In shorter run renewables don’t grow under the plan — but nukes and coal do
For two days now, I’ve been trying to write about a new EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy legislation now under consideration in the House. But every time I turn around, I find seeming contradictions stemming from the mind-bending complexity of this bill — which I believe now tops 1,200 pages.
But I think I’ve figured some things out. Bear with me now…
For climate activists like Joe Romm, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation praised by President Obama yesterday won’t cost consumers very much at all, yet it will somehow drive the long hoped-for transition from carbon-based energy to renewable technologies such as solar and wind. Somehow, that always seemed fishy to me. And on one level, a new analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency suggests that I haven’t just been imagining the stink.
The EPA says the Waxman-Markey legislation would actually result in less renewable energy by 2025 than if we just went about our business as usual. There are two reasons for this. One is actually cause for some cheer: the legislation contains energy efficiency measures that would reduce demand for electricity significantly. And that would mean less need for new electrical generation capacity, including renewables. (The efficiency measures would also mean consumers’ utility bills in 2020 would be 7 percent lower than they are today.)
But another reason for the slow growth of renewable energy at least in the short run may not be cause for cheer: the cost of carbon under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme is just too low to drive a big, quick transition to renewables. (For additional analysis and commentary on the EPA report, please see Jesse Jenkins’s thorough post on the Breakthrough Institute blog.)
But hold on a minute. Citing the EPA analysis, a press release from the House Energy and Commerce Committee says the “United States would almost double the share of energy from zero or low carbon sources by 2030, as opposed to the business-as-usual approach.” What’s up with that? It turns out that by “zero or low carbon sources” the EPA means not only renewable energy but also nuclear energy and coal-fired power plants outfitted with carbon capture and storage technology, or CCS.
So that explains the contradictions. If we trust that nuclear and CCS are going to come online like gangbusters, then we can have both slow growth of renewables and reduced carbon emissions. But would that trust be well placed? And on balance, would a nuclear building spree — with the attendant issues of radioactive waste and nuclear proliferation — be a good thing?
Moreover, the relatively cheap cost of carbon in the legislation means that renewables can’t really compete. And if your goal is to see a transition to a renewable energy economy — not just to reduce carbon emissions but to strengthen the economy in the long run and wean us from foreign oil — then maybe Waxman-Markey isn’t your dream come true.
I must admit that my head is spinning. A simple carbon tax would have been so much simpler. But alas, what do I know about Washington politics?
One Comment
How cheap is cap and trade? Have you been able to glean a probable $/tonne figure (for carbon regulated within the cap and trade system) from the various analyses?
Also don’t forget that these analyses presume certain costs for competing energy or carbon-mitigation technolgies. In particular, the cost of CCS, for example, even ten or fifteen years from now is a wild guestimate. I’ve seen estimates of about $30 per tonne, which is not that cheap, but who knows if even that is achievable at the scale needed.
Anyway, I tend to agree that a carbon tax would be simpler and more effective. But it’s politically toxic, unfortunately, unless it’s set at a very low level. (Actually we probably need both C and T and the carbon tax if we’re going to address all emissions).
BTW, welcome back …