Apollo Alliance

The Apollo Alliance is promoting an energy policy that emphasizes efficiency and renewable energy. It stands in stark contrast to the current energy bill just passed by Congress. The vision of the AA policy is American energy independence, but their policy is a model for how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a national level. www.apolloalliance.org

Comments

[Zeno Swijtink]

Amanda Griscom Little, Grist's Muckraker, has an article about the Apollo Alliance at

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/09/28/apollo/index.html

Do you have any comments? Inside scoop on impacts of AA in the Bay Area?

[David Erickson]

Overall, I think Apollo Alliance is about as close as you are going to come to getting an energy policy that is rational, and has significant support from a very diverse political base. I agree that they have made very little headway in the current Congress, and for that I blame the Republican majority, not AA per se. I think with the current makeup of Congress, along with the White House, any significant commitment to improving CAFE, transferring subsidies from fossil fuels to renewables, and investing in energy efficiency is impossible. Not that AA is perfect. I find that the inclusion of support for Clean Coal in AA is basically a sellout to the coal miners, in order to get the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. For now, I would say that AA-like activities at the state level are as close as we're going to get until Congress and the White House change hands.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Hi Dave,

Why are you negative about Clean Coal?

In today's NYT Brian Schweitzer, governor of Montana, argues for using coal to derive gasoline for transportation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/opinion/03schweitzer.html

What do you think the prospects of going one step further and derive hydrogen for fuel cells from coal as described at

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/fuels/hydrogen/Hydrogen_from_Coal_R&D.html

-- Zeno

[David Erickson]

There are two problems that I see with "Clean Coal". The first is that carbon sequestration must be integrated into the plant during the construction, in order for the plant to not emit CO2 into the atmosphere. Today, carbon sequestration of CO2 emissions from coal combustion is not technically feasible. The currently discussed schemes involve capturing the CO2, and pumping it into depleted oil wells or under the ocean. Its highly energy intensive process, not to mention the uncertain ability to store CO2 for geologic time, makes feasibility uncertain. The second reason I oppose coal is the destructive nature of coal mining. If demand for coal was significantly increased, mountain top removal coal mining would become more widespread, particularly under a Republican administration.

[David Erickson]

The Times opinion piece by Brian Schweitzer is, I believe, incorrect on a couple of key points. One is, it states that, "The synfuel process, which is nothing like conventional coal use, removes greenhouse gases". The synfuel, when combusted in the engine, emits CO2 as the combustion byproduct as any other fossil fuel. Schweitzer may have been referring to methane that is generated by petroleum refining. The other point, that hydrogen can be made from synfuel, is also misleading. Manufacturing hydrogen from natural gas (as it is done today) or synfuel, liberates CO2 composed of ancient carbon, and is therefore a contributor to global warming. Unless the ancient carbon liberated by the use of coal is captured and sequestered for geologic time, further use of coal in any form will contribute to global warming.

[Melissa]

i have never agreed to the hole globule warming thing.. why are people freaking out becuas the temp might go up 1/2 a point in the next million years. Hey i say warm it up we could use more heat.. but alot of people like to fall for what they here in the every day media.. they watch an hour of news befor bed and base ther opinions on what the media has to say. wich is most the time watered down to the extream...