.

He says that much of what can be done to cut back on energy usage is extremely easy and practical. For instance, Chu said that by simply turning a computer off overnight, or even putting a laptop in sleep mode, could go a long way toward reducing energy consumption.

“A lot of what we do is totally wasteful,” Chu said.

But Chu said that new technologies must also be instituted in order to help change the nation’s energy usage and reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels. Chief among these are solar energy, wind energy, and clean coal, but he also mentioned an energy source with a more mixed reputation: nuclear energy, which could also play a large role in powering the nation’s energy grid.

“If you look at the difference between a coal plant down the river from you and a nuclear plant, me personally, I’d much rather be living near a nuclear plant,” Chu said. “There’s less pollution that we know about. And nuclear power plant records in this country are very, very good.”

The time to move the nation towards reduced energy usage, he says, is now.

“It is going to take time for the United States to change,” he said. “And we have to set a course that isn’t totally disruptive to energy intensive energies… But saying all that, you do have to start now.”

AN abandoned coal mine tunnel. (image: image64.webshots.com)

Mine shafts that are about to be closed because of insufficient coal yield could be used to extract geothermal energy from the ground, write two engineers in the journal Renewable Energy, Science Daily reported on Monday.

This energy, from the internal heat of the Earth, could be used to provide electricity and hot water to nearby towns.

Converting mineshafts into geothermal boilers is an excellent way of making use of low-intensity geothermal energy, wrote Spanish engineer Rafael Rodriguez, from the Oviedo Higher Technical School of Mining Engineering. Currently, geothermal energy is rarely used in Spain.

Rodriguez and his colleague, Maria Belarmina Diaz, developed a method to determine the amount of heat a recently closed mine tunnel could provide based on earlier information, when the tunnel was in use. He explained that when the mine is still active and the tunnels accessible, one can gather data about ventilation, the properties of rocks, as well as taking samples. It is also possible to design better circuits and program the closure of certain sections of the mine to be used for geothermal energy production.
Rodriguez stressed, however, that although geothermal energy can be utilized once the mine is no longer active, it is not possible to make any changes or gather data to improve the system.

Geothermal energy is not dependent upon climatic conditions—such as solar or wind—and helps to reduce CO2 emissions. It also makes use of a local natural resource and does not pollute the surrounding area.

Although it is too soon to tell, this technology could provide much-needed energy savings to coal mining communities in the US as the coal industry continues to shrink and shed jobs.