Lost On The Shore

The Big Waste Disposal Problem

Opponents of nuclear energy frequently cite the problem of 'waste disposal' as their rationale for opposing this energy source.  And it's true that, for various reasons, including political infighting, this problem has not been completely solved.  But the primary alternative to nuclear power doesn't look so good either.

The recent spill of coal ash at Kingston, Tennessee may have finally focused the attention of some on the problems of disposing of the waste from coal-burning power plants.  The spill, which released some 300 million gallons of coal ash sludge and water into the surrounding area and a tributary of the Tennessee river is a disaster for the community, for the environment and for those living downstream who depend on the river for their water supply.

Federal studies have long shown coal ash to contain significant quantities of heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and selenium, which can cause cancer and neurological problems.  The Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the power plant and is responsible for the coal ash predicably denied there was any problem. 

Yet a 2006 study by the EPA showed that coal ash does contain significant amounts of carcinogens and heavy metals.  The report found that concentrations of arsenic in the coal ash could enter drinking water and increase the risk of cancer several hundredfold. 

United States coal plants produce some 130 million tons of coal ash a year - the second highest waste stream in the country after municipal waste.  A second report by the EPA said that at least 67 towns had their groundwater contaminated by heavy waste from coal ash dumps.  Safe disposal of coal ash is a national problem that needs a solution now. 

But you don't have to travel across the country to find communities impacted by coal ash.  There are problems right here in Maryland an on the Eastern Shore.  In Anne Arundel County in Maryland, residentlal drinking water wells have been polluted by heavy metals, including cadmium, thalium and arsenic, which leached from a sand-and-gravel pit used to dispose of coal ash from a plant run by BG&E.  Right here in Delmarva, the Indian River Power Plant in Millsboro disposes of some 140,000 tons of coal ash in its 144 acre disposal pit on the shores of Indian River - an environmentally sensitive area.  This coal ash contains significant quantities of arsenic and mercury.

The operators of the power plant - NRG Corporation, of course deny that there is any problem, but it's clear that heavy metals from the ash can leach into the ground water and Indian River Bay.  Further, there is epidemiological evidence of a cancer cluster in the area.  While there is no hard evidence linking this cancer cluster to the presence of millions of tons of coal ash here, it's hard not see a potential connection.

The solid waste from coal combustion is not the only problem, of course.  The stuff that goes up the smokestack, primarily carbon dioxide but also small amounts of other chemicals, posses just as intractable a problem.  It's becoming more and more apparent that disposing of huge amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might just be a big mistake.

And, of course, it's not just when coal is burned that it creates a mess.  Mining companies dump huge amounts of waste in to streams and valleys.  Open pit mines are 'reclaimed' leaving behind something that resembles the surface of the moon.  After the mining is finished, the mines are abandoned.  Communities all over Appalachia are dealing with the hazards of abandoned mines including acid mine drainage, long-lasting underground fires, collapsing terrain and other problems. 

Then, of course, there is the physcial damage to the miners.  Coal mining is one of the most dangerous occupations there is.  Each year hudnreds of miners are killed or seriously injured.  And the miners are in danger even after they stop mining.  Between 2000 and 2004 more than 4,000 coal miners in the United States died from black lung disease, a disease caused by breathing coal dust.  Many more are disabled.

It should be clear that there is no such thing as 'clean coal'.  Coal is dangerous and dirty to mine and transport and there is no current safe solution to the disposal of the waste products from the combustion of coal. We need to move as quickly as possible to stop the large-scale use of coal to generate electricity in this country.

Yet coal is our number one fuel for electricity generation.  How can we replace it?  Many point to renewable sources such as solar, wind energy and hydropower.  But there is only limited additional hyrdropower potential in this country.  Wind and solar energy are promising but they share one major problem and that is their high variability.  The sun shines only during the day and the wind doesn't blow all the time.  The 'capacity ratings' that you hear when people talk about these sources refer to their maximum capacity, which they reach only a small portion of the time.  

The only feasible replacement for the hundreds of coal plants which are progressively contaminating our country and the atmosphere is nuclear power.  True, nuclear has its problems, but it's much, much cleaner than coal, is efficient and cost effective.  It's the only choice we have.

[The photo at the top is of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant]  

Stimulus That Will Benefit Us

It's good to hear that President-Elect Obama is planning on more fiscal stimulus for the American economy and even better to hear that he plans to stimulate the economy by investing in infrastructure rather than just sending out checks to everyone.  We have been ignoring our infrastructure requirements in this country for some time and the results are definitely showing.  So, since I know Barack is reading this blog, here are some suggestions:

High Speed Rail Most other industrialized countries are far ahead of us here.  Japan has been running their Shinkansen 'bullet trains' since 1964.  France began working on their TGV (train à grande vitesse, "high-speed train") in 1976 and the Paris-Lyon line opened in 1981.  The phenomenal success of the TGV has encouraged the French government to build six additional lines and other countries in Europe have built their own high speed networks - the Thalys in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, Eurostar linking Britain to France and Belgium as well as systems in Spain, Italy, Sweden and Norway.  High-speed rail networks are also being built in China, Taiwan and South Korea.

Here in the United States we don't have true high speed rail.  The Acela trains in the Northeast Corridor (Washington-New York-Boston) are called 'high-speed', but track conditions limit them to a top speed of about 125 mph rather than the 200 mph common on true high speed rail.

High speed rail doesn't make sense for much of the United states - the distances are too great to compete with air travel.  However, in the northeast corridor, the Chicago area and possibly the Dallas/Fort Worth/Houston area, high speed rail will produce city-to-city travel times that are considerably less than comparable air service while producing less pollution and being less subject to weather delays.  As an added bonus, the elimination of dozens of flights between Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston and New York will do much to reduce air travel delays in the country by reducing congestion in the New York City area.

Construction of these lines will generate thousand of jobs and the construction of the trainsets, signalling equipment and other ancillary requirements will generate thousands more. A $50 billion commitment here will get us off to a good start. 

School Construction States and local jurisdictions have been falling behind on funding the expansion and replacement of existing school buildings.  Many existing school buildings were built in the 1950s and 1960s and need either replacement or substantial renovation.  Further, existing schools are being stretched well beyond capacity.  Temporary classroom buildings are a common sight throughout the country.  Finally, most of our existing schools do not meet today's technological requirements. 

The need is tremendous.  In 1995, the General Accounting Office estimated the backlog of school construction needs at $112 billion.  In 1999, the Education Department estimated the cost at $127 billion.  The National Education Association in 2002 came up with a number of $322 billion including technology improvements.  There's no doubt the backlog has grown.  Right here in my local jurisdiction of 50,000 people there are more than $100 million in unmet needs.  The State of New Jersey estimates a $30 billion backlog in that state alone. 

An investment of $400 billion will go a long way toward eliminating the backlog.  Further it will provide work for thousands of smaller construction firms around the country and for hundreds of thousands of construction workers who are out of work due to the housing slump.  As a bonus, the Department of Energy estimates that such a program would reduce energy costs for schools by some $2 billion a year.

Roads and Bridges We haven't done a good job of maintaining our road system let alone pay for the expansion needed to meet current demand.  Tens of thousands of bridges are deficient, pavement is crumbling all around the country and huge traffic backups are way of life.  A new commitment of $500 billion in Federal money will make a major dent in the backlog here, will stimulate the construction industry all across the country and put many Americans back to work.  There's no reason to delay here.

Mass Transit Along with expanded spending on roads and bridges must come renewed investment into mass transit.  We need our cities to work efficiently.  Like it or not, the vast majority of economic activity in the United States is generated in cities, not in rural areas.  An investment of $100 billion now will generate huge dividends in the future in terms of increased efficiency and lower energy use. In addition, of course, we'll see tens of thosuands of new jobs created. 

Let's start now.  We have no time to lose.

[The photo is of a Eurostar and a Thalys train in the Gare du Nord in Paris]

A Kink in the Electric Line

There's a lot of enthusiasm for wind energy these days, and rightly so.  It's an enormous untapped energy source and wind energy is basically pollution-free, once the turbines are built and installed.  There are a couple of problems, though that need to be addressed. 

The New York Times published an excellent article a few days ago describing how the limitations of our existing power grid are going to limit the amount of wind energy we are able to use. 

Maple Ridge Wind Farm, pictured above, was completed a few years ago at a cost of some $320 million.  Located in upstate New York, the facility consisting of almost 200 wind turbines can generate more than 300 megawatts of power at peak output.  Yet at times the owners have had to shut the facility down, even when the wind is blowing, because the transmission lines were inadequate to handle the power.

The greatest resources for wind power in the United States are located in the great plains, far from the populated areas that consume most electricity.  Our current electricity grid is completely inadequate to move even a relatively small amount of electricity from the plains to the east coast, much less the large amounts that are potentially available.  And every new transmission line that would add capacity faces tremendous local opposition and interminable hearings from every jurisdiction it crosses.

Here in Maryland, we need to import about twenty percent of our electricity from other states because our generating capacity is far short of our demand.  But the transmission lines that bring electricity to Maryland from out of state are running at capacity.  The extra price we pay for the congestion on these lines increases the cost of electricity for everyone in the state.  Our regional grid manager - PJM, has predicted that the DC/Baltimore area and the Eastern Shore face the possibility of rolling blackouts during periods of high demand as soon as 2011 unless new generating capacity comes on line or new transmission lines are completed.

Three new transmission lines are being planned to bring additional power to Maryland.  The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) proposed by PEPCO would run from the Western Shore past the nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs, under the Chesapeake Bay to Vienna and then north through Delaware to New Jersey.  The Trans-Allegheny (TRAIL) line proposed by Allegheny Power would bring electricity from the west across Pennsylvania and West Virginia to near Frederick Maryland.  Dominion Virginia Power is proposing a transmission line which would bring power from Ohio and West Virginia to the fast growing areas of Northern Virginia and the Washington, DC area.  All of these face significant local opposition and are unlikely to be completed in the next several years.

In Maryland, of course, the Maryland Energy Administration says the solution is energy conservation and, at their urging, the legislature passed the EMPOWER Maryland Act which requires electricity providers to reduce per capita consumption by fifteen percent by 2015.  But that's too late to have a significant impact upon the projected shortfall three years from now.  Besides, I haven't seen any action yet except for some subsidized CFL bulbs and some efforts to reduce peak demand by some of the smaller providers like SMECO. 

No one wants a big transmission line near them.  But if we're serious about exploiting wind energy - and solar energy and other renewable resources, we need to have a modern, reliable electricity grid which will bring the electricity from where it is generated to where it is needed.  In Maryland, the state needs to stop wavering and provide strong political support to the construction of these lines for the benefit of all its citizens, otherwise we could be in for some hot summers and cold winters - both outdoors and indoors.

Some Good Things Happening In Maryland

I just got back from some travel and ran across these items in the news. 

Energy  Governor O'Malley has recognized that the solution to Maryland's energy problems lie not just in conservation but also in the construction of new generating facilities in the state.  With brownouts or rolling blackouts projected for portions of the state (including the Eastern Shore) as soon as 2011, trying to persuade homeowners and businesses to reduce consumption simply isn't going to cut the mustard.  We need both new generating capacity and improved transmission facility.  The sooner the state begins to take an active role in supporting both, the better off we will be.

Pollution  Attorney General Doug Gansler has announced plans to sue the Defense Department to force them to clean up groundwater and soil contamination at Fort Meade.  The Defense Department has been trying to dodge responsibility for this for quite a while.  The fort has been on EPA's superfund list for quite a while but the Army has been dragging its feet in the cleanup effort.  It's worth noting that they don't seem to have any shortage of funds when it comes to building a big new golf course at the fort.  Now let's see if we have the gumption to take legal action against some of our neighboring states - Pennsylvania in particular - to force them to stop sending their filth down the rivers into the Chesapeake Bay. 

Transportation  The O'Malley Administration has announced plans to fast track the procurement of additional railroad cars to supplement the MARC fleet. The 13 double-deck cars will be purchased from the Virginia Railway Express and will be refurbished before being placed into service.  When they are placed into service in November, they will increase the MARC fleet by more than ten percent.  Together with the new locomotives expected in February, these will reduce delays and allow for expansion of MARC service, giving many Marylanders a meaningfull choice of how to commute in these times of high gas prices. 

Jurisprudence  Governor O'Malley has appointed Judge Mary Ellen Barbera to the Maryland Court of Appeals.  She is an excellent choice.  Judge Barbera didn't have the luxury of being able to go directly from college to law school.  Instead, she attended the University of Maryland School of Law at night while teaching in Baltimore public schools.  Undoubtedly she learned a lot both while teaching and at law school.  Her real-world experiences and background in addition to her sharp legal mind will give her excellent perspective as she takes on her new responsibilities.  We wish her well.

What Can We Do?

In the last post we looked at the issue of global warming and discussed the factors that contribute to the phenomenonand potential effects.  Today we'll look at some actions that we can take on an everyday basis to help combat global warming.  I want to focus on actions the average person can take.  There are lots of recommendations to replace your air-conditioning and heating unit, re-insulate your entire house, get rid of your car, etc. that are effective but not within reach of many.

Looking at the above graph, we can see that the largest shares of carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of coal and petroleum.  Natural gas contributes a smaller but growing share and other factors, particularly cement production, contribute a small but significant amount.  So our search for ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

A significant portion of greenhouse gases are emitted during the generation of electricity - primarily from coal, but a significant and growing amount come from natural gas-fueled generating facilities.  So reducing electricity use will not only save us money but will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Here are some things you can do to reduce your electricity consumption:

• Install CFL bulbs wherever possible.  They're considerably more expensive initially, but they do save electricity and they last considerably longer than incandescent bulbs.  Many electricity suppliers in Maryland offer discounts to their customers on the purchase of CFL bulbs, so check with your electricity supplier.  After all, you're paying for the discount in your electricity bill so you should take advantage of it.  If you can't afford to change all of your lightbulbs to CFL immediately, start with those you use the most.
• Turn off the lights when you leave the room.  This is a no-brainer.  Some think that turning lights back on again uses more electricity than is saved by turning them off.  This isn't true - even for fluorescents.  While they do use a surge of electricity to fire up, the surge lasts for only half a cycle, or 1/120th of a second and is equivalent to the energy used in just a few seconds of use.  So turn them off.
• Try to reduce use of your heater and air conditioner.  Turn your thermostat down a bit in the winter and up a bit in the summer.  Consider closing off parts of the house that aren't used.  Be sure your furnace filter is changed or cleaned regularly.  Caulk and weatherstip your doors and windows.
• When you need to replace an appliance, replace it with an Energy Star rated appliance.  The increased efficiency will offset the increased cost and you will use less electricity. 
• If your hot water heater is nearing the end of its useful life, consider replacing it with a solar hot water heater.  This can be quite cost effective.  There are state and Federal tax credits available.  Look here for a good calculator. 
• Switch off computers, speakers, TVs, battery chargers, etc. when they're not in use.  Keep in mind that, even while switched off, some of these draw power.  Consider investing a few bucks in a power strip that allows you to switch off several at a time or a remote-control power strip that makes it even easier.

A lot of greenhouse gases are generated by transportation.  Here are some options you can consider to cut down on both greenhouse gases and costs.

• Combine several short trips if possible.
• Use mass transit, carpool or, if possible, telecommute.
• When it's time to replace your current vehicle, consider one which is more fuel-efficient. On the other hand, don't rush out now to trade in your gas-guzzling SUV or truck for a very high mileage car. You'll lose money on the trade-in and you'll pay more for the car. Unless you need a new car now, wait until there are more high-mileage cars available and until the current glut of SUVs and light trucks on the market is reduced.
• If most of your trips are 40 miles or less, consider waiting a few years until plug-in electric cars are available. Both GM and Toyota expect to introduce models soon.
• Keep your engine tuned, your wheels aligned and your tires inflated properly.
• Try to order things to be delivered by mail (such as Netflix) rather than driving to the movie rental shop to get one. One more piece of mail won't make a big difference to the postal service.

There are other things you can do.

• Avoid products with lots of packaging.  Reducing your trash by ten percent can save 1200 pounds of carbon dioxide a year.
• buy refillable items where possible.  Refilling a spray bottle is preferable to throwing it away and buying a new one.
• Reduce the amount of junk mail you receive.  About half of all junk mail is discarded without being opened.  There are some good tools here to stop junk mail.
• Pay bills online where possible.  Save a stamp, a trip to the mailbox and some unnecessary paper.
• Buy and use reusable shopping bags in lieu of plastic or paper.

Note that I haven't recommended solar electric panels - the cost is too high for most people and the return on investment is not very good, even with the tax credits that are offered.  I also haven't recommended things like buying 'carbon offsets' where you pay someone to supposedly take carbon out of the air.  It's very trendy, but not very effective if you use it just to continue a wasteful lifestyle.  Many of the supposed 'offsets' aren't really offsets anyway.

Probably the most effective thing you can do is to urge your legislators to deal with the problem instead of ignoring it.  If you've been reading this blog for a while you know that I support nuclear energy.  It's not that I think it's a wonderful technology - there are unresolved problems with waste disposal and there are some dangers.  It's the only realistic technology, though, for replacing our large, coal-fired generating plants.  We haven't solved the waste disposal problem for coal, either - just dumping the waste in the atmosphere turns out to be very dangerous.  And many more people have been killed in providing electricity from coal than from nuclear energy. 

Renewable energy is great and I support it.  We need to address the cost and variablity issues, however, if we are to rely on it for a substantial portion of our energy needs. 

So let's all do what we can, and demand that our legislators address the problem instead of ducking it.  The issue is not going to go away and the solutions won't get easier.

[Note: I apologize for the delay in posting.  Things have been very busy.  I hope to get back on schedul e next week.]

 

Blowin' in the Wind?

It seems that the project proposed by Bluewater Wind to place wind turbines off the Delaware coast is heading toward approval and may well be expanded and extended to the Maryland coast off of Ocean City.  Governor Martin O'Malley expressed his support for the Delaware project yesterday and indicated he would not be opposed to extending the project to Maryland.

The project would certainly be good for the Shore, which suffers from a lack of generation and transmission facilities.  The electricity, while costly compared to existing generating facilities might be comparable in cost to that from a new coal plant. 

The one problem with wind energy, which I have referred to before, is the inherent variability of wind energy as a dependable power source.  Most wind turbines generate electricity at full capacity only when the wind is blowing at about 15 mph or more.  Wind itself is highly variable on an hourly, daily and seasonal basis.

  The graph at left shows the actual energy generated by the wind turbine at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Bourne over the last month.  The variability is clear.  You can see real time data for this installation on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis here.  A wind farm of the size proposed would almost certainly require a backup natural gas generation facility at a substantial additional cost to provide power on the days when the wind doesn't blow hard enough.

Another factor, of course, is that the peak electricity demand in Maryland and neighboring states is in the summer while the wind here is stronger and more consistent in the winter.

Despite these issues, though, the proposal is a welcome one and I'm glad to see it getting support from the Governor.  While some might complain that the turbines, which would be barely visible from the beach, are unsightly, They would certainly be better than the sight of oil derricks and the associated environmental problems that President Bush favors.  I look forward to seeing more progress like this.

Maryland Energy Update

I thought, with all the progress being made, it would be a good idea to post an update of the energy/electricity situation in Maryland. 

So what's happened?  Actually, not much.  While there has been some slight progress, we are mostly standing still as demand continues to grow.  Let's take a quick look at some of the data (most of this data comes from a June, 2008 report by the Maryland Public Service Commision).

Maryland continues to be a large importer of electricity, importing about 30% of its needs.  On an absolute basis, Maryland is the fourth largest electric energy importer in the United States, exceeded only by California, New Jersey and Virginia.  Delaware and DC are also large importers meaning that the mid-atlantic area is heavily dependent on imports from other states - primarily to the west.  As I've reported before, due to lack of generating capacity and already congested transmission facilities, the PJM power interconnection has warned of the posssibility of brownouts in the area beginning in 2011 - that's three years away. 

Only 22 percent of Maryland's total generating capacity of about 12,500 megawatts has been built in the past 20 years.  More than two-thirds of our generating capacity is more than 30 years old.  While electricity demand and consumption in the mid-atlantic area is expected to grow, several older plants are scheduled for retirement within the next four years, including the Buzzards Point and Benning Road plants in DC.

There are some bright spots.  The PSC and Constellation Energy appear to have settled their spat and are cooperating in a number of areas.  The Governor is supporting construction of new power plants in Maryland, including the proposed Constellation/Unistar nuclear plant in Calvert County (1640 megawatts) and the Competitive Power Venture natural gas plant in Charles County (645 megawatts).  If all goes well, the latter could be on line by the end of 2010. 

The Baltimore/Washington area continues to be affected by relatively high transmission costs due to lack of adequate transmission facilities.  Three major power lines are being proposed to help address this problem.  The Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (MAPP) would run from Possum Point in Northern Virginia, across Southern Maryland, under the Chesapeake Bay to Indian River in Delaware and north to New Jersey.  It has recently been approved by the PJM Board.

The second line is the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line (TRAIL) which would run from near Pittsburgh to Loudoun County, Virginia.  It would do much to bring excess power from Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio to the Washington DC region but has faced intense local opposition.  The third is the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH), which would run from near Charleston WV to near Frederick, MD.  It has been approved by the PJM Board on June 22. 

Together these three would significanlty increase transmission capacity and lower transmission costs in the Baltimore/DC area and to the Eastern Shore.  Given local opposition, it's unlikely that any of them will be completed before 2012, however, in time to affect the predicted power shortage.

In that regard, a statewide coalition of power companies and business groups has formed to press the state to speed up the approval process for new power plants and power lines.  The group, which includes my own supplier - Choptank Electric Cooperative - along with the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative and others is concerned that brownouts will be necessary if nothing is done.

On the positive side, all the investor-owned utilities in Maryland have begun 'Demand-Side Management' initiatives which are a combination of energy efficiency programs which reduce the amount of energy used and demand response programs designed to reduce the electricty demand during times of high usage.  The cooperatives will submit plans during 2008.  Primarily these include CFL lightbulb programs and 'smart meters' which can reduce power usage during high demand.  BGE's program also includes more efficient window air conditioners and appliances for low-income customers. 

In addition, Delmarva Power and Choptank Electric Cooperative have finally signed a contract with Bluewater Power to buy electricity from a proposed wind farm off the Delaware coast.  The project awaits approval by the state of Delaware. 

Finally, I'm happy to report that Worcester County has this week begun generating electricity using methane generated from its landfill.  The project is built and operated by Curtis Engine and generates 1 megawatt of electricity which will be purchased and distributed by Choptank Electric Cooperative.  Two more generators at the site will come on line within the next year.  The project not only generates electricity, but captures the methane - a potent greenhouse gas - that otherwise would end up in the atmosphere.  I'm very pleased that my trash will now generate some of the electricity I use! 

[The photo is of a wind farm near Copenhagen, Denmark]  

       

'Fiscal Responsibilty'

As I write this the price of crude oil is somewhere near $145 a barrel - a sum that would be unimaginable a couple of years ago.  As I wrote earlier, it is a classic supply and demand situation - the demand continues to rise, driven by sustained and robust economic growth in China, India and the former soviet union.  Supply, on the other hand, has remained relatively stagnant for the past several years. 

But the price of oil hasn't risen by the same percentage everywhere.  In Europe, the price has still risen substantially over the past several years, but not nearly as much as it has here.  Why is that?  Well, the Europeans (many of them anyway) pay for their oil in Euros, and the value of Euro has been much stronger than the dollar.  In 2004, you could buy a Euro for about $1.10, in 2006 it cost about $1.25, today it costs about $1.57 to buy a Euro.

Oil traders, financial analysts and producers all agree that one of the factors driving up the price of oil for us has been the weakness of the dollar.  If we could strengthen the dollar, it would do much to restrain the price of oil (and other commodities).  And one good way to strengthen the dollar would be to balance the federal budget. 

Now Andy Harris, like most Republican politicians since Reagan runs on a simple mantra of 'lower taxes'.  He also talks about something called fiscal discipline.  Every Republican says they want lower taxes.  They know we all want to pay less and it's an easy thing to say.  And if Harris is elected, you can bet he will vote to lower taxes.  But whose taxes will he lower?  It's safe to say it won't be mine and probably not yours.  He'll push to lower taxes for himself and his rich cronies from the Club for Growth or as conservative Mike Huckabee called it - the 'Club for Greed'.

Let's go back and look at the tax cuts that George W. Bush pushed through a compliant Republican Congress when he became President.  Over the ten-year period of his tax cuts, from 2001 to 2010, an astonishing 52 percent of the total cuts will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers! 

Now let's look at the flip side - the 'fiscal discipline' side.  Since George W. Bush became President, with a compliant Republican-controlled Congress, Federal spending has grown at an average of 5 percent per year - faster than the growth of the economy and much faster than the 2 percent growth during the Clinton years.  During this period we've added about $3 Trillion to the national debt, which will be a burden to our children and our country for years and years to come.  So much for Republican fiscal conservatism.

So we know what to expect if Harris is elected - more tax cuts for the rich, more bloated Federal spending and a further decline in the value of the dollar leading to higher and higher commodity prices.  Hold on to your wallet.

[The photo shows the supertanker 'Abqaiq', owned by Saudi Arabia, taking on oil at Iraq's Basrah off-shore oil terminal]

A Wiser Choice

Energy prices are high.  For all intents and purposes, they are going to stay high - maybe get higher.  While the price of oil might fall back to a previously unimaginable $100 per barrel, the long term trend is going to be for it to increase.  Why?  Because demand is increasing much faster than supply is able to increase.  And, as I pointed out in an earlier post, even the Bush administration doesn't think that opening up ANWR and the offshore continental shelf will do much, if anything to reduce prices.

So, with the reality that gasoline is going to stay expensive, what should the state of Maryland do for its citizens?  The citizens of Maryland have already voted on that; ridership on MARC and on the Washington Metro is setting new records regularly.  Ridership on Amtrak is up sharply and, in fact, may trains are sold out well into the future.  Ridership on local and regional bus systems has increased sharply.  Maryland needs to invest more in mass transit.

And we need to begin now.  Like anything else, mass transit takes time to build.  While the state is spending more than a billion dollars building the Inter-County Connector, passengers are flocking to MARC and Metro trains and to the Baltimore light rail, and the overcrowding is just going to get worse.  Now is the time to begin expanding the infrastructure, building the new stations and parking for the new residents that will be coming with BRAC and ordering the new cars that are already needed.  The state needs to invest in expanding and modernizing its long-distance commuter bus network and beefing up the weak public transportation networks in its rural areas.

And we can do more than that.  The photo above shows the Eurostar and Thalys trains side-by-side at the Gare du Nord in Paris.  While we've been fiddling around in this country with slow and inefficient long-distance rail passenger service, the Europeans have built an efficient network of high-speed passenger rail trains, among them the Eurostar, which runs between London and Paris and between London and Brussels and the Thalys which links Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Antwerp and Cologne. 

These trains run on dedicated rail lines at top speeds of 186 mph.  Travel time, for example, on the 190 mile route between Paris and Brussels is one hour and 22 minutes.  At those speeds, the travel time by train between Washington and New York could be one hour and 40 minutes or less.  We just need to spend the money (which would be a lot) to upgrade the track.

So Maryland should partner with the other Northeastern states to upgrade rail passenger service in the Northeast corridor.  The congress will never appropriate the kind of money that Amtrak nees to upgrade its service nationwide and that wouldn't make any sense anyway - rail travel - even high speed rail travel - will never compete with air travel in the wide open spaces of the great plains and the west.

But here in the more densely-packed northeast, high-speed rail travel can and should be the first option for intercity travel.  It's something we can and should do to help reduce our transportation costs and energy use.  In the meantime, we need to get to work here in Maryland building a mass transit system that will get us off the roads and help us use less gas. 

Oil Follies

Certainly one of the issues on everyone's mind these days is the price of gasoline and the price of oil.  The runup in the price of both over the past couple of years has everyone wringing their hands and looking for solutions.  Every politician from the local dogcatcher to the President of the United States (and more importantly, the King of Saudi Arabia) has either come up with a plan to address the 'oil crisis' or is working on one. 

Andy Harris, the Republican nominee for Congress in Maryland's First District recently released his plan.  As I understand it, the plan includes:

1. Temporarily suspending the Federal and state gasoline taxes from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
2. Temporarily reducing the 40+ gasoline blends used in the United States to four blends in an effort to simplify refining and improve the efficiency of refining and transporting gasoline.
3. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve, the Aleutian Islands and the US continental shelf to oil and gas production.
4. Increase long-term oil refining capacity by establishing fast track approval for new and expanded refineries.
5. Provide incentives for technological innovations in alternative forms of energy such as nuclear, solar, geothermal, and cellusolic ethanol.

Before analyzing the plan, let's take a look at the background of the problem. 

World Petroleum Production and Consumption (Millions of BBL/day)

	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
Production	79.6	83.1	84.6	84.6	84.6
Consumption	79.6	82.3	83.7	84.6	85.4

These figures are from the US Energy Information Administration.  Note that production has stagnated since 2005 while world consumption has continued to grow.  Consumption by industrialized countries (OECD members) in 2007 was basically the same as it was in 2003 - a little under 49 million barrels a day.  Consumption in other countries, however, increased from about 31 million barrels a day in 2003 to 36.4 million barrels a day in 2007.  Every indication is that the demand from non-OECD members will continue to increase.  Demand in China, with its 2 billion citizens and India with its billion or so will continue to grow at a rapid rate.  Demand in the former USSR is also growing. 

Production, on the other hand, isn't increasing at all.  While new fields are coming on line, in the Caspian Sea area for example, and new discoveries are being made, they are insufficient to overcome the long-term decline of three to four percent in the production of existing fields.

Many blame speculators for increasing the price of oil by driving up demand and, in fact, they do contribute to some of the wild fluctuations and instability in the market, but they never actually take delivery of the oil and thus don't contribute to the ultimate demand.  So what we really have is a growing imbalance between a static supply and a growing demand that is driving prices higher.

With that in mind, let's take a look at Andy Harris's proposed energy plan.

First he proposes eliminating the gasoline tax - both Federal and state - between Memorial Day and Labor day.  This will have the effect of increasing demand but will do nothing to boost supplies.  In addition, of course, hundreds of millionss of dollars that should be used to ease traffic bottlenecks, maintain roads and expand mass transit will be lost.  Sure the price might drop a bit initially, but will creep back up as demand returns and we'll have nothing to show for it.  I've written about it before, but I have to say it again - this is a bad idea.

Second, he wants to reduce the 40 or so different gasoline blends in the United States to 4 - he doesn't say how.  The reason these different blends exist is to mitigate air quality problems in many large metropolitan areas around the United States.  They are designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds which, combined with sunlight, produce ozone.  Some also are formulated to reduce emission of nitrogen oxides which pollute air and waterways and can contribute to acid rain.  Certainly a reduction in the number of blends will reduce transportation and storage costs for the oil companies.  The effect on consumer costs is uncertain.  Many of the blends cost more to produce than conventional gasoline but pollute less.  It's hard for me to see how this will save money for consumers without increasing ozone pollution in our metropolitan areas.  I don't see any additional production or reduced demand from this.

Third, he wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), the Aleutian Islands and the US Continental shelf to exploration.  The US Geological Survey estimates that there are between 7 and 8 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR.  The Energy Information Administration estimates that opening ANWR to production would result in a peak production of 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 which would reduce the price of a barrel of oil by about 75 cents - not quite two cents per gallon. 

I have no idea how much recoverable oil is in the Aleutian Island area - I haven't been able to find much about it.  It appears certain there are significant amounts of recoverable crude oil in the unexplored parts of the US continental shelf - perhaps more than exist in ANWR.  Americans need to decide what kinds of risks they want to take to obtain additional domestic oil supplies - even if they are small compared to our imports.  It's worth noting, though, that we seem unwilling to allow even wind turbines to be built offshore, much less oil platforms, pipelines, etc. that would come with significant oil production.  This proposal does add something to production, albeit not for ten or fifteen years at the earliest.  

Fourth, he wants to increase long-term refining capacity in the United States, presumably by eliminating some of the environmental and safety reviews that are now required.  Refining is an interesting problem.  Over the past year, the price of oil has increased much faster than the price of gasoline, sharply reducing the profits levels of refineries.  Oil companies like Valero and Sunoco which refine oil but don't produce it have dropped sharply over the past year.  As a result refiners are shifting their operations to produce more distillate (diesel and heating oil) which has a relatively high price and less gasoline from each barrel.  

Harris's proposal ignores the real problem with refining - it's not consistently profitable.  If companies can't earn a reliable and fair return on investment in new refinery capacity, none will be built, regardless of any loosening of regulations.  I don't see anything here which will alter the supply/demand relationship.

Fifth, he wants to provide incentives for technological innovations in alternate forms of energy.  I'm all for this, provided the incentives don't turn into long-term subsidies.  We need to find alternatives and, in the long run, this will help to reduce demand for petroleum and all that comes with it.

So what does all this do for Marylanders and the voters of the First District?  Not much in the short term except for the ridiculous and self-defeating gas tax holiday.  But maybe there's not much that can be done in the short term.  I do note that Harris's proposals contain nothing about mass transit or public transportation, nothing about smart growth that would reduce transportation needs, nothing about increasing corporate fleet mileage requirements and nothing about alternative fuels such as the plug-in hybrids being developed by General Motors and Toyota and the hydrogen fuel cell car recently introduced by Honda, but that may be too much to ask.

[The photo (click on it to see the large version0 is of the Thunderhorse production platform built by BP at a cost of about $1 billion.  It was struck by hurricane Dennis in 2005 before it was in production and partially capsized due to a construction error.  It's a reminder that there are risks to offshore drilling and production that need to be balanced against the potential rewards]