« PreviousContinue »
hings that actually are new and save emissions, and
actually does come up with a fairly new idea that
there is usually a discounting that has to occur to pected impact on the baseline growth of 33 percent
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC. STUDY
.LVERT. You cite that you have entered into the by Arthur D. Little, Inc. It finds that DOE's energy renewable energy programs will save 112 million arbon in 2010. What peer review process was used
Mr. Chairman, this has been a longstanding piece thur D. Little since 1994, in which we have asked he potential for energy savings
, carbon reductions, our various technology R&D programs in DOE D. Little does is to convene on its own a whole
the various technology areas on a yearly basis. looking at issues about
markets, technology pene luctions. They evaluate where they realistically ologies are going and come up with the estimates
ceive on an annual basis. So it is a very substanrocess, and, in fact, I think Dr. Hakes has indi ghly respect and value the Arthur D. Little work e issue of the savings in 2010, in the report an
savings in 2 different fashions: both a non-inte ? and a so-called integrated total of 75 million
are very careful to indicate it in both respects ke account of potential overlaps in the impasse
Chairman CALVERT. Well, I just was curious because I n that there is additional sums of money here for various things: cell award projects Mr. REICHER. Well, let me say on that Chairman CALVERT (continuing). Receiving National Renew Energy Laboratory funding. I am just curious that you are cei that there is no implication that this is a totally unbiased re when it is evaluating the benefits of DOE programs?
Mr. REICHER. I am quite confident about it because we ] heard very positive things from a variety of people on the out who have looked at it, including the Energy Information Adm tration. I would also have to say that most of the dollars tha supply to private industry, in a cost-shared fashion, are supplie a competitive basis, and those prophecies, I think, ensure a sei level of independence in who we select and how we do our w
So I don't, in fact, Mr. Chairman, have major concerns about
ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF ADVANCED COAL PLANTS
Dr. HAKES. Well, basically, for new electric plant construc you have a competition between coal plants and natural gas pla Generally, coal is a cheaper fuel than natural gas, but the caj cost to construct a natural gas plant is less, and the operating of a natural gas plant are less. So it is anticipated, I think, by analysts and us, that through the periods that we forecast generally, the gas plants will be the plant of choice, simply for nomic reasons.
There will still be a substantial amount of coal burned. In in the baseline case, the use of coal goes up because we do unutilized coal capacity at our existing plants. So there wil more coal burned in the baseline case, but it is more from greater utilization of existing plants than the building of many plants.
TAX INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES Mr. COSTELLO. You talk a lot in your testimony aboutwritten testimony—and you mentioned today about tax incen and effective ways to partner between Government and indust develop new energy technologies. And you suggest that we, ir Congress, include incentives for building, transportation, more ergy-efficient housing, and so on. You may recall that back prior to the clean air debate and the Congress passed the Clean Air Act, that some of us want provide tax incentives to utilities in order to provide and scrubbers to invest in other technologies as well so that we use the abundance of coal that we have in this country and it cleanly and efficiently.
RT. Imquestion on the isn't it true that the Armpany is provided with various agreements acts totalling over almost $50 million?
department does technology work with Arthur with many, many companies. What Arthur D. ase of this analytical work is, as I have said, of outside experts to review the potential for ductions. cate, Mr. Chairman, that we have undertaken work, in part, in response to Government Per
Act, GPRA, where we have been asked to it the results we are getting from our invest
we formulate our budget. So a combination dent about this A.D. Little work and the indereview that is being carried out. I think
In your opinion, why has the Department of Energy not pursued tax incentives in order to accomplish these goals?
Dr. HAKES. Well, I want to make clear that ELA is an independent part of the Department of Energy that does not advocate specific policies or tax increases. We are simply available to the Committee or to the Administration to analyze the likely impacts of these.
I think that what was adopted in the Clean Air Act of 1990 was a system in which low-sulfur coal and scrubbers would sort of compete economically. And we do believe, that with the next round of sulfur reduction requirements, that scrubbers will become a more popular option, but I can't oppose or advocate any particular tax system.
There may be others who would be willing to do that.
Mr. COSTELLO. But it is safe to assume, I think, that if we provided tax incentives for utilities to install scrubbers and to use scrubbers on an annual basis, that that would provide an incentive for them to, in fact, install scrubbers and use the abundance of coal that we have.
Is that not
Dr. HAKES. Yes, assuming that the incentives were large enough to create the incentive.
Mr. REICHER. Mr. Costello, if I could, I just want to point out there is one important element of our tax incentive proposal that deals with coal-fired power plants and that is the co-firing incen. tive. This is an incentive to utilities that burn coal to mix that coal with our abundant stocks of biomass and, thereby, allow the generation of electricity from this mixed fuel and cut both traditional pollutants and global warming gases as a result of that use. And we do provide in the proposed incentive a tax credit for that activity.
Mr. COSTELLO. I have a few other questions but we have other members here.
Let me give, Doctor-our Administrator Gardiner, the opportunity to respond to a point that you wanted to make to Dr. Hakes.
EPA CRITICISM OF ELA
Mr. GARDINER. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
The point that I wanted to make was fairly simple, that I think our criticism is simply that EIA has looked very narrowly at the Administration's initiative on climate change and looked only at the tax portion.
And if you were to ask me this morning whether I ate a healthy breakfast this morning, and I only talked to you about the cereal I ate and its nutritional value, and I didn't tell you about the nutritional value of the milk that I put on the cereal, or the banana that I ate with it, and the orange juice that I also drank, you wouldn't be getting a complete picture.
And I just want to be clear for the Committee that I think, given ELA's analysis, that you are really only looking at a piece of the Administration's package. You are not going to have a complete picture either, and that is the simple point that I wanted to make.
Mr. COSTELLO. Very good.
vinion, why has the Department of Energy not pursued es in order to accomplish these goals?
Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CALVERT. Mr. Ehlers. 3. Well, I want to make clear that EIA is an inde of the Department of Energy that does not advocate
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very interesting discussion, but I want to raise a number ies or tax increases. We are simply available to the I to the Administration to analyze the likely impacts
questions. I wonder, in all our discussion here, if we are not mi
ing a major point. When we are talking just about the CO2 prod t what was adopted in the Clean Air Act of 1990 was
tion, we are ignoring the fact that we are burning up an incredi hich low-sulfur coal and scrubbers would sort of com
amount of resources very quickly. And the implication that has ally. And we do believe, that with the next round of
our Nation-particularly with the end of cheap oil in a decade on requirements, that scrubbers will become a more
less-that has major economic implications for our country. A 1, but I can't oppose or advocate any particular tar
that may be a better reason for improving our energy efficier
than the rather indeterminant effect of CO2 upon our climate. A ve others who would be willing to do that
I would certainly encourage DOE, at the very least, to put me Lo. But it is safe to assume, I think, that if we pro- emphasis on that issue, especially with the popularity of SUN ntives for utilities to install scrubbers and to use
and they go in the wrong direction. n annual basis, that that would provide an incentive Even the power companies are going in the direction of burni fact, install scrubbers and use the abundance of coal more natural gas, and I wonder-I recognize it is a marvelous fu
clean burning and so forth, but to tell the truth, in the long-te
view, natural gas is really too good to burn. It is a stock for a es, assuming that the incentives were large enough trochemical industry. It is irreplaceable. It may be a lot easier a centive.
less expensive for our Nation, overall, if you look at the long-te Mr. Costello, if I could, I just want to point out view to be putting more emphasis on coal and nuclear at this po portant element of our tax incentive proposal that and preserving even perhaps by an additional charge on natu fired power plants and that is the co-firing incenncentive to utilities that burn coal to mix that coal
828–preserving natural gas for feedstock for the petroleum indu int stocks of biomass and, thereby, allow the gen;
try. And these are some of the questions I think should be a city from this mixed fuel and cut both traditional lobal warming gases as a result of that use. And
Something else that concerns me is the differences of opini the proposed incentive a tax credit for that activ.
within the scientific community on the CO2 issue and the result
the increase of CO2. I get approached by a lot of scientists on the I have a few other questions but we have other
issues, and, although the preponderant view is that we are like Doctor-our Administrator Gardiner, the oppor or global warming by the way. I never even talk about glob to a point that you wanted to make to Dr. Hakes
warming. I think the evidence is so slim on that. With global
mate change, there is more evidence. But even there, there is sor EPA CRITICISM OF ELA
very good scientists who say that the research is really wrong; Thank you, Mr. Costello.
are going in the wrong direction; we are not taking the right vie wanted to make was fairly simple, that I think nply that EIA has looked very narrowly at the
FUNDING OF CLIMATE CHANGE SKEPTICS nitiative on climate change and looked only at
One concern that has been expressed is that the difficulty of ge to ask me this morning whether I ate a healthy
ting grants to do research, if you are expressing views that CO2
not having the impact that is politically popular to discuss. And ning, and I only talked to you about the cereal onal value, and I didn't tell you about the nutri
would certainly appreciate some assurance from everyone her nilk that I put on the cereal, or the banana that
particularly Dr. Lane, that there is no bias in the awarding of he orange juice that I also drank, you wouldn't
search grants if someone comes in with a proposal that and the
have a history of saying there is not much of a problem here. e picture. be clear for the Committee that I think, given
I do have a specific scientific question, and I will address you are really only looking at a piece of the Ad
Lane, and he can respond to my previous comment as well, ar ge. You are not going to have a complete pic
maybe others will want to come in on that. One of the scientif is the simple point that I wanted to make.
questions is which I have not been able to condone. I just car y good.
get a straight answer from the researchers in the field, and pe
and so forth.
haps they don't know.
IMPACT OF INCREASING CO2 ON RADIATION ABSORPTIVITY But my understanding is that the atmosphere is essentially de opaque already with carbon dioxide. There is enough CO2 up there that it is opaque to re-radiation of most of the energy being emitted by the Earth, and that what we are doing when we increase CO2 is we are not getting a linear increase_in other words, as we in- ab crease CO2, we are not getting a linear increase in the amount of energy retained, but it is rather logarithmic because we are simply broadening the curve, and you are talking about increasing the wings of the absorption curve rather than increasing the impact of
So, Dr. Lane, you can start off in responding to that scientific question, which I think is a very important one, and, also, my pre obie vious comments.
Dr. LANE. Mr. Ehlers, I appreciated your questions very much. None of these scientific questions on our global environment are
easy, I think.
One point I would make is that the models
and there are many models that are used to try to best understand the mechanisms that are at work in the environment and the extent to which global change is occurring. Those models do take into account the absorptivity of not just CO2, but the other greenhouse gases and their concentrations at various heights in the atmosphere. And as I know you know, it is not a simple system with a single layer of CO2 sitting up there. It is a distributed system, and there is able to sorption of radiation going on at various stages at various heights. And, ultimately, some of the infrared that is emitted by these molecules that have absorbed from lower elevations is radiated in all directions, and some of those directions are upward.
And, in fact, it is that mechanism that helps us understand why one impact of the greenhouse effect is that the lower atmosphere indeed warms; the upper atmosphere cools. It is the same physical mechanism that has to do with the distribution of radiation.
So the models do take these things into account, and there are some things on which the models agree. And I think this basic mechanism is one of them.
The second thing I would say is that among the scientific skeptics-it is, of course, valuable to have skepticism in science. That is what allows us to advance our understanding. There need to be people there who ask difficult questions, and, in fact, I think any good scientist is going to ask the other scientist, “How do you know? Are you sure of this?" Or, "Didn't you leave this out?" As you know, that is the way science advances, so that is healthy.
Some of the skepticism that is out there that is advertised as being science is really a bit misleading and I think confuses, in the public mind, what we know about what we know with a high-level of confidence about the impact of greenhouse effect on the climate of the Earth.
With regard to
T OF INCREASING CO2 ON RADIATION ABSORPTIVITY
Mr. EHLERS (continuing). Interject there? I agree there is so
of that. I call that political "science," with "science” in quotati understanding is that the atmosphere is essential marks. (Laughter.) ady with carbon dioxide. There is enough CO, up there And it is not the study of politics. (Laughter.) aque to re-radiation of most of the energy being emitted It is “politicized science, perhaps. But I am talking about serio h, and that what we are doing when we increase CD capable scientists who are having some honest disagreemer ot getting a linear increase in other words, as we in about this. And I am particularly concerned about the reports th we are not getting a linear increase in the amount di it is difficult to get funding. ned, but it is rather logarithmic because we are simply Dr. LANE. And that, I think, is the most important all yo he curve, and you are talking about increasing the questions are important, but that is the one that I want to be ab absorption curve rather than increasing the impact of lutely sure that I respond to.
I was at the National Science Foundation 4.5 years and certain ne, you can start off in responding to that scientir enjoyed that. It was an extraordinary experience, and I had the o ch I think is a very important one, and, also, my prt portunity to interact with a very large number of scientists in its.
fields of research. During that period, I had a number of researc Mr. Ehlers, I appreciated your questions very much ers complain to me about the peer review process that it was t 2 scientific questions on our global environment are
conservative. It wasn't really willing to reach out and take tl
risks that we need to take in science if we are really going to pu would make is that the models and there are many
the frontier. I had anecdotal complaints from people who just ha ire used to try to best understand the mechanism submitted 12 proposals or 20 proposals and didn't get funded, ar rk in the environment and the extent to which globa they were unhappy. But there was no clear rationale for it. I nev rring. Those models do take into account the aboo bad anyone come to me and say that I believed my proposal in th ust CO2, but the other greenhouse gases and their field was rejected because of bias against my beliefs on what t
at various heights in the atmosphere. And au w, it is not a simple system with a single layer
It is not to say there aren't people who feel that way, but I sin there. It is a distributed system, and there is ab iation going on at various stages at various height about
their proposals and about the system, and I have had ply wanted to indicate that I have heard from unhappy researche
r 7, some of the infrared that is emitted by these mo
searchers tell me they thought the reviewers were biased again 'e absorbed from lower elevations is radiated in a
them. I just have not had any in this particular area. some of those directions are upward. it is that mechanism that helps us understand why he greenhouse effect is that the lower atmosphere
Mr. EHLERS. I recognize the Science,
the National Science Four he upper atmosphere cools. It is the same physica
dation as the least likely to have a problem with this. I am mor has to do with the distribution of radiation.
concerned about the EPA, DOE, and so forth. And now in your ne do take these things into account, and there an
role, you have something to say about all of that, and perhap which the models agree. And I think this basic e of them.
Dr. LANE. And let me just make one quick comment and the ing I would say is that among the scientific skep arse, valuable to have skepticism in science
I have worked with the Department of Energy for a very lon 3 to advance our understanding. There need to be
time through their extramural programs, but also the intramure ask difficult questions, and, in fact, I think ang
programs. I have a very high regard for the quality of the researc going to ask the other scientist
, “How do you
that they support. And, in fact, my research over many, many pe ure of this?" Or, “Didn't you leave this out?” As
riod of time-a long period of time was supported by the Basic En the way science advances,
so that is healthy. ergy Sciences of the Department of Energy. And I could not tell th_ cepticism that is out there that is advertised as
its peer review program and the way the NSF did. ally a bit misleading and I think confuses, in the
difference between the way in which the Department of Energy ra we know about what we know with a high-level
ily their use of peer review to ensure objectivity in the selection
With regard to EPA, I know EPA has been strengthening stead Et the impact of greenhouse effect on the climate
Chairman, I suspect I shouldn't turn to any of the others for re
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I realize the time is up for my-Mr y I just ir.
Mr. EHLERS. Yes.
NOAA might be in that camp.
ask my colleagues to respond.
the research that they support.