What are mhk technologies?

A2: Electricity Prices - Link Turn

Electricity price from MHKs is low and will decrease

As for wave and tidal, we have general parameters on cost, but they remain subject to further refinement. The World Renewable Energy Report estimates the cost of wave energy at an average of 9 cents/kWh and tidal and current an average of 8 cents/kWh. Recent EPRI reports have found that, presently, the cost of power from ocean technologies ranges from 7 cents to 16 cents/kw in a low case scenario. For tidal, the May 2006 EPRI report found that the cost is driven by the resource, a strong resource can yield power at prices as low as 6 cents/kwh. Plus, similarities between tidal and offshore wind bring costs down. And, the costs of offshore wind or wave are stable. Whereas natural gas and oil have fluctuated over the years (with natural gas now higher than ever), offshore wind and wave energy costs are stable, since the cost of renewable power sources like wind or wave are free. Also, costs are expected to decline as the industry matures and as economies of scale make ocean projects less costly. To compare, back in 1978 wind energy cost 25 cents/kwh to produce — but now costs between 4.5 and 6 cents/kwh. Wave is already less costly than wind was in its early stages. Moreover, the EPRI report found that if wave had obtained the same government subsidies as wind, it would be a far more advanced technology than at present. Finally, as the offshore wind industry makes advancements on mooring systems, turbine durability and other issues that bear on the cost of marine projects, these advancements will help bring down the cost of ocean energy. In addition, if we can gain a better assessment of our resources, we can target the most powerful sites first and learn from our experience in these locations to bring costs down further.

A2: Oil DAs

LESS THAN 1% OF ELECTRICITY COMES FROM OIL

Institute for Energy Research,  September 19, 2012 , “National Resources Defense Council makes flawed case for PTC,” http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/49668, ACC. 9-21-12, JT

But when it comes to foreign trade, an even worse problem is NRDC’s suggestion that expanding wind power will somehow change America’s consumption of oil. [1] This is simply nonsense. Electricity is primarily produced by coal, natural gas and nuclear power, not oil. Oil produces much less than 1% of our electricity. If the federal government wants to reduce the importation of oil from hostile regimes, it should expand access to domestic fossil fuels and stop hobbling trade with Canada. Given oil’s role in electrical generation, the only way NRDC could be right about America’s consumption of oil is if, via their policies pushing expensive and unreliable green energy, U.S. consumers are spending so much on their utility and tax bills that they have less money to buy gasoline.

Oil generates less than 1% of electricity in USA

EIA 6/27/14 U.S. Energy Information Administration, FAQ, http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

In 2013, the United States generated about 4,058 billion kilowatthours of electricity. About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 39% attributed from coal.¶ In 2013, energy sources and percent share of total electricity generation were¶ • Coal 39%¶ • Natural Gas 27%¶ • Nuclear 19%¶ • Hydropower 7%¶ • Other Renewable 6%¶ • Biomass 1.48%¶ • Geothermal 0.41%¶ • Solar 0.23%¶ • Wind 4.13%¶ • Petroleum 1%¶ • Other Gases < 1%

A2: Politics - Non-Unique (GOP backlash)

New EPA regulations to reduce coal have already pissed off the GOP

Tim Devaney - 03/21/14 How much does the 'war on coal' really cost?,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/201429-how-much-does-war-on-coal-really-cost, Accessed 6/25/2014
As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepares to levy new carbon pollution regulations on power plants, a battle is heating up between Republicans and public interest groups over exactly how much the rules will cost industry.

Republicans complain that the EPA's "war on coal" will cost industry billions of dollars and lead to higher electricity prices for everyday Americans. But the Center for American Progress (CAP) and other health and environmental groups say Republicans are exaggerating the costs of these much-needed public protections. 

A2: Politics - Non-Unique (Coal backlash)

EPA coal regs already caused bipartisan backlash—people would already be mad

Donald Lambro 6/5/2014, “NEW EPA REGULATIONS ARE POLITICAL GIFT FOR REPUBLICANS,” Human Events, http://www.humanevents.com/2014/06/05/new-epa-regulations-are-political-gift-for-republicans/, Accessed 6/26/2014

Nearly 20 states obtain more than half their electric power from coal-fired plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Chamber of Commerce says the Environmental Protection Agency’s emission rules would cost businesses more than $50 billion.

The EPA’s new rules have infuriated Democrats in major coal-producing states, many of whom are facing tough elections this year at a critical time when Republicans are close to winning the six seats needed to take control of the Senate.

A typical example of the anger the EPA rules have sparked came from West Virginia’s Democratic Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, who’s running for an open Senate seat. She promised voters Monday that she would “stand up” to Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy “and anyone else who tries to undermine our coal jobs.”

A2: Politics – Reject Polling Data

REJECT THEIR POLLING DATA – IT’S BASED ON SYSTEMATIC RACIAL, ETHNIC & CLASS EXCLUSION FROM THE POLITICAL
Cheryl Lero Jonson, et al., ‘8 PhD student in criminal justice, Univ. of Cincinnati, James D. Unnever is associate professor of criminology at the University of South Florida-Sarasota. Francis T. Cullen is Distinguished Research Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati, “Race, Racism, and Support for Capital Punishment,” Crime & Justice, 37 Crime & Just. 45, lexis, JT

In this context, it is perhaps not surprising that African Americans and whites have quite divergent sensibilities about capital punishment, with blacks decidedly less likely to support it (Barkan and Cohn 1994; Soss, Langbein, and Metelko 2003; Bobo and Johnson 2004; Baker, Lambert, and Jenkins 2005; Cochran and Chamlin 2006; Unnever and Cullen 2007a). This racial divide is often masked when references are made to national polling data--such as that reported by the General Social Survey (GSS) and Gallup polls--showing that upwards of 70 percent of Americans who are surveyed express support for executing convicted murderers. As Igo (2007, p. 19) illuminates in The Averaged American, opinion polls historically have captured the sentiments of the typical respondent, with the "aggregating technologies, by their very nature, [placing] new cultural emphasis on the center point, the scientifically derived mean and median." But there is a cost to reporting what this representative citizen believes. "Proclamations about 'Americans' could not be made without suppressing the voices and experiences of some," observes Igo (p. 18). The pollsters' "suppositions about who constituted the public meant that some Americans--African Americans, immigrants, and poor people, among others--were systematically excluded from their statistics, and that the nation surveyed was always a partial one" (pp. 18-19).

Politics – Plan Popular

Hydropower proves the plan is massively bipartisan and isolated from energy policy fights – specifically key GOP members like it

Plumer 13

Brad Plumer is a reporter at the Washington Post writing about domestic policy, particularly energy and environmental issues, “Congress can’t agree on most energy issues. But it loves dams.”, Washington Post, Aug. 2, 13 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/02/congress-cant-agree-on-most-energy-issues-but-it-loves-dams/ Accessed 6/22

Here's something you hardly ever see anymore. The House and Senate just passed two bills to promote clean energy around the United States. Not only that, but the votes were virtually unanimous. So what's this mysterious energy source attracting all-but-unheard-of bipartisan affection? Hydropower. Dams already provide the largest source of renewable energy* in the United States — they provide about 7 percent of America's electricity and account for fully two-thirds of the country's renewable power, dwarfing wind or solar. But even though most of the big, wild rivers out West have already been dammed up, there are still plenty of places to eke out more power from smaller rivers, streams, and canals. And that's where Congress comes in. --Small hydropower projects. The first place to look is the 80,000 dams in the United States that already exist but don't yet provide power. A study (pdf) last year by the Department of Energy suggested that the country could add up to 12,000 MW of capacity by retrofitting the largest of these dams, which would boost the country's total hydropower capacity by up to 15 percent. That's like adding a dozen large coal-fired plants: At the high end, adding all of those small projects could boost the share of carbon-free electricity in the United States by about 1 percent. That's obviously not going to stop global warming on its own, but it's a small dent. So the first of the House (H. 267) and Senate (S. 545) bills would speed up the licensing time for small projects like these. Both of these bills passed unanimously and had sponsors from both parties — Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). One caveat: It's not quite clear if all 12,000 megawatts of capacity will actually get built under this bill, says Matthew Nocella, a spokesman for the National Hydropower Association. "It will be much more feasible for developers if they can go through the process in two years as opposed to six," he said. "But there are no studies on what the exact impact will be." --Clearing up regulatory hurdles. The other set of bills passed by Congress (H.R. 678 and S. 306) would make it easier for the Bureau of Reclamation to add hydropower to many of the canals, pipelines, aqueducts, and other man-made waterways that it already owns. In the Senate, these bills were sponsored by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Jim Risch (R-Idaho). The Bureau had put out a report (pdf) last year suggesting that it could add at least 268 megawatts of hydropower capacity if it could develop these sites. Until now, however, the agency had been bogged down by regulatory delays. So why does hydropower enjoy such wide support at a time when energy legislation typically gets bogged down in partisan feuding? For one, dams have always been popular, particularly out West. But it helped that these bills were quite modest, mostly clearing up government red tape and bolstering development on already-existing dams (which helped mute much of the environmental opposition). --A hydropower renaissance? In theory, Congress could still do more to promote hydropower. A study in 2010 from Navigant Consulting found that some 60,000 MW of capacity could be added with the right policies. But that study assumed Congress would pass a law that required utilities to get a big chunk of their electricity from renewable sources. That's much more contentious. A major hydropower push would also likely require new technologies, something that Wyden and Murkowski are now promoting with their "Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act," which would fund research into ways to tap energy from rivers and streams that don't involve damming up their flow and creating large reservoirs. Also note that support for hydropower is hardly universal outside of Congress. Back in 2011, my colleague Juliet Eilperin reported on how some environmental groups and Native American tribes were pushing to demolish a number of dams in the Pacific Northwest — including ones that provided power — in order to rescue depleted fisheries and restore natural habitats. So there's a lot of potential for push-back. For now, though, hydro supporters were happy to tout their victory — however modest. "There’s no better evidence that hydro is back than these two bills passing the Senate on a unanimous vote,” Wyden said.

Politics – Public Likes

Even if some people think it is unpopular- as long as the implementation in any given area allows us to do research first the public will accept it

Kamer 14

Dr. Krista Kamer is the Director of the CSU Council on ¶ Ocean Affairs, Science & Technology. Krista received her PhD in Biology from UCLA and ¶ worked at the Southern California Coastal Water ¶ Research Project (SCCWRP), “California Energy Commission”, Mar. 27, 14 http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/epic/documents/2014-03-17-21_workshop/comments/K_Kramer_CA_State_University_2014_March_27_COAST_201517_EPIC_Investment_Plan_comments_2014-06-28_TN-72851.pdf Accessed 6/26

Market Facilitation ¶ o Investing in research up front to reduce and mitigate potential negative impacts to ¶ the marine environment and incorporating the results into planning will facilitate ¶ public acceptance of marine renewables as part of California’s clean energy ¶ package. California’s citizens can be very active and vocal when motivated. ¶ Ensuring that the development of new technologies is done in a way that ensures ¶ sustainable use of the coast should reduce objections.

Politics – A2: Unpopular Bill Failed

Threshold argument- plan would provide 50 million for MHK, the failed bill asked for 200 and a much larger program

OREC 13

Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition, “News Release: Marine Renewable Energy Legislation Introduced in Senate”, OREC, Aug. 1, 13 http://www.oceanrenewable.com/2013/08/01/news-release-marine-renewable-energy-legislation-introduced-senate/ Accessed 6/22

August 1, 2013—Today, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, respectively, together introduced the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013 (S. 1419). This legislation is an important step in the continued development of our nation’s marine and hydrokinetic resources (MHK) and the emergence of a new renewable energy industry. MHK technologies generate electricity from predictable and forecastable waves, tidal flows, ocean currents, thermal gradients and in-stream sources. The United States has significant marine energy resources and a cost-effective MHK industry could provide a substantial amount of clean, renewable energy for the nation, while creating thousands of high paying jobs. The Department Of Energy is currently developing an aggressive strategy to support its vision of producing at least fifteen percent of our nation’s electricity from all forms of water power by 2030. The Wyden/Murkowski legislation will advance the research and development of MHK technologies, while also providing regulatory relief for small-scale demonstration projects. The bill will support a viable path for MHK technology commercialization that capitalizes on an abundant, carbon-free resource. The research, development and regulatory provisions provided in this bill will help position the United States as a leader in this emerging industry. The legislation will also accelerate job growth and stimulate additional private investment in this sector. “The Ocean Renewable Energy Coalition (OREC) strongly supports the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act and is pleased that Senators Wyden and Murkowski were able to provide the bipartisan leadership for this effort,” said Sean O’Neill, OREC’s President. “The funding authorized in this measure, along with its regulatory efficiencies, demonstrates America’s intention to capture the emission free, predictable, and sustainable power in our oceans and free moving water currents,” said O’Neill. “The Wyden/Murkowski bill sends a clear message across the MHK supply chain that the federal government’s commitment to advance the technology and move it into the market is strong, serious and sustained.” Commercialization of technologies to harness marine renewable energy resources will require federal funding to augment research and development efforts already underway in the private sector. Federal funding will leverage additional capital from the private sector to develop promising technologies that are on the verge of commercial viability. “Marine hydrokinetic power has tremendous potential to generate a substantial amount of clean, renewable energy in the United States and across the globe,” Wyden said. “The bill Senator Murkowski and I introduced today will help commercialize marine energy technologies by streamlining permitting and continuing research and development, bringing marine energy technology one step closer to supplying predictable base-load renewable power in the future,” Senator Wyden said. The Wyden/Murkowski legislation authorizes an additional $200 million over four years for DOE’s Water Power Program, which is charged with supporting efforts in the private sector to improve the performance, lower the costs, and accelerate the deployment of innovative technologies capable of generating clean and affordable energy funding from MHK resources. “Other countries are moving forward with funding and incentives to support marine renewable energy development,” said Mr. O’Neill. “This legislation will enhance our competitive position in the international market.”August 1, 2013—Today, Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, respectively, together introduced the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013 (S. 1419). This legislation is an important step in the continued development of our nation’s marine and hydrokinetic resources (MHK) and the emergence of a new renewable energy industry.

Politics: Coal Industry No Control

Even if they dislike the plan, the coal industry does not have the midterms control they used to and key swing states are decreasing coal consumption anyway- 2012 election proves

MacGillis 6/3

Alec MacGillis is a reporter for New Republic, “Ignore the Pundits: "Coal Country" Doesn't Decide Elections Like It Used To”, New Republic, Jun. 3, 14 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117984/coal-country-backlash-over-obama-rules-wont-swing-midterm-elections Accessed 6/22

I thought of Martin County these past two days when I saw all the headlines professing grave political fallout for Democratic candidates in coal country as a result of the Obama administration’s historic new rules geared to reduce carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. “Democrats in Coal County Run From E.P.A.,” read a headline on the front page of today’s New York Times. “Coal-State Democrats Blast Emission Rule,” declared the Washington Post front page. “President Barack Obama's plan to curb power plant pollution puts Democrats running for office in coal country in a tough spot: Criticize their president, or side with him and become part of what could be a major drag on their region's economy,” wrote the Associated Press.¶ Missing from some of this analysis and punditry, though, is crucial context. Quite simply, coal country isn’t what it used to be. Employment in the coal industry has been in decline for so long in states such as Kentucky and West Virginia that the number of jobs directly at risk from any clampdown on coal is far smaller than the sweeping rhetoric about “coal country” would have one assume.¶ Take Kentucky, the focus of much of the punditry, given the close race between Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. Coal-mining employment in the Bluegrass State has plunged by more than half in the past three decades, from 38,000 in 1983 to under 17,000 in 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. (Nationally, there are 78,000 people employed in coal mining—well less than half as many as are employed in oil and gas extraction, and not much more than the number of people employed in logging.) To put that in perspective: the auto manufacturing industry in Kentucky employs three times as many people as the coal industry does today. When is the last time you heard pundits making grand predictions about how new auto-industry regulations would affect Kentucky “Car Country”? ¶ Now, there’s no question coal’s grip on politics in Kentucky extends beyond actual employment figures—it is part of the state’s cultural identity, part of the holy trinity that also includes horses and bourbon. That explains why, as the Times notes, a Republican congressional candidate recently savaged his opponent for being anti-coal in a Kentucky district that has not a single coal-mining job in it. And in coal country, the economic impact of the rules will reach beyond the mines themselves to all the residents and businesses who have come to rely on the cheap electricity provided by coal (though it should be noted that the new rules give Kentucky and West Virginia more lenient targets for emissions reductions than other states).¶ Still, we should not be surprised if the political fallout from the new rules proves less than overwhelming. Just ask Mitt Romney. In 2012, he invested heavily in ads attacking Barack Obama as anti-coal as part of his effort to win the swing states of Ohio and Virginia. This came to naught—perhaps because only a sliver of people in either states are actually employed by the coal industry, about 3,000 in Ohio and 5,000 in Virginia. And it’s not just the industry itself that’s underpopulated—“coal country” as a whole makes up a vanishingly small portion of those states, as residents of southwestern Virginia and southeastern Ohio (never densely settled to begin with) have moved elsewhere for work. As Slate's Dave Weigel notes, in 2012, Mitt Romney won Dickinson County in Virginia’s coal country by 24 points. But Dickinson County voters cast fewer than 7,000 ballots. Meanwhile, Obama won by 44 points in the city of Norfolk, which has good reason to be more favorable toward regulations intended to address climate change. And Norfolk cast nearly 77,000 votes. (The anti-Obama forces may have figured out the limits of coal-based appeals: a robo-call attacking Democratic senator Mark Warner that is going up in Virginia attacking the new rules says, “Tell Mark Warner higher gas prices and new EPA regulations just don't make sense for Virginia.” The new rules have nothing to do with gas prices, but hey, why let the facts stand in the way?)¶ None of this is meant to minimize the economic pain that new limits on coal will inflict on Appalachian coal country. It’s just to note that the decline has been underway for a very long time, driven by a combination of automation, the rise of easier-to-access Western coal in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin, restrictions on mountaintop mining, and most of all, the new surge in cheap natural gas. “It’s not Obama’s war on coal. It’s reality’s war on coal. Natural gas turns out to be better than coal in the marketplace,” Michael Lynch, an energy consultant, told the Times.

Politics – Low economy will cost Democrats in midterms

Low economy now will cost Democrats in midterms

White 14 (Ben White, chief economic correspondent for Politico, in “Shrinking economy trouble for Democrats” on 25 June 2014. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/united-states-economy-democrats-108290.html#ixzz35rammnAU Accessed 27-6-14)

The United States economy contracted by a shocking 2.9 percent in the first quarter of the year, a much worse than expected number that could undermine hopes by the White House and congressional Democrats to run on improving conditions in the fall midterm elections. The number is a snap shot of the past and in part the result of a terrible winter slowing down everything from home construction to personal shopping to business inventory growth. The second quarter should be significantly better. But negative headlines around the contraction – the worst since the Great Recession ended in 2009 – are likely to worsen already deeply negative national attitudes about the economy that have decimated President Barack Obama’s approval rating and led to Democratic fears of big losses in the House and Senate in November. Numbers this bad can also have a psychological impact on consumer behavior. If people think the economy is getting worse they can pull back on hiring and spending which in turn actually makes the economy worse.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.89 Mb.

Share with your friends: