docid
stringlengths 25
45
| url
stringlengths 14
987
| title
stringlengths 0
45k
| headings
stringlengths 1
259k
| segment
stringlengths 2
10k
| start_char
int64 0
9.96k
| end_char
int64 2
10k
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#10_2440067011
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
On occasion, insurers will approve the work for an individual patient based on extenuating circumstances (e.g. when all other options have been exhausted) through a single case agreement. While this is not the norm, parents have secured funding in various ways (please see this resource for insurance tips and the stories of Angie, Amy, Derrick and Allison ). More often insurers will cover some portion of the clinical components of treatment. IACD can provide you with the billing codes for our services so that you can determine, in advance, which portions of the program work might be eligible for reimbursement. IACD provides monthly superbills (an itemized insurance-based receipt used for out-of-network insurance reimbursement submission) which will help you in the reimbursement process. Please note, a superbill does not guarantee that your insurance provider will reimburse you for services provided at IACD. How can I learn more about adoption subsidies? According to the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC), “parents who are thinking about or are in the process of adopting a child with special needs from foster care should know about adoption assistance (also known as adoption subsidy). Federal (Title IV-E) and state (often called non-IV-E) adoption assistance programs are designed to help parents meet their adopted children’s varied, and often costly, needs. Children can qualify for federal adoption assistance or state assistance, depending on the child’s history.
| 4,530 | 6,033 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#11_2440068950
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
Please note, a superbill does not guarantee that your insurance provider will reimburse you for services provided at IACD. How can I learn more about adoption subsidies? According to the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC), “parents who are thinking about or are in the process of adopting a child with special needs from foster care should know about adoption assistance (also known as adoption subsidy). Federal (Title IV-E) and state (often called non-IV-E) adoption assistance programs are designed to help parents meet their adopted children’s varied, and often costly, needs. Children can qualify for federal adoption assistance or state assistance, depending on the child’s history. Adoption subsidy policies and practices are, for the most part, dependent on the state in which the child was in foster care before the adoption.” Our Connections page provides books, website links and blogs that can help you navigate securing adoption subsidies. The organization NACAC also provides further information on your state’s adoption assistance program. How long do children live with your family foster parents? Every child is unique and we create a different plan for each person in our program.
| 5,327 | 6,543 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#12_2440070612
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
Adoption subsidy policies and practices are, for the most part, dependent on the state in which the child was in foster care before the adoption.” Our Connections page provides books, website links and blogs that can help you navigate securing adoption subsidies. The organization NACAC also provides further information on your state’s adoption assistance program. How long do children live with your family foster parents? Every child is unique and we create a different plan for each person in our program. That said, we cannot give all parents the same answer as to how long their children will live in Colorado. The typical stay for many of our children, however, is roughly six to nine months for children in the moderate to severe range of the disorder. Won’t sending my child away disrupt our attachment and make things worse? When most parents first come to us, they are working hard to make their kids change. However, their children are often working hard to resist their parents.
| 6,034 | 7,025 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#13_2440072039
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
That said, we cannot give all parents the same answer as to how long their children will live in Colorado. The typical stay for many of our children, however, is roughly six to nine months for children in the moderate to severe range of the disorder. Won’t sending my child away disrupt our attachment and make things worse? When most parents first come to us, they are working hard to make their kids change. However, their children are often working hard to resist their parents. Such a dynamic doesn’t foster a quality connection. In fact, the longer such relationships continue, the more angry, worn-out and overwhelmed parents become. Many parents of kids with developmental trauma disorder (DTD) develop post-traumatic stress disorder. These combinations only confirm to children with DTD that parent figures are scary and unpredictable. Here at IACD, our goal is to keep children in their “forever homes”.
| 6,544 | 7,456 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#14_2440073392
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
Such a dynamic doesn’t foster a quality connection. In fact, the longer such relationships continue, the more angry, worn-out and overwhelmed parents become. Many parents of kids with developmental trauma disorder (DTD) develop post-traumatic stress disorder. These combinations only confirm to children with DTD that parent figures are scary and unpredictable. Here at IACD, our goal is to keep children in their “forever homes”. We give kids and their parents a jumpstart to move together toward recovery and to foster a closer and more authentic attachment. We teach kids how to work with their parents with practice from our safe, calm, and qualified caregivers—our family foster parents. When children go home, they have an investment in building their relationships with their families and have tools to do so. Parents also feel calm and have the tools they need to effectively parent. Therefore, any attachment the parents and children had before they came to our program has an even greater potential for growth.
| 7,026 | 8,046 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#15_2440074853
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
We give kids and their parents a jumpstart to move together toward recovery and to foster a closer and more authentic attachment. We teach kids how to work with their parents with practice from our safe, calm, and qualified caregivers—our family foster parents. When children go home, they have an investment in building their relationships with their families and have tools to do so. Parents also feel calm and have the tools they need to effectively parent. Therefore, any attachment the parents and children had before they came to our program has an even greater potential for growth. What’s the IACD philosophy on medication? Some children with developmental trauma disorder (DTD) also have mental disorders inherited from their biological parents. Yet, all kids come to IACD agitated and angry, due to the trauma itself. All of this gets in the way of therapy. All children in our program receive neurofeedback to calm their brains.
| 7,457 | 8,396 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#16_2440076223
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
What’s the IACD philosophy on medication? Some children with developmental trauma disorder (DTD) also have mental disorders inherited from their biological parents. Yet, all kids come to IACD agitated and angry, due to the trauma itself. All of this gets in the way of therapy. All children in our program receive neurofeedback to calm their brains. They also get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. If they need help for mental disorders, they’ll get the right diagnoses and medications too. As their brains begin to calm, the real relationship work begins. What happens when my child returns home from an IACD family foster home? We’ll develop a follow-up plan that includes your hometown therapist as well as phone calls for us to support you immediately upon your return home.
| 8,046 | 8,826 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#17_2440077438
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
They also get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. If they need help for mental disorders, they’ll get the right diagnoses and medications too. As their brains begin to calm, the real relationship work begins. What happens when my child returns home from an IACD family foster home? We’ll develop a follow-up plan that includes your hometown therapist as well as phone calls for us to support you immediately upon your return home. Once a part of the IACD family, you’re always a part of our circle. If your child ever needs to return for a short “tune-up”, we’re here for that too. Whether it’s yearly postcards, sporadic e-mails, regular phone calls, or annual visits, we usually hear from families and kids decades after they graduate from the program. Do you provide respite care? We provide respite care for families in our program.
| 8,397 | 9,232 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#18_2440078729
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
Once a part of the IACD family, you’re always a part of our circle. If your child ever needs to return for a short “tune-up”, we’re here for that too. Whether it’s yearly postcards, sporadic e-mails, regular phone calls, or annual visits, we usually hear from families and kids decades after they graduate from the program. Do you provide respite care? We provide respite care for families in our program. I have heard that the field of therapies for attachment issues includes some controversial treatments. What is the stance in that regard at the Institute for Attachment and Child Development? The field of therapy to address developmental trauma disorder (DTD) is still fairly young. The recognized clinical term, reactive attachment disorder, was not established until 1972. Yet, research has since continued, clinicians have learned much and practices have greatly improved over the decades.
| 8,827 | 9,725 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665121941#19_2440080073
|
http://instituteforattachment.ong/learn-about-attachment-disorder/common-questions/
|
Program Details : Institute For Attachment & Child Development
|
Get more details.
Get more details.
General information about help for kids with RAD
Details about IACD
Getting Started
|
I have heard that the field of therapies for attachment issues includes some controversial treatments. What is the stance in that regard at the Institute for Attachment and Child Development? The field of therapy to address developmental trauma disorder (DTD) is still fairly young. The recognized clinical term, reactive attachment disorder, was not established until 1972. Yet, research has since continued, clinicians have learned much and practices have greatly improved over the decades. While the field of developmental trauma has progressed tremendously over nearly 50 years, many people are still confused or misled about current available treatments. Much of this confusion stems from input from a select group of individuals who consider themselves “watchdo
| 9,232 | 10,000 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#0_2440081267
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
By Robert P. Murphy
The August issue of the prestigious American Economic Review carries an article estimating the social costs of air pollution from various industries. ( The gated link to the published article is here, while a draft of the article is available here for free.) Naturally, pundits such as Paul Krugman jumped on the results as proof of how “scientific” is the case for more government intervention. Yet as we’ll see, the new paper by Muller et al. does no such thing. As usual, Krugman & Co. focus exclusively on theoretical market failures, and ignore the government failures staring us in the face on a daily basis. What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Here is the abstract of the paper: This study presents a framework to include environmental externalities into a system of national accounts. The paper estimates the air pollution damages for each industry in the United States. An integrated-assessment model quantifies the marginal damages of air pollution emissions for the US which are multiplied times the quantity of emissions by industry to compute gross damages.
| 0 | 1,181 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#1_2440083137
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
As usual, Krugman & Co. focus exclusively on theoretical market failures, and ignore the government failures staring us in the face on a daily basis. What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Here is the abstract of the paper: This study presents a framework to include environmental externalities into a system of national accounts. The paper estimates the air pollution damages for each industry in the United States. An integrated-assessment model quantifies the marginal damages of air pollution emissions for the US which are multiplied times the quantity of emissions by industry to compute gross damages. Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. In the first place, it’s important to clarify what the paper is not saying. A good example of this misinterpretation is a Grist piece entitled, “Coal is the enemy of the human race, mainstream economics edition,” in which the author writes: Once you strip away the econ jargon, the paper finds that electricity from coal imposes more damages on the U.S. economy than the electricity is worth.
| 574 | 1,879 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#2_2440085129
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. In the first place, it’s important to clarify what the paper is not saying. A good example of this misinterpretation is a Grist piece entitled, “Coal is the enemy of the human race, mainstream economics edition,” in which the author writes: Once you strip away the econ jargon, the paper finds that electricity from coal imposes more damages on the U.S. economy than the electricity is worth. That’s right: Coal-fired power is a net value- subtracting industry. A parasite, you might say. A gigantic, blood-sucking parasite that’s enriching a few executives and shareholders at the public’s expense. [ Bold and italics in original.]
| 1,182 | 2,118 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#3_2440086758
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
That’s right: Coal-fired power is a net value- subtracting industry. A parasite, you might say. A gigantic, blood-sucking parasite that’s enriching a few executives and shareholders at the public’s expense. [ Bold and italics in original.] Actually guys, sorry, that’s not what the paper says. If you had read it all the way through—maybe you got stuck on the “econ jargon” and stopped—you would have seen (on page 21 of the earlier draft available here) that the authors caution: [W]e note that the finding of a negative adjusted value added does not imply that an industry should be shut down. Rather, it indicates that a one-unit increase in output of that industry has additional costs that are higher than the revenues. This cannot be extrapolated to infra-marginal adjustments.
| 1,880 | 2,662 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#4_2440088243
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Actually guys, sorry, that’s not what the paper says. If you had read it all the way through—maybe you got stuck on the “econ jargon” and stopped—you would have seen (on page 21 of the earlier draft available here) that the authors caution: [W]e note that the finding of a negative adjusted value added does not imply that an industry should be shut down. Rather, it indicates that a one-unit increase in output of that industry has additional costs that are higher than the revenues. This cannot be extrapolated to infra-marginal adjustments. This follows from the way the authors conducted their analysis. Assuming their numbers are right and that they included all relevant considerations in their model, the authors have found that reducing coal-fired electrical generation a little bit would be economically justified, because the gains in environmental value would offset the losses in electrical output. But if you keep repeating the process—as you make the air cleaner and cleaner, while making electricity more and more expensive—eventually you get to a point where it’s not economically justified to continue. In other words, even on their own terms, the authors are arguing merely that there is too much output from coal-fired power plants—not that these plants are a “parasite” on society. If our friends at Grist think we’re lying to them, we can look at some other industries in the paper.
| 2,118 | 3,522 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#5_2440090368
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
This follows from the way the authors conducted their analysis. Assuming their numbers are right and that they included all relevant considerations in their model, the authors have found that reducing coal-fired electrical generation a little bit would be economically justified, because the gains in environmental value would offset the losses in electrical output. But if you keep repeating the process—as you make the air cleaner and cleaner, while making electricity more and more expensive—eventually you get to a point where it’s not economically justified to continue. In other words, even on their own terms, the authors are arguing merely that there is too much output from coal-fired power plants—not that these plants are a “parasite” on society. If our friends at Grist think we’re lying to them, we can look at some other industries in the paper. For example, the authors also find that sewage treatment cause almost three times as much “gross environmental damage” as value-added to the economy. Somehow, I don’t expect the people at Grist to announce, “Sewage treatment an enemy of mankind!! We must stop treating sewage!” While we’re at it, we should also quote some of the authors’ other reservations: We note several qualifications about the results.
| 2,662 | 3,931 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#6_2440092368
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
For example, the authors also find that sewage treatment cause almost three times as much “gross environmental damage” as value-added to the economy. Somehow, I don’t expect the people at Grist to announce, “Sewage treatment an enemy of mankind!! We must stop treating sewage!” While we’re at it, we should also quote some of the authors’ other reservations: We note several qualifications about the results. First, our estimates are accounting measures and not measures of economic welfare. The economy has many pre-existing distortions other than those from air pollution – such as taxes, market distortions, and other externalities – and existing accounts do not attempt to incorporate those.… Fifth, we note that the uncertainties are particularly large for three elements: the treatment of the value of life or life- years, the value of CO2 emissions, and the dose-impact effect of small particulates. Sensitivity analyses using alternative values can change the magnitude of the results significantly. [
| 3,523 | 4,532 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#7_2440094089
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
First, our estimates are accounting measures and not measures of economic welfare. The economy has many pre-existing distortions other than those from air pollution – such as taxes, market distortions, and other externalities – and existing accounts do not attempt to incorporate those.… Fifth, we note that the uncertainties are particularly large for three elements: the treatment of the value of life or life- years, the value of CO2 emissions, and the dose-impact effect of small particulates. Sensitivity analyses using alternative values can change the magnitude of the results significantly. [ Bold added.] As an exercise in humility, it’s important to step back and look at what our intrepid three authors are attempting: They are looking at an entire economy, composed of hundreds of millions of people, and estimating the gross effects of air pollution for various activities, and contrasting them with the value added to the economy in each of those activities. For those familiar with Friedrich Hayek’s Nobel lecture entitled, “The Pretence of Knowledge,” this will appear to be a bold undertaking indeed. Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
If the economic amateurs at Grist are bad, the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is hardly better.
| 3,932 | 5,177 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#8_2440096033
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Bold added.] As an exercise in humility, it’s important to step back and look at what our intrepid three authors are attempting: They are looking at an entire economy, composed of hundreds of millions of people, and estimating the gross effects of air pollution for various activities, and contrasting them with the value added to the economy in each of those activities. For those familiar with Friedrich Hayek’s Nobel lecture entitled, “The Pretence of Knowledge,” this will appear to be a bold undertaking indeed. Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
If the economic amateurs at Grist are bad, the Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is hardly better. Here was his reaction to the new paper: What MMN do is estimate the cost imposed on society by air pollution, and allocate it across industries…
[T]hey find that the costs of air pollution are big, and heavily concentrated in a few industries. In fact, there are a number of industries that inflict more damage in the form of air pollution than the value-added by these industries at market prices. It’s important to be clear about what this means. It does not necessarily say that we should end the use of coal-generated electricity.
| 4,532 | 5,712 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#9_2440097907
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Here was his reaction to the new paper: What MMN do is estimate the cost imposed on society by air pollution, and allocate it across industries…
[T]hey find that the costs of air pollution are big, and heavily concentrated in a few industries. In fact, there are a number of industries that inflict more damage in the form of air pollution than the value-added by these industries at market prices. It’s important to be clear about what this means. It does not necessarily say that we should end the use of coal-generated electricity. What it says, instead, is that consumers are paying much too low a price for coal-generated electricity, because the price they pay does not take account of the very large external costs associated with generation. If consumers did have to pay the full cost, they would use much less electricity from coal — maybe none, but that would depend on the alternatives. At one level, this is all textbook economics. Externalities like pollution are one of the classic forms of market failure, and Econ 101 says that this failure should be remedied through pollution taxes or tradable emissions permits that get the price right. What Muller et al are doing is putting numbers to this basic proposition — and the numbers turn out to be big.
| 5,178 | 6,444 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#10_2440099856
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
What it says, instead, is that consumers are paying much too low a price for coal-generated electricity, because the price they pay does not take account of the very large external costs associated with generation. If consumers did have to pay the full cost, they would use much less electricity from coal — maybe none, but that would depend on the alternatives. At one level, this is all textbook economics. Externalities like pollution are one of the classic forms of market failure, and Econ 101 says that this failure should be remedied through pollution taxes or tradable emissions permits that get the price right. What Muller et al are doing is putting numbers to this basic proposition — and the numbers turn out to be big. So if you really believed in the logic of free markets, you’d be all in favor of pollution taxes, right. Hahahahaha. Today’s American right doesn’t believe in externalities, or correcting market failures; it believes that there are no market failures, that capitalism unregulated is always right. Faced with evidence that market prices are in fact wrong, they simply attack the science.
| 5,713 | 6,831 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#11_2440101662
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
So if you really believed in the logic of free markets, you’d be all in favor of pollution taxes, right. Hahahahaha. Today’s American right doesn’t believe in externalities, or correcting market failures; it believes that there are no market failures, that capitalism unregulated is always right. Faced with evidence that market prices are in fact wrong, they simply attack the science. What this tells us is that we are not actually having a debate about economics. Our free-market advocates aren’t actually operating from a model of how the economy works; they’re operating from some combination of knee-jerk defense of the haves against the rest and mystical faith that self-interest always leads to the common good. As University of Rochester economist Steve Landsburg pointed out, Krugman is conveniently leaving out the fact that once we leave Econ 101, there is a whole body of literature inspired by Ronald Coase showing that pollution taxes or tradable permits might not be the best way to solve problems of “negative externalities.” Landsburg also notes that Krugman has a knee-jerk defense of government intervention;
| 6,445 | 7,573 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#12_2440103488
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
What this tells us is that we are not actually having a debate about economics. Our free-market advocates aren’t actually operating from a model of how the economy works; they’re operating from some combination of knee-jerk defense of the haves against the rest and mystical faith that self-interest always leads to the common good. As University of Rochester economist Steve Landsburg pointed out, Krugman is conveniently leaving out the fact that once we leave Econ 101, there is a whole body of literature inspired by Ronald Coase showing that pollution taxes or tradable permits might not be the best way to solve problems of “negative externalities.” Landsburg also notes that Krugman has a knee-jerk defense of government intervention; we’re not having a debate here over alternative social institutions for tricky problems like air pollution. Government Failure and Market Solutions
Let me close by giving two simple examples of how the regulatory government approach might lead to an inefficient outcome, compared to the market. Suppose there is a factory emitting particulate matter that causes serious impacts on human health within a fifty-mile radius. However, the products of the factory are also very valuable. Initially, the factory is located next to a large city, where millions of people are subjected to the pollutants.
| 6,831 | 8,170 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#13_2440105515
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
we’re not having a debate here over alternative social institutions for tricky problems like air pollution. Government Failure and Market Solutions
Let me close by giving two simple examples of how the regulatory government approach might lead to an inefficient outcome, compared to the market. Suppose there is a factory emitting particulate matter that causes serious impacts on human health within a fifty-mile radius. However, the products of the factory are also very valuable. Initially, the factory is located next to a large city, where millions of people are subjected to the pollutants. Under the Krugman Econ 101 approach, environmental economists engage in (necessarily) crude calculations and estimate that the factory imposes (say) $10 in damage to human health for every unit of its output. The government therefore imposes a direct tax on the factory’s output at $10 per unit. Facing the new tax, the factory slashes production by (say) several thousand units. Consumers are worse off because of the lower physical output, but—argues Krugman and other environmental economists—the residents of the nearby city are more than compensated by improved air quality. However, as Ronald Coase’s analysis leads us to investigate, it’s possible that there is an even better outcome.
| 7,574 | 8,863 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#14_2440107498
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
Under the Krugman Econ 101 approach, environmental economists engage in (necessarily) crude calculations and estimate that the factory imposes (say) $10 in damage to human health for every unit of its output. The government therefore imposes a direct tax on the factory’s output at $10 per unit. Facing the new tax, the factory slashes production by (say) several thousand units. Consumers are worse off because of the lower physical output, but—argues Krugman and other environmental economists—the residents of the nearby city are more than compensated by improved air quality. However, as Ronald Coase’s analysis leads us to investigate, it’s possible that there is an even better outcome. What if the factory had simply moved away from the city, to a region with low population density? Then it could continue to crank out the physical production as before, but now its localized air pollution wouldn’t affect very many people. We would thus achieve perhaps a greater reduction in environmental damages, without suffering from a loss of the physical production. Even though pollution taxes and tradable emission permits are more efficient than direct command-and-control approaches (which would have the government mandating particular emission targets or perhaps technologies to individual firms), the Coasian framework shows that it’s possible that the euphemistically labeled “market-based” regulation would still lead to inefficiencies. The problem is that when environmental economists calculate the “social cost” from an additional unit of production, they are assuming that the economy is configured in its current state.
| 8,170 | 9,803 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665135111#15_2440109848
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/air-pollution-and-alleged-market-failures/
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures - IER
|
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
Air Pollution and Alleged Market Failures
What the Article Says—And Doesn’t Say
Paul Krugman Jumping to Conclusions
Government Failure and Market Solutions
Conclusion
Tags
Another Offshore Wind Project in Trouble Due to High Costs
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations
|
What if the factory had simply moved away from the city, to a region with low population density? Then it could continue to crank out the physical production as before, but now its localized air pollution wouldn’t affect very many people. We would thus achieve perhaps a greater reduction in environmental damages, without suffering from a loss of the physical production. Even though pollution taxes and tradable emission permits are more efficient than direct command-and-control approaches (which would have the government mandating particular emission targets or perhaps technologies to individual firms), the Coasian framework shows that it’s possible that the euphemistically labeled “market-based” regulation would still lead to inefficiencies. The problem is that when environmental economists calculate the “social cost” from an additional unit of production, they are assuming that the economy is configured in its current state. They might miss solutions such as a relocation of a factory, which would cause the “marginal social cost” from localized pollution to drop drastically. “Fair enough,” the fan of pollution taxes mi
| 8,864 | 10,000 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#0_2440111698
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
IER
. Commentary
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
By IER
The wind industry promotes itself as better for the environment than traditional energy sources such as coal and natural gas. For example, the industry claims that wind energy reduces carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. But there are many ways to skin a cat. As IER pointed out last week, even if wind curbs CO 2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles. The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs. The further truth is that affordable, abundant energy has made life for billions of people much better than it ever was.
| 0 | 985 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#1_2440113376
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
But there are many ways to skin a cat. As IER pointed out last week, even if wind curbs CO 2 emissions, wind installations injure, maim, and kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year in clear violation of federal law. Any marginal reduction in emissions comes at the expense of protected bird species, including bald and golden eagles. The truth is, all energy sources impact the natural environment in some way, and life is full of necessary trade-offs. The further truth is that affordable, abundant energy has made life for billions of people much better than it ever was. Another environmental trade-off concerns the materials necessary to construct wind turbines. Modern wind turbines depend on rare earth minerals mined primarily from China. Unfortunately, given federal regulations in the U.S. that restrict rare earth mineral development and China’s poor record of environmental stewardship, the process of extracting these minerals imposes wretched environmental and public health impacts on local communities. It’s a story Big Wind doesn’t want you to hear. Rare Earth Horrors
Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process.
| 405 | 1,557 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#2_2440115224
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
Another environmental trade-off concerns the materials necessary to construct wind turbines. Modern wind turbines depend on rare earth minerals mined primarily from China. Unfortunately, given federal regulations in the U.S. that restrict rare earth mineral development and China’s poor record of environmental stewardship, the process of extracting these minerals imposes wretched environmental and public health impacts on local communities. It’s a story Big Wind doesn’t want you to hear. Rare Earth Horrors
Manufacturing wind turbines is a resource-intensive process. A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals. Simon Parry from the Daily Mail traveled to Baotou, China, to see the mines, factories, and dumping grounds associated with China’s rare-earths industry. What he found was truly haunting: As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming.
| 985 | 2,191 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#3_2440117136
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
A typical wind turbine contains more than 8,000 different components, many of which are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete. One such component are magnets made from neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China, which controls 95 percent of the world’s supply of rare earth minerals. Simon Parry from the Daily Mail traveled to Baotou, China, to see the mines, factories, and dumping grounds associated with China’s rare-earths industry. What he found was truly haunting: As more factories sprang up, the banks grew higher, the lake grew larger and the stench and fumes grew more overwhelming. ‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘ Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’ People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed.
| 1,558 | 2,587 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#4_2440118878
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
‘It turned into a mountain that towered over us,’ says Mr Su. ‘ Anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die.’ People too began to suffer. Dalahai villagers say their teeth began to fall out, their hair turned white at unusually young ages, and they suffered from severe skin and respiratory diseases. Children were born with soft bones and cancer rates rocketed. Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found. As the wind industry grows, these horrors will likely only get worse. Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study. The more wind turbines pop up in America, the more people in China are likely to suffer due to China’s policies.
| 2,191 | 3,268 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#5_2440120667
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
Official studies carried out five years ago in Dalahai village confirmed there were unusually high rates of cancer along with high rates of osteoporosis and skin and respiratory diseases. The lake’s radiation levels are ten times higher than in the surrounding countryside, the studies found. As the wind industry grows, these horrors will likely only get worse. Growth in the wind industry could raise demand for neodymium by as much as 700 percent over the next 25 years, while demand for dysprosium could increase by 2,600 percent, according to a recent MIT study. The more wind turbines pop up in America, the more people in China are likely to suffer due to China’s policies. Or as the Daily Mail put it, every turbine we erect contributes to “a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China.” Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. Developed by GE in 1982, neodymium magnets are manufactured in many shapes and sizes for numerous purposes. One of their most common uses is in the generators of wind turbines. Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering.
| 2,587 | 3,909 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#6_2440122711
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
Or as the Daily Mail put it, every turbine we erect contributes to “a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China.” Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
The wind industry requires an astounding amount of rare earth minerals, primarily neodymium and dysprosium, which are key components of the magnets used in modern wind turbines. Developed by GE in 1982, neodymium magnets are manufactured in many shapes and sizes for numerous purposes. One of their most common uses is in the generators of wind turbines. Estimates of the exact amount of rare earth minerals in wind turbines vary, but in any case the numbers are staggering. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals. To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012.
| 3,269 | 4,651 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#7_2440124816
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, a 2 megawatt (MW) wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium. The MIT study cited above estimates that a 2 MW wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals. To quantify this in terms of environmental damages, consider that mining one ton of rare earth minerals produces about one ton of radioactive waste, according to the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. In 2012, the U.S. added a record 13,131 MW of wind generating capacity. That means that between 4.9 million pounds (using MIT’s estimate) and 6.1 million pounds (using the Bulletin of Atomic Science’s estimate) of rare earths were used in wind turbines installed in 2012. It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines. For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States.
| 3,910 | 5,297 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#8_2440126905
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
It also means that between 4.9 million and 6.1 million pounds of radioactive waste were created to make these wind turbines. For perspective, America’s nuclear industry produces between 4.4 million and 5 million pounds of spent nuclear fuel each year. That means the U.S. wind industry may well have created more radioactive waste last year than our entire nuclear industry produced in spent fuel. In this sense, the nuclear industry seems to be doing more with less: nuclear energy comprised about one-fifth of America’s electrical generation in 2012, while wind accounted for just 3.5 percent of all electricity generated in the United States. While nuclear storage remains an important issue for many U.S. environmentalists, few are paying attention to the wind industry’s less efficient and less transparent use of radioactive material via rare earth mineral excavation in China. The U.S. nuclear industry employs numerous safeguards to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is stored safely. In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew funding for Yucca Mountain, the only permanent storage site for the country’s nuclear waste authorized by federal law. Lacking a permanent solution, nuclear energy companies have used specially designed pools at individual reactor sites. On the other hand, China has cut mining permits and imposed export quotas, but is only now beginning to draft rules to prevent illegal mining and reduce pollution.
| 4,652 | 6,086 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#9_2440129041
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
While nuclear storage remains an important issue for many U.S. environmentalists, few are paying attention to the wind industry’s less efficient and less transparent use of radioactive material via rare earth mineral excavation in China. The U.S. nuclear industry employs numerous safeguards to ensure that spent nuclear fuel is stored safely. In 2010, the Obama administration withdrew funding for Yucca Mountain, the only permanent storage site for the country’s nuclear waste authorized by federal law. Lacking a permanent solution, nuclear energy companies have used specially designed pools at individual reactor sites. On the other hand, China has cut mining permits and imposed export quotas, but is only now beginning to draft rules to prevent illegal mining and reduce pollution. America may not have a perfect solution to nuclear storage, but it sure beats disposing of radioactive material in toxic lakes like near Baotou, China. Not only do rare earths create radioactive waste residue, but according to the Chinese Society for Rare Earths, “one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, [and] approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater.” Conclusion
Wind energy is not nearly as “clean” and “good for the environment” as the wind lobbyists want you to believe. The wind industry is dependent on rare earth minerals imported from China, the procurement of which results in staggering environmental damages. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.”
| 5,297 | 7,043 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#10_2440131524
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
America may not have a perfect solution to nuclear storage, but it sure beats disposing of radioactive material in toxic lakes like near Baotou, China. Not only do rare earths create radioactive waste residue, but according to the Chinese Society for Rare Earths, “one ton of calcined rare earth ore generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters (339,021 to 423,776 cubic feet) of waste gas containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, [and] approximately 75 cubic meters (2,649 cubic feet) of acidic wastewater.” Conclusion
Wind energy is not nearly as “clean” and “good for the environment” as the wind lobbyists want you to believe. The wind industry is dependent on rare earth minerals imported from China, the procurement of which results in staggering environmental damages. As one environmentalist told the Daily Mail, “There’s not one step of the rare earth mining process that is not disastrous for the environment.” That the destruction is mostly unseen and far-flung does not make it any less damaging. All forms of energy production have some environmental impact. However, it is disingenuous for wind lobbyists to hide the impacts of their industry while highlighting the impacts of others. From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports.
| 6,087 | 7,579 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665150004#11_2440133745
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste - IER
|
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Big Wind’s Dirty Little Secret: Toxic Lakes and Radioactive Waste
Rare Earth Horrors
Big Wind’s Dependence on China’s “Toxic Lakes”
Conclusion
Tags
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
|
That the destruction is mostly unseen and far-flung does not make it any less damaging. All forms of energy production have some environmental impact. However, it is disingenuous for wind lobbyists to hide the impacts of their industry while highlighting the impacts of others. From illegal bird deaths to radioactive waste, wind energy poses serious environmental risks that the wind lobby would prefer you never know about. This makes it easier for them when arguing for more subsidies, tax credits, mandates and government supports. IER Policy Associates Travis Fisher and Alex Fitzsimmons authored this post. Tags
China,
rare earth minerals,
wind energy,
wind turbines
October 2013
California Public Utilities Commission Report on Net Metering
October 2013
The Use of the Social Cost of Carbon, So Far
| 7,044 | 7,849 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#0_2440135241
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
By IER
The cost of generating electricity includes the capital cost, the financing charges, and the production or operating costs (including fuel and maintenance of the technology) at the point of connection to an electrical load or the electricity grid. When determining what new plant to build, a utility company will compare all these costs across the slate of available generating units. Once the capital and finance costs are paid, usually after 20 to 30 years, the cost of operation is just the fuel and maintenance costs. As a result, the generating costs for a plant paying sizable capital costs are much different from those for a plant where those costs have been totally paid. Also affecting the cost of building a plant are regional labor costs, distance from transmission lines, terrain, distance from fuel supplies, and other factors. Therefore, the cost of electricity can vary greatly from plant to plant, even among plants using the same fuel type. Since capital costs are the largest component of electric generation costs for most plants, and because for older plants, these costs have been paid, they produce some of the cheapest electricity in the country — their cost of generating electricity is just their production cost, unless environmental regulations require additional technology to be added during their lifetime. Production Costs
Production costs are much lower than full levelized costs as can be seen from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s website, which provides the production costs for nuclear, coal, natural gas, and petroleum generating units. (
| 0 | 1,659 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#1_2440137418
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
As a result, the generating costs for a plant paying sizable capital costs are much different from those for a plant where those costs have been totally paid. Also affecting the cost of building a plant are regional labor costs, distance from transmission lines, terrain, distance from fuel supplies, and other factors. Therefore, the cost of electricity can vary greatly from plant to plant, even among plants using the same fuel type. Since capital costs are the largest component of electric generation costs for most plants, and because for older plants, these costs have been paid, they produce some of the cheapest electricity in the country — their cost of generating electricity is just their production cost, unless environmental regulations require additional technology to be added during their lifetime. Production Costs
Production costs are much lower than full levelized costs as can be seen from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s website, which provides the production costs for nuclear, coal, natural gas, and petroleum generating units. ( Renewable energy sources are not included.) The costs are based on data submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the FERC Form 1 by regulated electric utility companies. These costs are shown in the graph below. On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. However, since few petroleum units are used at that cost (petroleum only produced 0.7 percent of U.S. electricity in 2011), it is better to compare nuclear production costs to coal production costs, which averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011 and to natural gas production costs which averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour.
| 607 | 2,401 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#2_2440139730
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
Renewable energy sources are not included.) The costs are based on data submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on the FERC Form 1 by regulated electric utility companies. These costs are shown in the graph below. On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. However, since few petroleum units are used at that cost (petroleum only produced 0.7 percent of U.S. electricity in 2011), it is better to compare nuclear production costs to coal production costs, which averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011 and to natural gas production costs which averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour. Source: www.nei.org
Levelized Costs
Because production costs do not include capital costs or financing charges, production costs are much lower than levelized costs. As noted above, levelized costs represent the total costs of constructing new power plants including their capital and financing charges. A new nuclear power plant, for example, has one of the highest levelized costs, particularly compared to coal and natural gas-fired plants, and its costs are exceeded only by certain renewable plants, such as offshore wind and solar power, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation based on an assumed duty cycle.
| 1,659 | 3,248 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#3_2440141828
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
Source: www.nei.org
Levelized Costs
Because production costs do not include capital costs or financing charges, production costs are much lower than levelized costs. As noted above, levelized costs represent the total costs of constructing new power plants including their capital and financing charges. A new nuclear power plant, for example, has one of the highest levelized costs, particularly compared to coal and natural gas-fired plants, and its costs are exceeded only by certain renewable plants, such as offshore wind and solar power, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Levelized costs represent the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over its financial life, converted to equal annual payments and amortized over expected annual generation based on an assumed duty cycle. The calculation for levelized costs, which is a projection of the cost of various electricity sources, compares the costs of plants beginning operation in the same year, realizing that the construction time of each technology differs. For example, nuclear plants take longer to build than natural gas combined cycle plants or wind installations. The levelized cost includes the capital component, the fixed and variable operation and maintenance components, and a transmission component. EIA provides an estimate for the levelized costs for each technology it represents in the National Energy Modeling System—the modeling system used to produce the forecasts for the Annual Energy Outlook. These estimates are provided here and in the graph below.
| 2,401 | 3,997 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#4_2440143937
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
The calculation for levelized costs, which is a projection of the cost of various electricity sources, compares the costs of plants beginning operation in the same year, realizing that the construction time of each technology differs. For example, nuclear plants take longer to build than natural gas combined cycle plants or wind installations. The levelized cost includes the capital component, the fixed and variable operation and maintenance components, and a transmission component. EIA provides an estimate for the levelized costs for each technology it represents in the National Energy Modeling System—the modeling system used to produce the forecasts for the Annual Energy Outlook. These estimates are provided here and in the graph below. The agency provides the costs for dispatchable technologies (such as coal and natural gas) and for non-dispatchable technologies (such as wind and solar) separately because they are not directly comparable. In the graph below, the last 5 technologies shown are non-dispatchable technologies. System operators must take the generation from non-dispatchable technologies when their generation is available, which is at intermittent intervals, e.g. when the sun shines or the wind blows. Dispatchable technologies are under the control of the system operator who applies them to the grid in the order of least marginal cost as the demand for electricity increases. If the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, a dispatchable technology must be available to supply the demand.
| 3,249 | 4,777 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#5_2440145977
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
The agency provides the costs for dispatchable technologies (such as coal and natural gas) and for non-dispatchable technologies (such as wind and solar) separately because they are not directly comparable. In the graph below, the last 5 technologies shown are non-dispatchable technologies. System operators must take the generation from non-dispatchable technologies when their generation is available, which is at intermittent intervals, e.g. when the sun shines or the wind blows. Dispatchable technologies are under the control of the system operator who applies them to the grid in the order of least marginal cost as the demand for electricity increases. If the wind stops blowing or the sun stops shining, a dispatchable technology must be available to supply the demand. Thus, non-dispatchable technologies supply energy, but not capacity since they cannot be counted on continually to meet demand. Some analysts believe that a non-dispatchable technology should pay a capacity charge to cover the cost of building and operating the back-up technology when the intermittent technology is unavailable. An example of this situation occurred recently in California when the state hit its highest demand at 5 pm, when wind was producing a mere 350 megawatts out of an installed wind capacity of 4.3 gigawatts (8.1% of installed capacity). Other technologies had to be called on to supply power at California’s peak load. Wind generation is generally the greatest during the night when demand for electricity is the lowest, so it does little for providing power when that power is most needed.
| 3,998 | 5,595 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#6_2440148086
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
Thus, non-dispatchable technologies supply energy, but not capacity since they cannot be counted on continually to meet demand. Some analysts believe that a non-dispatchable technology should pay a capacity charge to cover the cost of building and operating the back-up technology when the intermittent technology is unavailable. An example of this situation occurred recently in California when the state hit its highest demand at 5 pm, when wind was producing a mere 350 megawatts out of an installed wind capacity of 4.3 gigawatts (8.1% of installed capacity). Other technologies had to be called on to supply power at California’s peak load. Wind generation is generally the greatest during the night when demand for electricity is the lowest, so it does little for providing power when that power is most needed. This situation in California is discussed in more detail here. Because of state mandates requiring a certain percentage of renewable generation, intermittent technologies such as wind and solar are “must run” technologies. Once built, these technologies generally have lower operating costs than fossil fuel and nuclear plants, which also have a fuel cost. How government subsidies are defined also contributes to determining whether a technology is a “must run” technology. For example, wind receives a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour only when it produces electricity.
| 4,778 | 6,193 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#7_2440150033
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
This situation in California is discussed in more detail here. Because of state mandates requiring a certain percentage of renewable generation, intermittent technologies such as wind and solar are “must run” technologies. Once built, these technologies generally have lower operating costs than fossil fuel and nuclear plants, which also have a fuel cost. How government subsidies are defined also contributes to determining whether a technology is a “must run” technology. For example, wind receives a production tax credit (PTC) of 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour only when it produces electricity. For those wind units under a PTC, their cost of construction would not be subsidized to the same extent if a dispatchable technology were operated instead of the wind unit. The levelized costs that EIA provides for the year 2017 do not include subsidies or tax credits. Also, for coal plants without carbon, capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, EIA increases their cost of capital by 3-percentage points. The 3-percentage point increase is about equivalent to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee, thus making their future cost estimate higher than current project costs. The adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future.
| 5,596 | 7,050 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#8_2440152014
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
For those wind units under a PTC, their cost of construction would not be subsidized to the same extent if a dispatchable technology were operated instead of the wind unit. The levelized costs that EIA provides for the year 2017 do not include subsidies or tax credits. Also, for coal plants without carbon, capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, EIA increases their cost of capital by 3-percentage points. The 3-percentage point increase is about equivalent to a $15 per ton carbon dioxide emissions fee, thus making their future cost estimate higher than current project costs. The adjustment represents the implicit hurdle being added to greenhouse gas intensive projects to account for the possibility that they may need to purchase allowances or invest in other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects that offset their emissions in the future. Conclusion
Generating costs for technologies differ by the cost to construct, maintain, and operate them as well as the cost to connect them to the grid. To compare these costs for future plants, they are levelized on an annual basis and compared for the same year of starting initial operation. However, this is not an “apples-to-apples” comparison because the load profiles of dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies differ. Plants that have already paid for their capital and interest charges clearly have the cheapest electricity costs. If plants are forced into closure due to government regulations, the replacement plants will produce much more expensive electricity.
| 6,194 | 7,732 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665158687#9_2440154070
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer - IER
|
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Electric Generating Costs: A Primer
Production Costs
Levelized Costs
Conclusion
Tags
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
|
Conclusion
Generating costs for technologies differ by the cost to construct, maintain, and operate them as well as the cost to connect them to the grid. To compare these costs for future plants, they are levelized on an annual basis and compared for the same year of starting initial operation. However, this is not an “apples-to-apples” comparison because the load profiles of dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies differ. Plants that have already paid for their capital and interest charges clearly have the cheapest electricity costs. If plants are forced into closure due to government regulations, the replacement plants will produce much more expensive electricity. Caution should be used when comparing levelized costs for the reasons noted above and discussed in more detail here. Tags
cost,
electricity,
green,
grid,
Jobs,
levelized,
PRC
August 2012
MICHAELS: The Hidden Flaw of 'Energy Efficiency'
August 2012
SIMMONS: Comparing the Obama and Romney Energy Policies
| 7,050 | 8,036 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#0_2440155584
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
By IER
According to a study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin, every year 573,000 birds (including 83,000 raptors) and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines — 30 percent higher than the federal government estimated in 2009, due mainly to increasing wind power capacity across the nation. [ i] This is likely an underestimate because these estimates were based on 51,630 megawatts of installed wind capacity in the United States in 2012 and wind capacity has grown since then to 65,879 megawatts. And, at one solar power plant in California, an estimated 3,500 birds died in just the plant’s first year of operation. [ ii]
Over the past five years, about 2.9 million birds were killed by wind turbines. That compares to about 800,000 birds that a Mother Jones Blog estimated to have been killed by the BP oil spill that occurred in April 2010 [iii] —5 years ago–despite not all of them showing visible signs of oil. [ 1] Nevertheless, BP was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds due to that oil spill. In comparison, the nation’s wind turbines killed more than 3 times the number of birds than did the BP oil spill over the past 5 years. And, wind turbines routinely kill federally protected birds and eagles.
| 0 | 1,347 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#1_2440157603
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
ii]
Over the past five years, about 2.9 million birds were killed by wind turbines. That compares to about 800,000 birds that a Mother Jones Blog estimated to have been killed by the BP oil spill that occurred in April 2010 [iii] —5 years ago–despite not all of them showing visible signs of oil. [ 1] Nevertheless, BP was fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds due to that oil spill. In comparison, the nation’s wind turbines killed more than 3 times the number of birds than did the BP oil spill over the past 5 years. And, wind turbines routinely kill federally protected birds and eagles. Since the study estimating bird and bat deaths was completed based on 2012 wind capacity data, U.S. companies have installed more wind power due to federal and state incentives such as the Production Tax Credit that provides 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour of wind generated power over the first ten years of operation. Since 2012, the United States added over 14,000 megawatts of additional wind capacity with total wind capacity at 65,879 megawatts as of the end of 2014 — 16 times higher than wind capacity in 2001. [ iv]
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
The Ivanpah solar power plant is a 377 megawatt solar facility located in the Mojave Desert in California and is owned by Google, BrightSource Energy, and NRG Energy. The facility has 350,000 heliostat mirrors that reflect heat toward central towers and scorch hundreds of birds in midair—turning birds into “streamers.” Ivanpah is the largest power tower project in the world and it has received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.
| 736 | 2,355 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#2_2440159904
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
Since the study estimating bird and bat deaths was completed based on 2012 wind capacity data, U.S. companies have installed more wind power due to federal and state incentives such as the Production Tax Credit that provides 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour of wind generated power over the first ten years of operation. Since 2012, the United States added over 14,000 megawatts of additional wind capacity with total wind capacity at 65,879 megawatts as of the end of 2014 — 16 times higher than wind capacity in 2001. [ iv]
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
The Ivanpah solar power plant is a 377 megawatt solar facility located in the Mojave Desert in California and is owned by Google, BrightSource Energy, and NRG Energy. The facility has 350,000 heliostat mirrors that reflect heat toward central towers and scorch hundreds of birds in midair—turning birds into “streamers.” Ivanpah is the largest power tower project in the world and it has received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. The mirrors at Ivanpah span across an area four times the size of New York’s Central Park and focus sunlight onto receivers atop three 45-story power towers, boiling a liquid that turns turbines to create electricity. Fish and Wildlife Service officials warned that Ivanpah may act as a “mega-trap,” where insects attract small birds that are killed or incapacitated by the solar flux. Those birds attract larger predators thereby creating a food chain vulnerable to injury and death. [ v]
The facility is estimated to have killed 83 different species of birds. The most commonly killed birds were mourning doves (14 percent of fatalities), followed by yellow-rumped warblers, tree swallows, black-throated sparrows and yellow warblers.
| 1,347 | 3,091 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#3_2440162330
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
The mirrors at Ivanpah span across an area four times the size of New York’s Central Park and focus sunlight onto receivers atop three 45-story power towers, boiling a liquid that turns turbines to create electricity. Fish and Wildlife Service officials warned that Ivanpah may act as a “mega-trap,” where insects attract small birds that are killed or incapacitated by the solar flux. Those birds attract larger predators thereby creating a food chain vulnerable to injury and death. [ v]
The facility is estimated to have killed 83 different species of birds. The most commonly killed birds were mourning doves (14 percent of fatalities), followed by yellow-rumped warblers, tree swallows, black-throated sparrows and yellow warblers. Of the birds that died from known causes, about 47 percent died from being toasted by the heat of the solar flux. Just over half of the known deaths were attributed to collisions. Ivanpah is testing ways to reduce bird deaths, including with software to reposition the heliostats to reduce the level of elevated flux and minimize collisions; installation of light-emitting diodes that are not attractive to insects and help reduce the prey base for birds; anti-perching devices;
| 2,355 | 3,570 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#4_2440164204
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
Of the birds that died from known causes, about 47 percent died from being toasted by the heat of the solar flux. Just over half of the known deaths were attributed to collisions. Ivanpah is testing ways to reduce bird deaths, including with software to reposition the heliostats to reduce the level of elevated flux and minimize collisions; installation of light-emitting diodes that are not attractive to insects and help reduce the prey base for birds; anti-perching devices; and the use of avian deterrents like foul smells and the sounds of predators. Fines for Killing Birds
Besides BP being fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states and PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants, paid more than $10.5 million for electrocuting 232 eagles that landed on power lines at its substations. The first wind farms to be fined took place in November 2013 when Duke Energy paid a $1 million fine for killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two wind farms in Wyoming from 2009 to 2013. [ vi] To date, no solar facilities have been fined. The fines are related to protections in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
| 3,092 | 4,358 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#5_2440166115
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
and the use of avian deterrents like foul smells and the sounds of predators. Fines for Killing Birds
Besides BP being fined $100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill, in 2009, Exxon Mobil paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds in five states and PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants, paid more than $10.5 million for electrocuting 232 eagles that landed on power lines at its substations. The first wind farms to be fined took place in November 2013 when Duke Energy paid a $1 million fine for killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two wind farms in Wyoming from 2009 to 2013. [ vi] To date, no solar facilities have been fined. The fines are related to protections in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The death of an eagle or other protected bird is a violation of federal law, unless a company has a federal permit. [ vii]
The Obama Administration on December 9, 2013, finalized a regulation that allows wind energy companies and others to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without prosecution by the federal government. The American Bird Conservancy filed suit in federal court against the Department of the Interior, charging it with multiple violations of federal law. [ viii] Nonetheless, the Shiloh IV Wind Project in California, for example, received a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing it to kill eagles, hawks, peregrine falcons, owls and songs birds while not being subjected to the normal prohibitions afforded under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Treaty Act. [ ix]
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
According to a 2014 study by federal scientists in the journal The Condor:
| 3,571 | 5,297 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#6_2440168492
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
The death of an eagle or other protected bird is a violation of federal law, unless a company has a federal permit. [ vii]
The Obama Administration on December 9, 2013, finalized a regulation that allows wind energy companies and others to obtain 30-year permits to kill eagles without prosecution by the federal government. The American Bird Conservancy filed suit in federal court against the Department of the Interior, charging it with multiple violations of federal law. [ viii] Nonetheless, the Shiloh IV Wind Project in California, for example, received a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allowing it to kill eagles, hawks, peregrine falcons, owls and songs birds while not being subjected to the normal prohibitions afforded under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Treaty Act. [ ix]
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
According to a 2014 study by federal scientists in the journal The Condor: Ornithological Applications, building collisions are estimated to kill 365 million to 988 million birds annually in the United States. And, according to a 2013 report from scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and FWS, stray and outdoor pet cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals, mostly native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles, annually. But these deaths do not excuse the wind and solar industry’s killing of birds. Unless, of course, BP and ExxonMobil should be excused as well–instead of playing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Conclusion
Despite bird and bat deaths at wind and solar farms, few have been fined for violating the law while oil and electric generating companies have paid heavily for such violations.
| 4,359 | 6,088 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#7_2440170881
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
Ornithological Applications, building collisions are estimated to kill 365 million to 988 million birds annually in the United States. And, according to a 2013 report from scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and FWS, stray and outdoor pet cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals, mostly native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles, annually. But these deaths do not excuse the wind and solar industry’s killing of birds. Unless, of course, BP and ExxonMobil should be excused as well–instead of playing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Conclusion
Despite bird and bat deaths at wind and solar farms, few have been fined for violating the law while oil and electric generating companies have paid heavily for such violations. It will be interesting to see if this will change as the wind and solar industries grow. [1] In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported only 6,147 birds killed. See http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/ConsolidatedWildlifeTable041711.pdf
[i] Daily Caller, Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than the BP Oil Spill, April 20, 2015, http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/20/wind-turbines-kill-more-birds-than-bp-oil-spill
[ii] Greenwire, 3,500 birds died at Ivanpah ‘power towers’ in first year, April 24, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2015/04/24/stories/1060017406
[iii] Mother Jones, The BP Oil Spill Happened 5 Years Ago Today. We are Still Paying the Price., April 20, 2015, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/five-year-anniversary-deepwater-horizon-bp-spill
[iv] American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059
[v] National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, Avian Mortality at Solar Energy Facilities in Southern California, http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/01/19/document_gw_03.pdf
[vi] Forbes, Republicans Develop an Interest in bird deaths, March 29, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/03/29/republicans-develop-an-interest-in-bird-deaths/
[vii] The Christian Science Monitor, Eagle Deaths:
| 5,298 | 7,368 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665167256#8_2440173622
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/license-to-kill-wind-and-solar-decimate-birds-and-bats/
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats - IER
|
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
License to Kill: Wind and Solar Decimate Birds and Bats
The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant
Fines for Killing Birds
Other Bird and Mammal Deaths
Conclusion
Tags
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
|
It will be interesting to see if this will change as the wind and solar industries grow. [1] In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported only 6,147 birds killed. See http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/ConsolidatedWildlifeTable041711.pdf
[i] Daily Caller, Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than the BP Oil Spill, April 20, 2015, http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/20/wind-turbines-kill-more-birds-than-bp-oil-spill
[ii] Greenwire, 3,500 birds died at Ivanpah ‘power towers’ in first year, April 24, 2015, http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2015/04/24/stories/1060017406
[iii] Mother Jones, The BP Oil Spill Happened 5 Years Ago Today. We are Still Paying the Price., April 20, 2015, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/five-year-anniversary-deepwater-horizon-bp-spill
[iv] American Wind Energy Association, http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059
[v] National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, Avian Mortality at Solar Energy Facilities in Southern California, http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/01/19/document_gw_03.pdf
[vi] Forbes, Republicans Develop an Interest in bird deaths, March 29, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2014/03/29/republicans-develop-an-interest-in-bird-deaths/
[vii] The Christian Science Monitor, Eagle Deaths: Unprecedented $1 million fine for Wyoming wind farms, November 23, 2013, http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2013/1123/Eagle-deaths-Unprecedented-1-million-fine-for-Wyoming-wind-farms
[viii] American Bird Conservancy, American Bird Conservancy Sues Feds Over 30-Year Eagle Kill Rule, http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/releases/140619.html
[ix] Master Resource, Wind Power Slaughter, July 16, 2014, https://www.masterresource.org/cuisinarts-of-the-air/windpower-slaughter-shiloh-1/
Tags
bats,
birds,
ivanpah,
Solar,
Wind
April 2015
EPA Rules Bring Pink Slips to a Town Near You
April 2015
Low Prices and Federal Policies Reducing Oil Industry Workforce
| 6,089 | 8,026 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#0_2440176231
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
IER
. Commentary
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
By IER
Maine does not have fossil fuel reserves of its own, but it has vast renewable energy potential. Because of its substantial use of wood as fuel, the state has the highest percentage of non-hydroelectric renewable energy use in the country. Maine produces more electricity from burning wood and wood waste than any other state, as these resources provide over a quarter of the state’s electricity. Due to its forest products industry, Maine is the only New England State in which industry is the leading energy-consuming sector, accounting for 34 percent of its energy consumption in 2010. It has the lowest average electricity prices among the New England states. Maine’s State Rankings
In 2010, Maine ranked 43 rd among the states in total energy production, producing 145 trillion Btu of energy. In February 2013, it ranked 43 rd in electricity production, producing 1,152 thousand megawatt hours of electricity.
| 0 | 1,022 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#1_2440177879
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Maine produces more electricity from burning wood and wood waste than any other state, as these resources provide over a quarter of the state’s electricity. Due to its forest products industry, Maine is the only New England State in which industry is the leading energy-consuming sector, accounting for 34 percent of its energy consumption in 2010. It has the lowest average electricity prices among the New England states. Maine’s State Rankings
In 2010, Maine ranked 43 rd among the states in total energy production, producing 145 trillion Btu of energy. In February 2013, it ranked 43 rd in electricity production, producing 1,152 thousand megawatt hours of electricity. Maine had the lowest average electricity retail prices in New England at the end of 2012. In 2010, it ranked 28 th in the total energy consumed per capita, consuming 307 million Btu per person. In 2010, Maine ranked 7 th lowest in carbon dioxide emissions, emitting 18.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Natural Gas
Maine has no fossil fuel reserves of its own. It receives its natural gas by pipeline primarily from Canada.
| 348 | 1,453 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#2_2440179608
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Maine had the lowest average electricity retail prices in New England at the end of 2012. In 2010, it ranked 28 th in the total energy consumed per capita, consuming 307 million Btu per person. In 2010, Maine ranked 7 th lowest in carbon dioxide emissions, emitting 18.5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Natural Gas
Maine has no fossil fuel reserves of its own. It receives its natural gas by pipeline primarily from Canada. Natural gas is used in the state mainly for electricity generation. Maine ships much of its natural gas receipts to the Boston area via New Hampshire. The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline carrying natural gas from Canada and an LNG facility in New Brunswick, Canada, provide Maine with natural gas that supplies the Northeast market in the United States. The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline system has the capacity to carry 440 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Petroleum
Maine does not produce oil and has no oil reserves but receives petroleum products from abroad at its coastal ports, including Portland, Searsport, and Calais.
| 1,022 | 2,095 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#3_2440181295
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Natural gas is used in the state mainly for electricity generation. Maine ships much of its natural gas receipts to the Boston area via New Hampshire. The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline carrying natural gas from Canada and an LNG facility in New Brunswick, Canada, provide Maine with natural gas that supplies the Northeast market in the United States. The Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline system has the capacity to carry 440 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. Petroleum
Maine does not produce oil and has no oil reserves but receives petroleum products from abroad at its coastal ports, including Portland, Searsport, and Calais. Because Maine has no refineries, the Port of Portland sends its crude oil shipments via pipeline to refineries in Quebec and Ontario. Maine uses fuel oil for home heating during its long, cold winters. Over two-thirds of Maine households use fuel oil as their primary energy source for home heating, a higher share than in any other state. Due to the Northeast’s high use of fuel oil for home heating and to reduce the risk of fuel shortages due to weather and other issues, the Department of Energy established the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. The Reserve gives Northeast consumers adequate supplies for about 10 days, the time required for ships to carry heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to the New York Harbor.
| 1,454 | 2,814 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#4_2440183274
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Because Maine has no refineries, the Port of Portland sends its crude oil shipments via pipeline to refineries in Quebec and Ontario. Maine uses fuel oil for home heating during its long, cold winters. Over two-thirds of Maine households use fuel oil as their primary energy source for home heating, a higher share than in any other state. Due to the Northeast’s high use of fuel oil for home heating and to reduce the risk of fuel shortages due to weather and other issues, the Department of Energy established the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve. The Reserve gives Northeast consumers adequate supplies for about 10 days, the time required for ships to carry heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico to the New York Harbor. The Reserve’s storage terminals are located in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and Groton and New Haven, Connecticut. Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine’s net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States. Natural gas is its single dominant fuel for power generation, accounting for more than 40 percent of its generation in 2012. Renewable sources, wood and wood waste, hydroelectric, and wind, together account for over half of Maine’s net electricity generation. Maine has substantial renewable energy potential through its numerous rivers, forests, and windy areas that provide for hydroelectric, wood-fired, and wind-powered generation.
| 2,096 | 3,477 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#5_2440185289
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
The Reserve’s storage terminals are located in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, and Groton and New Haven, Connecticut. Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine’s net electricity generation is among the lowest in the United States. Natural gas is its single dominant fuel for power generation, accounting for more than 40 percent of its generation in 2012. Renewable sources, wood and wood waste, hydroelectric, and wind, together account for over half of Maine’s net electricity generation. Maine has substantial renewable energy potential through its numerous rivers, forests, and windy areas that provide for hydroelectric, wood-fired, and wind-powered generation. The state is one of the top U.S. producers of electricity from wood and wood waste, producing 26 percent of the state’s electricity in 2012. Non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources (wood and wood waste and wind) account for a larger share of net electricity generation (about one-third) in Maine than in any other state. Source: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, February 2013, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
Because demand for air-conditioning is low during its cool summer months and because few households use electricity as their primary energy source for home heating, Maine’s residential electricity use is low compared with the rest of the nation. Maine State Regulatory Environment
Like most states, Maine requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards.
| 2,815 | 4,315 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#6_2440187430
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
The state is one of the top U.S. producers of electricity from wood and wood waste, producing 26 percent of the state’s electricity in 2012. Non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources (wood and wood waste and wind) account for a larger share of net electricity generation (about one-third) in Maine than in any other state. Source: Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, February 2013, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
Because demand for air-conditioning is low during its cool summer months and because few households use electricity as their primary energy source for home heating, Maine’s residential electricity use is low compared with the rest of the nation. Maine State Regulatory Environment
Like most states, Maine requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Unlike some states, Maine does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. It does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. And, it does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas, which allows utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. While Maine does not cap greenhouse gas emissions, it is a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Maine is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI ), a regional agreement among nine Northeast states to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
| 3,478 | 4,953 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#7_2440189540
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Unlike some states, Maine does not require gasoline to be mixed with renewable fuels. It does not impose state-based appliance efficiency standards. And, it does not allow utilities to “decouple” revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas, which allows utilities to increase their revenue by selling less electricity and natural gas. While Maine does not cap greenhouse gas emissions, it is a member of a regional agreement to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Maine is a member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI ), a regional agreement among nine Northeast states to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement requires states to cap carbon dioxide emissions from the electric generation sector at 2005 levels in 2009 and to reduce those emissions by 10 percent by 2019 through a cap-and-trade program. In September 1999, Maine’s Public Utilities Commission adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring that at least 30 percent of retail electricity sales come from renewable sources. Eligible renewable sources include fuel cells, tidal, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass or municipal solid waste in conjunction with recycling. Since 1999, the renewable portfolio standard has been amended several times and two separate classes designated. Class II includes existing renewables, which are eligible to meet the 30 percent requirement.
| 4,316 | 5,709 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#8_2440191561
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
This agreement requires states to cap carbon dioxide emissions from the electric generation sector at 2005 levels in 2009 and to reduce those emissions by 10 percent by 2019 through a cap-and-trade program. In September 1999, Maine’s Public Utilities Commission adopted a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requiring that at least 30 percent of retail electricity sales come from renewable sources. Eligible renewable sources include fuel cells, tidal, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass or municipal solid waste in conjunction with recycling. Since 1999, the renewable portfolio standard has been amended several times and two separate classes designated. Class II includes existing renewables, which are eligible to meet the 30 percent requirement. Class I is composed of new renewable sources that have come on-line after September 1, 2005. The schedule for Class I renewables started at 1 percent in 2008 and increases by 1 percentage point each year until 2017, when it must total 10 percent. The Maine RPS requires renewables (Class I and II combined) to reach 40 percent by 2017. Besides the RPS, there are three goals for wind-energy development in Maine: ( i) at least 2,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2015; (
| 4,954 | 6,184 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#9_2440193410
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Class I is composed of new renewable sources that have come on-line after September 1, 2005. The schedule for Class I renewables started at 1 percent in 2008 and increases by 1 percentage point each year until 2017, when it must total 10 percent. The Maine RPS requires renewables (Class I and II combined) to reach 40 percent by 2017. Besides the RPS, there are three goals for wind-energy development in Maine: ( i) at least 2,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2015; ( ii) at least 3,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, of which there is a potential to produce 300 megawatts from facilities located in coastal waters or offshore; and (iii) at least 8,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2030, of which 5,000 megawatts should be from facilities in coastal waters or offshore. The first two goals were established in April 2008 (L.D. 2283), and the third was established in April 2010 (L.D. 1810). Maine imposes automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection adopted amendments to Chapter 127, New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, in 2005, adopting California’s vehicle emissions standards.
| 5,710 | 6,949 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#10_2440195279
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
ii) at least 3,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2020, of which there is a potential to produce 300 megawatts from facilities located in coastal waters or offshore; and (iii) at least 8,000 megawatts of installed capacity by 2030, of which 5,000 megawatts should be from facilities in coastal waters or offshore. The first two goals were established in April 2008 (L.D. 2283), and the third was established in April 2010 (L.D. 1810). Maine imposes automobile fuel economy standards similar to California’s, which include attempts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Maine’s Board of Environmental Protection adopted amendments to Chapter 127, New Motor Vehicle Emission Standards, in 2005, adopting California’s vehicle emissions standards. Maine requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential buildings must meet the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC) based on the 2009 IRC, while commercial buildings must meet the MUBEC based on the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The IRC, the IECC (developed by the International Code Council) and ASHRAE (developed by the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) are model codes that mandate certain energy efficiency standards. New state buildings must also meet energy efficiency standards. Maine requires the incorporation of “green building” standards into the design, construction, operation and maintenance of any new, expanded or existing state building if cost-effective.
| 6,184 | 7,768 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#11_2440197502
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Maine requires new residential and commercial buildings to meet energy efficiency standards. Residential buildings must meet the Maine Uniform Building and Energy Code (MUBEC) based on the 2009 IRC, while commercial buildings must meet the MUBEC based on the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) or ASHRAE 90.1-2007. The IRC, the IECC (developed by the International Code Council) and ASHRAE (developed by the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) are model codes that mandate certain energy efficiency standards. New state buildings must also meet energy efficiency standards. Maine requires the incorporation of “green building” standards into the design, construction, operation and maintenance of any new, expanded or existing state building if cost-effective. Maine Statutes Title 5, Section 1764-A also requires that plans and designs for the construction of new or substantially renovated buildings owned or leased by the state include an energy-use target that exceeds standards for commercial and institutional buildings by at least 20 percent. In March 2005, the governor of Maine announced that the state would join the federal “Energy Star Challenge.” As part of this partnership, the state committed to encouraging building owners and operators throughout Maine to improve energy efficiency by 10 percent or more using performance contracting and other mechanisms. The state also agreed to track energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions from government buildings and identify the best ways to improve energy efficiency in those buildings. In 2003, Maine’s governor established a goal for the state government to buy at least 50 percent of its electricity from “reasonably priced” renewable-power sources, paid for by energy conservation improvements in all state buildings.
| 6,949 | 8,789 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#12_2440199990
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
Maine Statutes Title 5, Section 1764-A also requires that plans and designs for the construction of new or substantially renovated buildings owned or leased by the state include an energy-use target that exceeds standards for commercial and institutional buildings by at least 20 percent. In March 2005, the governor of Maine announced that the state would join the federal “Energy Star Challenge.” As part of this partnership, the state committed to encouraging building owners and operators throughout Maine to improve energy efficiency by 10 percent or more using performance contracting and other mechanisms. The state also agreed to track energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions from government buildings and identify the best ways to improve energy efficiency in those buildings. In 2003, Maine’s governor established a goal for the state government to buy at least 50 percent of its electricity from “reasonably priced” renewable-power sources, paid for by energy conservation improvements in all state buildings. As of March 2007, Maine’s state government was purchasing 100 percent of its power from renewable energy resources. The state’s existing renewable energy portfolio standard accounts for 30 percent of this total. For the remaining 70 percent, the state is purchasing renewable-energy credits (RECs) from the Rumford Falls hydropower project in Rumford, Maine. Conclusion
The State of Maine has no fossil fuel reserves, but does have potential for substantial renewable energy from hydroelectricity, wood and wood waste (biomass) and wind, generating over 50 percent of its electricity from these sources. It has the lowest average electricity prices among the New England states and is their leading industrial producer because of its biomass energy sources.
| 7,769 | 9,547 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665175988#13_2440202418
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/maine-energy-and-economic-analysis/
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis - IER
|
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine: An Energy and Economic Analysis
Maine’s State Rankings
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy
Maine State Regulatory Environment
Conclusion
Tags
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
|
As of March 2007, Maine’s state government was purchasing 100 percent of its power from renewable energy resources. The state’s existing renewable energy portfolio standard accounts for 30 percent of this total. For the remaining 70 percent, the state is purchasing renewable-energy credits (RECs) from the Rumford Falls hydropower project in Rumford, Maine. Conclusion
The State of Maine has no fossil fuel reserves, but does have potential for substantial renewable energy from hydroelectricity, wood and wood waste (biomass) and wind, generating over 50 percent of its electricity from these sources. It has the lowest average electricity prices among the New England states and is their leading industrial producer because of its biomass energy sources. Tags
Coal,
Energy,
hydropower,
Maine,
natural gas,
petroleum2,
renewable portfolio standards,
Solar,
Wind
Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low
Why the “Social Cost of Carbon” Matters
| 8,790 | 9,751 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#0_2440204025
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Nuclear Power - IER
IER
Nuclear Power
By IER
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost? International
U.S. Statistics
In 2007, nuclear power accounted for 19 percent of the electricity generated and consumed in the United States [1]. This amount of power is comparable to the electricity used in California, Texas, and New York combined [2]. Behind coal, nuclear power and natural gas-fired generation each represent about 20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States [3]. The United States’ 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states produced 807 billion kilowatt hours of nuclear electricity generation in 2007, more than any other nation in the world [4]. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that nuclear power generation will increase to 917 billion kilowatt hours by 2030, representing 18 percent of total electricity generation. EIA expects 16.6 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity to be built as a result of incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) [5]. The EPACT subsidy is a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity beginning operation by 2020, subject to a $125 million annual limit per gigawatt (1,000 megawatts). The production tax credit applies to the first 8 years of the unit’s operation [6]. EIA lists 19 potential nuclear projects (29 commercial reactors) in the United States, of which 9 projects have applied for a license to build and operate a plant.
| 0 | 1,508 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#1_2440205977
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that nuclear power generation will increase to 917 billion kilowatt hours by 2030, representing 18 percent of total electricity generation. EIA expects 16.6 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity to be built as a result of incentives in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) [5]. The EPACT subsidy is a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity beginning operation by 2020, subject to a $125 million annual limit per gigawatt (1,000 megawatts). The production tax credit applies to the first 8 years of the unit’s operation [6]. EIA lists 19 potential nuclear projects (29 commercial reactors) in the United States, of which 9 projects have applied for a license to build and operate a plant. The total capacity of all of these potential plants is about 39 gigawatts. Projects included are those in which the applicant has met all of the following criteria: 1) publicly notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of interest in applying for a combined license to build and operate new commercial nuclear reactors; 2) issued one or more press releases or initiated a pre-application meeting at the NRC; 3) selected a specific site for the reactor;
| 702 | 1,968 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#2_2440207675
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
The total capacity of all of these potential plants is about 39 gigawatts. Projects included are those in which the applicant has met all of the following criteria: 1) publicly notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of interest in applying for a combined license to build and operate new commercial nuclear reactors; 2) issued one or more press releases or initiated a pre-application meeting at the NRC; 3) selected a specific site for the reactor; and 4) selected a specific reactor design for the project. There is no assurance that any of these plants will ultimately be built or operate commercially [7]. While operating and maintenance costs for nuclear power are less than conventional plants, they have taken longer to build and are more expensive to construct (see below). The average construction-to-operation time for the current fleet of reactors is over 9 years and about 11.5 years if only reactors constructed since 1970 are considered [8]. The Energy Information Administration assumes a new advanced nuclear unit would take six years to build, while new coal- and natural gas-fired plants would take 2 to 4 years, depending on the type of plant [9].
| 1,509 | 2,685 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#3_2440209280
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
and 4) selected a specific reactor design for the project. There is no assurance that any of these plants will ultimately be built or operate commercially [7]. While operating and maintenance costs for nuclear power are less than conventional plants, they have taken longer to build and are more expensive to construct (see below). The average construction-to-operation time for the current fleet of reactors is over 9 years and about 11.5 years if only reactors constructed since 1970 are considered [8]. The Energy Information Administration assumes a new advanced nuclear unit would take six years to build, while new coal- and natural gas-fired plants would take 2 to 4 years, depending on the type of plant [9]. Accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl turned public opinion against nuclear power. Since then, advances in technology have offered the possibility that future reactors will be made inherently safe from meltdown. While the U.S. nuclear industry has taken steps to reduce the potential for accidents in existing reactors, the public may continue to harbor past fears [10]. Emissions and Nuclear Waste
Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides. Fossil fuel emissions, however, are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant [11].
| 1,969 | 3,350 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#4_2440211091
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl turned public opinion against nuclear power. Since then, advances in technology have offered the possibility that future reactors will be made inherently safe from meltdown. While the U.S. nuclear industry has taken steps to reduce the potential for accidents in existing reactors, the public may continue to harbor past fears [10]. Emissions and Nuclear Waste
Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides. Fossil fuel emissions, however, are associated with the uranium mining and uranium enrichment process as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant [11]. The plants are also concrete-intensive, creating incremental emissions. The biggest potential concern with nuclear power relates to the management and disposal of radioactive byproducts. Nuclear power waste is highly toxic and can remain radioactive for anywhere from one to millions of years. While “geologic isolation” offers a long-term disposal solution, the transportation to and from the sites is a major issue. In addition, individuals and communities near nuclear waste storage sites are reluctant to have a nuclear waste dump near their homes [12].
| 2,685 | 3,908 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#5_2440212753
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
The plants are also concrete-intensive, creating incremental emissions. The biggest potential concern with nuclear power relates to the management and disposal of radioactive byproducts. Nuclear power waste is highly toxic and can remain radioactive for anywhere from one to millions of years. While “geologic isolation” offers a long-term disposal solution, the transportation to and from the sites is a major issue. In addition, individuals and communities near nuclear waste storage sites are reluctant to have a nuclear waste dump near their homes [12]. Yucca Mountain is the nation’s planned geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, which is currently stored at 126 sites around the nation. Yucca Mountain is located in a remote site on federally protected land within the secure boundaries of the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. On July 23, 2002, President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take the next step in establishing a safe repository to store the nation’s nuclear waste. The DOE is currently preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository.
| 3,351 | 4,604 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#6_2440214455
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Yucca Mountain is the nation’s planned geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, which is currently stored at 126 sites around the nation. Yucca Mountain is located in a remote site on federally protected land within the secure boundaries of the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is approximately 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. On July 23, 2002, President Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the Department of Energy (DOE) to take the next step in establishing a safe repository to store the nation’s nuclear waste. The DOE is currently preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires utilities which generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which will be used to pay for Yucca Mountain [13]. What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost? EIA assumes the total overnight capital cost of an advanced nuclear plant to be $2,583 per kilowatt (in 2008 dollars) [14]. These costs are below the estimated cost made by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) of $3,410 per kilowatt (in 2008 dollars) [15]. Recent estimates from power companies indicate that the cost could be even higher.
| 3,908 | 5,289 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#7_2440216274
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires utilities which generate electricity using nuclear power to pay a fee of one tenth of one cent ($0.001) per kilowatt-hour into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which will be used to pay for Yucca Mountain [13]. What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost? EIA assumes the total overnight capital cost of an advanced nuclear plant to be $2,583 per kilowatt (in 2008 dollars) [14]. These costs are below the estimated cost made by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) of $3,410 per kilowatt (in 2008 dollars) [15]. Recent estimates from power companies indicate that the cost could be even higher. Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7 percent interest in two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Georgia. FPL Group, Juno Beach, Florida, estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear operator, is considering building two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, with a cost between $5 billion and $6.5 billion each [16]. International
In 2005, world-wide nuclear generation totaled 2626 billion kilowatt hours, with the U.S. generating 30 percent (782 billion kilowatt hours), France generating 16 percent (429 billion kilowatt hours), Germany generating 6 percent (155 billion kilowatt hours), and Russia generating 5 percent (140 billion kilowatt hours) [17]. While France generated only 16 percent of the world’s total nuclear generation in 2005, nuclear power represented 79 percent of the country’s total electricity generation [18].
| 4,605 | 6,353 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#8_2440218467
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7 percent interest in two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Georgia. FPL Group, Juno Beach, Florida, estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. Exelon, the nation’s biggest nuclear operator, is considering building two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, with a cost between $5 billion and $6.5 billion each [16]. International
In 2005, world-wide nuclear generation totaled 2626 billion kilowatt hours, with the U.S. generating 30 percent (782 billion kilowatt hours), France generating 16 percent (429 billion kilowatt hours), Germany generating 6 percent (155 billion kilowatt hours), and Russia generating 5 percent (140 billion kilowatt hours) [17]. While France generated only 16 percent of the world’s total nuclear generation in 2005, nuclear power represented 79 percent of the country’s total electricity generation [18]. In 2005, world-wide nuclear capacity totaled 374 gigawatts, of which the U.S. had 27 percent (100 gigawatts), France had 17 percent (63 gigawatts), Japan had 13 percent (47 gigawatts), Russia had 6 percent (23 gigawatts), and Germany had 5 percent (21 gigawatts) [19]. International growth in commercial nuclear power has slowed, but several countries have ambitious nuclear construction programs. While no nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1978, China, India, Russia, and South Korea and other countries have brought new reactors into service during the latter part of the twentieth century [20]. EIA projects that world nuclear capacity will increase from 374 gigawatts in 2005 to 498 gigawatts in 2030, an increase of 33 percent. China is expected to add 45 gigawatts, India 17 gigawatts, Russia 18 gigawatts, and South Korea 13 gigawatts [21].
| 5,290 | 7,229 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#9_2440220851
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
In 2005, world-wide nuclear capacity totaled 374 gigawatts, of which the U.S. had 27 percent (100 gigawatts), France had 17 percent (63 gigawatts), Japan had 13 percent (47 gigawatts), Russia had 6 percent (23 gigawatts), and Germany had 5 percent (21 gigawatts) [19]. International growth in commercial nuclear power has slowed, but several countries have ambitious nuclear construction programs. While no nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1978, China, India, Russia, and South Korea and other countries have brought new reactors into service during the latter part of the twentieth century [20]. EIA projects that world nuclear capacity will increase from 374 gigawatts in 2005 to 498 gigawatts in 2030, an increase of 33 percent. China is expected to add 45 gigawatts, India 17 gigawatts, Russia 18 gigawatts, and South Korea 13 gigawatts [21]. EIA projects that world-wide electricity production from nuclear power will increase by 43 percent by 2030, reaching 3,754 billion kilowatt hours. Increases of over 100 percent are expected to come from China (720 percent), India (831 percent), and Russia (118 percent). However, nuclear power’s share drops from 15% of total world generation in 2005 to 11 percent of total generation in 2030 [22]. Citations
1. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2a, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_8.pdf.
| 6,353 | 7,769 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#10_2440222701
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
EIA projects that world-wide electricity production from nuclear power will increase by 43 percent by 2030, reaching 3,754 billion kilowatt hours. Increases of over 100 percent are expected to come from China (720 percent), India (831 percent), and Russia (118 percent). However, nuclear power’s share drops from 15% of total world generation in 2005 to 11 percent of total generation in 2030 [22]. Citations
1. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2a, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_8.pdf. 2. Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Basics 101, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/nuclear_basics.html. 3. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2a, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_8.pdf. 4.
| 7,229 | 8,012 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#11_2440223919
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
2. Energy Information Administration, Nuclear Basics 101, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/nuclear_basics.html. 3. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table 8.2a, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_8.pdf. 4. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table s 9.1 and 9.2, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf , and http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html. 5. EnergyInformation Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Tables A8 and A9, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html. 6. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, page 90, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf.
| 7,769 | 8,514 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#12_2440225093
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, Table s 9.1 and 9.2, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf , and http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html. 5. EnergyInformation Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Tables A8 and A9, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html. 6. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, page 90, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf. 7. Energy Information Administration, Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html. 8. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html . 9.
| 8,013 | 8,810 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#13_2440226320
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
7. Energy Information Administration, Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactorcom.html. 8. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html . 9. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Table 38, page 79, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf
10. Bradley, Robert, Energy: The Master Resource (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2004), p.27. 11.
| 8,514 | 9,068 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#14_2440227304
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Table 38, page 79, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf
10. Bradley, Robert, Energy: The Master Resource (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2004), p.27. 11. US Environmental Protection Agency, Electricity from Nuclear Energy, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/nuc.htm. 12. Bradley, Robert, Energy: The Master Resource (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2004), p.27.
| 8,811 | 9,267 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#15_2440228191
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
US Environmental Protection Agency, Electricity from Nuclear Energy, http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/nuc.htm. 12. Bradley, Robert, Energy: The Master Resource (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 2004), p.27. 13. US Department of Energy, Office of Radioactive Waste Management, http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml. 14. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Table 38, page 79, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html. 15.
| 9,069 | 9,552 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#16_2440229104
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
13. US Department of Energy, Office of Radioactive Waste Management, http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml. 14. Energy Information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, Table 38, page 79, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html. 15. ACCF/NAM Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, http://www.accf.org/nam.html. 16. “ New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs”, Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html. 17. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual, Table 2.7, http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/elec.html.
| 9,267 | 9,941 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665186469#17_2440230218
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/nuclear-power-facts/
|
Nuclear Power - IER
|
Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power
U.S. Statistics
Emissions and Nuclear Waste
What Does A Nuclear Plant Cost?
International
Citations
Taxpayers to Pay $1 Billion for No New Energy Whatsoever
|
ACCF/NAM Study of the Economic Impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, http://www.accf.org/nam.html. 16. “ New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs”, Rebecca Smith, Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055252677483933.html. 17. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Annual, Table 2.7, http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/elec.html. 18. Energy Information Administration, International Energ
| 9,553 | 10,000 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#0_2440231107
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
By IER
Most oil and petroleum products are moved to refineries and consuming areas by pipeline, which is both the safest and most economical means of transporting them. However, due to a shortage of pipeline capacity, more and more oil and petroleum products are being moved by rail, truck, and barge. Those shipments almost doubled in 2012, and they are continuing to increase to move crude oil from the shale formations in North Dakota and Texas, and oil sands in Canada to U.S. refineries. Between 2011 and 2012, oil delivered to refineries by trucks increased 38 percent, crude moved on barges increased 53 percent and rail deliveries quadrupled. Because the nation’s pipeline infrastructure has not kept pace with growing domestic oil production, the market has had to rely increasingly on alternative transportation options. Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/2013/130710/twipprint.html
Between 2005 and 2010, 96 percent of crude oil was transported by pipeline and tanker ships to refineries. Inland refineries are generally reached by pipeline since pipeline transport has relatively low costs and high capacity. For imports and offshore production, tanker ships have been the primary form of transportation for crude oil. But in 2011, these two transportation forms began to decline in market share, representing 93 percent of the market in 2012. [
| 0 | 1,527 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#1_2440233266
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/2013/130710/twipprint.html
Between 2005 and 2010, 96 percent of crude oil was transported by pipeline and tanker ships to refineries. Inland refineries are generally reached by pipeline since pipeline transport has relatively low costs and high capacity. For imports and offshore production, tanker ships have been the primary form of transportation for crude oil. But in 2011, these two transportation forms began to decline in market share, representing 93 percent of the market in 2012. [ i]
Between 2000 and 2010, truck and rail shipments have averaged just 1 percent of total shipments to refineries because they are less cost-effective options for moving crude. But, beginning in 2011, truck and rail volumes increased, and represented 3 percent of refinery shipments in 2012. Domestic barge shipments also increased, accounting for nearly 3 percent as well. Because of the lengthy regulatory review process for expanding existing pipelines or building new pipelines, the transportation of crude oil and petroleum products has moved to rail and truck, which provide more flexibility because they can use existing infrastructure. Unless more pipeline capacity is built to deal with the increased domestic crude production, it is likely that these transportation modes will expand.
| 950 | 2,320 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#2_2440235263
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
i]
Between 2000 and 2010, truck and rail shipments have averaged just 1 percent of total shipments to refineries because they are less cost-effective options for moving crude. But, beginning in 2011, truck and rail volumes increased, and represented 3 percent of refinery shipments in 2012. Domestic barge shipments also increased, accounting for nearly 3 percent as well. Because of the lengthy regulatory review process for expanding existing pipelines or building new pipelines, the transportation of crude oil and petroleum products has moved to rail and truck, which provide more flexibility because they can use existing infrastructure. Unless more pipeline capacity is built to deal with the increased domestic crude production, it is likely that these transportation modes will expand. Rail Shipments
According to the Association of American Railroads, the amount of crude oil and refined petroleum products transported by rail totaled close to 356,000 carloads during the first half of 2013, an increase of 48 percent from the same period last year. During this period, U.S. weekly carloadings of crude oil and petroleum products averaged nearly 13,700 rail tankers. The amount of crude oil and petroleum products shipped by rail totaled 1.37 million barrels per day during the January through June 2013 period, higher than the 927,000 barrels per day shipped during the first six months of last year. ( One rail carload holds about 700 barrels.) [ ii]
Because the Association of American Railroads does not differentiate between crude oil and petroleum products, it is believed that most of the volume shipped between 2006 and 2010 was composed of petroleum products and most of the increase since then has been crude oil.
| 1,527 | 3,257 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#3_2440237624
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Rail Shipments
According to the Association of American Railroads, the amount of crude oil and refined petroleum products transported by rail totaled close to 356,000 carloads during the first half of 2013, an increase of 48 percent from the same period last year. During this period, U.S. weekly carloadings of crude oil and petroleum products averaged nearly 13,700 rail tankers. The amount of crude oil and petroleum products shipped by rail totaled 1.37 million barrels per day during the January through June 2013 period, higher than the 927,000 barrels per day shipped during the first six months of last year. ( One rail carload holds about 700 barrels.) [ ii]
Because the Association of American Railroads does not differentiate between crude oil and petroleum products, it is believed that most of the volume shipped between 2006 and 2010 was composed of petroleum products and most of the increase since then has been crude oil. Crude oil now represents about half of the 2013 daily volumes. Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12031
North Dakota is now the second largest oil producing state in the nation after Texas because hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling having unlocked billions of barrels of shale oil in the Bakken Shale formation. Because there is not enough pipeline capacity to move its oil production to refineries, North Dakota production accounts for a large share of the increased shipments of oil by rail. In North Dakota, rail moves 69 percent of the state’s 800,000 barrels a day of crude.
| 2,320 | 3,903 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#4_2440239842
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Crude oil now represents about half of the 2013 daily volumes. Source: Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12031
North Dakota is now the second largest oil producing state in the nation after Texas because hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling having unlocked billions of barrels of shale oil in the Bakken Shale formation. Because there is not enough pipeline capacity to move its oil production to refineries, North Dakota production accounts for a large share of the increased shipments of oil by rail. In North Dakota, rail moves 69 percent of the state’s 800,000 barrels a day of crude. Railroads are also shipping U.S. crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries. Although the Midwest has been the traditional source for U.S. crude oil exports to Canada, an increasing amount of exports is being shipped from the Gulf Coast via waterborne transportation and the East Coast via rail. For example, crude oil from North Dakota is being shipped by rail and exported through New York State to Eastern Canada. Likewise, some Canadian crude is being moved by rail to U.S. refineries. Foreign rail shipments were first reported in 2011, totaling almost 1,000 barrels per day–the highest volume of foreign oil-by-rail recorded since the Energy Information Administration started publishing the data in 1981.
| 3,258 | 4,613 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#5_2440241834
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Railroads are also shipping U.S. crude oil to eastern Canadian refineries. Although the Midwest has been the traditional source for U.S. crude oil exports to Canada, an increasing amount of exports is being shipped from the Gulf Coast via waterborne transportation and the East Coast via rail. For example, crude oil from North Dakota is being shipped by rail and exported through New York State to Eastern Canada. Likewise, some Canadian crude is being moved by rail to U.S. refineries. Foreign rail shipments were first reported in 2011, totaling almost 1,000 barrels per day–the highest volume of foreign oil-by-rail recorded since the Energy Information Administration started publishing the data in 1981. In 2012, those shipments increased to a new record of more than 11,000 barrels per day. New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
There are estimates that more than $40 billion in oil pipelines are now either under construction or being planned for the next few years. [ iii] For example, Enbridge, a Canadian oil company, has almost doubled its capacity to move crude within the United States. Enbridge recently completed pipeline and rail expansions moving oil from the Bakken to markets around the country, increasing its capacity from 250,000 barrels of oil per day in 2011 to 475,000 barrels per day today, with most of the increase in pipeline capacity. Enbridge also announced another pipeline that would add 225,000 barrels a day capacity in 2016. [
| 3,903 | 5,391 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#6_2440243954
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
In 2012, those shipments increased to a new record of more than 11,000 barrels per day. New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
There are estimates that more than $40 billion in oil pipelines are now either under construction or being planned for the next few years. [ iii] For example, Enbridge, a Canadian oil company, has almost doubled its capacity to move crude within the United States. Enbridge recently completed pipeline and rail expansions moving oil from the Bakken to markets around the country, increasing its capacity from 250,000 barrels of oil per day in 2011 to 475,000 barrels per day today, with most of the increase in pipeline capacity. Enbridge also announced another pipeline that would add 225,000 barrels a day capacity in 2016. [ iv] And TransCanada’s southern route for the Keystone XL pipeline, the 450-mile Gulf Coast pipeline, through East Texas connecting Beaumont and Cushing, Oklahoma [v] is now 80 percent complete. [ vi]
However, in the interim, oil companies and refineries needed to make adjustments to keep up with the increased crude production. Besides building new pipelines, changes have been made to existing oil-delivery systems. Last year, for example, a 16-inch pipe that was built to carry crude imported from Africa and Europe from the Port of Corpus Christi north was reversed to move crude south. Some of that crude is loaded onto barges and towed toward refineries in Houston.
| 4,614 | 6,061 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#7_2440246037
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
iv] And TransCanada’s southern route for the Keystone XL pipeline, the 450-mile Gulf Coast pipeline, through East Texas connecting Beaumont and Cushing, Oklahoma [v] is now 80 percent complete. [ vi]
However, in the interim, oil companies and refineries needed to make adjustments to keep up with the increased crude production. Besides building new pipelines, changes have been made to existing oil-delivery systems. Last year, for example, a 16-inch pipe that was built to carry crude imported from Africa and Europe from the Port of Corpus Christi north was reversed to move crude south. Some of that crude is loaded onto barges and towed toward refineries in Houston. Phillips 66, which has a refinery in Linden, New Jersey, moves crude by ship around Florida on a 2,200-mile journey to its N.J. refinery. In the Eagle Ford shale oil formation in South Texas, oil production has increased to more than 500,000 barrels a day, from less than 1,000 in 2009. Some of that crude is being moved by heavy trucks causing traffic tie-ups and road disintegration because the roads were not designed for the weight and number of trucks. To repair and improve roads in oil-producing areas, the Texas Legislature appropriated $450 million. Recently, the Texas transportation department decided to convert 83 miles of state road in six oil-producing counties from pavement to gravel to reduce repair costs and slow traffic.
| 5,391 | 6,803 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#8_2440248082
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Phillips 66, which has a refinery in Linden, New Jersey, moves crude by ship around Florida on a 2,200-mile journey to its N.J. refinery. In the Eagle Ford shale oil formation in South Texas, oil production has increased to more than 500,000 barrels a day, from less than 1,000 in 2009. Some of that crude is being moved by heavy trucks causing traffic tie-ups and road disintegration because the roads were not designed for the weight and number of trucks. To repair and improve roads in oil-producing areas, the Texas Legislature appropriated $450 million. Recently, the Texas transportation department decided to convert 83 miles of state road in six oil-producing counties from pavement to gravel to reduce repair costs and slow traffic. Some of that Eagle Ford crude is also transported by truck to a barge canal about 100 miles to the west, which now moves 1.6 million barrels every month. Conclusion
Increased oil production in the United States means that the infrastructure that transports it must also increase. Due to the regulation of pipelines and their slow approval process, the oil industry has found other more flexible means of transportation at its disposal, including rail, truck and barge that can use existing infrastructure. The Energy Information Administration reports major increases in the transportation of crude oil and petroleum products by these alternatives. Since pipeline transportation is safer and less expensive than these alternatives, however, about $40 billion of pipe construction are under way or planned over the next several years.
| 6,062 | 7,637 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665197590#9_2440250284
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/oil-shipments-by-rail-truck-and-barge-up-substantially/
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially - IER
|
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Oil shipments by rail, truck, and barge up substantially
Rail Shipments
New Pipeline Construction and Alternative Transportation Modes
Conclusion
Tags
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
|
Some of that Eagle Ford crude is also transported by truck to a barge canal about 100 miles to the west, which now moves 1.6 million barrels every month. Conclusion
Increased oil production in the United States means that the infrastructure that transports it must also increase. Due to the regulation of pipelines and their slow approval process, the oil industry has found other more flexible means of transportation at its disposal, including rail, truck and barge that can use existing infrastructure. The Energy Information Administration reports major increases in the transportation of crude oil and petroleum products by these alternatives. Since pipeline transportation is safer and less expensive than these alternatives, however, about $40 billion of pipe construction are under way or planned over the next several years. The shale oil boom is a major economic driver in our economy which is increasing investment and with it, jobs. [i] Energy Information Administration, U.S. crude oil increasingly moves by barge, truck and rail, July 11, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twiparch/2013/130710/twipprint.html
[ii] Energy Information Administration, Rail delivery of U.S. oil and petroleum products continues to increase, but pace slows, July 10, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12031
[iii] Wall Street Journal, Pipeline Capacity Squeeze Reroutes Crude Oil, August 26, 2013, https://id.wsj.com/auth/proxy/refresh?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887323838204579003093413317418.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dpipeline
[iv] National Journal, Is Keystone still Needed to Transport U.S. Oil?, August 26, 2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/is-keystone-still-needed-to-transport-u-s-oil-20130826
[v] [v] Bloomberg, TransCanada Keystone XL Defeats Obstacle to Pipeline Leg, August 27, 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/transcanada-keystone-xl-defeats-obstacle-to-pipeline-leg.html
[vi] U.S. House of Representatives, Energy and Commerce Committee, Southern Leg of Keystone Pipeline Nearly Complete, July 9, 2013, http://energycommerce.house.gov/blog/southern-leg-keystone-xl-pipeline-nearly-complete
Tags
bakken,
eagle ford,
oil,
oil transport,
pipeline,
railroads
September 2013
Pro-Carbon Tax Economists Lash Out at Australia Study
September 2013
Colorado: An Energy and Economic Analysis
| 6,804 | 9,158 |
msmarco_v2.1_doc_01_1665207377#0_2440253281
|
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/payback-on-teslas-powerwall-battery/
|
How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Tesla Powerwall? - IER
|
How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Tesla Powerwall?
How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Tesla Powerwall?
Powerwall Cost and Operation
Tags
|
How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Tesla Powerwall? - IER
How Long Does It Take to Pay Off a Tesla Powerwall? By IER
One of the biggest problems with electricity from solar and wind power is that these sources of electricity are not reliable because of their intermittent nature. We rely on having electricity when we require its use—24/7. Anyone familiar with the third world or even developing countries knows that unreliable forms of energy are a huge impediment to modern living standards and quality of life. One suggestion to make these intermittent sources more reliable is to use batteries to store electricity when the intermittent sources are producing electricity and then use the electricity when the sun goes down or the wind stops. The issue has always been that the battery back-up is expensive, particularly with regard to the scale of the grid or cost of batteries for home use. Tesla claims that they have overcome much of these problems with its Powerwall battery. Powerwall is a daily use battery that is produced and marketed by Tesla to provide power to homes or businesses for part of the day, off-setting some electricity costs. [ i] The issue that remains is the cost.
| 0 | 1,192 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.