See the full post here: Allen on Energy

To read more, visit Newsweek for the full article.

Original article published on The Hill, by Russell Berman, July 12, 2010

By every measure of jobs, cost, and availability; American clean coal technology provides the most affordable and reliable source of electricity for American families and businesses.”  George Allen

Read the report here.

Katherine Ling, E&E reporter

Switching from coal to natural gas to reduce emissions from electricity generation will cost hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure improvements, the American Public Power Association said in a report released yesterday.

The switch would require $348 billion for new pipeline capacity, $12.5 billion for new storage and $330 billion to replace existing coal units with gas-fired alternatives, the report says.

While it is unlikely that all coal-fired power plants would be replaced by gas units — improved energy efficiency and power from renewable sources will take their share — the infrastructure needs of gas should be considered, APPA said.

“This study raises questions and concerns about the significant hurdles utilities would face converting from coal to natural gas in the face of these regulations,” Mark Crisson, president and CEO of APPA, said in a statement.

“Other studies have addressed supply. We commissioned this study because we are concerned about just how utilities would extract, store and move natural gas to where it is needed in a reliable, sustainable, affordable and environmentally sound way.”

APPA represents more than 2,000 community- and state-owned electric utilities that serve 45 million customers.

Natural gas has been largely touted as a “bridge fuel” to meet stronger U.S. EPA rules on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates and coal ash disposal and if Congress passes new limits for greenhouse gas emissions.

Natural gas would allow utilities to cut carbon dioxide emissions while more advanced technology, such as carbon capture and sequestration and low-cost solar panels, is commercialized.

A significant downside of gas is price volatility. While prices are presently hovering around $4 per British thermal unit (Btu), just a few years ago, they spiked to about $12 per Btu or higher in some places.

But the recent upsurge in domestic gas production from shale gas reserves in the eastern and southeastern United States has promised a greater supply of domestic natural gas, which the natural gas industry says will smooth out price spikes and keep gas around $6 per Btu.

If natural gas-fired generation replaced coal-fired generation, however, overall demand for natural gas would jump from 23 trillion cubic feet per year to 36 trillion cubic feet per year, which would place significant pressure on price even with new supply, the report says.

The gas must also be transported for the new utility demand, and building miles of new pipeline is an expensive endeavor for an industry already facing significant capital investment issues, the report says.

“These kinds of infrastructure investments are typically financed and recovered in rates over an extended period of time and are expected to continue being used and producing revenue for the owners for years after that,” the report says.

“The magnitude of the investment that would be needed … seems inconsistent with the oft-touted idea of natural gas as a temporary ‘bridge’ fuel,” it says.

The report was conducted by Catherine Elder, senior associate for energy and resource analysis at the Aspen Environmental Group, on behalf of APPA and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.

America’s Natural Gas Alliance said the report fails to take into its analysis the costs of other electricity options and the existing value of the natural gas industry as an “economic engine.”

“The argument that somehow natural gas will not create economic and environmental benefits is a tired one that has been completely turned on its head by the vast supplies of domestic natural gas in U.S. shale regions,” ANGA spokesman Dan Whitten said.

“Natural gas is a clean domestic energy source that is available now for power generation and can be transported through pipelines that have already been built and used in underutilized gas power plants with existing transmission capacity.”

Click here to read the report.

Today, 60 years later, a satellite photograph of the Korean Peninsula tells a profound story of freedom vs. totalitarianism. The electric power behind the economies is a compelling part of the object lesson. Only 20 percent of North Koreans have access to electricity while nearly 100 percent of South Koreans have access to electricity. Largely without electricity, North Koreans do not have access to the Internet. Yet nearly 100 percent of South Koreans are able to communicate and conduct transactions across the Internet. North Koreans have very little refrigeration for their food, few lights, non-existent air conditioning, no automobiles and practically no computers, radios or television. There is very little electricity to develop a manufacturing base, much less provide basics of living for people.

After over fifty years of two systems, the result is a stark difference in the quality of life between the Republic of Korea (South Korea) and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). First, the life expectancy in South Korea is longer, 78.72 years in comparison to North Koreans’ 61.23 years. The most telling human statistic is that at just four years of age, the toll on living children is pronounced: South Korean preschool children are approximately 3 inches taller than their North Korean peers. Women of childbearing age in North Korea are up to 19 pounds lighter than South Korean women and have a significantly higher maternal mortality rate. The Infant Mortality Rate is 12 times higher in North Korea.

Communist Party doctrine continues to control every aspect of life in North Korea. Although North Korea instituted Kim Il-Sung’s ‘juche’ or doctrine of self-reliance as the state ideology, the country remains heavily dependent upon government subsidies for housing, food and other needs. Land use is heavily regulated by the state, with little or no private property rights. North Korea ranks last, at 179, in the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal’s world rankings for economic freedom.

Starting a small business in North Korea is virtually impossible as central planning rules the economy. By comparison, an entrepreneur in South Korea could start a business within an average of 17 days.

In the past several years, the “Tiger” economy of South Korea has catapulted to between the world’s 10^th and 13^th largest economy. With unlimited access to electric power, mostly generated from coal and nuclear, the country has vibrant, sophisticated electronics and electrical products, telecommunications, motor vehicles, mining and manufacturing, petrochemical, industrial machine, steel and shipbuilding industries.

According to the U.S. State Department, South Korea’s economic growth has been “spectacular” over the past several decades. “Per capita [GDP], only $100 in 1963, is close to $20,000. South Korea is now the United States’ seventh-largest trading partner…”

In contrast, North Korea has a per capita GDP of $1800. In 2005, North Korea returned to centralized food rationing. Due to lack of electricity, fuel and industrial parts, the critical infrastructure is outdated and the energy sector has collapsed. Through 2008, the United States has tried to assist North Korea by providing electricity to hospitals through non- governmental organizations.

The object lesson learned after 57 years of economic development and energy deployment between two vastly different governments over the Korean people is clear. Oppression and heavy governmental regulation starve resources and diminish people on their own land. A free society with abundant energy enhances and improves the health and quality of lives. That is the power of unleashed freedom, enabling prosperity through electricity, energy and education. As the satellite image shows; it is the difference been darkness and light.

http://hutchison.senate.gov/resources/HutchisonBondGasTaxReportonKerryLieberman.pdf

To read more, please go to AEFC’s Studies page.

Jindal files brief to stop drilling moratorium

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) office announced today that he filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit granting an injunction to stop President Obama’s moratorium on deepwater drilling.

The brief argues that states are entitled to participate in the policy and decision-making process by the federal government on issues relating to the exploration and development of Outer Continental Shelf minerals and requires the Secretary of Interior to cooperate with affected states. The brief states, “Inasmuch as the State of Louisiana was completely ignored by defendants in the establishment of this moratorium for alleged safety reasons, the question arises whether that failure renders Defendants’ action invalid.”

Read the entire article.

To read the original article on The Hill.com, click here.