Sept. 20, 2006
WASHINGTON,DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) Strategic Plan, which details measures to accelerate the development and reduce the cost of new and advanced technologies that avoid, reduce, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions. CCTP is the technology component of a comprehensive U.S. strategy introduced by President Bush in 2002 to combat climate change that include measures to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary, incentive-based, and mandatory partnerships, advance climate change science, spur clean energy technology development and deployment, and promote international collaboration.
“This Plan was inspired by the President’s vision to harness America’s strengths in innovation and technology to transform energy production and use in ways that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the long term,” U.S Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. “This Strategic Plan is unprecedented in its scope and scale and breaks new ground with its visionary 100-year planning horizon, global perspective, multi-lateral research collaborations, and public private partnerships.”
The CCTP Strategic Plan organizes roughly $3 billion in federal spending for climate technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase economic growth. It provides a long-term planning context, taking into account many uncertainties, and establishes principles for formulating research and development portfolios to identify areas for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and highlights an array of technology strategies and investment criteria. This Plan complements other Administration efforts including short-term measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions intensity, advance climate change science, and promote international cooperation through partnership including the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Methane to Markets Partnership, and the International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy.
The Plan sets six complementary goals: (1) reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure; (2) reducing emissions from energy supply; (3) capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide; (4) reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases; (5) measuring and monitoring emissions; and (6) bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change. The Plan outlines approaches toward attaining these goals, articulates underlying technology development strategies, and identifies a series of next steps toward implementation.
“Through this Plan, the Climate Change Technology program provides a framework for getting the broad range of government experts involved in climate technology research pulling in the same strategic direction,” Stephen Eule, DOE Director of CCTP, said. “The technologies outlined in the Plan – hydrogen, biorefining, clean coal, carbon sequestration, nuclear fission and fusion, and others - have the potential to transform our economy in fundamental ways and can address not just climate change, but energy security, air pollution, and other pressing needs.”
The Plan is the outcome of coordination through government working groups, expert review, and public comment. A draft Strategic Plan was released in September 2005 and over 250 comments were received during the public comment period. Through public comment, the Plan’s ambitious goals for advanced technology, both near- and long-term, are more clearly stated and, within a wide range of uncertainties, summarize both quantities and timing. Further, the final Plan seeks to outline transformational ways through technology to reduce the costs of addressing climate change.
To view the CCTP Strategic Plan, please visit the CCTP website at: http://www.climatetechnology.gov/.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Biddeford Finalizes Agreement with MERC
Portland Press Herald
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
BIDDEFORD - After 2.5 years of negotiations, the city announced Monday the tentative terms of an agreement to resolve all of its disputes with the owner of the trash-burning plant downtown.
The deal still is subject to approval by the City Council, which plans to give the public three chances to discuss the matter later this month.
But Monday's announcement marked a milestone in the long-running saga about the widely unpopular Maine Energy Recovery Co.
Under the proposed deal, the city would see a reduction in tax revenue from MERC and could end up paying more to have its own trash collected.
But Mayor Wallace Nutting said the agreement also includes tighter environmental rules, curbside pickup of recyclable materials and a $150,000 contribution by the trash plant's owner toward the redevelopment of Biddeford's downtown mill buildings.
"There will be some people who will criticize it and say we should have come up with more," Nutting said. "I think we've come up with a pretty good agreement."
Ken Robbins, MERC's general manager, concurred. "I think it's a good agreement for both sides," he said.
Mike Eon, president of a local group that has sought the incinerator's shutdown, reserved judgment because he hadn't seen the agreement. He expressed hope that it contains tougher provisions on environmental testing and odor control.
"The main concern from the get-go has been to try to make sure it's safe and try to eliminate the nuisance as much as possible," Eon said.
The proposed agreement includes two separate contracts that total 80 pages. The terms are complex; they would resolve old lawsuits, settle a dispute about tax abatements and end a disagreement about the plant's assessed value.
The proposal includes a city option to enter a five-year, 10-year, 15-year or 20-year contract to have its trash taken to MERC.
If the city agrees to a 20-year contract, it would pay $43.51 for each ton of trash collected next year. That's in the same ballpark as the city's current fee, according to the mayor. The fee would escalate until it reached $85.36 per ton in 2026.
However, if the city decides it wants only a five-year contract, the fee would start at $49.45 per ton next year and gradually increase to $57.86 in 2011.
The agreement also sets the trash incinerator's assessed value at $51.5 million, or about 70 percent of its current level. Consequently, if the local tax rate stays constant, MERC's annual tax bill of around $1.3 million would drop.
According to the mayor, other terms of the proposed agreement include:
# A requirement that Maine Energy pay for two environmental tests over the next two years at times chosen by the city.
# A change in the existing system for reporting odor complaints that would send phone calls to the Biddeford Police Department.
# A $150,000 contribution from Maine Energy into a new fund -- created by the Biddeford Saco Area Economic Development Corp. -- that would assist small start-up firms in the downtown mill district.
# A curbside recycling program that would give homeowners credits -- redeemable at local retailers -- based on the volume of goods they recycle. The mayor believes the program will lead to more recycling, but it's unclear when curbside pickup might begin, because a regional site where the recyclable materials would be sorted has yet to be built.
The negotiations between the city of Biddeford and Casella Waste Systems, which owns the trash-to-energy plant, began in early 2004. Until last year, the talks also included the neighboring city of Saco, which recently has been looking for another place to dispose of its trash.
Initially, the negotiations contemplated the eventual shutdown of the MERC plant, but voters in both Biddeford and Saco rejected a $20 million buyout proposal last November.
The trash plant has been disparaged often since it opened in 1987, with many critics saying that it should not be in such a densely populated area.
But city officials say they have no ability to shut down MERC unilaterally. The mayor pointed out in a news release Monday that the plant is a privately owned business regulated by the state and federal governments.
"Trash must go somewhere," the statement read.
Staff Writer Kevin Wack can be contacted at 282-8226 or at:
kwack@pressherald.com
Tuesday, October 3, 2006
BIDDEFORD - After 2.5 years of negotiations, the city announced Monday the tentative terms of an agreement to resolve all of its disputes with the owner of the trash-burning plant downtown.
The deal still is subject to approval by the City Council, which plans to give the public three chances to discuss the matter later this month.
But Monday's announcement marked a milestone in the long-running saga about the widely unpopular Maine Energy Recovery Co.
Under the proposed deal, the city would see a reduction in tax revenue from MERC and could end up paying more to have its own trash collected.
But Mayor Wallace Nutting said the agreement also includes tighter environmental rules, curbside pickup of recyclable materials and a $150,000 contribution by the trash plant's owner toward the redevelopment of Biddeford's downtown mill buildings.
"There will be some people who will criticize it and say we should have come up with more," Nutting said. "I think we've come up with a pretty good agreement."
Ken Robbins, MERC's general manager, concurred. "I think it's a good agreement for both sides," he said.
Mike Eon, president of a local group that has sought the incinerator's shutdown, reserved judgment because he hadn't seen the agreement. He expressed hope that it contains tougher provisions on environmental testing and odor control.
"The main concern from the get-go has been to try to make sure it's safe and try to eliminate the nuisance as much as possible," Eon said.
The proposed agreement includes two separate contracts that total 80 pages. The terms are complex; they would resolve old lawsuits, settle a dispute about tax abatements and end a disagreement about the plant's assessed value.
The proposal includes a city option to enter a five-year, 10-year, 15-year or 20-year contract to have its trash taken to MERC.
If the city agrees to a 20-year contract, it would pay $43.51 for each ton of trash collected next year. That's in the same ballpark as the city's current fee, according to the mayor. The fee would escalate until it reached $85.36 per ton in 2026.
However, if the city decides it wants only a five-year contract, the fee would start at $49.45 per ton next year and gradually increase to $57.86 in 2011.
The agreement also sets the trash incinerator's assessed value at $51.5 million, or about 70 percent of its current level. Consequently, if the local tax rate stays constant, MERC's annual tax bill of around $1.3 million would drop.
According to the mayor, other terms of the proposed agreement include:
# A requirement that Maine Energy pay for two environmental tests over the next two years at times chosen by the city.
# A change in the existing system for reporting odor complaints that would send phone calls to the Biddeford Police Department.
# A $150,000 contribution from Maine Energy into a new fund -- created by the Biddeford Saco Area Economic Development Corp. -- that would assist small start-up firms in the downtown mill district.
# A curbside recycling program that would give homeowners credits -- redeemable at local retailers -- based on the volume of goods they recycle. The mayor believes the program will lead to more recycling, but it's unclear when curbside pickup might begin, because a regional site where the recyclable materials would be sorted has yet to be built.
The negotiations between the city of Biddeford and Casella Waste Systems, which owns the trash-to-energy plant, began in early 2004. Until last year, the talks also included the neighboring city of Saco, which recently has been looking for another place to dispose of its trash.
Initially, the negotiations contemplated the eventual shutdown of the MERC plant, but voters in both Biddeford and Saco rejected a $20 million buyout proposal last November.
The trash plant has been disparaged often since it opened in 1987, with many critics saying that it should not be in such a densely populated area.
But city officials say they have no ability to shut down MERC unilaterally. The mayor pointed out in a news release Monday that the plant is a privately owned business regulated by the state and federal governments.
"Trash must go somewhere," the statement read.
Staff Writer Kevin Wack can be contacted at 282-8226 or at:
kwack@pressherald.com
White House says no change on US carbon strategy
By Timothy Gardner
NEW YORK, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has no plans to ease its opposition to national limits on greenhouse gas output despite talk that a change may be under consideration, a White House spokeswoman said on Thursday.
"The president has said continually said that one of reasons he doesn't like a mandated cap is because it has the potential to move jobs overseas and hurt the economy," said Kristin Hellmer, spokeswoman for James Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Growing concerns about global warming have prompted California, Arizona and seven Northeastern states to take steps to bypass President George W. Bush and set their own greenhouse limits.
Bush pulled out of the 163-nation Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 2001, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly left rapidly developing countries like China and India without limits on emissions.
A national cap on emissions would mean heavy industries in the United States, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, might have to make big decisions, like investing in alternative energy or clean-burning natural gas.
Hellmer said Bush is sticking with his 2002 plan calling for voluntary reductions, with an eye to trimming greenhouse emissions intensity -- or emissions per unit of economic output of the U.S. economy -- by 18 percent by 2012.
"If we're not meeting (the emissions intensity) goal, (Bush) has always said he will look at new policies and new ideas," Hellmer said. "But now we are on track to meet that goal."
Critics of Bush's voluntary greenhouse plan say it is too lenient to industry, especially as overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have risen 13 percent since 1990.
EXPLORATORY TEAM
A source who has worked in the energy profession for decades told Reuters he was approached in New York last month by a team containing White House staff that was exploring the use of national regulations on greenhouse emissions.
The source, who declined to be named, said the team, led by an official at the Department of Energy, was weighing the benefits of three ways to regulate several sources of greenhouse emissions.
"One is for the electric utility industry, one for industrial sources, and another for what they are calling fuels, or vehicles," said the source, who added he thinks the team was far from making conclusions on emissions.
A DOE spokeswoman said the department official said to lead the team was not available to comment on whether he had met with the source to talk about an emissions cap, and said the agency had no knowledge of such contacts.
The source said talks centered on trying to provide regulatory certainty for businesses by extending the plan far past Kyoto's first phase, which requires about 40 developed countries to cut emissions about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012.
The team has talked about cutting emissions by a yet-to-be-determined amount by 2020 using the year 2000 as an emissions baseline, the source said.
"It's certainly nothing to do with Kyoto," the source said.
NEW YORK, Sept 28 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has no plans to ease its opposition to national limits on greenhouse gas output despite talk that a change may be under consideration, a White House spokeswoman said on Thursday.
"The president has said continually said that one of reasons he doesn't like a mandated cap is because it has the potential to move jobs overseas and hurt the economy," said Kristin Hellmer, spokeswoman for James Connaughton, the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Growing concerns about global warming have prompted California, Arizona and seven Northeastern states to take steps to bypass President George W. Bush and set their own greenhouse limits.
Bush pulled out of the 163-nation Kyoto Protocol on global warming in 2001, saying it would hurt the economy and unfairly left rapidly developing countries like China and India without limits on emissions.
A national cap on emissions would mean heavy industries in the United States, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, might have to make big decisions, like investing in alternative energy or clean-burning natural gas.
Hellmer said Bush is sticking with his 2002 plan calling for voluntary reductions, with an eye to trimming greenhouse emissions intensity -- or emissions per unit of economic output of the U.S. economy -- by 18 percent by 2012.
"If we're not meeting (the emissions intensity) goal, (Bush) has always said he will look at new policies and new ideas," Hellmer said. "But now we are on track to meet that goal."
Critics of Bush's voluntary greenhouse plan say it is too lenient to industry, especially as overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have risen 13 percent since 1990.
EXPLORATORY TEAM
A source who has worked in the energy profession for decades told Reuters he was approached in New York last month by a team containing White House staff that was exploring the use of national regulations on greenhouse emissions.
The source, who declined to be named, said the team, led by an official at the Department of Energy, was weighing the benefits of three ways to regulate several sources of greenhouse emissions.
"One is for the electric utility industry, one for industrial sources, and another for what they are calling fuels, or vehicles," said the source, who added he thinks the team was far from making conclusions on emissions.
A DOE spokeswoman said the department official said to lead the team was not available to comment on whether he had met with the source to talk about an emissions cap, and said the agency had no knowledge of such contacts.
The source said talks centered on trying to provide regulatory certainty for businesses by extending the plan far past Kyoto's first phase, which requires about 40 developed countries to cut emissions about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012.
The team has talked about cutting emissions by a yet-to-be-determined amount by 2020 using the year 2000 as an emissions baseline, the source said.
"It's certainly nothing to do with Kyoto," the source said.
Hurricane Research: Get It On
Associated Press 16:15 PM Sep, 30, 2006
MIAMI -- The government should invest more money in understanding hurricanes because they are so deadly and expensive, according to a draft of a federal report released Friday.
The National Science Board's draft report recommends a streamlined, multiagency effort to improve hurricane science and engineering research, along with about $300 million a year in additional funding.
"We urgently need a determined effort to maximize our understanding of hurricanes and ensure the effective application of science and engineering outcomes for the protection of life and property," the report states.
Hurricane-related losses in the United States totaled $168 billion in the last two hurricane seasons, and 1,450 storm-related deaths were reported, according to the report.
Meanwhile, annual funding for the government's "focal point" for storm analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, has never exceeded $5.1 million, and its staff has declined by 30 percent in the past decade, the report states.
The science board's analysis determined that most hurricane-related funding is focused on short-term forecasting efforts, with less than 2 percent aimed at improving structural design and engineering for buildings.
NOAA officials had no immediate comment.
Along with the report, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, was introducing legislation to enact its recommendations. The proposed legislation would put NOAA and the National Science Foundation in charge of coordinating the research initiative, and appropriate $435 million a year for its projects through 2017.
Its highest priority would be predicting hurricane size and intensification, landfall site, and the severity of storm surge and storm-related rainfall and flooding.
While the three-day forecast track of hurricanes has dramatically improved in the last 50 years, the report said researchers need to understand how quickly storms intensify and grow before they can better predict how strong a hurricane will be when it strikes land.
The report also said current climate models do not adequately explain the link between hurricanes and global climate changes, evacuation plans need refining and improved communication technologies are needed to accurately assess damage within 24 hours after landfall.
"Given the enormous cost associated with hurricanes, we ought to better coordinate research and information about hurricane prediction, observation, the vulnerability of structures and how we might develop better evacuation plans," Martinez said.
The initiative would link research models from various scientific fields to understand the complexities of hurricanes, and would establish a National Infrastructure Database to develop engineering standards and quantify structural losses.
The National Science Board is an independent advisory body to the president and Congress on national science and engineering policy. It also oversees the National Science Foundation.
MIAMI -- The government should invest more money in understanding hurricanes because they are so deadly and expensive, according to a draft of a federal report released Friday.
The National Science Board's draft report recommends a streamlined, multiagency effort to improve hurricane science and engineering research, along with about $300 million a year in additional funding.
"We urgently need a determined effort to maximize our understanding of hurricanes and ensure the effective application of science and engineering outcomes for the protection of life and property," the report states.
Hurricane-related losses in the United States totaled $168 billion in the last two hurricane seasons, and 1,450 storm-related deaths were reported, according to the report.
Meanwhile, annual funding for the government's "focal point" for storm analysis, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Hurricane Research Division, has never exceeded $5.1 million, and its staff has declined by 30 percent in the past decade, the report states.
The science board's analysis determined that most hurricane-related funding is focused on short-term forecasting efforts, with less than 2 percent aimed at improving structural design and engineering for buildings.
NOAA officials had no immediate comment.
Along with the report, Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, was introducing legislation to enact its recommendations. The proposed legislation would put NOAA and the National Science Foundation in charge of coordinating the research initiative, and appropriate $435 million a year for its projects through 2017.
Its highest priority would be predicting hurricane size and intensification, landfall site, and the severity of storm surge and storm-related rainfall and flooding.
While the three-day forecast track of hurricanes has dramatically improved in the last 50 years, the report said researchers need to understand how quickly storms intensify and grow before they can better predict how strong a hurricane will be when it strikes land.
The report also said current climate models do not adequately explain the link between hurricanes and global climate changes, evacuation plans need refining and improved communication technologies are needed to accurately assess damage within 24 hours after landfall.
"Given the enormous cost associated with hurricanes, we ought to better coordinate research and information about hurricane prediction, observation, the vulnerability of structures and how we might develop better evacuation plans," Martinez said.
The initiative would link research models from various scientific fields to understand the complexities of hurricanes, and would establish a National Infrastructure Database to develop engineering standards and quantify structural losses.
The National Science Board is an independent advisory body to the president and Congress on national science and engineering policy. It also oversees the National Science Foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
