The Loudenia Crier

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, provides this expert testimony on the pending Clean Air Act pending before the Loudenian parliament:

I would recommend passage of this bill with the exception of the clean coal
part, although I do have a few other ideas as to how it could be improved.

First, why does the bill just promote solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal?
Why doesn’t it also include energy efficiency and demand-side management,
efforts that are much more cost effective than any supply side option and
better for the environment?

Second, in terms of promoting solar energy (solar photovoltaics, solar
thermal, and concentrated solar power systems specifically), research has
shown that feed-in tariffs are much more successful than tax breaks, grants,
and microfinance programs.  Why not include a feed-in tariff, modelled after
the paradigmatic example in Germany, as well?  I believe Rep. Jay Inslee
even has a bill pending with a feed-in tariff in it in the United States.

Third, the idea of providing grants to wind technologies strikes me as a bit
passé.  Wind technologies are already mature: they are cost competitive with
almost every fossil fuel source, and the United States installed more wind
turbines than coal plants in 2007.   What wind technologies need more than
grants are guaranteed access to the grid and consistent interconnection
standards.  Why aren’t these included or at least mentioned in the bill?

Fourth, clean coal?  You have to be kidding me.  The DOE in the United
States just gutted their FutureGen clean coal project earlier this year; MIT
completed a three year assessment and concluded that huge (and possible
insolvable) technical challenges remain; and every clean coal demonstration
project has cost more than expected and underperformed.  Why is this
included in the bill?  Why not place a complete moratorium on coal plants
all together instead?

Finally, the greenhouse gas/climate change targets seem to week.  An
emissions check?  What in the world is that?  How about something like this:
a mandatory 10 percent reduction of a given firms greenhouse gas emissions
every year until those emissions reach zero, with a non-compliance fee of
$100 million for each firm that fails to comply.  Might that not be a little
more efficient at reducing emissions?