Author Archive

GMO Apples: Coming to a Store Near You in 2017

A new strain of genetically modified apples that don’t bruise or brown when cut have been approved for planting and sale in the U.S., according to the Department of Agriculture. After evaluation, the Department of Agriculture has said that the apples are “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk or to have a significant impact on the human environment.”

The apples, which will be marketed as “Arctic Granny and Arctic Golden,” could hit shelves as early as 2017. The new fruits were designed to reduce food waste and expand the sliced fruit market, and are the latest in a new crop development trend: using genetic engineering to up customer appeal, rather than farmer benefits.

NCPA research has already outlined the benefits of biotech crops for combating global hunger. By targeting genetic modifications at consumers rather than just producers, genetically modified crops can gain a larger foothold in the market ― and move closer towards widespread public acceptance.

While GMOs have a fairly large presence in U.S. markets, they continue to struggle abroad. Heavy restrictions, lengthy authorization and risk assessment processes, and split public opinion all inhibit the progress of GMOs in other nations. Perhaps making modifications that benefit consumers will soothe both public and government concerns, and encourage nations to ease restrictions on GMOs and other forms of biotechnology.

Feb 18, 2015 | 1 comment | by

Person-to-Person Energy Market

With ridesharing services like Lyft and Uber and travel services like Airbnb, the person-to-person market is gaining more and more traction in the American market. In Europe, the idea is gaining even more of a foothold ― starting with the energy sector.

Vandebron is an Amsterdam-based person-to-person electricity service. The service provides a platform for small energy producers to connect directly to consumers. The producers give their price and type of energy, then sell spots until they reach their production capacity. The platform also gives consumers a chance to see directly where their energy is coming from, meet their providers, and make an informed decision regarding their energy choices.

While some places in the U.S. offer some price comparison options ― Texas, for instance, offers a site that allows you to compare prices from different energy companies ― consumers have very little access to the kind of transparency that person-to-person electricity markets offer.

Giving consumers more control, opening up markets, and empowering consumers to make informed decisions are key elements to increasing competition. Making room for person-to-person markets in the energy sector could drive energy prices down ― and innovation up.

Feb 11, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Alaskan Oil Put on Ice With New Proposal

Last week, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a five-year strategy that would open offshore drilling from Virginia to Georgia, but put previously deferred areas off the Alaskan coast off-limits, reports Politico.

While possibly good news for the Atlantic coast ― as well as the oil and gas industry ― the Alaskan delegation is far from pleased. Just last week, the Obama administration announced its intention to close of 12.28 million acres of Alaskan land from oil and gas exploration in the name of wildlife preservation.

“This administration is determined to shut down oil and gas production in Alaska’s federal areas ― and this offshore plan is yet another example of their short-sighted thinking,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in a statement. “The president’s indefinite withdrawal of broad areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas is the same unilateral approach this administration is taking in placing restrictions on the vast energy resources in ANWR and the NPR-A.”

While the Interior’s proposed plan does included three proposed lease sales in Alaska’s federal waters, Murkowski says it’s not enough. “The proposed lease sales we’re talking about right now aren’t scheduled until after President Obama is out of office,” Murkowski said. “Forgive me for remaining skeptical about this administration’s commitment to our energy security.”

Obama’s recent give-and-take oil and gas policy is particularly confusing in the wake of his State of the Union address, where he lauded the U.S.’s growth in production and drop in oil prices over the past year.

Feb 04, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Obama Starts Tug-Of-War over 12 Million Acres

The Obama administration’s proposal to expand federally protected lands in Alaska has sparked huge controversy with the state’s entire government.

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) currently protects about seven million acres from oil and gas exploration. Obama’s new proposal would close off another 12.28 million acres. Closing off this land “is a stunning attack on our sovereignty and our ability to develop a strong economy,” said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska:

It’s clear this administration does not care about us, and sees us as nothing but a territory. The promises made to us at statehood, and since then, mean absolutely nothing to them. I cannot understand why this administration is willing to negotiate with Iran, but not Alaska. But we will not be run over like this. We will fight back with every resource at our disposal.

Alaska’s Governor Bill Walker also expressed displeasure with the proposal, and is considering increasing oil development on state-owned lands in response to the proposal:

Having just given to Alaskans the State of the State and State of the Budget addresses, it’s clear that our fiscal challenges in both the short and long term would benefit significantly from increased oil production. This action by the federal government is a major setback toward reaching that goal. Therefore, I will consider accelerating the options available to us to increase oil exploration and production on state-owned lands.

The Obama administration says that Murkowski’s reaction to the announcement was “unwarranted.” However, this is not the first time Alaska and the Obama administration have butted heads. In 2013, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell rejected the construction of a gravel emergency road across Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, to the ire of Alaska lawmakers.

While the proposal requires congressional approval, the Interior can still create extra protections on the region. This proposal is already being heralded as one more example of the Obama administration’s federal overreach, and could continue to incite major discontent from Alaskan legislators.

 

Jan 28, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Senators Plan to Raise the Gas Tax

The American public may be cheering falling gas prices, but they have Congress talking. Democrats and Republicans alike have started tossing around the idea of increasing the gas tax. This controversial proposal, while not exactly new, is gaining attention on Capitol Hill.

How much money are we talking?

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, household gasoline expenditures are set to be the lowest in 11 years, with the average family spending around $550 less in 2015 than in 2014.

The current gas tax sits at 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. Proposals have been floated by congressman and economists alike to raise the tax by around 12 cents per gallon, bringing the tax up to 30 cents per gallon for gasoline.

Who supports the tax, and why?

While much of the support for raising the gas tax comes from the left side of the aisle, it’s gaining support on the right as well. In June, Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) proposed raising the gas tax by 12 cents per gallon. Back in 2011, Senator Lamar Alexander discussed raising the gas tax to fill transit fund gaps.

Additionally, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman James Inhofe, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, and Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune have all expressed openness to discussing increasing the tax.

Most supporters of raising the tax suggest that the extra income should be used to compensate for the dwindling Highway Trust Fund to pay for much needed road and bridge work around the country. Supporters argue that the gas tax is less of a “tax” and more of a “user fee,” shifting the cost of road repairs to the people who use the roads.

Yet opponents to raising the tax argue that while it may seem fair, innovations like increasing miles-per-gallon and fuel efficiency reduce the uses for the tax. Senator Roy Blunt at a business roundtable:

They thought the people using the roads were paying for the roads, and everybody that’s trying to keep this transportation network in place is concerned about more miles per-gallon, more fuel efficiency standards, all actually put the same amount of traffic and weight on the road, but they reduce the amount of money you have to do anything about it. It’s a concern at all levels.

Jan 14, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Volcanos as a Source of Renewable Energy

Harnessing the power of lava for energy sounds like a herculean task, but a group of researchers in Iceland think they are up to the challenge. Iceland ― which already fills a quarter of its electricity needs with geothermal energy ― is looking to expand its geothermal energy production with the Iceland Deep Drilling Project.

Geothermal energy, obtained by tapping into and converting underground reservoirs of heat into energy, is touted by the U.S. government for its availability, low emissions, and long-term sustainability.

Given the technological advancements coming up and Iceland’s success, why does geothermal energy only account for 0.41% of U.S. electricity production?

The answer is simple: costs. The start-up costs for geothermal energy are extremely high.  To get a geothermal energy plant off the ground in the U.S. costs a minimum of $2500 per installed kilowatt. In comparison, construction costs for a coal-fired power plant range between $1,000 and $1,500 per installed kilowatt, and construction costs for a gas-fired power plant range from $400 – $800 per kilowatt.

The high start-up costs are not just limited to the U.S. The exploratory borehole for the Iceland Deep Drilling Project cost a minimum of $22 million. The Geothermal Energy Association estimates that the average cost of a 20-megawatt geothermal power plant stands around $30 million.

Until renewable energy sources ― and geothermal energy in particular ― can be cost efficient without large government subsidies, they will remain a drop in the bucket for U.S. energy production.

Jan 07, 2015 | 3 comments | by

DOE Dedicates $12.5 Billion to Nuclear Energy

The Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office will make $12.5 billion in loan guarantees available for Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects, according to a press release posted this morning.

“With $40 billion of loan guarantee authority available to advance our all-of-the-above energy strategy, the Department’s Loan Programs Office has an opportunity to replicate its past successes, supporting innovative clean energy technologies that bring the U.S. closer to a low-carbon future,” said Secretary Ernest Moniz. “This solicitation will help the U.S. build the next generation of safe and secure nuclear energy projects by providing the critical financing needed for innovations that have not been widely deployed at commercial scale in this country.”

$40 DOE Distribution

In the release, the Department identifies four key areas of interest for nuclear technology projects: advanced nuclear reactors, small modular reactors, uprates and upgrades at existing facilities, and front-end nuclear projects.

The move comes as part of the Obama Administration’s “all of the above” energy portfolio to meet America’s growing energy needs and “future low-carbon goals,” according to Peter W. Davidson, Executive Director of the Loan Programs Office.

This announcement rounds out the Loan Program Office’s available $40 billion. In addition to the $12.5 billion made available to Advanced Nuclear Energy Projects, the LPO has issued:

  • An $8 billion Advanced Fossil Energy Projects Solicitation.
  • A $4 billion Renewable Energy and Efficient Energy Projects Solicitation.
  • A $16 billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program.

The $12.5 billion dedication does not guarantee that all $12.5 billion will be spent. Interested parties much apply for the loans, and the Office can allot up to the designated amount.

Such a large investment in nuclear energy may seems surprising to those still wary of the potential dangers of nuclear energy. However, Obama has long been in support of expanding America’s nuclear energy production as part of his “all of the above” strategy.

The surprising part of the announcement is not that the Obama Administration is soliciting new uses of nuclear energy; rather, the surprising part of the announcement is how much the Department and the Administration are willing to put towards nuclear energy. The $12.5 billion falls just short of the Advanced Technology Vehicle’s $16 billion and far above the $4 billion devoted to Renewable and Efficient Energy Projects.

Other nations around the world have embraced nuclear technology. Do you think it’s a good option for the United States?

Dec 10, 2014 | 3 comments | by

Ozone Regulation Could Cost Trillions

In a flashback to 2011, Obama is once again staring down the barrel of a controversial regulation to limit smog-creating ozone pollution. The EPA’s proposed regulation ― which would lower the threshold of ground-level ozone pollution considered healthy to breathe ― is already being decried by opponents as “the most expensive regulation ever.”

Obama nixed a similar version of the rule in 2011, claiming that he was acting to “underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty.” Yet with his recent actions on immigration, education and health care, many are left wondering whether Obama will keep his commitment to “reducing regulatory burdens” in the face of the EPA’s new proposal.

The proposal itself would lower the existing acceptable ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to somewhere between 65 and 70 ppb ― though the EPA’s science advisers would rather see limits closer to 60 ppb. According to the EPA and environmentalist groups, lowering the amount of acceptable ozone would increase public health, reduce illness and premature deaths, and lead to $21.2-$42.1 billion in benefits, contrasted with $16.6 billion in costs.

Opponents of the regulation warn that lowering the limit would stifle economic growth, drastically reduce jobs, and wipe out trillions of dollars in economic output. A July study by the National Association of Manufacturers estimated that a strict version of the rule ― setting the limit to around 60 ppb ― would eliminate $3.4 trillion in economic output and cut 2.9 million jobs by 2040.

The EPA must make a final decision on the rule by October 1st of next year. While many argue that it’s too early to truly estimate the costs of the proposed regulation, the initial forecasts put millions of jobs, billions of dollars in investment, and trillions of dollars of economic output at risk.

“By any measure, the revised ozone rule will represent one of the costliest rules ever issued by EPA,” Louisiana Senator David Vitter told Politico. The EPA’s proposal could be “one of the most devastating regulations in a series of over-reaching regulatory actions taken by this administration.”

 

Dec 03, 2014 | 2 comments | by

Power Politics: The Battle Over Keystone

The Keystone XL Pipeline got its vote, but not the results supporters were looking for. Supporters had renewed their hopes for passage of the pipeline after the resounding Republican victory in the midterm elections. Despite the President’s continued opposition to the project, the House of Representatives had remained staunchly pro-Keystone; Friday’s 252 to 161 passage of the pipeline marked the House’s ninth approval of the project.

Thou largely decried as an attempt to give embattled Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu a political bump ahead of her December 6th runoff election, the Senate went ahead with the vote on Keystone XL. It was close ― Keystone XL only failed by one vote.

What does this mean for the future of the pipeline? Is Keystone XL dead?

Not quite, says Senator John Cornyn of Texas.

Even before the vote, Cornyn was optimistic. “I have no real doubt that the president will veto it eventually,” Cornyn told MSNBC. “So we will come back at it next year and keep coming back until we get a solution.”

If Keystone XL comes up again in the next Congress, we could see different results. The House obviously already has ― and should maintain ― the majority needed to pass Keystone XL again. The Huffington Post predicts that the upcoming Senate should have at least 61 votes in favor of the pipeline. Given these results, it seems like the bill may finally make it past both chambers.

Just one question remains: With rumors still circulating that Obama will veto Keystone if it passes, can both houses wrangle the two-thirds support needed to override a presidential veto?

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Nov 19, 2014 | 1 comment | by

China-U.S. “Climate” Accord

A big deal is being made over the United States’ and China’s “landmark agreement” to curb carbon emissions. The climate aspects of the agreement are important for the global community — particularly in light of United Nations General Assembly President Sam Kahamba Kutesa’s announcement that he would convene a high-level event on combating climate change in June. While this joint agreement is seen as an important step for climate change enthusiasts, this new accord between China and the U.S. has much more far-reaching energy, trade and security implications.

Energy. As part of its attempts to cut emissions, China plans on expanding its “clean” energy sources, such as solar power and windmills, to produce 20 percent of China’s total energy production by 2030. President Obama, in return, intends to reduce carbon emissions by up to 28 percent by 2025. Considering China and the United States are the top two carbon polluters, any “meaningful worldwide pact” on the issue would founder without their support, according to The New York Times.

Trade. Cuts to tariffs were a big discussion during the “unexpectedly productive” meeting. Obama agreed to cut tariffs for technology products, including video-game consoles, computer software and medical equipment. Overall, Obama and the Chinese agreed to eliminate more than 200 categories of tariffs, which the Obama administration estimates could create up to 60,000 jobs and generate $1 trillion is sales per year. However, the promotion of two competing free-trade blocs for the Asian region — the U.S.-backed Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Chinese-led Free Trade Area of Asia Pacific, which was recently approved for study — underscores the continued competition between China and the United States.

Security. Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping made headway in two important security topics during the negotiations. First, Obama and Xi agreed to a military accord to avert clashes between American and Chinese forces in the waters off of the Chinese coast. Additionally, Obama and Xi agreed to resume the U.S.-China working group on cybersecurity issues, which broke down after the U.S. brought hacking charges against several Chinese military officials.

Many of these issues won’t be easy to tackle for the Obama administration. However, Obama still hopes to take the U.S.-China relationship to a “new level.”

To a point, the announcement of the U.S.-China accord is exciting. Yet rather than focusing solely on the often-controversial capping of carbon emissions, perhaps we should focus on the other, arguably bigger announcements to come out of the accord — like reduced tariffs, possibly job creation, and shoring up national security efforts.

Nov 12, 2014 | 4 comments | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »