2011 Final Recommendations from Keystone National Youth Policy Summit

8/4/2019 2011 Final Recommendations from Keystone National Youth Policy Summit

1/82

Naonal Energy Innovaon

Final Student Policy

RecommendaonsJune 11-18, 2011

Keystone, CO


2/82


AboutYouthPolicySummit

About Youth Policy Summit

The power ofYouth Policy Summitlies in the ambion of its alumni. Young women

and men come to the Summits as students, curious and ready to learn. They leave, aer a

week of intensive study and collaboraon, acve and inspired cizens of their local

communies, our naon, and the world.

In June 2011, The Keystone Centerfacilitated a Summit in Keystone, Colorado for

thirty-nine high school students from ten different schools around the country. Students

were challenged to develop consensus-based policy recommendaons for the future of our

naonal energy use.

Prior to arriving at the Summit, the students conducted research into divergent

stakeholder groups and various aspects of the energy puzzle. In June of 2011, studentsspent a week ardently discussing the possibilies for sustainable soluons to meet current

and future energy demands in our country. Parcipants took stock of the larger social,

technical, educaonal, environmental, polical, legal and economic problems and shared

their own research to priorize issues and opons.They interacted with leaders in the fields

of energy, government, and the non-profit sector who are acvely grappling with these

same issues day to day.

With guidance from professional educators and facilitators from Keystones Center

for Educaon and Center for Science and Public Policy, students created viable soluons to

a problem that is confounding policy makers naonally. This report represents the results

of the students deliberaons: a wrien set of recommendaons that will be shared with

leaders in educaon, policy, energy, youth development and government.

These young leaders received training and pracce in skills essenal for the 21st

century work force such as crical thinking, creavity, leadership, negoaon, and

innovaon. Freshly aware of their own potenal for leadership and change, the students are

inspired to take their recommendaons to leaders in their own communies, demonstrang

the undeniable power of working together.

Since 2004, The Keystone Center has conducted YPS programs for over 600 young

leaders from 24states across the naon. Topics focus on current issues facing our naon in

the areas of energy, environment and public health. With eight Summits planned across the

naon for 2012, we encourage teachers, students, private and public organizaons and

government leaders to visit www.youthpolicysummit.orgto learn about opportunies

available in your region.


3/82


Table

ofContents

Table of ContentsOverview of Student Research 5

Introducon 8

Policy Timeline 9

Oil & Natural Gas Regulaons 13

Reducing Dependency on Foreign Oil 19

Coal Policy 25

Renewable Energy Policy 32

Sustainable Cies Policy 39

Buildings Efficiency Policy 47

Transportaon Policy 55

Energy Educaon Policy 64

Conclusion 70

Works Cited 71

Photo Collage 76

Acknowledgements 78


4/82


YPS opened my eyes to the realworld. Not every one will agree

with you, but compromise and

negoaon can relieve the

tension. Take the iniave tonegoate; change is not

impossible. -Naonal 2011 YPS Parcipant

I

L

S


5/82


StudentResearch

Overview of Student Research

The Groups Task

What should be done, and by whom, to bring about the changes necessary to

meet the growing energy demand, while simultaneously growing the

workforce and significantly liming the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Parcipants should consider three me frames: near-term (4-8 years), mid-

term (10-20 years), and long term (up to 50 years).

To begin answering these quesons, students were asked to research the following energy

topics prior to their arrival at the Summit. As a group, the parcipants became experts on the

current issues, barriers and opportunies that exist for energy use across the United States.

Buildings Efficiency

Fossil Fuels I: Oil

Fossil Fuels II: Natural Gas

Fossil Fuels III: Coal & Carbon Capture and Storage

Nuclear Power

Renewable Energy I: Solar & Wind

Renewable Energy II: Biomass & Geothermal

Transportaon I: Alternave Fuels

Transportaon II: Public, Private, Commercial, Industrial


6/82


StudentResearch STEEPLE Analysis

To broaden the depth of their research, students worked in groups to perform a STEEPLEanalysis of each research topic listed on page 5.

SocialIncludes cultural aspects, demographic differences, environmental jusce (are some

impacted more than others).

TechnologicalIncludes the rate of technological change and impacts from research and development.

Educaon/ Workforce DevelopmentCurrent educaon and training opportunies, and what is needed to meet growing energy

demands and new jobs.

EnvironmentalEncompasses all impacts on the environment, including air and water quality, and impacts

from climate change.

PolicalDescribes how, and to what degree, government should intervene in the economy and

society.

LegalThe laws of the land, including environmental, as well as health and safety and discriminaon

laws and regulaons.

EconomicIncludes economic growth, inflaon and taxes.


7/82


StudentResearch

Stakeholder Assignments

In addion to their energy research topics, each student was asked to represent the interests

of an important stakeholder involved in the energy conversaon.

Non-Governmental Organizaons (NGOs) composed of environmental groups,

consumer advocacy groups, coalions and social jusce groups who are non

profits, including academia, educaon and research instuons.

Government, including federal, state and local government agencies.

Industry,including corporaons and organizaons that are in the energy

producon or transmission sector, provide engineering services or

manufacturing for energy sector or who are large consumers of energy.

Stakeholder List

1. Non-Governmental Organizaons:Alliance to Save Energy

American Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy (ACEEE)

American Solar Energy Society (ASES)

Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC)

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Union of Concerned Sciensts

U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG)

Sierra Club

2. Government:Army Energy Program

Naonal Associaon of Regulatory Ulity

Commissioners (NARUC)

Naonal Associaon of State Energy Officials

(NASEO)

Naonal Governors Associaon (NGA)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Railroad Commission of Texas

U.S. Conference of Mayors

U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EE-

RE)

U.S. Department of LaborEmployment and

Training Administraon (ETA)

U.S. Department of TransportaonResearch

and Innovave Technology Administraon

(RITA), Office of Research, Development &

Technology

U.S. Environmental Protecon AgencyOffice of

Transportaon and Air Quality (EPA/OTAQ)

U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)

3. Industry:American Coalion for Clean Coal Electricity

(ACCCE)

American Petroleum Instute

American Society of Heang, Refrigerang and

Air-Condioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Constellaon EnergyDelphi

Exelon Corporaon

Exxon Mobil Corporaon

FedEx

Ford

General Electric Energy

General Motors

Interstate Natural Gas Associaon (INGAA)

Ormat Technologies, Inc.

Owens Corning

Southern Company

SunPower Corporaon

Vestas

Vulcan Materials


8/82


Introducon

Introducon

The 2011 Youth Policy Summit in Keystone, Colorado convened from the 11th to the

18th of June to discuss climate change and the energy future of America. Students were

assigned different energy sources and concerned organizaons, or stakeholders, in industry,

government and advocacy to research. These stakeholders ranged from environmental acon

groups such as the Sierra Club to the powerful industrial Ford Motor Company, to the Texas

Railroad Commissioner. They were represented by both the students and, in part, by members

of a panel that spent a day with us, answering quesons and addressing concerns. We, the

students, came prepared to discuss energy standards and policies and put forward

recommendaons for energy legislaon for the next 50 years and on.

Aer much debate and the brainstorming of ideas, issues and proposals, our group

narrowed the many topics discussed down to the following eight areas, based on our

individual stakeholder perspecves. Students went in depth and gave policy recommendaons

on clean transportaon methods, improved building efficiency, reducing Americas

dependency on foreign oil, regulang the oil and natural gas industries, creang sustainable

cies, boosng the use of renewable energies, liming the negave effects of the coal

industry, and improving public awareness of energy resources through educaon.

Through focusing on these eight areas, we hope to reduce overall emissions while

keeping the U.S. economy thriving. We have deemed them among the most pressing and

important of the many energy and climate issues facing the United States and the world, and

have come away with improved cooperaon and mediaon skills, as well as enhanced

understanding of the issues our generaon has to face, today and in the future.


9/82


PolicyTimeline

Timeline for Final Policy Recommendaons

NOW:

Government funding for CCS technology. Begin encouraging coal companies to start retrofing their plants with clean coal

technology (oxy-fuel, CCS, etc.) with moderate taxaon and sufficient grants.

Provide the military with new technologies pertaining to renewable energy for tesng.

Research into hydrogen and advocate for natural gas fuel in shipping industry.

Government offers incenves and loans for airlines and airplane manufacturers invesng

in and working on hydrogen aircra and boats.

Government advocates for Naonal Maglev Network.

Start retrofing exisng buildings to minimum LEED green cerfied.

2015:

Limit permits allowed for mountain top removal.

Avoidable tax on emissions from coal plants begins.

United States energy source is to be 10% renewable energy.

Widespread introducon to recycling programs, start educang the public in major

metropolitan areas.

New government buildings built in 2015 or aer must be minimum LEED silver cerfied.

New Fortune 500 buildings built in 2015 or aer must be minimum LEED silver cerfied.

Evaluaon of gas staons to be supplemented with hydrogen fueling staons in major

metropolitan areas.

All U.S schools to have educaon on all forms of energy integrated into science and

history classes.

Have up and coming renewable energy companies provide technical job training and

retraining for current and new workers.

Increase the number of energy internships on the high school and college level.

Company sponsorship for new educaon programs on a greater scale.

All schools must be in the process of acquiring a later specified LEED cerficaon. Reducon of greenhouse gases begins.

2018:

5% of gas staons in metropolitan areas supply hydrogen fuels.

2020:

Reducon of greenhouse gases 2%.


10/82


PolicyTim

eline

0

Carbon emissions are reduced by ten percent.


10% of all buildings in US net-zero.

2021:

Hydrogen powered cars start becoming affordable to upper middle class.

2025:


(oponal) Add a fourth year of science to high school curriculums and/or increase the

number of environmental elecves available.

Mountain top removal permits have stopped being issued.

Mass producon of hydrogen-fueled public transportaon in major metropolitan areas.

Implement recycling programs throughout major metropolitan areas.

At least 5% of gas staons supplemented with hydrogen fueling staons in major

metropolitan areas.

Increase funding from TBD to support outdoor educaon and citywide service projects

(similar to the Bayou Land Conservancy).

University compeons for presge relang to renewable energy economically supported

by the government.

Increase the availability of energy jobs and have more workers in energy fields.

2027:

Government funding for CCS research stops.

CCS technology becomes an independent venture.

2030:


All Fortune 500 companies headquarters at least LEED silver cerfied.

20% of all buildings in US net-zero.

Carbon emissions by coal are reduced by 40%.

CCS technology becomes 60% efficient.

Very light taxes imposed on kerosene (jet fuel), increasing gradually. Taxes begin being imposed on gasoline powered cars.

Naonal Maglev Network completed.

75% of gasoline staons in major cies/metropolitan areas also provide hydrogen fuel.



11/82


PolicyTimeline

2031:

Mountain top removal becomes illegal and all MTR sites rere by end of the year.

2035:


Hydrogen-fueled public transportaon implemented throughout major metropolitan

areas.

Evaluaon of what percentage of gas staons need to be supplemented or converted into

hydrogen fueling centers in major metropolitan areas.

80% of schools to be LEED cerfied at the silver level at least.

Schools built in years up to 2010 to be LEED cerfied at the green level at least.

University compeons should have government funding minimally.

All states have a workforce training program for renewable energy similar to Californias

Clean Energy Workforce Training Program (CEWTP).

2040:



All coal plants are retrofied with CCS technology.

35% all buildings in US net-zero.

25% old (built before 2015) government buildings retrofied to achieve at least LEED

green standard.

2045:


All commercial ships being produced run on nuclear or hydrogen fuel; retrofing is

available to older ships.

100% of fuel staons in major cies/metropolitan areas supply hydrogen.

50% of federal buildings in metropolitan areas are net zero.

50% of all waste is either recycled or composted in major metropolitan areas.

40% of tailpipe emissions are eliminated in major metropolitan areas.

All schools built aer the year 2011 to be LEED cerfied at the silver or gold level. All state schools have an environmental studies program including renewable energy,

science, and engineering.

2050:


Kerosene taxes stop rising at 10%.


12/82


PolicyTim

eline

2

Carbon emissions by coal reduced by 55%.



2055:

Public transportaon will run completely on hydrogen-fuel in major metropolitan areas.

Halt producon of gasoline fueled public transportaon in major metropolitan areas.

Have a form of renewable energy powering 85% of school campuses to be used as a

learning tool of renewable resources that are region specific.

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 51%.

2060:


Carbon emissions from coal plants are reduced by 75%.

Most airplanes are powered by hydrogen.

Taxes on gasoline powered cars are capped at 20%; producon of gasoline powered cars

stops.

99% of all fuel staons supply hydrogen fuel.

80% hydrogen cars, 15% renewable cars (can include Hydrogen), 5% fossil fuel cars.

100% of federal buildings in metropolitan areas to be net zero.

90% producon of non-toxic and biodegradable materials in major metropolitan areas.

80% of all waste is recycled or composted in major metropolitan areas.

90% of tailpipe emissions are eliminated in major metropolitan areas. United States energy source to be 60% renewable energy.

Grant money given for renewable energy research to be doubled to 10 billion dollars

( this goal will be reached by increasing the grant money every 5 years).


Ulity companies in each state will produce 60% renewable energy.


13/82

Naonal Energy InnovaonOil&Natur

alGasRegulaons

Oil & Natural Gas Regulaons

Main Points:

Problem: Fossil fuel emissions need to be reduced over the next 50 years as they are re-

placed with renewable sources of energy.

Goal: Reach 60% reducon in emissions by 2060.

Create stricter regulaons on hazardous chemicals in well sites.

Plan: Implement a cap and trade system with imposed penalty if exceeded. Penalty money

would go into grant fund, given to help companies that want to expand their new green

technologies.

The burning of fossil fuels has been taking place in mulple applicaons. The

Industrial Revoluon, beginning around 1770, brought about the use of large quanes of

fossil fuels to power machinery, transportaon devices and factories (Berlanstein). In 1887,

oil was discovered in the state of Pennsylvania, and since then coal, oil and other fossil fuels

(high-carbon substances formed from buried and fossilized organisms over millions of years)

have been humankinds primary source of energy for heat, light, transportaon and

manufacturing, as well as a necessary ingredient for many synthec industrial materials.

The burning of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous

oxide (N2O), among other compounds, which are known collecvely as greenhouse gases

(Top 5 List of Greenhouse Gases). These

cause many environmental problems,

foremost among which is the greenhouse

effect, by which these gases in the

atmosphere insulate the earth, trapping

heat on the earths surface and raising the

Earths average temperature (see Image

1 ). Many fuel acquision processes, such

as some coal mining and oil drilling

pracces, are harmful as well. \Image 1. The Greenhouse Effect. Muchapedias Greenhouse Effect

Page. hp://www.muchapedia.com/greenhouse-effect.html.


14/82


Oil&NaturalGas

Regulaons

4

Nitrous and sulfurous oxides and dioxides, emied from burning coal and other fossil fuels,

form acids in water, creang problems with acid rain and levels of polluon in general. These,

along with many other negave environmental effects, are raising enormous concern in the

global community.

There are many approaches to addressing the issue, from the use of more renewable

energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, and dal and biofuels, to more efficient

fossil fuel burning vehicles and appliances, to the capture and sequestraon of carbon

emissions. However, change is slow and emissions polluon connues to increase. This is

largely due to the current inexpensiveness of fossil fuels compared with new renewable

technologies, and to the enormous power and wealth of the corporaons and governments

which rely upon and support the connuaon of coal, oil and natural gas as the earths, and

Americas, primary energy source.

Before 2015, the governmental energy agencies, such as the EPA and EIA specifically,

should set the cap for greenhouse gas emissions. The oil and gas companies will be informed

of these new standards. Then, the federal government will issue permits to all of these

companies based on their amount of producon, and funcon, which will dictate how much

greenhouse gas emissions the company can produce. If companies dont produce as many

greenhouse gases as alloed, then they can sell their excess greenhouse gases to other

companies. This provides addional incenves for the companies to produce fewer emissions,

because that will allow them to generate internal revenue. At the same me, it keeps the

greenhouse gas emission constant among the industry.

Furthermore, the penalty should be at a constant $15 for every metric ton of

greenhouse emissions. Starng in the year 2015 to the end of 2020, the cap on the amount of

greenhouse gases emied will be reduced 2% from the amount of greenhouse gases emied

in 2010. Then aer every 5 years, the percent of reducon will be incrementally increased.

The revenue from these penales will be available to oil and natural gas companies as grant

money toward the use of more efficient fuel-burning technology; reducons in the quanes

of fuel burned by using more alternave fuels, such as renewable sources; carbon capture and

sequestraon technologies as they become industrially feasible; and research and


15/82


alGasRegulaons

development into the field of non-petroleum based plascs. In order to get the grants, the

companies will have to propose the best research idea to a panel of non-biased experts, in a

diverse field from business to environmental sciences experts, which would change every five

years.

Every year the federal government will make the oil and natural gas companies publish

how much greenhouse gas is produced. If they refuse or falsify evidence there will be a

severe penalty. Every 15 years, EPA along with the board of experts will use the gathered

informaon to do analysis and evaluaon of the cap and trade system. They will be allowed to

change the percentage of reducon by a marginal difference of 3%.

Who is affected: Consumers:

This policys impact on consumers will not be immediately beneficial. In fact, it is likely

that, while the oil and gas industries establish more efficient technologies and carbon capture

and sequestraon techniques and renewable energy is phased in by increased demand, the

price of gasoline and electricity will rise. Furthermore, the Obama Administraon said that

$13 per ton, energy companies and ulies would likely pass along the added cost to

consumers. Its esmated the price of gasoline would go up by 12 cents a gallon and the

Year Percent Reduction

20202%

2025 6%

203011%

203517%

204023%

204531%

205040%

205551%

206062%

Chart 1 & Graph 1: Timeline of Greenhouse Gas Reducons


16/82


Oil&NaturalGas

Regulaons

6

average electricity bill by about 7% naonally (Carey). However, facilitang sustainable and

affordable energy for the future is the goal, and without sacrifice Americas energy industry

will remain married to and dominated by non-ecological and increasingly expensive fossil

fuels. Also, the proposal to give grant money back to the industries will allow them to meet

their goals more easily, so the consumers will not feel as much of a burden (Cap and Trade

definion Ecomii Ecopedia).

Workers:

The other obvious short term vicms of this stratagem are the oil and natural gas

industrys employees and corporaons. While jobs may be lost in the reducon of burned

fuels and the corresponding drop in emission levels, more will be created by the new

necessity for efficiency and the facilitang technology. These new jobs will be funded in part

by the grant money from the penalty taxes. The financial effects of this policy will be spread

across the industry through the expense of paying penales for overstepping the emissions

boundaries. As oil and natural gas companies are forced to become more

efficient, there will be a larger demand for high-skill level jobs in order to install efficient

machinery.

Industry:

Although there are penales to the cap and trade system for companies that exceed

the cap, it also offers business execuves more certainty about future energy

costs (Carey). Furthermore, the penales would internalize the costs, meaning that they

pay for what they produce.

Foreign Policy:

In addion, China and India, ranking first and fourth respecvely in annual

greenhouse gas emissions, will not agree to binding limits as long as America is not making

a conscious effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Carey). If China and India do not

agree to these limits, they refuse to keep the internaonal playing field level, which will in

turn hurt the American companies (Carey).


17/82


alGasRegulaons

Public Health:

As oil and natural gas are drilled, hazardous chemicals are released. Pollutants such

as mercury, hydrogen sulfide, polycyclic aromac hydrocarbons, volale organic

compounds-toulene, etc. (VOC), and radioacve substances are all being released. Wepropose that certain policies should be revised to specifically include the petroleum and nat-

ural gas industries, and increase the efficiency of the current legislaon that regulates the

safety measures for chemicals released at well sites. For example, the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensaon, and Liability Act defends the public from spills and

leaks that may contain carcinogenic materials on well sites (CERCLA Overview). Although, in

Geauga County in Colorado, within two months of drilling for gas, the homes of over two

dozen families had to be evacuated, because gas was placed in their water wells

(EARTHWORKS). Also, in Alabama, aer an oil and gas company released hazardous

chemicals in March 2006, such as hydrogen sulfide, which is a potenally deadly gas, the res-

idents of Old Stage Road in Conecuh County noced a thick, unidenfied foamy

substances in water they say is connected to their water wells. Although the company was

fined for the release of the chemicals, the Alabama Department of Environmental

Management never followed through with an invesgaon into the water wells

(EARTHWORKS).

Addionally, hydraulic fracturing should be regulated and an alternave to diesel in

the process should be found under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Moreover, the Resource

Conservaon and Recovery Act should make sure that the waste from the hazardous

chemicals produced from oil and gas development is disposed of properly, so the industry

will not connue to pollute the soil or ground water. Not only will the polluon destroy the

environment; the bio magnificaon will harm human health (Bioaccumulaon & Bio magnifi-

caon). Thus, the health of the general public in America will benefit from these new

revisions.The Waxman-Markey Bill was passed in June 2009 in the United States House of

Representaves, but the bill never made it to the Senate. The Bill proposed a cap and trade

system on the amount of carbon dioxide emied by all industries (Cap and Trade definion


18/82


Oil&NaturalGas

Regulaons

8

Ecomii Ecopedia). The bill that we are presenng would focus on only the natural gas and pe-

troleum industry, so that the regulaon will be easier and the funding can be directed to the

specific needs for the petroleum and natural gas industry. Also, the cap that was

proposed had an 83% decrease of carbon dioxide emissions by the fiscal year 2050 (Cap and

Trade definion Ecomii Ecopedia). Our bill proposes reducing the amount of greenhouse

gases by 60% by the year 2060. Also, officials from both of the major U.S. polical pares,

Congress, environmental leaders, and even industries such as Shell Oil could support a cap

and trade system due to its flexibility in the market place.

Our groups goal for America over the next 50 years is to reduce harmful greenhouse

gas emissions, specifically from the combuson of oil and natural gas, by 60%. In addion, we

want to strengthen and more firmly enforce the regulaon of hazardous chemicals released

by the well sites that drill oil and natural gas.

With increased public awareness of the detrimental effects of global warming as well

as greater focus on educaon of environmental impacts, there will be more support for a

greenhouse cap and trade system. Furthermore, the increasing availability of advanced

technology will help to facilitate the reducon of greenhouse gas emissions. For example,

there has been a substanal amount of research done in the field of alternave plascs,

based on milk, cellulose and polylacc acid (made from corn), and Arboform (liquid wood)

(Nelson).

The measures laid out above are reflecons of the global concern regarding climate

change and access to energy in the future, and of the needs of the United States as its

economy stands today. We propose pung this policy of carbon caps and trade into effect

with the hope of galvanizing the American economy in preparaon for the economic and

environmental challenges which the next 50 years hold. This policy is intended to kick start

the renewable energies economy while proving the possibility of significant emissions

reducons in the near future.


19/82


Reducing

OilDependency

Reducing Dependency on Foreign Oil

The United States is currently dependent upon foreign oil to fulfill its energy needs.

The majority of this oil comes from the Middle Eastern region which has led to various

conflicts such as the Yom Kippur War. These conflicts have created a drain on resources and

have harmed the economy (Williams, History and Analysis). Since oil-producing naons sll

have the power to cut off exports and severely cripple our economy, it is essenal that the

United States create a plan to eliminate dependency on foreign oil.

Over the next 50 years, we will reduce oil dependence by targeng the transportaon

industry. More specifically, we will convert 80% of land-based vehicles to renewable

alternave fuels with the remaining 20% operang on oil and natural gas. This is because 63%

of oil goes to the creaon of gasoline (EIA, 2011) and 49% of oil consumpon is from foreign

sources (Doge, 2011). Therefore, if 80% of vehicles run on alternave fuels such as

hydrogen fuel cells, foreign oil will not be necessary.

This transion will be driven by the oil companies themselves. This is because the

consumers want green technologies and cleaner fuels; they are more willing to buy

products that are adversed as such, and the demand is only growing. Thus, these companies

have economic incenves for transioning. In order to save jobs that may be lost within the

transion, job retraining programs will be sponsored by the companies to ensure that they

keep their employees. To provide further incenve, when hydrogen fuel cell technology

becomes cost effecve, a tax will be placed on gasoline vehicles that will increase gradually

unl a 20% cap is reached. 75% of the tax money will go back into hydrogen vehicle

manufacturing and the other 25% will be used to pay off research loan and subsidies.

In order for this to be a viable policy, there must first be research into alternave

fuels such as hydrogen fuel cells. As of now, the most prevalent alternave fuels are

biodiesel, ethanol, and natural gas. However, ethanol and biodiesel are mixtures of biofuels

and oil, and, thus, only reduce but do not alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Therefore,

more research must be done into less developed alternave fuels such as solar power,

hydrogen fuel cells, and biomass. The most promising of these opons is the hydrogen fuel


20/82


ReducingOilDe

pendency

0

cell. Hydrogen fuel technology demonstrates both energy and cost efficiency, as explained

later. In order for this to be effecve, the technology must be commercially available in a

maximum of 20 years.

In order to start liming oil imports, oil used to produce electricity and residenal

heang will gradually be replaced with natural gas starng in 2020. This will decrease oil

consumpon by approximately 7% when the transion is complete (Oil).

New recycling methods will also be introduced to decrease oil imports. About 25% of

oil consumpon in the U.S. is industrial, which

includes the producon of plascs (Oil).

Recycling more plascs would decrease oil

consumpon by reusing old materials. Thus,

raw materials will become less necessary. The

best way to achieve this task is to implement

single stream recycling on a naonal level.

Single stream recycling uses a machine to sort

materials, which means that the consumer

does not have to. This way, consumers are

more likely to recycle, and there will be less of

a need for raw materials. Thus, oil imports

will decrease.

Other sources of fuel such as ethanol

and diesel must connue a constant rate of

producon to relieve stress on oil. Natural gas

in vehicles can become more prevalent in transportaon in order to replace land based oil

consumpon. The use of hybrids and cars that have beer fuel economy needs to be conn-

ued in order to meet the increased demand for gasoline. In the shipping industry, there is an

emerging fuel source named Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), which could reduce carbon dioxide

emissions by 15-20% compared to bunker fuel. It would also reduce oil demand because the

new fuel consists of 30% diesel and 70% LNG (LNG).

Image 2. Single Stream Recycling. Single-stream

recycling debuts in me for RecycleMaina2010.

hp://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/20110.aspx.


21/82


Reducing

OilDependency

Many of the steps above are made possible with the increased use of natural gas.

Therefore, natural gas technology must be improved. One area that requires improvement is

hydraulic fracturing. This natural gas drilling method must be improved to not affect the

environment as drascally and to also improve the harvesng efficiency. Another natural gas

technology that has to be improved is the pipelines. If there is a leak in the pipe, methane is

released into the atmosphere. The United States lost approximately 346 billion cubic feet of

natural gas resources though pipe leaks in the year 2006 (Revkin & Krauss).

As menoned earlier, the easiest way to eliminate America's dependency on foreign

oil is to use hydrogen power in 80% of consumer vehicles. Current internal combuson

engines can already run off of hydrogen with a few (relavely) easy and cheap modificaons.

It is simply a maer of pumping hydrogen into the chambers instead of gasoline or gasohol

(today's 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol mixture). The easiest cars to convert are the older

ones, when it is simply a maer of blowing hydrogen into the carburetor (Drunvalo). The

newer fuel injecon cars are slightly more difficult to adapt as a specialized injector adaptor is

required, but they run more smoothly and efficiently once the conversion is complete

(Converng a Gasoline).

Americans will readily switch to hydrogen powered cars once given a lile bit of

informaon and a few stascs. The price difference between hydrogen to gasohol for the

same amount of energy is astounding. The oxidaon of metals produces hydrogen. Some

metals and alloys are extremely cheap, and, using this method, could power an engine for

hours at the cost of a fracon of a cent (Drunvalo). Given that gasohol yields 43.54 mega

joules per kilogram and has a molar mass of 104.4 grams per mole, gasohol costs 2.05 cents

per kilojoule. Gasohol costs hundreds of mes as much as hydrogen for the same amount of

energy output (Fuels for UAV).

When gasohol is burned, it ends up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When

hydrogen is used as a fuel, whether in an internal combuson engine or in a hydrogen fuel

cell, it reacts with oxygen to form water. The general public will probably become very fond of

these water-creang machines that transport them as well.


22/82


ReducingOilDe

pendency

2

At first, hydrogen fuel cell cars will only be available to the upper classes. As the

technology progresses and becomes more cost effecve, the lower classes will be able to

afford it. Though it is unfortunate, this process is true for all technologies and is largely

unavoidable.Most Americans will convert their cars to this fuel when they hear about the reduced

cost and environmental benefits. Once the number of hydrogen vehicles increases, fuel

staons will be forced to switch from supplying gasohol to providing hydrogen if they want to

stay in business. The hydrogen infrastructure will grow, and the amount of gasoline used by

America will shrink. If we use less oil, then less oil needs to be imported.

As of the year 2010, America imported 49% of its petroleum (Dogge). A five-week

average during May and June 2011 showed that 63% of the petroleum in the United Stateswas refined to gasoline, a fuel which is primarily used in cars (EIA). According to these

stascs, changing our transportaon fuels would result in America eventually not needing to

import any petroleum from other countries.

Once this goal is reached, or even

close to being reached, the hydrogen

infrastructure will be very prevalent. While

burning hydrogen in an internal combusonengine works relavely well and very cleanly,

it is somewhat inefficient. A technology is

emerging that is, as of now, not yet

developed enough to be cheaply and

effecvely implemented but will, in the

future, fix that problem.

A hydrogen fuel cell is a type of

voltaic cell (baery) that, instead of having

the reactants sealed inside, has them re-

acng as they flow through the unit, with fuel being replaced as it used up. Almost all the en-

ergy stored in the hydrogen is released as electricity when it reacts in the fuel cell. In an inter-

nal combuson engine, most of the energy is wasted as heat or noise. The hydrogen supply

infrastructure will be in place; car manufacturers will just need to start producing vehicles

with the new technology.

Image 3. Hydrogen Fuel Cell. New Version of Volt toHouse Hydrogen Fuel Cell. hp://gm-

volt.com/2007/04/19/new-version-of-volt-to-house-

hydrogen-fuel-cell/.


23/82


Reducing

OilDependency

A gasoline vehicle (or one converted to hydrogen) cannot be converted to a hydrogen

fuel cell - a new car is needed. But cars, especially current and older ones, do not last for

decades aer decades. Around the me that fuel cell cars start becoming mainstream, and in

the years aer that, many cars will die. When people's cars die, they buy new ones, and if fuelcell cars are prominent, they will buy one of those.

Two problems become noceable during the conversion to hydrogen fueled vehicles.

We suggested that the cheapest way to obtain hydrogen was through reacon of metals. One

will now wonder where this metal will come from. We also suggested that when fuel cell

technology is introduced, many older cars will no longer be in use. One now wonders what

will happen to all those cars. Current, past, and near-future cars are made largely of iron, and

cheap hydrogen requires metal, and iron is a metal. The iron from cars at the end of their life

can be used to create hydrogen for the fuel of new cars. This is a great way to recycle and

reduce waste in the car industry.

Image 4. FCVs. Fuel cell vehicles. hp://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml.


24/82


ReducingOilDe

pendency

4

One other problem that pessimists will point out is that hydrogen power produces

water as a reactant, in the gaseous form. Steam (gaseous water) is a major greenhouse gas,

and currently affects global warming more than carbon dioxide (Hieb, Monte). But, as we all

learn, water in the atmosphere turns into clouds, which rains down onto the earth, and thenflows back into the oceans that it was originally taken from to create the hydrogen in the first

place. People learn about the water cycle in elementary school. Some people will argue that

this will not happen, and it will stay in the atmosphere. But a week studying equilibrium in a

chemistry class will disprove this theory. The planet earth is one enormous system. The

equaon is as follows H2O (l) H2O(g). If a reactant or product is removed from one side of

the equaon, and added in proporonally the same quanty on the other, the reacon will

proceed forwards or backwards unl it is balanced. In this situaon, we are removing theliquid water from the le and adding it to the right, so the gas will condense to restore the

equilibrium.

Hydrogen is a fuel with lots of potenal. It is not a power source, merely a carrier, but

has the capability to store massive amounts of energy, compressed to a small volume. It has

all the benefits that gasoline does not. It is clean, renewable, and, when used in a fuel cell,

silent and efficient. Hydrogen has the possibility to power the future of personal

transportaon at a low cost, and, for that, the general public will love it. The conversion of 4/5

of our cars from gasohol to hydrogen will help eliminate the United States' dependence on

foreign oil.


25/82


CoalPolicy

Coal Policy

Over the past three decades, demand in the United States for resources has risen

dramacally. Dependency on coal, in parcular, has increased and shows no sign of

decreasing in the foreseeable future, especially with over a 250 year domesc supply (Coal

News). The frugal cost of producing coal parcularly contributes to its popularity, and makes

it an industrial favorite. However, the burning of coal to produce electricity releases millions

of tons of carbon emissions. There is no reliable, credible iniave to achieve greenhouse gas

stabilizaon without reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal producon plants.

Addionally, coal contributes directly to global climate change. Coal producon, primarily

mining, causes great amounts of habitat destrucon. It is urgent and essenal that stricter

regulaons on coal cleanliness, efficiency, and environmental impacts are implemented.

Current coal powered generaon capacity, approximately 1.3 million megawas,

provides the United States populaon with economic, low-cost energy. It is infeasible to

simply cut coal producon and immediately switch to renewable energies. Therefore,

regulaons regarding coal power must be strict enough to cut carbon emissions while

simultaneously allowing coal companies to produce energy without a significant increase in

cost. Due to this need for coal energy, policies must incenvize implementaon of cleaner

coal technology, while concurrently prevenng excess emissions through taxaon. Research

and Development (R&D) must be performed, funded in conjuncon by industry and

government. The outlook for research is promising as research performed by the Coal

Ulizaon Research Counsel (CURC) in cooperaon with the Electric Power Research Instute

(EPRI) suggests that Carbon Capture & Sequestraon (CCS) can be performed by the year

2025 to produce electricity at a cost less than the cost of present coal generated electricity,

while concurrently capturing fiy percent of all carbon released by coal plants. Looking

toward the future, ambious visions for coal over the next fiy years have been set.


26/82


CoalPolicy

6

Our major goals for coal are to:

Eliminate mountain top removal enrely.

Reduce CO2 emissions by seventy-five percent.

Implement Carbon Capture and Sequestraon technologies in all coal plants.

Improve land reclamaon techniques and have stricter reclamaon techniques.

These goals will be achieved through a variety of proposed policies, all of which lead to a

greener, beer United States.

Coal powers approximately forty-five percent of all electricity in the United States.

Therefore, the United States populaon will be affected greatly if cheap coal electricity were

to be replaced. However, the proposed policy should affect peoples lives posively by

lowering CO2emissions. The policy will have the most posive effect on the environment.

Coal emissions are currently harming the environment. Though all emissions will not be

eliminated through these changes, the

proposed amount will be substanally less

harmful to the environment. Also, the

eliminaon of mountain top removal will help

save the ecosystems located in those

mountains. Other technologies that will lower

emissions will in turn help the environment.

The workforce should not be heavily affected.

Though those who rely on mountain top

removal will possibly be at risk for losing a job,

though mountain top removal only accounts for

nine percent of the coal industry. Jobs will also

be created for research and installaon of clean coal facilies (Department of Energy).

In order to reach the goals by 2060, a meline has been set forth for when the

regulaons and goals will be put into acon (see Chart 2). Our policy will affect coal mines and

operaons across the naon, but in parcular will affect coal areas such as the Appalachian

Mountains, and in states heavy with coal deposits such as Wyoming.

Image 5. Clean coal comes to West Virginia.

GreenTech Media. hp://

www.greentechmedia.com/arcles/read/clean-coal-

comes-to-west-virginia-1194/.


27/82


CoalPolicy

Currently, mountain top removal mining accounts for 9% of the market. By 2030 the

goal is to eliminate mountain top removal. It will become illegal, and by the next year (2031)

all current mountain top removal sites will be rered. To accomplish this, we propose

phasing out mountain top removal over a fieen year period starng in January 2015 and

slowly liming the permits required to operate a mountain top removal site over the

following ten years. Aer that ten year mark, there would be an addional five year period

for sites to finish operaons before mountain top removal would become illegal. Aer

mountain top removal becomes illegal, the following year will be used to rere all of its sites.

There are currently many different laws and regulaons that the coal industry already

follows. However, the current regulaons on environmental impacts and land reclamaon

are not sufficient. Our policy makes the Impact Statements required by law (Surface Mining

Control and Reclamaon Act of 1977) for mining permits much more stringent. These

statements require that there be no significant impact to the area where the mining would

NOW Government funding for CCS technology commences (2012)

Limit permits allowed for Mountain top removal (2015)

Begin encouraging coal companies to start retrofing their plants

with clean coal technology (oxy-fuel, CCS, etc.) with moderatetaxaon and sufficient grants

Avoidable tax on emissions from coal plants begins (2015)

2020s Carbon emissions are reduced by ten percent (2020)

Mountain top removal permits have stopped being issued (2025)

Government funding for CCS research stops (2027)

CCS technology becomes an independent venture (2027)

2030s Carbon emissions by coal are reduced by forty percent

CCS technology becomes sixty percent efficientMountain top removal becomes illegal and all MTR sites rere by

the year (2031)

2040s All coal plants are retrofied with CCS technology

2050s Carbon emissions by coal are reduced by fiy-five percent

2060s Carbon Emissions from coal plants are reduced by seventy-five

percent

Chart 2: Coal Policy Timeline


28/82


CoalPolicy

8

occur. In addion, there are to be inspecons by two unrelated personnel. The number of in-

specons required for land reclamaon will be mandatory every two years, implemented im-

mediately. (Surface Mining Control and Reclamaon Act of 1977) This would be funded by the

federal government, as it is a modificaon to a current federal law.

New technological advancements will be made in Carbon Capture and Sequestraon

(CCS). CCS is the process of capturing the CO2 that is released into the air and injected into the

ground. There will also be advances in other forms of clean coal technologies such as Oxy-Fuel,

absorpon/adsorpon (scrubbers), and retrofing pre-exisng factories with these

modificaons, and other clean coal technologies. Oxy-fuel is the burning of mostly pure

oxygen or 95% oxygen. While this is sll being researched, it has been shown to potenally

Image 6. Illustraon of carbon capture and storage (CCS) process showing major pathways for geologic storage

and terrestrial storage. Carbon Sequestraon Atlas of the United States and Canada. hp://

www.wvcarb.org/cc-overview.php.


29/82


CoalPolicy

reduce carbon emissions by 95% (CURC). Scrubbers use limestone or a similar mineral to

remove the sulfur emissions from coal (Department of Energy).

How are we hoping to get there? CCS technology is counted on to be feasible within

ten years, according to the Dept. of Energy. However, the only way this ambious goal ispossible is through a combinaon of industrial and governmental support. First, the outline of

general policy to be implemented:

Enact more stringent regulaons on carbon emissions from coal plants.

Incenvize CCS technology development including new technology and environmental

effects through governmental grants which will be a combinaon of taxes and federal

grants, occasionally at the college level.

Impose taxes on companies unable to meet emission standards.

Regulaons: Within fiy years, carbon emissions from coal plants should be reduced by

seventy-five percent. To achieve this it is proposed that emission reducon start at a slow

rate and gradually increases. As seen in Graph 2, emissions should reach a reducon of

ten percent within the next ten years, and aerwards connue at a faster rate of about

fieen percent every ten years.

To ensure that coal companies reduce their emissions, an avoidable tax will be

incorporated. The tax money taken will then be used to help support advancements in CCS

technology. Going over allowed emissions will result in a tax directly correlated between

percent over-emission and tax amount. Emission standards will be declared per individual

Graph 2:


30/82


CoalPolicy

0

coal plant. This is because each individual plant may produces varying amounts of

emissions, and must be held to different emission standards. If emission standards are not

able to be reached, reevaluaons will take place to change emission levels.

As seen from Graph 3, it is proposed that for every emission value 20% overregulaon standard for the facility, an exponenal percent tax increase will be

introduced. In this way, taxaon is directly correlated with reaching greenhouse gas

emission stabilizaon. The emissions will be regulated by Environmental Informaon Agency

(EIA) and the Environmental Protecon Agency (EPA). The taxaon will be regulated by a

governmental energy agency (GEA).

Carbon Capture and Sequestraon technology can be both viable and affordable by

the year 2025, provided it receives backing by the government and industry. It is essenal

that government and industry cooperate to make this goal a reality. Funding for CCS R&D

will come from a combinaon of taxes on excess emissions from coal plants and

government grants to ambious developing CCS projects. Tax on carbon emissions will be

gradually increased in relaon to amount of carbon released above emission standards, as

companies far overstepping their carbon emission boundaries must be cauoned. In this

way, companies overstepping their regulatory limits can be brought back to energy


31/82


CoalPolicy

efficiency, while successfully green coal companies can avoid harsh taxes through their own

iniaves. The government will need to start funding in 2012, supporng seventy-five

percent of the funds needed for CCS research. This will gradually decrease fieen percent

every three years. Within fieen years, CCS can stand on its own legs and no more

government funding will be necessary, as CCS will be a profitable entrepreneurial venture.

As you can see in Graph 4, funding for research will start inially heavily subsidized by

the government. This will gradually decrease as coal companies begin to fund CCS R&D on

their own. By 2026 the government will have no more funding in CCS.

There are many technologies that can be included in the process of carbon capture

and sequestraon:

Absorpon/adsorpon technology

Oxy-combuson

Single step methods (producing methanol)

All of these will be both researched and developed.

Graph 4: for CCS R&D


32/82


RenewableEne

rgyPolicy

2

Renewable Energy Policy

In the United States today, one of the most pressing issues is the rising number of

harmful emissions emied into the atmosphere. This is caused in part due to rising energydemand and producon, but also largely due to the United States negligence to make a

transion from fossil fuels (i.e. oil, natural gas and coal), which have high emissions, to

cleaner running forms of alternave and renewable energy. Forms of renewable energy

include biomass, wind, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric energy, and have lile or no

emissions. Unfortunately, forms of renewable energy are not uniformly accessible throughout

the United States, as available renewable resources vary on a regional and state level

(NASEO). Currently, renewable energy use in the United States is only 8% and sources of

renewable energy have not been thoroughly explored unl the past ten to twenty years

(Chapter 1). Thus, the infrastructure and technology required to make these more

environmentally friendly energies inexpensive and widely used are non-existent or overly

expensive. However, if proper development and funding is put towards making renewable

energy cost-efficient, it is very plausible that the United States can use a majority of

renewable resources in its overall energy producon (NASEO). To achieve this, we propose

change at the individual state level with categorical grants which must be applied for by state

governments, for the sole purpose of implemenng, researching, and using renewable

energy. By 2060, it is our goal that the amount of funding for such categorical grants offered

in a five year period double to ten billion dollars in order to obtain a federal energy porolio

that consists of 60% renewable energy.

In the administraon and implementaon of renewable energy policies on a naonal

scale, it is essenal that the broad goal be broken down into smaller, state-level goals to

effecvely make steps towards breaking free from a high-emission, fossil fuel-based energy

economy. When viewed from a naonal level, raising the renewable energy percentage of the

overall energy porolio seems like a daunng task (see Graph 5), especially given that only

8% of the current naonal energy producon porolio is composed of renewable energy

sources, a huge step from the aspired 60% renewable energy poron of the overall

producon porolio (NASEO).


33/82


RenewableEnergyPolicy

When a policy is

handed down from

the naonal level,

renewableopportunies and

distribuon methods

can oen be obscured

in over-generalized

legislaon, resulng in

federal policies that

clash with, work against, or complicate state policies. For instance, throughout the mid-90s,increased enforcement and regulaon by the Environmental Protecon Agency over

renewable energies grossly limited the growth of renewable energies (EPA). It was not unl

the late 90s, when regulaons were loosened and states were more able to implement their

preferred policies, that great growth occurred in the renewable energy sector, including the

wind energy sector in Texas. Texas loosened its regulaons and requirements in the process

of establishing wind farms at this me and seized one of its most abundant renewable

energy resources. This led the way to Texas becoming the undisputed leader in wind energy

in America in less than 10 years, with only 180 Mega Wa wind energy producon in 1999

and 4296 MW wind energy producon in 2007 (Chapter 1).

This example, and many others like it, supports the contenon that state

governments understand their own states energy situaons, possibilies, and futures beer,

oenmes, than the naonal government and its many regulatory agencies. Thus, it is more

producve and efficient for the naonal government to give funds to the state governments

to directly invest in renewable energy forms as these state governments see fit (Chapter 1).

Through this method state governments will be able to seize the renewable energy forms

that are most abundant in their area and be able to advance exisng state renewable energy

policies. These grants would be applied for by state energy agencies, and granted to the

states in a compeve process. Several such grant programs already exist, and are being

Graph 5


34/82


RenewableEne

rgyPolicy

4

ulized by state governments to make significant progress in obtaining more renewable

forms of energy.

The Naonal Associaon of State Energy Officials provides funds for renewable

energy research and development. According to the State Energy Loan Fund (SELF) database,

created for the State Energy Program, out of 34 states, there are 66 funds available. The

State Energy Program currently provides $975,000,000 to these collecve grants (NASEO II

State Energy Program). A study that was conducted showed that for every $1 in the State

Energy Program funding, $7.22 was saved in energy costs. Addionally, these grants are

usually magnified with the numerous local and private renewable energy programs in each

state.

Some of these loans that will be given to states are revolving loan programs. In these

types of programs, funds are connually depleted by companies and then replenished as

long as certain agreement between the investor and the state is held. Many of these state

loans are set up by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law by

President Obama (NASEO || State Energy Program). If a company persists in using the

newest, greenest technology, their cost-savings and the profit they make with the cost-

effecveness of renewable energy will significantly increase.

In addion, Loan Loss Reserves are expenses set aside in pernence of bad loans or

needed renegoaon. Under the State Energy Program, a loan loss reserve can be iniated if

the loans are reviewed to be for the purchase and installaon of energy efficiency and

renewable energy measures, if the amount of the grant given equals the amount in the loan

loss reserve, if the grant is used for the inial purpose of the grant, and if the company

receiving the loan does not use the funds for its own use. Enforcement of these LLRs

guarantee that companies will further renewable energy safely, responsibly, and efficiently.

Another method to help states incorporate renewable energy would be by using

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE). If a company is assessed and is discovered to

implement clean energy in its facilies, the company is able to access financing for energy

saving improvements to their properes. In one specific case in Boulder County, Colorado,

Boulder Countys Climate Smart program was able to receive a significant loan from the Boul-


35/82



der County Clean Energy Opons Local Improvement District because of the purchase and

installaon of renewable energy/energy efficiency measures (NASEO II State Energy Pro-

gram). By maintenance and energy efficiency, companies can earn loans and be exempt

from the interest.A way to facilitate the incorporaon of renewable energy allocaons at the state

level would be by using Qualified Energy Conservaon Bonds (QECB). Through the 2009

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, $3.21 billion dollars were invested in QECBs.

The Governors Energy Office (GEO) is responsible for assigning the states allocaon to

qualified projects that are selected through a compeve process (Tax Extenders and

Alternave Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act,

Governer's Energy Office). The U.S Treasury and the Internaonal Revenue Service sets theamount of bonds per each state according to the populaon. Qualified Energy Conservaon

Bonds are thoroughly assessed before implementaon. Aspects looked at are: the feasibility

in concern to the technology present, me, and resources, impacts in economic develop-

ment and the environment, and the current market for their renewable energy. In respect

to private projects, the loans must reduce energy consumpon by at least 20%, implement

green technology programs, and produce electricity from renewable energy sources. In

respect to research grants, a grant must aid the development of new alternave fuels,

advance technologies for CCS, increase efficiency in fossil fuels, advance new types of

transportaon, or further buildings in the path of creang net-zero buildings. Many QECBs

also focus on mass commung facilies, advocacy projects, and educaon campaigns.

These grants highlight virtually any green programs that exist or will exist over the next 60

years.

With a goal of 60% renewable energy in the power grid by 2060, the technological,

economic, and environmental landscapes will drascally change. The Naonal Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) is a leader in research and development of renewable energy and

works with industries and organizaons to implement renewable energy. NREL has been

researching development technology for improving renewable energy for more than 30

years, and will connue to do so (NREL 2011). The Energy Commissions Research

Development and Demonstraon (RD&D) gives grants of a total of $83.5 million in public


36/82


RenewableEne

rgyPolicy

6

funds to fund research including renewable energy technologies and clean advanced

electrical generaon (Research 2011). With the implementaon of the goal for each state to

reach using 60% renewable, the research and development of renewable energy will

significantly increase and many companies that do currently support research anddevelopment of renewable energy will posively be affected.

Since renewable energy is more labor intensive, more jobs will be created per dollar

invested in renewable energy than jobs per dollar invested in convenonal electricity.

Furthermore, renewable energy will benefit the environment, reduce air polluon, a major

cause of health problems especially in children, and decrease the amount of sulfur dioxide

released, a pollutant that is a main cause of acid rain. In addion, renewable energy will

reduce nitrogen oxide, a major cause of smog that affects the lungs of people, and carbon

dioxide, a widely recognized greenhouse gas (Benefits 2005).

The current Army Energy Iniave for renewable energy has an expansive view of

renewable energy that generates thermal energy from renewable sources. With this plan,

the Army is developing a strategy and implemenng projects in order to meet

Congressional, Administraon, and Department of Defense direcves (Programs). The Army

Year Goal

2015 By the year 2015 we would like to see the United States energysource to be 10% renewable energy






Chart 3: Renewable Energy Policy Timeline


37/82



is expected to meet the stricter definions of the Energy Policy Act 2005 while trying to meet

the much higher renewable energy standards of the NDAA 2007 (Programs).

The self-generang renewable energy projects that have been implemented and are

operang on Army insllaons are at Fort Stewart, Georgia; where high pressure steam isgenerated at the central power plant using woodchips; Fort Knox, Kentucky where the

barracks were converted to a geothermal energy facility; Fort Huachuca, Arizona which has

photovoltaic, solar, and wind generaon; Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois where electricity is

generated from its hydroelectric plant; and at the Red River Army Depot, in Texas where

renewable energy is consumed through burning wood scrap (Programs).

The Army has mulple goals and constraints that it needs to sasfy while securing its

energy supplies. They focus on the procurement of the lowest-cost energy that meets high

reliability standards and minimum vulnerability (Programs).

The Department of Energy gives guidance for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and

Execuve Order 13423. The Department of Educaon's guidelines for the Execuve Order

compliance give credit for renewable energy that reduces electricity use from thermal sources.

The Department of Energy adds a requirement that at least 50% of renewable energy must

come from "new" resources. The Department of Educaon's guidance for the Energy Policy

Act 2005 is that renewable energy that is not electricity, such as solar thermal energy, day

lighng, or ground source heat pumps, cannot be credited as part of the Energy Policy Act

2005 regulaons. Congress did not provide a definion of "renewable" in the NDAA 2007

language, and the Department of Educaon is not responsible for the Department of Defense

or Army policies to achieve the requirements in the NDAA (Programs).

The Army plays a part in society as a role model. People in the public are inspired and

influenced by the taccs and methods of the Army. An example of this was when the

Hummer was produced and sold to the public because the Army had a similarly designed

vehicle in place. If the Army was given new technology in the renewable energy field when it

became available, this could influence the public. The Army could receive these new

technological advances and test them out for usage and expansion of renewable energy

generaon. This would demonstrate whether or not the new technology should be released to

the public and if it would be a profitable decision.


38/82


RenewableEne

rgyPolicy

8

Renewable energy is becoming more of a necessity in the United States. The United

States currently uses 8% of renewable energy compared to 58% of coal and petroleum.

When implemented, the cost-effecveness of renewable energy can power the enre United

States with lile or no environmental impact. By 2060, we propose that each state will use aminimum of 60% of renewable energy and have a stable renewable energy porolio in place

with the support of federal grants and state iniaves.

Graph 6: Future U.S. Renewable Energy Use


39/82


Sustaina

bleCiesPolicy

Sustainable Cies Policy

Polluon - whether it is air, water, land, or noise originates mainly around major

metropolitan areas. Upon inspecon of a list of most polluted cies and a list of most

populated cies, one can detect a direct correlaon between the two: cies with a bigger

populaon are more inclined to pollute the environment. As the green movement has taken

hold over much of America and the world, more and more cies are focusing their efforts on

becoming more sustainable. Sustainability, in this context, simply means that a city creates

and lives on its own energy, minimizes its carbon footprint, and is overall environmentally

sound. At this moment, there is no such thing as a completely self-sustainable city. However,

it is possible. In recent years, efforts have been started all across the globe to reinvigorate

sustainability into exisng cies, as well as to create completely new sustainable cies.

Image 7. United States Air Quality Map. United States air quality. hp://

www.creavemethods.com/airquality/maps/united_states.htm.


40/82


SustainableCiesPolicy

0

We recommend that by the year 2060 all metropolitan areas with populaons greater

than one million cizens be completely self-sustainable. We define a metropolitan area as an

area that has at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more populaon, plus adjacent

territory that has a high degree of social and economic integraon with the core as measured

by commung es (Office of Management and Budget). A self-sustainable area must adhere

to the following standards: must not rely extensively on non-renewable resources as a basis

for its economy, must use non-toxic and biodegradable materials and products to develop a

cradle-to-cradle process, must support infrastructure that has net zero carbon emissions,

and must include waste recycling and large scale composng to reduce polluon to a

minimum. Addionally, we propose that all U.S. cies, regardless of populaon, follow the

metropolitan areas lead and make themselves more sustainable.

There are many implicaons of this proposal on the different pares within our

twenty-first century American urban society. First of all, the cizens of the cies will reap the

benefits of an overhauled, efficient, cheap public transportaon system. They will feel the

cleanliness of the city around them, and not pollute the area due to the new smart energy

grid. However, considering that cizens are taxpayers, they will pay for part of the upgraded

components of a sustainable city. Taxpayer money will fund most of the developments that

are proposed here.

Next, we have to consider the private enes that are located within metropolitan

limits. Most of these companies and corporaons, privately owned, will have to convert their

buildings to fit our policy regulaons. Although it will cost them money, it is a necessary

change that they have to make in order for a city to be self-sustainable. In order to lessen

their carbon footprint, they will have to restore their buildings, contract with the energy

companies to get the renewable energy, and implement programs for water treatment and

recycling. This may seem hard, but when the enre metropolitan area is converng, the

companies can bond together and embrace with their workers and fellow cizens to achieve

the ulmate goal of living in a self-sustaining society. They can also adverse their change to

the public to sway public opinion in favor of them, thus creang more interest for their

products.


41/82


Sustaina

bleCiesPolicy

In addion to taxpayer money, we recommend that the federal government provides

grants and funding to all 51 metropolitan areas in the U.S. with populaons greater than one

million to jumpstart this transformaon. These grants can be big because in the long run,

over the next 100 years or so, all of the money invested will pay off because no energy will go

to waste, the cies will be much more efficient and well-run, and the ecological footprint will

no longer have a dramac effect on climate change. In addion, the federal government

should instute regulaons on all American cies, to keep pushing them along the plan

towards the goal of self-sustainability within 50 years. To measure improvement and help

facilitate progress, we recommend that the Department of Energy conducts annual

inspecons of the cies.

Cies have many components which must be addressed in their transion to

sustainability. Some of these include leadership from the mayor or other leaders in the city

promong green and sustainable iniaves. Also needed is a plan to achieve this and funding

to support this issue. This typically comes from a variety of sources including grants, state

programs and the normal city funding. Some other necessary aspects are improved

communicaon regarding energy efficiency and alternave energy. Training is also needed

for the populaon regarding saving money, insulaon, air quality and other environmental

issues.

Another common aspect of sustainable cies is either free or low cost energy audits

and inspecons, which can make sure that efforts towards renewable energy and energy

efficiency are economically sound. Energy efficiency rebate programs can also be used to

reduce energy usage. In addion to increasing energy efficiency, other alternave energies

should make up much of the cies energy porolio. Encompassing both energy efficiency

and renewable energy, buildings, beginning with state owned buildings, must become green.

Eventually regulaons or award programs and rebates need to be created as incenves for

the populaon. Addionally, low income residents may receive extra incenves for energy

efficiency. The cies should also aempt to aract more jobs focusing on renewable energy

and energy efficiency.


42/82



2

Green roofs can be another aspect of a sustainable city. Green roofs can help promote

energy savings based on heat lost, as well as reduce urban heat islands and improve

rainwater retenon and air quality (Regelson). Also necessary is a public transportaon

system, based at least parally off of a train system, as trains are one of the most efficienttypes of transportaon. Intelligent traffic control systems could also be used to decrease

waste related to automobiles (Sustainable Cies). Newer, sll developing cies can use

smart growth policies to encourage varied land usage and improve the community while

allowing for more sustainable features to be installed as the city grows (About Smart

Growth).

Around the world there are mulple examples that should give the United States a

glimpse of how other cies have become more sustainable. The city of Portland, Oregon isAmericas top sustainable city. Half its power comes from renewable sources and a quarter of

the workforce commutes by bike, carpool or public transportaon. This city has 35 buildings

cerfied by the U.S. Green Building Council (Svoboda). Portland was the first city to focus upon

alternave transit with light-rail and extensive bike path networks to encourage

people to leave their cars in the driveway. It was

also one of the first to pledge to reduce

emissions and start transioning buildings to use

sustainable materials (Ellis).

No other country has built more eco-city

projects than Germany. In the city of Freiburg in

Breigau, also known as the green city, they are

known for being one of few cies who has a green

mayor and a robust solar economy. Freiburg has been

trialing with green technologies for decades, ever

since the city center was rebuilt on green principles aer its destrucon in World War II. Many

communies in Freiburg neighbor on-site composng, chemical free sewage

treatment and rainwater catchment (Lepisto).

Image 8. Solar Selement (Solarsiedlung) in Frei-

burg. Life in Germany. hp://www.young-

germany.de/life-in-germany/life-in-germany/

arcle/freiburg-germanys-greenest-city.html?

tx_news.


43/82


Sustaina

bleCiesPolicy

Although small, the city of Reykjavik, Iceland was voted the greenest city in the world.

Already, Reykjavik acquires energy for heat, hot water and electricity enrely from

hydro-power and geothermal resources --thanks to its many volcanoes and hot springs. The-

se types of technologies are both renewableand free of greenhouse gas emissions.

In addion, three city buses run completely on

hydrogen. The current mayor recently pledged

to make Reykjavik the cleanest city in Europe

and become fossil-fuel-free by 2050 (Reykjavik).

In the Middle East, the emirate of Abu

Dhabi is construcng an eighteen billion dollar

eco-friendly emerald city: Masdar. The city will

be skyscraper-free, and solar panels on building

rooops will collect the majority of sunlight for power. Masdar will also make use of

progressive sustainable and renewable resources including: wind power and biofuels for

energy, water purificaon, and an underground light rail transportaon that runs on

magnec tracks. The city will be a two square mile zero-emission community with about

40,000 to 50,000 residents (UAE).

One of the biggest problems in metropolitan areas is the congeson. Thus, for a city

or metro area to be completely sustainable, it would need to have efficient, quick, rapid

transit systems that would replace the need for automove vehicles while also saving energy

and money. Several iniaves can be taken to reduce pollutants caused by transportaon.

These can include creang bicycle lanes and walk-

ing paths throughout the area.

Amsterdam is well known for being

green because of the number of inhabitants

that use bikes. In 2008, it was esmated that 38%

of all vehicle trips in Amsterdam were taken by

bike (Buehler). The impact of biking as a form of

Image 10. Masdar City: Zero Carbon. Masdar City:A Carbon-neutral Metropolis. hp://

www.menainfra.com/news/masdar-city-carbon-

neutral-/.

Image 11. Biking in Amsterdam. Jesters09 Travel-

pod. hp://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-

entries/jesters09/1/1255280473/tpod.html#_.


44/82



4

mass public transportaon has helped shape Amsterdams green image as well as help it sus-

tain a healthy populaon.

Carpooling has many benefits such as monetary savings and sustainability (Carpool).

Carpooling can be encouraged though the creaon of high occupancy vehicle lanes andparking lots to allow commuters to meet up in. These efforts will reduce the number of cars on

the roads and in turn reduce the total emissions released by traffic. By 2060 we recommend

that ninety percent of tailpipe emissions should be eliminated.

Another popular form of public transportaon crucial to the sustainability of a city is

the citys subway or light rail

system. Investment in a newer, modern-

technology system of rail transport for gengaround the city would significantly decrease

car traffic on the highways. Addionally, some

newer models of rail transport (MagLev or

magnec levitaon, for example) use less

energy when compared to the bigger steam

engine. One example of a possible opon for

some metro areas to consider is the SkyTran(see Image 12). The SkyTran, created with the

help of NASA, is a type of overhead mass

transit system that can go at speeds of up to 150 miles per hour, using MagLev

technology. Since it is overhead, it minimizes the need to find space for tracks. It was

proposed in Detroit recently because of its cost effecvenessits component assembly

reduces costs to 1/20th the expense of surface rail (Dzwonkowski).

Recycling is another necessary aspect of a sustainable city. Recycling protects U.S. jobs

and manufacturing, reduces the need for landfills, reduces polluon, conserves energy and

other resources (Recycling). Each major metropolitan area should have single stream

recycling infrastructure by the year 2025. Single stream recycling helps simplify recycling and

makes it easier for the public to recycle (Single-Stream Recycling).

Image 12. Sky tran personal vehicles. SkyTran

Individual Maglev System. hp://thecontaminated.com/skytran-individual-maglev-

system/.


45/82


Sustaina

bleCiesPolicy

Today, approximately 39% of the energy usage in the United States comes from

buildings (Reducing Energy Consumpon in Buildings). The buildings that use the most

energy are usually within metropolitan areas, which encompass the cies of high populaon

density and surrounding suburban towns. Focusing on reducing the emissions of buildings willbe a key step in accomplishing the sustainable city model. The goal for the next fiy years is

to have all public and commercial buildings built aer the year of 2010 to be LEED Silver

cerfied, whether its through the inial construcon or by

2011 Final Recommendations from Keystone National Youth Policy Summit

Documents

Transcript of 2011 Final Recommendations from Keystone National Youth Policy Summit