Opinion: We need to get radical with energy


An estimated 2.4 million pounds of CO2 are spewed into our planet’s atmosphere every second, a billion tons more than last year. Worldwide emission levels are over 50 percent higher than in 1990, per the report from the Global Carbon Project. If we don’t do something radical very soon, we could be faced with runaway global warming, as methane, also a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) escapes from melting arctic permafrost. Even without that, global warming above tolerable levels and frequent extreme weather events could make the Dust Bowl of the ’30s and Hurricane Sandy into regularly occurring disasters. We need to commit to addressing this issue, which is far more important in the long run than the U.S. budget-and-debt crisis.

Colorado’s current rules are far too weak. The “30 percent by 2020” renewable energy requirement is actually closer to 26 percent, because in-state renewables get a 1.25 multiplier. And the target for rural electric co-ops and municipal utilities is only 10 percent. Worse, the reduction in GHG emissions is even less than these percentages would indicate, because renewables generally displace natural gas generation rather than coal, and coal emits roughly twice as much CO2 when burned.
Repowering coal plants with gas is of limited value. Coal plants’ design does not allow them to be ramped up and down to follow wind and solar generation. Governor Hickenlooper touts gas as the “transition fuel,” but doesn’t appear to understand what is really needed. We should not invest another dime in coal plants. We should increase efficiency as much as we can (reducing energy use by up to 30 percent), replace remaining generation capacity with gas turbines and other units that have fast ramp rates, and install wind and solar as fast as we can, so that we use less and less gas over time.
Regulators should require the use of the “best available technology” to prevent methane leakage from gas drilling, pipelines and end uses; accidental releases should be heavily penalized. Zero-waste policies can limit methane emissions from landfills. Fracking has a whole additional set of issues. We should commit to using natural gas, a non-renewable resource, only on an interim basis as we move toward 100 percent renewables.
Investing in energy storage will allow us to use renewably generated energy when the wind and sun aren’t producing. Pumped storage, like at Cabin Creek above Georgetown, can be done in many locations. Alternative storage technologies, like batteries and compressed air, need to be developed and perfected.
DRCOG’s “Don’t be an SOV” campaign, meaning don’t be a single occupant vehicle, may be catchy, but there needs to be some force behind it, like charging $5/day for all commuter parking. This creates a real incentive to car-pool or use transit, and becomes a revenue source to support these travel alternatives.
Policy should focus directly on the problem and be long term. How about “30/60/90” – a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2040? A 2011 survey done by Colorado College suggests that the majority of Coloradoans would pay significantly more for cleaner energy. Making GHGs the target also puts more focus on efficiency, which is the cheapest way to reduce emissions. For example, a recent E Source study says that North American households waste about $7 billion a year on phantom loads alone.
Investing in renewable energy is a great economic stimulus. It’s real infrastructure, with real long-term benefits. The money borrowed to make this investment is paid back through utility rates. Renewables are certainly cheaper than suffering the impacts of global warming, and may be less expensive in any case as prices are dropping fast.
Regarding “energy independence,” it doesn’t make sense to produce more fossil fuels if they are just going to be sold overseas. Our dysfunctional Congress should be locked in the Capitol building until they have two-thirds support for a long term sensible budget, a plan to achieve 30/60/90 nationwide, and an agreement to not ship our carbon based fuels overseas (especially coal, for which Federal lease rates are way too low.)
Once we’ve done this, we can demand real progress on global warming from trading partners, like China, which is the biggest CO2 emitter and is still building coal plants. We will have both the moral high ground and the economic leverage. We might then actually save ourselves a planet to live on.

Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more