<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>KQED&#039;s Climate Watch &#187; energy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/tag/energy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch</link>
	<description>KQED&#039;s multimedia series providing in-depth coverage of climate-related science and policy issues from a California perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:37:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://kqed.superfeedr.com"/>		<item>
		<title>Thinking Long-Term About Power Plants</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/19/thinking-long-term-about-power-plants/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/19/thinking-long-term-about-power-plants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 00:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Watch Correspondent</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural gas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=21289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new report warns against the folly of over-investing in natural gas <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/19/thinking-long-term-about-power-plants/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>A new report warns against the folly of over-investing in natural gas</strong></p>
<p>By Thibault Worth</p>
<div id="attachment_21292"  class="wp-caption module image left" style="width: 285px;"><img class="size-medium wp-image-21292" title="powerplant2_stack100108" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/powerplant2_stack100108-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="285" height="213" /><p class="wp-media-credit">Craig Miller/KQED</p><p class="wp-caption-text">As the nation&#039;s power plants age, a new report warns against relying too much on natural gas.</p></div>
<p>The nation&#8217;s power plants are aging. An increasing number require replacement parts; others can&#8217;t keep up with new environmental regulations.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/practicing-risk-aware-electricity-regulation">A report released today</a> [PDF] by the Boston-based think tank <a href="http://www.ceres.org/">Ceres</a> estimates that in the next two decades, up to $100 billion will be invested in the electric utility industry every year – twice the amount invested in recent years.</p>
<p>According to the report, that boom in investment will take place in a shifting regulatory environment. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/">Air pollution</a> and greenhouse gas restrictions will increase, and fossil fuel-burning power plants will have to keep up. Governments are setting requirements for energy from renewable sources. (California, for example, is targeting a <a href="http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/">33% renewable energy ratio by 2020</a>.) Smart grids and new consumer technologies are changing how people think about energy production and consumption.</p>
<p>The good news is that the industry is growing, and will have an unprecedented chance to clean up its act. The bad – or cautionary – news is that state regulators will face increasingly complex investment challenges and pressures to make short-term fixes when they need to be thinking long-term.</p>
<p>A prime example is the recent expansion of the natural gas-fired power plant fleet across the country. Public utilities and private energy companies have been applying for permits to build natural gas power plants in record numbers, in part because of the current low cost of natural gas, in part because many regulators believe they are a solution to the inherent fluctuations in renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. But over-investment in natural gas would be a “folly” says Denise Furey, a co-author of the Ceres study.</p>
<p>“The problem with natural gas is that it is a commodity and subject to price fluctuations.”</p>
<p>If the price of natural gas goes up, so will electricity prices for consumers. And we’ll be stuck with a bunch of fossil fuel-burning plants that contribute to climate change.</p>
<p>The report’s authors say it is important that state regulators remain risk-aware, and diversify energy baskets over the long term.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/04/19/thinking-long-term-about-power-plants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2012/04/powerplant2_stack100108-300x225.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">powerplant2_stack100108</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fast-Forward: What the New Fuel Economy Standard Will Mean to You</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Ayers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=16587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Talking turkey: 54.5 mpg = Another $17 in your pocket this weekend. <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Talking turkey: 54.5 MPG = Another $17 in your pocket this weekend</strong></p>
<div id="attachment_16773"  class="wp-caption module image aligncenter" style="width: 450px;"><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/la-405-n-traffic-3-2/" rel="attachment wp-att-16773"><img class="size-full wp-image-16773" title="LA 405 N traffic 3" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/LA-405-N-traffic-31.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="167" /></a><p class="wp-media-credit">Kimberly Ayers</p><p class="wp-caption-text">This morning&#039;s commute, 405 North, Los Angeles</p></div>
<p>If we all were driving cars that averaged the newly announced federal standard for fuel efficiency, Californians would save $34.9 million this Thanksgiving weekend. At least, those are the numbers from a report released today In Culver City by <a href="http://http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/newsroom/energy/energy-program-news/clean-car-standards-would-save-california-drivers-34-million-on-thanksgiving-travel">Environment California.</a> That $17 per family spells another four holiday pies or a few more lattes on the way home. Put that slice of information on your Christmas list &#8212; not for this year but for 2025. Even with the usual exemptions and provisions, the <a title="Reuters - story" href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/16/us-obama-autos-idUSTRE7AF2OP20111116">new standard announced</a> by the Obama administration would still effectively almost double the average gas mileage for a carmaker&#8217;s fleet in those 14 years.</p>
<p>Plenty of people believe that this move will be good for business, not the least of which are the 13 automakers and the head of the United Auto Workers union who stood with President Obama when he announced the proposed standards last July.</p>
<div id="attachment_16771"  class="wp-caption module image right" style="width: 300px;"><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/nissan-leaf-chargin-at-helms-bakery-culver-city-ca/" rel="attachment wp-att-16771"><img class="size-full wp-image-16771" title="Nissan Leaf charging at Helms Bakery, Culver City, CA" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/Nissan-Leaf-chargin-at-Helms-Bakery-Culver-City-CA.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" /></a><p class="wp-media-credit">Kimberly Ayers</p><p class="wp-caption-text">Electric cars, like this Nissan Leaf, will be part of the solution to bring a fleet&#039;s average up to 54.5 mpg.</p></div>
<p>Ceres, a national coalition of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups, says the new standard would create more than <a href="http://http://www.ceres.org/press/press-releases/more-jobs-per-gallon">57,000 new jobs in California.</a> Their economic model suggests that money saved on gas will get spent elsewhere in the economy, boosting job growth not only in the auto industry but also in retail, health care, food services, construction and even education. Come next month, the new standards will get another Golden State &#8220;goose&#8221; when the <a href="http://http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=250">Air Resources Board </a>proposes that 15% of the new cars and small trucks sold in the state will have to be powered by batteries, fuel cells or some other low-emission technology by 2025.</p>
<p>Fifty-four miles per gallon is not as far out of reach as you might think. At the <a title="LA Auto Show - main" href="http://www.laautoshow.com/">L.A. Auto Show</a> this week, <a href="http://http://laautoshow.com/GreenCars.aspx">close to 20 out of the 50 new vehicle debuts</a> boast 40+ MPG. The National Automobile Dealers Association has criticized the new rules, saying it would tack another $4,000 onto the average price of a car. The Ceres study pegs the price jump at more like $3,200, and it also calculates a low-end savings estimate of $4,900 at the pump over the life of a 2025 vehicle. Electrics are part of the picture but still need work to be widely adopted, says <a href="http://http://www.npr.org/2011/11/21/142464818/can-electric-cars-help-automakers-reach-55-mpg">a new NPR series</a> that started today. Nissan&#8217;s Leaf gets around 100 miles per charge, maybe not quite enough to get you &#8220;over the river and through the woods.&#8221; Plenty of food for thought along with your turkey and stuffing, and something to dream about besides sugar plums.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/21/fast-forward-what-the-new-fuel-economy-standard-will-mean-to-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/LA-405-N-traffic-31.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">LA 405 N traffic 3</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/Nissan-Leaf-chargin-at-Helms-Bakery-Culver-City-CA.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Nissan Leaf charging at Helms Bakery, Culver City, CA</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>International Agency Issues Dire Warning</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/15/international-agency-issues-dire-warning/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/15/international-agency-issues-dire-warning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:58:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>California Watch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warming]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=16573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The International Energy Agency warned that we are on the path to 11-degree warming if we don’t curb emissions now. <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/15/international-agency-issues-dire-warning/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_16574"  class="wp-caption module image left" style="width: 285px;"><img class="size-medium wp-image-16574" title="navajo" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/navajo-300x300.jpg" alt="" width="285" height="285" /><p class="wp-media-credit">Gretchen Weber</p><p class="wp-caption-text">Navajo Generating Station, near Page, AZ</p></div>
<p>By<a title="View user profile." href="http://californiawatch.org/user/susanne-rust"> Susanne Rust</a></p>
<p>Just as the federal government released its annual index of greenhouse gases, showing a steady increase over the past 21 years, the International Energy Agency warned that we are on the path to 11-degree warming if we don’t curb emissions now.</p>
<p>“Delaying action is a false economy: For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would be needed to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions,” the authors of the energy agency report wrote in their <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/">2011 World Energy Outlook</a>.</p>
<p>Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released<a href="http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/"> its annual accounting </a>of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The index showed a 29 percent increase over levels recorded in 1990, the agency&#8217;s baseline year, as established by the Kyoto protocol. </p>
<p>“The increasing amounts of long-lived greenhouse gases in our atmosphere indicate that climate change is an issue society will be dealing with for a long time,” said Jim Butler, director of the Global Monitoring Division of NOAA&#8217;s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.</p>
<p>Butler says you have to think of this number not as a predictor, but more like a dial on an electric blanket. You know that if you turn the dial up, the blanket will get warmer. You may not feel the warmth immediately, but it will get warmer – just how warm, you don&#8217;t know.</p>
<p>One of the more striking findings in the agency&#8217;s report includes the increase in methane found in the atmosphere. The level of that gas has increased in the last four years, after holding steady for more than a decade. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.</p>
<p>Butler said that increase is likely attributable to the thawing of permafrost and an increase of methane escaping from tropical areas.</p>
<p>“Climate warming has the potential to affect most aspects of society, including water supplies, agriculture, ecosystems and economies,&#8221; said Butler, who added that his agency will continue to monitor these gases &#8220;into the future to further understand the impacts on our planet.”</p>
<p>His warning was echoed by the International Energy Agency, which said “rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change.”</p>
<p>Joe Romm, former assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Energy and now editor of the blog <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/09/364895/iea-global-warming-delaying-action-is-a-false-economy/">Climate Progress,</a> said the International Energy Agency “is one of the few organizations in the world with a sophisticated enough global energy model to do credible … projections of the cost of different emissions pathways and the costs of delaying efforts to achieve them.”</p>
<p>He said the key point of the report is that in the 2020s, “the world is going to be considerably more desperate than we are now. The evidence of human-caused climate change will be difficult for all but the most extreme deniers to ignore.”</p>
<p>He added that superstorms, like the one in Alaska last week, “will increasingly just be the normal weather – and we’ll start to see what really extreme weather is like.”</p>
<p><em>This post also appears at </em><em><a href="http://californiawatch.org/">California Watch</a></em>, a content partner of <em>Climate Watch</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/11/15/international-agency-issues-dire-warning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/11/navajo-300x300.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">navajo</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The True Price of Gasoline</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/06/13/the-true-price-of-gasoline/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/06/13/the-true-price-of-gasoline/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:30:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Craig Miller</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pollution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=13381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's even higher than you think. <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/06/13/the-true-price-of-gasoline/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>It&#8217;s even higher than you think</strong></p>
<p>With the price of gas hovering near $4.00 per gallon (still almost a buck more than a year ago, despite the recent retreat), most Californians are already in &#8220;station shock.&#8221;</p>
<p>But what does gas actually cost?  There&#8217;s the price at the pump, sure, but what about the hidden costs of pollution in terms of health and the environment?</p>
<p>The Center for Investigative Reporting takes us along on the journey that a gallon of gas makes, from oil field to gas tan, keeping a tally along the way.</p>
<p><iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/hKxHgsGiSgI.html" width="480" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#hKxHgsGiSgI"></embed></p>
<p><em><a href="http://californiawatch.org/">California Watch</a>, at the Center for Investigative Reporting is a content partner of KQED and Climate Watch.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/06/13/the-true-price-of-gasoline/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Report: Solar Panels Boost Home Prices</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/04/22/report-solar-panels-boost-home-prices/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/04/22/report-solar-panels-boost-home-prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:09:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Shuka Kalantari</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Government & Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renewables]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/?p=12364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab could help California's homeowners decide whether or not to "go solar." <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/04/22/report-solar-panels-boost-home-prices/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_12367"  class="wp-caption module image alignleft" style="width: 285px;"><img class="size-medium wp-image-12367" title="2008_07_22DIY green houses Radio Still Image Originals_SOLAR THERMAL west oakland (62)" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/04/2008_07_22DIY-green-houses-Radio-Still-Image-Originals_SOLAR-THERMAL-west-oakland-62-e1303455978337-285x262.jpg" alt="" width="285" height="262" /><p class="wp-caption-text">Photo: Shuka Kalantari</p></div>
<p>A new study from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab could help California&#8217;s homeowners decide whether or not to &#8220;go solar.&#8221;  Researchers found that on average, homeowners who recently installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels recouped most or all of their investment when they sold their homes.</p>
<p>“A house that has a PV system compared to a house that doesn’t have a PV system is expected to sell for more,” said Ben Hoen, the lead researcher on the study and a principal research associate at Berkeley Lab. “This is for systems that are relatively new &#8211; between 1.5 to 2.5 years old.”</p>
<p>Neal DeSnoo, an energy program officer at the City of Berkeley Office of Energy and Sustainable Development, said the average Berkeley homeowner keeps their home for only six years, so he suspects many hesitate to make such a costly investment. This study, he said, may sway their opinion.</p>
<p>“The fact that solar installations are reflected in home values is important,” DeSnoo said.  “It would make people more willing to make an up front investment if they know they could get the cash out when they do sell it.”</p>
<p>DeSnoo said the study is a step towards reducing greenhouse gases for Berkeley, which has a goal of reducing emission 33 percent by 2020.</p>
<p>Billi Romain, the sustainability coordinator for the Berkeley Office of Energy and Sustainable Development, said she hopes the study will also sway home appraisers.</p>
<p>“It all depends on the property appraisers, whether or not they acknowledge the property value of solar panels,” said Romain. “If a study comes out that says there is a premium for solar, appraisers are more likely to accept that.”</p>
<p><a href="http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-4476e.pdf"><em>Read the full report</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2011/04/22/report-solar-panels-boost-home-prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/files/2011/04/2008_07_22DIY-green-houses-Radio-Still-Image-Originals_SOLAR-THERMAL-west-oakland-62-e1303455978337-285x262.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">2008_07_22DIY green houses Radio Still Image Originals_SOLAR THERMAL west oakland (62)</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
