Monthly Archives: December 2013

Pandora’s Promise

images

Pandora’s Promise is the highly anticipated and debated new 2013 documentary film by acclaimed documentary filmmaker Robert Stone. Its central argument is that nuclear power, which has historically been opposed by environmentalists, is actually a relatively safe and clean energy source. In the next few decades, humankind will need to double, or even triple energy production as billions of people in the developing world lift themselves out of poverty and begin to live modern lives. Unless the source of this new energy is clean and non-CO2 emitting, the risk of triggering a devastating global climate catastrophe is all but certain. The magnitude of this dilemma, and the limitations of commonly proposed solutions, have left the mainstream environmental movement teetering between apocalyptic thinking and utter disarray. Plunging headfirst into this challenge comes PANDORA’S PROMISE. Three years in the making and filmed on four continents, this meticulously researched and beautifully crafted film asks whether the most viable option we have to tackle climate change might be the one technology we fear the most: nuclear power.

Operating as history, cultural meditation and contemporary exploration, PANDORA’S PROMISE aims to inspire a serious and realistic debate over what is without question the most important question of our time: how do we continue to power modern civilization without destroying it?

 

Citation:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/pandoras_promise_2013/

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pandora’s+promise&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=2TWqUp2IE6jKsQSTtYK4Cw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1050&bih=585#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=6-Of7eXkJUW1rM%3A%3Bzfk4oH4HmVwTAM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mountainfilm.org%252Ffiles%252Fimages%252Ffilms%252Fpandora_image_02.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.mountainfilm.org%252Ffilm%252Fpandora%2525E2%252580%252599s-promise%3B400%3B225

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora’s_Promise

Keystone XL Pipeline

What is the Keystone Pipeline?

The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Hardisty, Alta., and extending south to Steele City, Neb. This pipeline is a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy.

KeystoneXLOilPipeline_update

 

The Keystone Pipeline debate:

Five years ago this week, a Canadian company proposed building a pipeline to send heavy crude oil from Alberta to U.S. refineries. Although the Obama administration’s answer on the Keystone XL pipeline is not expected anytime soon, politicians in Washington and Canada are ramping up the pressure for the project, while environmentalists are pushing hard against it.

The intense focus on the decision reflects the fact that the Keystone XL pipeline has become a proxy for the larger debate on climate change emissions. The heavy crude the pipeline would carry has a substantially bigger greenhouse gas footprint than conventional crude.

This summer, President Obama said he wouldn’t approve the Keystone XL if he determined that it would exacerbate climate change.

Still, many politicians in the U.S. and Canada tout Keystone as a job creator and crucial tool for making North America energy independent.

A new measure being debated in the Senate would declare the Keystone XL in the national interest, although it would not force the president’s hand.

The measure hasn’t come up for a vote yet, but its prospects are good. Some Democrats have joined Republicans as co-sponsors.

“And why we would not build this pipeline to make sure this oil from a great partner is refined in the U.S. rather than focusing on oil in countries that do not like us, makes no sense to me,” Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat from Alaska, said in a Senate debate last week.

The 875-mile pipeline from Canada would end in Nebraska. But it would hook up with pipelines that stretch to the Gulf Coast. The southern portion of the original Keystone XL proposal is 90 percent finished already. It stretches from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast and did not need presidential approval because it does not cross an international border.

Most of the oil flowing through the Keystone would be heavy crude from Alberta, Canada. But light crude from the Bakken formation in Montana and North Dakota could also flow through it.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a Democrat from North Dakota, defends Canada’s production of tar sands oil. “This is not some rogue country that doesn’t have … environmental standards,” she says.

Oil producers in Alberta do pay a tax for their carbon pollution, which helps fund pollution control equipment. And the oil companies are researching cleaner technologies.

Oil from tar sands has a higher greenhouse gas footprint than conventional crude because it takes so much energy to get the tar sands oil out of the ground and refine it so it can go through a pipeline.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Canadian tar sands oil can lead to 30% more greenhouse gas than conventional oil, if you count emissions from all the products that come from the oil.

The EPA also warns that spills of tar sands oil are much tougher to clean up. A spill of this heavy crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River three years ago is still being cleaned up.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California who heads the Senate environment committee, has criticized her colleagues for failing to see that the pipeline is not in the national interest.

“Now you’d have to be asleep for 10 to 15 years to not believe that carbon pollution is dangerous to the planet,” she says.

Earlier this year, in a draft environmental analysis of this project, the U.S. State Department concluded that Canada will develop its heavy crude with or without Keystone, so the pipeline wouldn’t have a big impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy analyst Jackie Forrest, from IHS Cera, says she agrees that rejecting the pipeline would not have a big impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Now personally I say that for the benefits behind this project the U.S. should accept it if and only if they and the Canadian government put as much effort into securing the environment surrounding the project as they put into the project itself.

Citation:

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/16/222958546/climate-change-concerns-slows-debate-over-keystone-xl-pipeline

http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-project/

Demand Response

Demand Response entails customers changing their normal consumption patterns in response to changes in the price of energy over time or to incentive payments designed to induce lower electricity use when prices are high or system reliability is in jeopardy.”

Box_2

Considering this ‘official’ definition of Demand Response (DR), we can safely assume that DR is directly related to price changes in the cost of energy and how the consumers respond to it. DR encompasses numerous programs created to maintain energy consumption in check especially during peak-hours or the “FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) definition of DR covers the complete range of load-shape objectives and customer objectives, including strategic conservation, time-based rates, peak-load reduction, as well as customer management of energy bills.”

To be in balance, the supply-demand curve needs that at any point when the demand increases the supply mechanism should provide a matching amount of energy. With a price-volatile energy market, at times such excess amounts could be very expensive or even unavailable. Hence the role of Demand Response in such circumstances is crucial because it adds reliability and more control over the prices.

There are two types of Demand Response:

1- Emergency Demand Response

In emergency cases like unusual cold or hot weather, when the amount needed to be supplied to the increased demand is not available, then the electric utility providers call on their emergency programs. This translates into minimal usage of energy from commercial and industrial consumers, levels of which are previously defined. Such measures prevent a considerable power outage which could have cost much more than merely reducing the electric usage to a minimal functioning level, consequently making the electricity more reliable and cheaper.

2- Economic Demand Response

The programs in this category help the utility providers help consumers to reduce costs. In a nut shell, even though we, the customers, generally pay a flat rate for kWh, the utility providers pay a fluctuating price throughout the year. The cost that is transferred to consumers is the average price that providers pay, therefore placing the amount of energy consumed directly related to the cost per unit that we use. Economic Demand Response runs programs that provide some incentives to the consumers if they use energy during off-peak hours, or by placing time-based pricing (higher cost rates) to the ones that use it during peak times.

DR programs allow for users to be more aware of their energy consumption and the real-time prices, therefore leading to more educated decisions in how, when, and at what cost and time is more feasible to use electricity.

To conclude, I think it is interesting to know about what the electricity system is going to be in the future.

Screen-shot-2011-06-24-at-9.19.53-AM

 

 

 

References

http://esm.versar.com/pprp/ceir16/Report_2_1_0.htm

National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. www.epa.gov/eeactionplan

 ELECTRICLIGHT&POWER, What is Demand Response? By Dr. Steve Isser, Good Company Associates, June 2009

 http://www.energydsm.com/demand-response/

4- Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition

http://www.drsgcoalition.org/resources/factsheets/Demand_Response_and_Energy_Efficiency.pdf