- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
March 2011 Archives
In light of the BP oil spill, Japan's nuclear crisis, and a recent spate of coal-mining accidents, the risks and dangers associated with energy production are more evident than ever.
Renewable energy is safer than fossil fuels, but production is not yet at a scale where it could displace any traditional energy source. Natural gas has emerged as a safer bet for fossil fuels in light of these other disasters, but it also must address concerns about pipeline safety and hydraulic fracturing, a controversial way to extract shale gas that has triggered health and environmental concerns.
How should President Obama and Congress consider the risks associated with energy production when deciding how to move forward on an energy policy? What economic, environmental, and safety tradeoffs must be considered with energy production? Is there such a thing as a safe form of energy at all?
13 responses: Frank M. Stewart, Allen Schaeffer, Bernard L. Weinstein, Bill Dickenson, Marilyn Heiman, Bud Albright, Brent Erickson, Thomas J. Pyle, Denise Bode, David Holt, Paul N. Cicio, Tom Buis, William O'Keefe
Just like the disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, Japan's crisis has exposed the great risks associated with nuclear power. In light of the catastrophe, other countries, including China and Germany are delaying construction of new reactors.
Are those actions warranted? Should the United States place a moratorium on new plants that could be at risk of major natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis? What, if anything, should the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do to reexamine the safety standards for all U.S. reactors and reassure policymakers and the American public? What lessons can we learn from Japan's crisis?
9 responses: Anna Aurilio, Margo Thorning, Carl Pope, William O'Keefe, Christine Parthemore, Marvin Fertel, Bernard L. Weinstein, Arjun Makhijani, Frank M. Stewart
What effect does EPA's series of Clean Air Act rules have on the energy and environment landscape?
The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce draft rules this week aimed at slashing toxic air pollution emitted by power plants. The rules, known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology, or MACT, utility regulations, are some of the most controversial rules coming out of EPA, a list that includes the always politically loaded carbon-emissions rules. The issuance will come in the wake of the agency announcing similar regulations for industrial boilers and certain incinerators. These rules are among several that EPA is rolling out now or in the near future under its Clean Air Act authority.
What effect will these MACT utility regulations have on the power sector? Taken together, how do EPA's various clean-air rules change the industry and protect the environment? What are the trade-offs that Congress and President Obama should consider?
10 responses: David C. Brown, Lance Brown, Kateri Callahan, Richard Revesz, Brent Erickson, Donna Harman, Conrad Schneider, Chuck Gray, Amy Harder, William O'Keefe
How different will America's energy mix be in three decades?
Right now the country's energy comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, oil, coal, and natural gas generate nearly 80 percent, while nuclear energy and renewables make up the rest. As oil prices continue to climb, lawmakers from both parties are calling to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. It's a clichéd debate, to be sure, but one that resonates across the country. President Obama has called for a federal standard of 80 percent clean energy by 2035. And the Environmental Protection Agency is rolling out a series of air-pollution regulations that experts agree is triggering a shift away from coal-fired power plants -- which account for nearly half the United States' electricity today -- to natural gas-powered plants.
What long-term market dynamics -- if any -- will shift the nation's energy from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy? What environmental concerns should the country consider? What role do the federal and state governments play in shaping and sustaining the energy mix?
16 responses: Bill Squadron, Tjerk de Ruiter, Maggie L. Fox, Jacqueline Savitz, Lance Brown, Marvin Fertel, Spencer Abraham, Jon A. Anda, Thomas J. Pyle, Carl Pope, Amy Harder, Jon A. Anda, Armond Cohen, David Holt, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe
