No place like... in a flood zone?

      There are currently 98+ homes being planned in Britain, some valued at one million dollars.  The only odd thing about these homes is that they are being planned in high-risk flood areas. 21% of all new London homes were built in high-risk areas as well.  The government is subsidizing these buildings through surcharge fees from current homeowners with flood insurance.  These low-risk homes are paying additional money so homes can be built in high-risk areas.  This pooling of flood risks is a key factor in why the National Flooding Insurance Program is in a $24 billion debt.  It is estimated that one in ten homes receive an insurance pay out that is worth more than their home is.  This higher insurance premium being pushed to those who are in low-risk areas may cause the low-risk homeowners to leave their current insurance. If they leave, low-risk homeowners will cause less subsidizing for these new homes in high-risk flood areas, which will not help the NFIP get out of their debt.
I do not see the point in building homes in a high risk area other than an insurance scheme.  Who are planning these homes?  From these articles, it seems to me that they are being privately planned and these private planners are playing a gambling game.  If there house is flooded they will cash out on their insurance pay out and until that flooding does occur they are living life in a decent home.  I believe policies should be implemented to restrict construction on known flood areas.  The land should be protected and not used as a residential area.

--Devon Le

Energy from the ocean?

      One proposed concept to produce sustainable energy is to develop ocean current technology and use it to produce electricity on a commercial scale. Harnessing ocean currents for energy is appealing because they are “relatively constant” and carry “a great deal of energy because of the density of water” (Ocean 2014). Due to this characteristic, ocean currents are more effective in comparison to wind energy, as ocean currents moving “12 mph exert the same amount of force as a constant 110 mph wind” (Ocean 2014).
While “small numbers of prototype and demonstration units have been tested” ocean current technology is still in the early stages of development (Report to Congress 2009). Florida is a likely candidate for this technology because it is “estimated that taking just 1/1000th the available energy from the Gulf Stream would supply Florida with 35% of its electrical needs” (Sniderman 2012). Engineers studying currents in Florida have also been able to develop a method to easily identify locations for turbines that will lead to the greatest economic gains.
As good as it sounds; this technology will take time to develop due to multiple obstacles in its way. Mainly, a lot of time and funding for research and development will be required and spending this money elsewhere might be more beneficial to society, such as using nuclear power. Developing nuclear power may be more effective because the technology is already well understood, and we may be able to rapidly evolve its safety measures with proper funding. Ocean current technology could also be wrapped up in politics for years as it goes through the rigors of being analyzed by environmental impact assessment reports. Even after overcoming these obstacles, ocean current technology will need to become capable of being reliable and easily maintained before it becomes a cost effective option for producers and consumers.
--Garrett Grubb

US Government's Oceans Policy

   In "A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans," Alexandra Adams examines the potential impact that the new fiscal budget will have on protection of our coastal communities and marine natural resources. The new budget for Fiscal Year 2015 indicates that the U.S Government will invest in protecting our coastal economies and preserving our valuable ocean resources. (Adams 2014). One of the organizations responsible for protecting our coastal economies and oceanic resources is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For fiscal year 2014, the “NOAA has proposed a budget of approximately $5.5 billion, an increase of 3.2% above the 2014 enacted funding” (Adams 2014).
    The NOAA proposed budget will be used for funding both effective ocean, coastal, and fisheries programs (Adams 2014). Unfortunately, some programs that are critical to protecting our ocean resources will not receive the funding they need to carry out their operations.  The Ocean Exploration and Research program is one of the vital programs that will be subject to a budget cut of approximately $7 million (Adams 2014).
    The budget cut for this program will lead to weaker protection for species and resources that are already under stress (Adams 2014). One of the areas being hurt as a result of the budget cuts is the deep canyons in the Atlantic Sea. The canyons and seamounts in the Atlantic have now become vulnerable to bottom trawling, seismic exploration, and oil and gas drilling (Cousteau 2011). Their vulnerability to such procedures is a direct result of recent development in technology. New developments in technology allow us to broaden our capability to explore the deep canyons (Cousteau 2011).
   Although the problems associates with recent exploration are destructive, it is extremely important to continue exploration of the oceans. A solution to some of the destructive contemporary exploration procedures would be to utilize technology with a less harmful effect on the ocean environment. Productive and efficient exploration is a necessary step towards maintaining our oceans health.  The question remains: what type of technology should be used to explore the undiscovered sections of the ocean? We should first invest our time and energy towards analyzing the sensitivity of these undiscovered areas of the ocean before we use potentially damaging means to explore. According to Alexandra Adams, a member of the National Resources Defense Council, "Moreover, with a national ocean economy that is larger than the entire U.S. farm sector in terms of jobs and economic output, keeping this economic powerhouse functioning matters to us all" (Adams 2014). The improvements made in the fiscal budget will provide extremely beneficial information to the U.S in the upcoming future.
--Nick DiSanti

Is Coal an Answer to the Fukushima Disaster?

In light of the terrible disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, Japan has had to find new ways to meet the energy needs of the country. On March 11, 2011, three of the nuclear plant’s reactors blew when the plant was hit by a tsunami that was triggered by the Tohoku earthquake. This nuclear disaster was the largest incident since Chernobyl and measured a level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale.
Since this disaster, Japan has been reluctant to produce much nuclear energy. According to the Wall Street Journal (class members: article posted on Blackboard under Readings), all 48 of the nuclear power plants in Japan are offline at the moment. Some regulators expect to see some of these plants activated again in the near future; Japan has also become a leader in coal imports globally (Iwata, 2014). It is currently the second largest importer of coal, right behind China and before India (Iwata, 2014). Japan currently imports about 85% of its energy requirements. Japan’s nuclear reactors were supposed to generate 40% of the country’s electricity around 2017, (an increase from the past rate of 30%.) However after the Fukushima disaster, these rates have been cut almost in half and there will be a longer process in place to gain clearance for restarting the 48 nuclear reactors in Japan.
Japan is in a tough situation in terms of where to go for energy. It is difficult to say whether Japan should reinstate the 48 reactors and begin producing nuclear energy again. If the disaster had not happened, Japan could currently be producing 40% of its energy domestically through nuclear plants. If the benefits of continuing with nuclear power outweigh the costs of another possible disaster, I would say to proceed. I personally do not believe that the road leading to coal is the best road to take, but I can understand the reluctance of Japan to jump back into nuclear energy. It seems to me that the best way for Japan to continue would be to use coal imports for short term relief while the nation decides whether or not to reinstate the nuclear reactors, and focus on more sustainable energy sources for the long term, like wind energy.

--Shelby Conrad

The Artificial Leaf

In this article, Jack Hitt discusses a new way to create energy, in a way that is similar to the process a tree would use to create energy.  This process uses light and water.  The creator of this source of energy has hopes that it will be in homes everywhere one day, helping homes become more energy efficient.  The whole idea is based off of photosynthesis, which everyone knows works to create energy/food for plants.  The process in more detail involves water that is exposed to light, a silicon strip is covered in catalysts which can break down the water so that on one side of the strip oxygen is bubbling up, and on the other hydrogen is being produced and then used as fuel.  The problem after that is what to do with the hydrogen.  A can of hydrogen won’t do anything; you need a fuel cell in order to actually utilize the hydrogen.  The problem ends up being that there isn’t enough technology available to the public that can actually use this new energy yet. There are a few auto companies that have developed hydrogen-powered vehicles but this is only the beginning.  Another concern is actually getting consumers prepared to use the new energy source. It isn’t like consumers are just buying fuel from a different company, since they have to change some patterns in their lives in order to use fuel cells.
This new energy has been under study for years already, but recently while researching ways to make it affordable and appealing to consumers, the natural gas and fracking business came into the picture. Hydrogen can also be produced from natural gas (harvested via fracking) but when it is there is also a CO2 byproduct. The artificial leaf does the same, minus the pollution factor.
Everything ultimately should come down to efficiency and whether or not it is economically feasible. Another article reviews the economics of the artificial leaf.  From a strictly environmental perspective there is a great benefit of using the leaf because it comes in just under the production of hydrogen from solar panels and electrolysis in price, $7 versus $6.50 per kilogram. However, obtaining hydrogen from fossil fuels only costs $1-2 per kilogram.  If coming from a strictly economical perspective it is a wasteful idea.  Environmentally the hydrogen from fossil fuels has harmful byproducts, so it is possible that the externalities could make it not worth the saved money. Personally I think the leaf should be taken into consideration for the future, but also I think more effort needs to be placed on finding a way to cleanly utilize fossil fuel produced hydrogen as well.  If the government or some other private organization could find a way to efficiently and cheaply use the hydrogen produced from fracking then I think there could be a benefit.  This isn’t changing the creation of harmful byproducts, but maybe the extra hydrogen being used can prevent some coal from being used.

--Jessica Krebs

Increasing Coal Production in Response to Natural Gas Price Hikes

According to the EIA, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, natural gas prices have been nearly double or triple in the last few months over their recent year's average. Since January of 2012 until January of 2014, natural gas prices have averaged between $2 and $4.50/MMBtu, but in the first three months of 2014, natural gas prices have risen drastically to between $4.50 and $8/MMBtu. The report says that due to the very cold winter that the entire U.S. experienced, the demand for natural gas heat went up, and thus the prices for natural gas rose.

This article reports on the happenings at Spring Creek Mine in Montana, which is owned by Cloud Peak Energy. The CEO of Cloud peak discusses that in recent years, production at the mine has been below the overall average from the life of the mine, but this winter, the mine was called upon to produce more coal in order to keep up with the demands of power plants in order to supply the energy for increased heating due to the polar vortex. But coal isn’t slated to lose it’s drive now that winter is coming to a close, coal prices are predicted to be around $2.36/MMBtu yearly average, while natural gas is predicted to be around $4.44/MMBtu, and people are interested in the “cleaner” low sulfur coal that is mined from the Spring Creek Mine. Foreign demand for American coal is also on the rebound now that economies around the world are starting to make a comeback from the global economic downturn, but currently, America is not prepared to export the predicted demands of coal due to lack of viable shipping ports.

I found it very interesting to see how natural gas and coal were substitute goods when demand for energy increased. It makes sense in concept, but to actually see the changes in demands graphically was useful. One of the major thoughts that I had when I finished reading the CNBC article and after comparing it to the EIA report, was the externalities of coal and natural gas, but mostly coal. While coal is predicted to trade around $2.36/MMBtu, around $2 cheaper than natural gas, will the negative externalities actually outweigh the upfront price paid? And while the demand for coal on the foreign market is gaining traction, is it worth expanding the coal shipping industry or would expanding other export industries have a lessened environmental impact on both a local and a global scale? I personally think that calling lower sulfur coal “cleaner” does a disservice to the public on a level around that which calling cigarettes “light” creates the belief that they are healthier. 

--Tom Scalley

CAFE: not so great?

We talked about how improving vehicle gas mileage can cause problems, including the "rebound effect" by which people will drive more when driving is cheaper. Another issue has been uncovered by researchers Mark Jacobsen and Arthur van Benthem: they find that people keep their used cars longer and drive them more when newer cars become more expensive. They conclude that 12-17% of the expected savings from CAFE standards may disappear via this means.