Europe's grid

Due to the significant increase in the production of renewable energy in the European Union in recent years, electricity grids in these regions are no longer able to handle the energy being generated by renewable sources like wind and solar power. The increase in renewable energy production has been spurred on by high government subsidies. In addition, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on reducing carbon output in order to minimize the effects of climate change, contributing to the increase in production of renewable energy.

In order for the electricity grids to become capable of handling the extra energy being produced, there would need to be up to $138 billion spent on improvements in the next decade. This money would go towards strengthening, upgrading and smartening these units. The grids would also need to become much larger in order to handle the increased amount of renewable energy that is being produced. In addition, there would also be significant costs involved in expanding the current offshore energy networks and ensuring that this energy can be transported to onshore locations where it is most needed. Therefore, a major debate is underway regarding who exactly should be responsible for financing the expansion and improvement of the European Union’s grids. Although the government subsidized the production of renewable energy, it is not necessarily the case that the bill for electricity grids will also be picked up. Instead, the market forces involved in international energy trading may be left in charge of financing the grids.

In addition, there are many ideas being circulated regarding how the renewable energy that is being produced should be transported among the different nations within the European Union. The transport measures are all a part of the larger idea of creating a European “supergrid”, which would be capable of transporting power from the “wind-rich north and sun-soaked south to the center”, where the highest demand for energy exists. This ideal “supergrid”, however, has many problems associated with it, both technical and financial. The problems associated with renewable energy in the European Union have led some to speculate that it may be more economically efficient to rely upon imported gasoline as the main source of energy in the EU instead of expanding the use of renewable sources of power.

Although there are clearly many financial concerns involved in attempting to increase the size and capacity of the European Union’s electricity grids, I think that constructing and upgrading these grids is probably the best move for the EU in terms of creating sustainable energy. The projects will undoubtedly be expensive. There is no way around that. With government intervention and funding, however, it will be more than possible to finance the projects. The government is clearly somewhat responsible for pushing the idea of renewable energy production in the form of wind and solar power. It would therefore be irresponsible to leave all of the grid development to market forces without any funding being provided by the government. There is no reason why wind and solar energy must be lost due to a lack of grid availability. The increased capabilities of upgraded and expanded electricity grids will quickly pay for themselves. In addition, they will also allow the European Union to rely on more sustainable energy forms.

--Caitlin White

Let's all become farmers

An NYT blog linked to this site today, talking about the need for 100,000 farmers to join the field. If we're to be promoting organics, that number is going to go up: way up. We'll also have a need for a large number of new acres of farmland to be brought under cultivation. For all the evils that Michael Pollan and Alice Waters call our attention to food-wise relating to our current dependence on corn and the mass production of meat, we've enjoyed the benefits of cheap food for a long time. I wonder if the farm bill debate next year will move us away from that....

Is government regulation the best?

Many of the students in our resources class say that government regulation is better than either liability rules or private negotiation for dealing with large scale environmental issues, whether involving one large polluter or many small polluters. While I agree to an extent, here's a news flash: government regulation may or may not get the job done. I worked for a year or so for the Environmental League of Massachusetts examining implementation of that state's Toxics Use Reduction Act, and at least half of the work called for in that law had simply not happened. At the Federal level, "stuff" happens, too: here's an example from today's NYT that shows the EPA being overwhelmed by politics. How often do you think Congress acts based on the recommendations of experts, and when they do, how much of the time do you think Congressional acts get the job done? Sometimes they come through for us, but it's not easy to develop and implement effective policy!

Are Hybrids Worth it?

The 5 Year Equation

When buying a new vehicle and you’re looking to save some money, you could be better off buying the hybrid version of your vehicle. The comparison assumes you would own the vehicle for 5 years and commute about 12,000 miles a year. Comparing the Toyota Prius (44 MPG $22,950) and the Toyota Corolla LE (32 MPG $17,950), you would end up saving cash buying the Toyota Prius over the 5 year period. Gasoline would only have to average 80 cents a gallon and the Prius would still be cheaper. However, buying a hybrid won’t always save you money in the long run. If you shell out an extra $6,200 for the Lexus RX vs. its non-hybrid version the LX-350, gasoline would have to average $10.80 per gallon to break even. The hybrid version Lexus RX gets 26 MPG and the non-hybrid version gets 21MPG. The Ford Escape hybrid and the Toyota Camry hybrid break about even with their non-hybrid counterparts at more realistic gas prices of $3.60 per gallon and lower. Though money isn’t the only factor when you’re considering buying a hybrid, that “green” feeling you get for buying a more fuel efficient car has a certain price tag on it.

It’s always a good idea to compare prices of cars when shopping for a new car. If you want to save money in the long run I would definitely look into buying a hybrid. Just need to be careful because you could end up losing money in the long run if you don’t keep the car for very long or you over pay for a “greener” car. I can relate to this somewhat when I bought my new 2008 Nissan Sentra which averages 30 MPG between my trips to Towson and back. I could have bought the Nissan Versa for about $6,000-$7,000 cheaper though it only gets around 22 MPG and the car has lower safety ratings. It’s always going to be a trade off one way or the other. I plan on keeping my Sentra for 10 years so hopefully it will end up paying for itself because I like to be frugal with my hard earned money.

--David Hinson

Let's throw money at farmers

Column today in the NYT wants the government to "change subsidies" to encourage growing of fruits and vegetables, but I'm really not sure how the guy wants that to work. When I visited some vegetable farming operations in California, the farmers took pride in not receiving any subsidies, and they were going strong. In this age of budget cuts, if the powers that be manage to leave agricultural subsidies cold and dead on the ground, that would be great. No underpriced corn; no underpriced meat; no poor cotton growers in Africa or elsewhere priced out of the market by underpriced cotton, subsidized by the American taxpayer. Research (such as the USDA's ERS) and food safety systems should continue to be supported, perhaps by checkoffs (taxes on producers and perhaps processors) but billions can be cut from the budget in this area with impunity.

Sorry Mr. House

Economists explicitly compare the "value of a statistical life" against other values (while policymakers do it all the time implicitly) and in a recent NYT letter an author decries the horrors of, "people who have always been told they are of less value than the resources they live above."

While the human toll is certainly real, so, I would suggest, is the human benefit. It's not true that the people are of less value than any one thing in particular, and no one wants to see the people living in Appalachia killed off. However, if they sat on a resource worth millions of dollars that would help people get cheaper power for decades, would it be wrong to ask them to move? That's actually the situation they are in, and while the direct cost to a few makes for better copy than the incremental benefit to a large number of people, it's not as easy to put their claims above those of industry. Perhaps memorializing their loss in an outlet such as the NYT is the most fitting response.

What do you think? Am I an unfeeling, heartless villain?

Texaco fined in Illinois

The article states that the office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has reached an agreement with the owners of a former Texaco Inc. owned refinery for allegedly releasing oil and other hazardous materials into the surrounding environment near the location of the refinery before closing in 1995. Madigan was accompanied by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Illinois Environment Protection Agency in reaching the terms of the settlement. One aspect of the settlement is that Texaco is required to pay $1.7 million for the ecosystem restoration projects that will take place on and near the former refinery. Also, they must provide funding for the IDNR and the IEPA which will aid in the ecological restoration activities, groundwater management, and help pay the associated expenses. The third order of the settlement requires Texaco to transfer approximately 2300 acres (~3.5 mi²) of land south of the former refinery to the IDNR which is located in the Embarras River watershed. All funds accepted by these organizations go toward the restoration of the land which is expected to provide a great habitat for wetland animals.

As firms push to lower the costs of production, some tend to do so by cutting corners. I think the former owners of this refinery were doing just that when they decided to illegally release these harmful substances into their own environment. I think the problem is that some people either aren’t aware of the effects of pollution, or they just don’t care. I believe that they were rightfully penalized because as we interact with the environment, we need to be carefully preserving it while we benefit from its vast resources. The only part of the settlement that I would change is the amount of money that they were penalized. I feel as if $1.7 million isn’t enough because that money is being split into department expenses as well as the restoration projects so it looks like a lot at first until they reallocate the funds.

--Alex Roche