GLOBAL CLIMATE DEBATE

[SUITERS] Hello, and welcome to "Clean Skies Sunday," a weekly half-hour look at energy issues facing Washington and America.  I'm Tyler Suiters.  This week, the world's best-selling green cars get a black eye.  We'll have the latest on the Toyota recall.  Also, nearly two months after the Copenhagen talks, how is that climate accord shaping up?  We'll hear from the main U.S. climate negotiator.  And engineers say this engine could solve a number of transportation fuel problems. We'll show you the omnivorous engine.  First, to the massive recall of the world's top-selling hybrid car.  Right now Toyota is recalling its famous Prius because of a braking problem.  This is the automaker's third recall in the last six months.  But it's Toyota's first-ever worldwide recall of a single model.  "Clean Skies'" Lee Patrick Sullivan follows the transportation industry for us, and he's joining us now with a closer look.  Lee, what a terrible start to the year for Toyota.   

[SULLIVAN] Yes, Tyler, for a company that prides itself on consistently finishing near the top for quality and customer service, it's been a challenging month for the world's largest car maker.   

[ANNOUNCER] In recent days, our company hasn't been living up to the standards that you've come to expect from us...or that we expect from ourselves.   

[SULLIVAN] Just 48 hours after Toyota apologized in this Super Bowl ad, the company president announced another recall, this time for the Prius and Lexus hybrids.   

[TOYODA] We will do everything in our power to regain the confidence of our customers.   

[SULLIVAN] The company says the problems stem from the ABS brakes conflicting with the regenerative braking system that are unique to all hybrids.  Toyota says the problem gives the feel to the drivers for a second that the brakes are not stopping the cars.  Toyota officials say no brakes of any of their cars has failed.  The problem can be fixed with a software update.  The recall will cover more than 400,000 Prius and other hybrids worldwide.  This follows recalls of more than 7 million vehicles so far this year.  And we're starting to see the first signs of Toyota's damaged reputation.  Sales for January in the U.S. are down for Toyota by 16%.  By contrast, sales for Ford set a record by jumping 25%.  And General Motors saw its sales in January jump by more than 14%.  Now, Toyota officials can't stress enough that there has been no problem stopping these vehicles.  A software glitch causes the ABS brakes, which are usually engaged in icy and slippery conditions, to kick on.  So if you're on dry pavement and this happens, it will feel unusual to the driver, but it only lasts a brief second.  And, more importantly, the car is stopping and will stop.  Now, most experts I've spoken to say that a problem like this usually doesn't require a recall.  And a company can usually deal with this, Tyler, through their dealer network.  But Toyota officials felt as if they were forced into this recall by the comments made by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and by some media reports that were out there.   

[SUITERS] Comments that the secretary tried to pull back almost immediately after he made them, true.  What about the ripple effect here, Lee?  With Toyota's recalls, are we seeing a big boost in GM and Ford sales already?   

[SULLIVAN] We have seen a big boost, but the people I spoke to in Detroit say that a recall like this is bad for all automakers, right across the board.  Toyota has now raised the bar when it comes to recalls.  You and I remember the problems Ford had with the Ford Pinto in the mid-'70s.   

[SUITERS] Yeah, sure.   

[SULLIVAN] That was a much more serious situation.  But all during their court cases, they were getting sued in class-action lawsuits.  Ford kept on making the Ford Pinto.  Now, going forward, if something -- an accelerator problem with a General Motor, Ford, or Chrysler vehicle -- goes on, the American public are going to want to know, why are they still making these cars?  Toyota is fat with cash.  They can stop production.  Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors cannot stop this.  Toyota has now raised the bar.   

[SUITERS] All right.  Lee Patrick Sullivan.  Thank you very much.  Maybe it's only natural that in between the two snowstorms we saw last week, the Obama administration was talking about the climate.  The top U.S. climate negotiator, Todd Stern, gave his take on the outcome of December's Copenhagen Climate Conference and where he thinks world-climate negotiations are now heading.  Stern says the 11th-hour Copenhagen Accord accepted by the U.S. is, in his words, "More sketch than painting."  But he insists it contains landmark provisions and is a must along the way to a legally binding international treaty.  "Clean Skies" executive editor Margaret Ryan joins us now from the newsroom with more.  Margaret.   

[RYAN] Tyler, Stern described the Copenhagen meeting as a "snarling, aggravated, chaotic event," where attempts to resolve long-standing international divisions ran up against a stone wall of rabble-rousing, feigned outrage, and devious diplomats.  But the accord that world leaders reached has what he called "really important stuff."  He said, "Quantified world-temperature goals, commitments by both developed and developing countries to cut carbon, financial pledges, and transparent international review."  Now, he noted that major emerging economies whose leaders helped write the accord -- China, India, Brazil, South Africa -- are now saying that global negotiations should proceed from the unresolved Copenhagen texts, not from the accord.   

[STERN] We have quite a different view of what ought to happen going forward.  The accord, by its terms, is an operational document with landmark provisions, and we think it ought to be operationalized.  Nor do we think that its provisions can be cherry-picked since, like any meaningful agreement, it represents a fair balance.  Not just financing but transparency, not just mitigation by all major economies, but technology assistance and dissemination for developing countries.  Moreover, we think that the accord should materially influence further negotiations.  This was not, after all, a casual agreement.  It was the product of a hands-on engagement by a set of representative world leaders, and it makes no sense to suggest that it should play second fiddle to a negotiator-level text that generated wide disagreement in Copenhagen.   

[RYAN] Now, Stern says many developing nations are uncomfortable moving away from the Kyoto Protocol in which only developed nations have responsibilities.  But 97% of emissions growth is projected to come from those developing nations.  So Stern says any new deal has to include them, and the accord is the first step.  But before that -- and maybe tougher than Copenhagen -- the U.S. Senate.   

[STERN] Now Congress needs to pass strong energy and climate legislation this year.  This is something we must do for our own good to contain the gathering storm that threatens to ravage our natural world, damage the health and safety of our children, and undermine our national security, but also to secure a job-creating, robust economic future.   

[RYAN] Jennifer Haverkamp, with Environmental Defense Fund, says the Copenhagen deal actually gives the Senate a big opportunity.   

[HAVERKAMP] Because the Copenhagen Accord left a fair number of things still on the table to be sorted out later.  For instance, the negotiation of the guidelines for what exactly the rules for transparency and accountability will be left the United States Senate with a very significant opportunity to fill in those blanks.  And if our Congress does act this year, it really has the chance to help write the rules and influence in a very significant way what the global outcome will be.   

[RYAN] And whatever happens in the Senate, a Center for American Progress analysis says the world's better off with the Copenhagen Accord than without.  Even the low end of actions that were pledged under this accord totaled to more carbon cuts than were ever promised before the December meeting.   

[SUITERS] Okay, Margaret, the idea of more carbon cuts -- Where are these gains going to come from?   

[RYAN] Well, CAP's Andrew Light said they largely came from Brazil and South Africa embracing forestry credits.  You'll remember that one of the areas in Copenhagen where real progress was made was in the red area -- in how to craft forestry credits, how they should be allocated and sold.  And that's an area where it allowed some of the countries that were participating to say, "Okay, now we're sure.  We can do more carbon cutting."   

[SUITERS] Margaret, you mentioned the low end of actions pledged here.  What does the high end look like right now?   

[RYAN] Well, the high end -- If all the countries got to the tops of their offers -- and all of those are conditional on what everybody else does -- but here's the chart that'll show you.  CAP head John Podesta says, "The world gets within 5 gigatons of the needed reductions if the top level is reached."  He said, "Effective U.S.  legislation could bring the world even closer, and it demonstrates that the world indeed can meet the carbon-cutting challenge.  It does have the tools."   

[SUITERS] All right.  Margaret Ryan.  Thank you very much.  Still ahead today, a look at a controversial way to get natural gas.  It's called hydrofracking, and natural-gas producers say it is the best way to get gas from hard-to-reach places.  But critics contend drinking water is at stake.  Plus, could this be the engine of the future?  Ethanol gasoline -- It takes it all.  We'll show you the omnivorous engine.  Stay with us.   

[BREAK]  

A lot of what we think of as brilliant or luminous comes from the clear blue sky in our childhood memory.  So bright, you'd squint your eyes, and so blue, it took your breath away.  It's the sky we'd re-create with crayons, with puffy clouds and a beaming yellow sun.  It just never occurred to us that one day, kids would pick up the brown or gray to illustrate the haze.  I think we all want the sky in our imagination to be the blue it was born to be, the blue every living thing deserves to see in their sky.  There's an American Indian proverb that says, "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors.  We borrow it from our children."  Generations of civilization have understood that.  The air our children will breathe, the environment they will inhabit is theirs.  We just cannot accept the status quo as if we have no comprehension, no conscience.   

[END BREAK]  

[SUITERS] Welcome back to "Clean Skies Sunday."  Right now Congress is considering taking a closer look at a controversial way to extract natural gas from shale developments.  Behind that backdrop, debates are now heating up between environmentalists who say hydrofracking can contaminate drinking water and supporters of this procedure who say it is necessary to increase an American clean energy source.  This morning, "Clean Skies'" Dee Bhambhani takes a closer look.   

[BHAMBHANI] The practice of extracting natural gas by fracturing shale rock underground, called hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, is under fire.  Many environmentalists say the natural-gas industry could contaminate water supplies with expanded use of hydrofracking, and they want the federal government to step in.   

[SLOCUM] We're not talking about banning it, but we're talking about bringing it under a minimum standard of federal regulation to protect scarce water supplies.   

[BHAMBHANI] Currently, individual states regulate the use of this method by natural-gas producers, but Slocum says that's not enough, the practice is mushrooming.  And he and other environmentalists want the EPA to regulate the practice under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Congress, in 2005, exempted this drilling from the act.  While the concept has been around for years, the technology was only developed in the last decade and is now coming in to widespread use.  According to the natural-gas industry, 95% of new wells being drilled now are fracking shale for natural gas.  Lee Fuller, who represents the independent oil and gas producers, says the practice is growing, but it's tested and reliable.  And he says states are able to protect their own groundwater.   

[FULLER] On the whole, there has never been a need for the federal government to get into this regulatory regime, and there is no need for it to do so now.   

[BHAMBHANI] It's safe.   

[FULLER] It's safe.  It's been around for 60 years.  It's been used well over a million times.  There's a dozen or so allegations that surface periodically that have been used to try to suggest that there's a problem with fracturing.  When those allegations have been investigated, they've uniformly been found not to be related to hydraulic fracture.   

[BHAMBHANI] So, what's the root of the concern?  Essentially, a hole is drilled into the shale formation, at first vertically, then curving to enter the formation horizontally.  Shale formations are typically below groundwater aquifers, often thousands of feet below, the industry says.  That hole is lined with a cement casing to seal off the wellbore.  Then water, sand, and other chemicals are pumped down into the shale under intense pressure, which then fractures the shale and allows gas trapped in the shale pores to flow to the wellbore.  This may be done numerous times for separate sections of the well.  Environmentalists say they're worried chemicals like benzene, diesel, and methanol are going to get into the drinking water if this practice continues to proliferate.  Mike Paque is director of the Ground Water Protection Council, which regulates oil and gas drilling in Oklahoma.  He says hydrofracking is safe and doesn't need to be regulated by EPA.  He says EPA did a study 10 years ago that determined the method used to extract coalbed methane didn't harm freshwater aquifers.  He says if a study were done today on hydrofracking and shales, he thinks EPA would come to the same conclusions.   

[PAQUE] The states are better equipped and best equipped to -- Because of variations in geology, they're the best equipped to regulate oil and gas production, hydraulic fracturing, which we actually do regulate in many different ways, and certainly underground injection.  But to try to shoehorn hydraulic fracturing into the Safe Drinking Water Act, I'd think it'd just create a lot of problems.  

[BHAMBHANI] In Washington, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania has five co-sponsors for the FRAC Act.  It charges EPA with regulating hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and requires gas companies to disclose the chemicals they inject underground.  In the House, Colorado Democrat Diana DeGette has 50 co-sponsors for her version of the FRAC Act.   

[DEGETTE] Good news -- My bill would not make hydraulic fracturing illegal, nor would it make it commercially impracticable.  I support the use of hydraulic fracturing.  Please let me say that again.  I support the use of hydraulic fracturing, but I also support it being done in an environmentally responsible way.   

[BHAMBHANI] Despite sponsors' intentions, the industry fears the consequences of regulation.   

[FULLER] The problem with that is that there's never been any regulation of hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The structure of that act is not designed to handle well constructions.   

[BHAMBHANI] If lawmakers decide to impose federal regulation, that decision could affect the largest natural-gas merger in U.S. history.  At a recent House hearing, Exxon and XTO Energy said their deal could be off if Congress makes hydrofracking "illegal or commercially impracticable."  Alaska Republican senator Lisa Murkowski late last year urged caution on new regulation.   

[MURKOWSKI] We have incredible reserves when it comes to the shale gas.  Well, the process to go after it is through this fracturing.  And it's not something that we just figured out how to do last year.  They've been doing this for decades and been doing it in relatively safe manner.  We can always do better with our technologies.  And we should continue to pursue that.  But I would certainly hope that we in the Congress would not pass legislation that would prohibit that process.   

[BHAMBHANI] As for the administration, Energy Secretary Steven Chu says he's not opposed to hydraulic fracturing.  The top White House climate advisor, Carol Browner, did conclude while she was at the Clinton EPA that the EPA need not be involved in regulating hydrofracking.  In Washington, Dee Bhambhani, Clean Skies News.   

[SUITERS] And another controversial technology is now in the spotlight thanks to a presidential memorandum.  President Obama issued what the White House calls a comprehensive federal strategy on carbon capture and storage.  That's the process designed to capture carbon emissions from burning coal and then store that CO2 underground.  The memorandum calls for 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects by 2016, an ambitious goal for a technology that has not yet been proven commercially viable.  Joining us now to talk about this vote of confidence for carbon capture and storage technology is Bob Hilton.  He is with Alstom Power, where he is vice president of power technologies and government affairs.  Bob, it's good to have you back with us.   

[HILTON] Thank you.  It's nice to be here.   

[SUITERS] The President has talked about this focus on carbon capture and storage ever since the election cycle.  It's something that both parties generally agree upon.  What do you need to see in terms of direction, though?   

[HILTON] We really needed to see what this task force creates, which is a focus and a sense of priority.   

[SUITERS] Mm-hmm.   

[HILTON] You know, we're reaching the level where we're getting into the, I'll say, commercial projects.  We were fortunate in terms of the CCPI, the Clean Coal Power Initiative, that Alstom has two projects under that, which will be commercial scale.  But to drive these projects at that level, we need federal support.  We need the government to intervene.  It can't be done solely on private money, which is the way we've operated to date.   

[SUITERS] Mm-hmm.  I want to read a little bit of what this presidential memorandum outlines.  In quoting here from the President, "The Task Force shall develop within 180 days a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years."  And then he goes on to his goal "of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016."  "Commercial demonstration," Bob.  What does that mean to you?  Because that's a key qualifier in the entire carbon capture technology and research.   

[HILTON] As Alstom views it, a commercial demonstration is a plant at scale, typically 200, 250, 300 megawatts of flue gas equivalent.  Because at that level, from a technological perspective, we can then go to any size plant with the equipment that we need to do.  We'll have proven it with the right equipment at the right scale, continuously.  And this is the same focus that I think the task force has.  At that level, as I said -- We have two projects that'll be at that level, under the CCPI.  So we're really pleased at Alstom.  We'll have at least 2, hopefully, of the 10 that they're talking about, jointly.   

[SUITERS] Now, "Clean Skies," Bob, has been to one of these projects.  That is the Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia -- a joint project, along with AEP and EPRI, as well.  So far, the early returns have been very rewarding for you in terms of what you expected to see at various milestones along the way.   

[HILTON] Right, so far, Mountaineer has, you know, as AEP's chairman likes to say, "has exceeded expectations."  It has gone extremely well, and that's what brings us to the ability to move from where we are there, which is roughly 50 to 60 megawatts thermal, to the larger 250-megawatt plant, which is the DOE involvement from the CCPI Phase III.   

[SUITERS] How many eyes, so to speak, are on this one particular plant?  It seems to be the flagship that is under way right now in the U.S., but what about a global scale?   

[HILTON] Everybody's watching this one.  I mean, it is in front of all the efforts that we have.  Even in advanced amine and chilled ammonia, this is the most progressive.  It is the first fully integrated plant.  I mean, we're capturing CO2, we're compressing it, and then we're sequestering it on the site.  So it is unique.  It is the cutting edge of the technology.   

[SUITERS] You and I have discussed before, Bob, the Pleasant Prairie project in Wisconsin -- a much smaller-scale carbon capture and storage.  Again, a joint project that Alstom was involved in.   

[HILTON] Mm-hmm.  Mm-hmm.  Right.   

[SUITERS] Very successful, as well.  You hit or exceeded the numbers you were shooting for.   

[HILTON] Correct.   

[SUITERS] What are the difficulties, though, as you scale up, going larger to larger on all of these projects?   

[HILTON] Well, what happens is, you know -- First, Wisconsin was what we call proof of concept.  And that's the first time we really ran on flue gas.  We ran continuously under a true operating scenario in a power plant.  Now you move to larger equipment.  You begin to be able to test the economies you can get on energy.  You begin to test the full integration.  And that's the last step, when we go to the commercial one, 'cause then you're fully integrated with the power plant.  And there, we try to take advantage of all the savings we can get, not maybe just project or do, you know, the process.  Plus, we think we can save some more, you know?  That's the true commercial test, which is why we move progressively through this, from the 5 to 7 megawatts to the 50 to 60 to the 250.   

[SUITERS] Bob, final question -- It involves the prediction that the head of Alstom Power, Philippe Joubert, has made very publicly, that is that 2015 is the time for commercial-scale carbon capture and storage technology.  He and Jim Rogers are really the two private-sector leaders who have been out in front on this.  Does this validate his prediction to some degree?   

[HILTON] I think it absolutely does.  Mr. Joubert has been adamant since we started our program in the early 2000s and really made it concrete in about 2004.  The 2015 is the date we had to be ready to be commercial for deployment if we were gonna make the real objectives that we all have for 2020.  And now with the president moving to sort of, I'll say, consolidate this around 17% reduction, it becomes absolutely critical that we deploy in that time frame.  So I think, absolutely, Mr. Joubert is more than validated.   

[SUITERS] All right.  Bob Hilton is vice president of power technologies for government affairs with Alstom Power.  Bob, thanks again for sharing your insight.   

[HILTON] It's been nice to be here.   

[SUITERS] Ethanol, butanol, gasoline?  Doesn't matter.  We're showing you the latest project out of Argonne National Laboratory.  It's called the omnivorous engine, and it could solve a big fuel problem here in the U.S.   

[BREAK]  

Do you ever gaze into the sky and wonder if it looks the same as when people thousands of years ago looked to the heavens?  Not just wondering if ancient people recognized the sun and stars and clouds for what they are -- we know they didn't -- but wondering if in that same spot where you are standing today, did some primitive nomadic hunter look up at a sky that was bluer and clearer and more brilliant than what you see?  We know mankind's footprint has changed the land in ways that would make it unrecognizable to primitive man.  But what have we done to the untouchable, limitless sky?  Maybe the more important question is, what will the sky look like in only 100 more years?   

Snow diamonds glitter across a sleeping winter earth.  December skies have always represented an end, a quiet, restful death of the year, of a romance, of a well-worn life.  But I look at a frozen white landscape and see perfect harmony, an interconnected planet where everything eventually comes together.  The line between sky and a snow-covered horizon disappears, a beautiful reminder that there may be nothing better than a fresh start.   

[END BREAK]  

[SUITERS] Welcome back.  Right now the Environmental Protection Agency is waiting on more tests before it decides whether to raise the ethanol blend in the gasoline we use.  Automakers don't want this blend change.  They say engines have to be recalibrated every time a change occurs.  But engineers at Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago are now working on something called the omnivorous engine, something that could make that battle irrelevant.  And if this engine makes it to market, the fight between ethanol producers and automakers will be over.  Lee Patrick Sullivan has the story.  [ Engine revving ]  

[SULLIVAN] This engine is only 2 years old, but it's not a picky eater.  Gasoline, ethanol, butanol, or any combination of the three, it will slurp it up and perform.  It's called the omnivorous engine, and the folks at Argonne National Lab outside Chicago say it could revolutionize the internal-combustion engine.   

[WALLNER] Our concept optimizes itself to run as efficiently as possible on a variety of fuels, including gasoline, ethanol, other alcohols like butanol, and a mix of all these fuels.   

[SULLIVAN] Now, in theory, any alcohol-based fuel that can be ignited by a spark plug will work in a gasoline engine.  Just ask the folks that fill up with used french-fry grease.  What they don't tell you is how poorly the cars perform.  Even E85 flex fuel vehicles lose efficiency when the ethanol mix gets higher.   

[WALLNER] Right now, if you fill up with E85, versus gasoline, your vehicle will lose about 30% of its range because of the lower energy content of ethanol, versus gasoline.  If we're successful with this concept, we might be able to run the engine more efficiently on ethanol than it runs on gasoline, because it optimizes itself.   

[SULLIVAN] It does this by using a series of sensors in the fuel line.  These sensors can detect the ions in each kind of fuel and calibrate the engine accordingly.  This is something that would take a mechanic several hours to calibrate, based on what type of alcohol-based fuel was being used.  These sensors do it on the fly.  And the omnivorous engine is being put through the wringer in a virtual world at Argonne National Lab.   

[SHIDORE ] So, behind the screen is an entire model of a vehicle with a battery, with tires, with electrical motor, and everything.   

[SULLIVAN] The software was developed at Argonne, and it tricks the engine into thinking it's in a real car, cutting down on research-and-development time.  Tests that used to take years for automakers now are completed in days.   

[SHIDORE] So, we have our own modeling software, called Autonomy, which is used to model vehicles.  And we use that software, and we connect it to a real engine and make the engine believe that it's in the vehicle.   

[SULLIVAN] If successful, the omnivorous engine could have a huge impact on energy policy.  Each state could come up with its own blend of fuel without having the automakers tweak their engines.  Driving through Iowa?  Use 100% ethanol.  Entering Chicago?  Use a butanol blend.   

[SHIDORE] You can use the same fuel, you can use different fuels, you can drive across cities which have different blends of ethanol or butanol or something, and you can still use the same fuel and be assured that your car, or your engine, is giving you the maximum performance possible.   

[SULLIVAN] And the folks at Argonne are also working on a diesel version of the omnivorous engine.   

[WALLNER] We have a different project, where we're looking to ion-sensing feedback for diesel engines.  And that could be used on diesel or biodiesel or other replacement fuels for regular conventional diesel.   

[SULLIVAN] Now, to have an engine that runs on different types of fuels isn't a new idea.  The early Model T's actually ran on ethanol and gasoline.  But if you changed your fuel, you had to recalibrate.  At Argonne National Laboratory, Lee Patrick Sullivan, Clean Skies News.   

[SUITERS] And that does it for us for this edition of "Clean Skies Sunday."  I'm Tyler Suiters.  We'll see you right back here next Sunday morning, or you can join us anytime on our Website at cleanskies.com and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.  We hope you have a great Sunday, and thanks for joining us.   

[END SHOW]