GOOD

This Chart Shows When We (Mostly) Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants

Most coal-fired power plants are at least as old as I am. But I never spew mercury into the air.

The Energy Information Administration published a couple of charts that have the energy/environment blogosphere talking. Above, see the amount and source of energy that came online in the United States by year. The ‘50s, ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s saw tons of coal plants built. Not a ton after that thanks, as Brad Plumer wrote, to cost, regulation, and advocacy.

Keep Reading Show less
Articles

How Natural Gas Companies Could Make Money by Reducing Smog

Companies could capture methane that currently vents into the atmosphere and sell it for a profit. So why aren't they doing it?

For years, environmental groups and politicians declared that natural gas was a clean source of energy that could help turn back the tide of climate change. Then last year, Robert Howarth, a professor at Cornell University, contradicted that idea in no uncertain terms, concluding that over its life cycle, natural gas can do as much harm as coal, the bête noire of energy sources. Natural gas does produce lower greenhouse gas emission when burned, he acknowledged, but not all the gas that comes out of the ground is burned for energy—a significant portion leaks into the atmosphere as methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Keep Reading Show less
Articles

Did Environmnetalists Make a Mistake by Backing Natural Gas?

A new report shows that the boom in shale gas could backfire and slow down the changeover to renewable energy.


It has always seemed a little incongruous that national environmental groups—from the National Resources Defense Council to Greenpeace—would advocate for using natural gas. Extracting the gas takes a toll on local environments and gas-fired power plants dump plenty of carbon into the atmosphere (albeit far less than coal plants).

But in plotting a path to a low-carbon future, environmental groups counted natural gas as an important “bridge fuel”—a source of clean energy that would help reduce overall carbon emissions until renewable energy sources scaled up enough to take over. But it's never been clear how that transition would happen, especially because the natural gas industry would have every incentive to keep the country on the bridge. And with gas prices expected to stay low for years to come, a new report from the MIT Energy Initiative shows that the boom in shale gas could backfire and slow down the changeover to renewable energy.

Although the price of electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind is decreasing rapidly, gas is even cheaper and starts with a much larger market share. While solar and wind projects lag when government support falls, electricity companies are investing heavily in gas-fired capacity. The MIT study made projections for a scenario in which the government supported cutting coal-fired capacity in half by 2050 and increasing renewables’ share of the market to 25 percent by 2030. If shale gas—natural gas extracted using hydraulic fracturing techniques—was not available, renewables’ share of electricity generated would grow to 29 percent by 2030, the researchers found. With cheap shale gas available, renewables would grow only as much as the government mandated, to 25 percent.

The MIT researchers did find that shale gas would create more flexibility to meet carbon reduction targets. But, they wrote, “While taking advantage of this gift in the short run, treating gas a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future, it is crucial not to allow the greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge.”

The upshot of the report is that cheap renewables aren’t going to be enough to wean the country off fossil fuels. State and federal governments will need to create policies like the one the report envisions—standards that require electricity providers to source a defined percentage of their energy from renewable sources. More than half of states already have standards in place; legislators like Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) have been advocating for a federal equivalent. To be most effective, those standards should focus on renewable sources like wind and solar, not clean-energy sources like natural gas. Environmental groups might have once seen a need to promote natural gas, but these days, the gas industry doesn’t need any help.

Keep Reading Show less
Articles

Infographic: The Darker Side of the "Bridge Fuel"

Natural gas is being touted as a "bridge fuel" that can help us move on from coal. But it sure ain't perfect. Here's why.

Natural gas is supposed to be the "bridge fuel" that helps power our refrigerators and flatscreens and factories while we transition from the filthy fossil fuels of the past to the clean, renewable energy of the future. As I've written before, the conventional wisdom, even among the Big Greens and Capitol Hill-connected progressives, is that "natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel." (That, for instance, is a quote from John Podesta, the CEO and President of the Center for American Progress, and the very quintessence of liberal Beltway conventional wisdom.) But with all this attention comes a spotlight. The fuel is facing increasing scrutiny and some pretty ugly revelations have surfaced in the past few months about this alleged "bridge fuel."

Keep Reading Show less
Articles