The Energy Disconnect (Pun Intended): People Don’t Seem to
Understand Energy Issues So We Should Try to Figure Out Why and Fix These
Problems
The recent pledge by the presidents of the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico to get North America to 50% “clean energy” for electricity by 2025, a mere
8.5 years from now, underscores the need for politicians, policy-makers, the
government, and the public as a whole to understand energy issues better. The
energy industry is the largest industry in the world. It is the industry that
runs industry and the economies of the world. It makes available the stuff that
feeds our machines. U.S. president Jimmy Carter created the Energy Information
Administration (EIA). This body keeps very good and very accessible statistics
on energy production, consumption, supply, demand, trends, and happenings.
Globally, there is the International Energy Agency (IEA) that performs a
similar function for the world. There are other sources as well. State agencies
in the U.S. also keep good records. There are also several major energy market
analysis groups that provide useful information. There are people like me who
write blogs about energy. The information is there. Anyone developing and
purporting an opinion about which energy sources to promote or demote should
become cognizant of this freely available information. Otherwise they should
keep quiet. I originally read the headline incorrectly - that 50% total renewable energy was the goal rather than 50% of electricity. This is of course a more reasonable goal but it still will be difficult to attain.
Below I will list what I think are some serious energy
misconceptions and attempt to explain them.
The (at first) Perplexing Clean Energy Pledge of the “Three Amigos”
Since the U.S. consumes about 75% of North American energy
the recent clean energy pledge is mainly a U.S. pledge. While President Obama
has made some reasonable energy and environmental/climate goals in the past
this one will not be easy and may fall short. The Clean Power Plan is
implementable mainly due to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the
improvement in air quality due to fracking which made possible widespread
switching from coal to gas in U.S. power generation. The goals in the Clean Power
Plan allow states to implement it with a significant amount of flexibility.
Yes, it is more a less a death knell to coal usage since coal is the most
carbon intensive and most polluting energy by a significant margin. It will
likely be a boost to natural gas production as gas is the most sensible
replacement for coal in the near-term. The National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATs) will also be
easier to improve to desired levels in combination with the Clean Power Plan. The
CPP is not just about climate, it is about improved air quality and improved
health. President Obama’s climate pledge at the Paris summit and his
willingness to negotiate and promote shared climate goals with the two biggest
developing countries, India and China, are laudable. The federal methane
leakage goals from oil and gas systems, also shared by Canada and Mexico are
also quite achievable and reasonable. However, in seemingly seeking a positive
legacy in regards to climate change policy some of his more recent proposals
have been off the mark. His proposal for a $10 per barrel oil tax at a time of
historically low oil prices was laughable and insulting to many. I was
disappointed. And now this difficult to attain clean energy pledge is
also going to be challenging. One problem I see with this pledge and particularly if it had been for 50% total renewable energy (I am revising the article now) is that it
would lend legitimacy to other unreasonable points of view and movements. It would lend
legitimacy to radical environmentalists and climate justice advocates. It would lend
legitimacy to anti-fossil fuel advocates. It would lend legitimacy to those who do
not understand energy realities. It is one thing to say you want something and
quite another to make it happen. These world leaders have capable energy
advisors. They should consult them and other knowledgeable sources about
feasibility before they make pledges. Please bear in mind that the tone of this article is as if they made the 50% total renewables pledge. Fossil fuels in the 2014 EIA U.S.
total energy consumption data made up 81.5% of total energy consumed for that
year. The EIA also predicts that without any major policy changes the amount of
total energy consumed in 2040 would consist of 76.6% fossil fuels. In 2025 the
predicted fossil fuel percentage of total U.S. energy consumption is likely to
be about 78.5%. If the pledge were for 50% total renewables that would be be at least 20-25% off of the pledge. Since
the U.S. is the 2nd largest energy consumer in the world after China
that does not seem at all likely. It would require some major changes in our
energy systems and this is not in any way in the works on such a scale. Even though I wrote this whole article with an incorrect assumption I think the energy disconnects listed below are still quite valid.
Disconnect #1: “Clean Energy” Can Be Ramped Up Now to Take Up a Much
Greater Share of Production
There are some serious limitations to how much clean energy
we can use in the short-term and in the mid-term. Hydro is considered to be
mature: there are not many more places we can build dams to generate energy. In
addition, around the world where such projects have been proposed there has
been strong resistance on environmental grounds. New additions from hydro will
be minimal. Nuclear energy, while potentially feasible in the mid-term and
long-term pictures will be minimal in the short-term. There has not been a new
nuclear power plant built in the U.S. for 20 years although a handful are in
various planning and construction phases. Costs, safety, waste, and public
backlash will limit nuclear unless and until feasible new designs appear.
Geothermal, biomass, and biogas also have limitations that will keep their
contributions to the total energy picture very small. That leaves wind and
solar. Both wind and solar require large land footprints and large government
subsidies. That will continue to be the case for some time. In 2014 wind and
solar combined to make up 2.2 % of the total U.S. energy consumed. Now (mid-2016) that
number may be closer to 3%. Renewable energy sources made up 18% of the 2014
total U.S. energy consumed. Now that number may be closer to 19%. In Germany, a
country that has promoted renewable energy on a truly massive scale and offers
electricity prices nearly three times those of the U.S. they have made it up to
about 23% of energy produced from wind and solar. Now they are increasingly
faced with difficulties in grid integration due to the intermittency and
unpredictability of both solar and wind generation. At a certain level of
renewables penetration on the grid the costs to integrate them into the grid
rise with more need for battery storage and management of massive amounts of
distributed generation sources. Renewables overgeneration has resulted in
wasted generation during peak generation times where supply exceeds demand.
Other countries and states routinely curtail renewables during overgeneration
times. California does it. While such peak generation can be integrated the
current costs may exceed the benefits. Massive ramping of wind and solar would
also require massively more direct subsidies and especially in the case of wind
many more large infrastructure build-outs in the form of high voltage
transmission wires to bring the energy from the wind production areas to the
places that need the energy. Other massive buildouts would be required on the
distribution end to balance the grids. Utility business models would need to be
adjusted. Smart grid technologies would need to be implemented on a big scale.
Implementation and management costs would be very high. All of these very
considerable logistical problems make those who call for “100% renewable now”
sound magnitudes more ridiculous since 50% renewables would be an incredibly
daunting task that will take decades rather than years.
Disconnect #2: Fracking Can Be Banned
This may be a larger energy disconnect than number 1. Fracking
now makes up 67% of U.S. natural gas production and 50% of U.S. oil production.
Natural gas makes up about 34% of U.S. electricity production so fracking makes
up about 23% of U.S. electricity production. These numbers are set to grow in
the years to come as gas replaces coal in power generation. Fracking made up
37% of total U.S. energy consumption in 2014. It achieved this energy source
dominance mainly in about 7 years’ time, quite a phenomenal achievement. It is
also quite possible that it saved the U.S. economy as it ramped up during the
economic downturn and prevented the U.S. from having to import gas from
countries like Qatar and Russia. It also undoubtedly improved air quality and
reduced greenhouse gas emissions so that U.S. GHG emissions reductions led the
world by far. Arguable fracking saved both the economy and the climate, while
improving the environment significantly and giving the U.S. virtual energy independence
far into the future. In these senses one might say that fracking is a god!
However, if one reads the news, particularly the far left liberal media and
climate justice advocates news, but also much of mainstream media, one might
conclude that fracking is a devil! Once when passing through Ithaca, NY around
2010 I saw spray-painted in large letters on a wall the words, “Fracking is
Hell.” While there are no doubt some environmental issues with fracking they
have been overhyped, in some cases in extreme ways. The fact that banning
fracking is even being considered and debated by a major political party can be
seen as an energy disconnect. No doubt the bans in New York, some Canadian
provinces, France, Bulgaria, Germany, and a few other countries lend credence
to the ban fracking movements. There are significant reasons to think fracking
would be problematic from a logistical standpoint in places with no
infrastructure, dense populations, and poor water resources and inadequate
wastewater disposal possibilities. This is not the case in the U.S. and Canada.
There have been over 1.6 million wells drilled in the U.S. and over 100,000
wells have been fracked. While there have been cases of water contamination
from spills, leaky pits and impoundments, and migrating naturally occurring
methane, there has yet to be a documented case of water contamination from the
hydraulic fracturing process itself. The EPA has concluded that what some call
an “environmental nightmare” has not led to widespread water contamination. Numerous
studies have supported this statement. Charges of methane leakage, radioactive
waste, noise, explosions, spills, volatile organic compound emissions, and land
disturbance have all been investigated and mitigated where applicable and
continue to be. New technologies are arising to help mitigate these problems.
Hundreds, maybe thousands of local groups have arisen to oppose fracking. They
are often very organized and very vocal. They have been able to distort the
facts very effectively. They may hate fracking but they benefit from it daily
in many ways. Hatred of fracking is unifying some towns as they seek to change
their forms of government just to ban the process. Anti-corporatism has become
a political rallying cry. While there are some legitimate issues with current
corporatism such as income inequality, the issue of fracking has really
galvanized the anti-corporatism movement. Curiously, there has been little
emphasis on making fracking safer or on developing reasonable regulations. New
regulations continue to advance and be implemented. Clearly, a ban on the
source of 37% (and possibly up to 50% or more in the future) of the total
energy consumption of the country would be catastrophic. We would have to ramp
up coal use, import gas and oil from unfair countries, give away our energy
independence, pay much higher prices for electricity, gasoline, oil, plastics,
rubber, many other hydrocarbon products, and many other manufactured products. Some
of our many industries that rely on inexpensive natural gas would be shuttered
and their product prices would go up. It would be an economic nightmare. It
would take decades to ramp up and integrate clean energy solutions. It is
really a bit insane to even consider it. It is a huge energy disconnect. Even
in places where fracking is banned they still use its products extensively and
consumption has been rising.
Disconnect #3: Fossil Fuels Don’t Benefit Society but Clean Energy
Does
It is cheap available energy that benefits society
regardless of its source. Energy use is directly associated with both health
and wealth. Alex Epstein covers this in his book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. Other sensible energy and
environmental writers like Robert Bryce, Dieter Helm, Michael Shellenberger,
Ted Nordhaus, Stewart Brand, Vaclav Smil, and even James Lovelock have
corroborated that energy use leads to wealth, health, and in turn better
overall treatment of the environment. Fossil fuels and those who benefit from
them on the production end have been vilified. We all benefit from them on the
consumption end. It’s like ordering a drink and shooting the bar tender. Fossil
fuels have enabled economic and population growth. They have fueled
agriculture. They are used to make fertilizer which has enabled us to feed the
world. Fossil fuels are the source and/or a major component of many of our raw
materials and products including plastic, rubber, nylon, polyester, PVC, and
many other things. Fossil fuels are refrigerant replacements for CFCs and HFCs
in air conditioners and refrigerators. They are key parts of our technological
society in many forms and ways. Plastics are increasingly used in auto parts as
light-weight replacements for metals, which improves fuel economy. Oil and gas
and products derived from them are a cornerstone of our society.
Disconnect #4: Renewable Energy is Environmentally Benign
While renewable energy is more environmentally benign than
fossil fuels it is not entirely benign. Sand is mined to make solar panels.
Mined metals, forged steel, and plastics made from oil and gas are used in
solar panels and parts and in wind turbines. Lithium, nickel, cadmium, cobalt,
graphite, and copper are all mined and drilled to make batteries. Rare earth
elements are mined and in some cases extracted en masse in dangerous acids to
be used in batteries, cell phones, wind turbines, and solar panels. Solar panel
production creates some toxic waste that must be disposed. Wind turbines
require a significant amount of oil to lubricate them during their lifetimes.
The wind towers are set in the ground with large cement bases and cement
production is fossil fuel energy intensive. The glass for Chinese solar panels
is often melted with coal burnt without adequate pollution controls. Deep
geothermal plants require wells to be drilled and cased and in some cases
hydraulically fractured. Hydro dams can be massive cement structures. Wind
turbines kill migratory birds, raptors, and are currently the largest killer of
bats. Wind turbines make noise that some people may have sensitivities toward.
Batteries sometimes catch fire, especially if used improperly. Biomass from
solid waste can be very polluting even with pollution controls and produces
greenhouse gases. Biomass from wood produces both GHGs and significant
pollution. It may be carbon-lean but it significantly speeds up the rate at
which carbon enters the atmosphere. Biogas from anaerobic digestion is typically
40% CO2 which is vented into the atmosphere and 60% methane which has the same
carbon footprint as fossil methane. Digesters increase the rate and efficiency
at which it enters the atmosphere although they reduce its carbon footprint
since it is burned instead of vented. Fuel cells use natural gas to make
hydrogen. Solar thermal or concentrated solar power plants use natural gas for
heat at night. Another significant issue is that renewables require back-up
because their generation is intermittent and often unpredictable. Natural gas
is the best back-up power but often the natural gas peaker plants that backup
renewables are forced to run inefficiently. This necessary backup power can be
costly, produces some wear-and-tear on the gas turbines, and most significantly
– has both a carbon and pollution footprint. Since it is necessary in order
integrate renewables it should definitely be counted as part of the renewable
energy system and its emissions measured as such. To not do so would be
dishonest and misleading.
Disconnect #5: Fossil Fuel Subsidies Exceed Clean Energy Subsidies
and are Less Beneficial and Less Fair
This is a huge misconception. Renewable energy subsidies are
typically direct, which means the beneficiaries are paid directly, typically
through tax credits and in the case of wind through production credits. They
must be subsidized since they are poor investments with slow returns. Fossil
fuel subsidies are typically tax deferrals or discounts from losses. There are
also things like energy subsidies for the poor which are often counted as
fossil fuel subsidies. Some count the societal carbon and pollution “costs” as
fossil fuel subsidies. These can be valued in different ways and are not direct
payments. Many have pointed out that carbon taxes and pollution taxes disproportionately
affect the poor by making energy costs go up. Less pollution certainly has
health benefits. Carbon benefits are basically future benefits. Renewable
energy subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy, those who can afford
rooftop solar, electric vehicles, geothermal heat pumps, and battery systems.
At the same time those heat and energy assistance programs are based on income
so they benefit the poor entirely and are likely nearly entirely fossil fuel
sourced. Some renewable energy subsidies available to rural businesses from the
USDA amount up to 62% subsidization, free money which gives them an unfair
advantage and is unfair to tax payers.
Disconnect #6: Natural Gas is Not a Bridge to a Transition to
Renewable Energy
I often see articles touting natural gas as a ‘bridge to
nowhere.’ Climate hawk Joe Romm is big into discounting this role of natural
gas. Others often try to point out that cheap natural gas is preventing and
slowing a transition to renewables simply by being cheap and that renewables
would be more competitive if natural gas were more expensive. However, last
time I checked no one likes high costs, especially poor people. Another thing
they like to point out is that methane leakage from oil and gas systems negates
the climate benefits of natural gas over coal. Even if this were true and it
most certainly is not even close to being true, the very significant pollution
benefits of natural gas over coal would still make it more desirable. The
radical environmentalist crowd uses this as their go-to argument against
fracking based on the faulty and debunked work of a few scientists that also
happen to be very outspoken anti-drilling activists. While there have been many
studies attempting to get a widespread assessment of ‘fugitive’ methane leakage
from oil and gas systems they rely only on that one main faulty study and any
other that seems to support it in any way. This is a clear case of cognitive bias.
The fact is that natural gas has been an available bridge to renewables for
some time and continues to be. The low price of natural gas can be said to free
up more money for those with the means to install renewable energy systems – by
the same logic as expensive natural gas forcing people and businesses to
install renewable energy because it is more cost competitive. In the first case
they can save the money from cheap gas for a period of time to buy a renewable system.
In the second case they are losing money for a period of time even before they
buy the same system. Natural gas is also a natural complement for renewable
energy, providing baseload, peaking, and backup power for renewables by virtue
of quick-start capabilities, efficient operation, and ability to size for the
system. Natural gas is the lightest and cleanest hydrocarbon fossil fuel and
increasing its use relative to heavier hydrocarbons also has carbon and
pollution benefits. Thus, it is also a bridge to a transition to lighter
hydrocarbons in the form of fuel for long haul trucks, trains, ships, fleet
vehicles, and other engines. This is happening now and is set to grow
moderately into the future.
Disconnect #7: Energy Cost Accounting is Often Deceptive
Formulas for ideas like ‘levelized cost of energy’ (LCOE)
can be misleading and leave out or add things that should not be left out or
added. To say that renewables are competitive with fossil energy is a statement
that must be qualified. How much direct subsidization, the cost of carbon, and
whole system accounting (rather than just the renewable parts of a system that
requires fossil backup that is forced to be inefficient) need to be known for
LCOEs to be fairly compared. Such deceptive accounting is really a form of
shystering and those who play that game should be outed. While it is one thing
to be willing to pay money to reduce one’s carbon footprint and feel good about
promoting renewable energy it is quite another to lie and say that it is cost
competitive and try to entice or shame others into what is economically a poor
investment compared to other available investments. In many communities such
overzealous green energy advocates are treated in a heroic fashion when they
should be called out on deceptive behavior.
Conclusions
That is all I can think of at present but that should be
quite enough. People are generally not very informed about energy issues so misconceptions
and manipulations can go long ways. While I like renewable energy and encourage
others to like it I also like fossil energy and would also encourage others to
like it. Anti-fossil fuel advocates tend to be loud and where I live they can
be pervasive. They suffer from several classic cognitive biases which I have
written about elsewhere. If the
‘three amigos’ did make a pledge for 50% total energy from renewables by 2025 I would have been quite disappointed by the absurdity of it, not because it is not a laudable aspiration (for a date further into the future) but because it would have been an
unreasonable one that lends legitimacy to those who continue to badmouth fossil
fuels and those who work hard to make them inexpensively available, increase
their safety, and reduce their carbon, pollution, and overall environmental
footprints. People at all levels need to be adequately informed and this is especially
true for those at the highest levels. In that vein I am quite glad I misread the pledge and it was revised (in my mind) to 50% of renewables for electricity generation. Right now clean energy in the U.S. which includes both nuclear and renewables makes up about 33.5% of electricity. Since Canada has very good hydro sources and a lower population than the U.S. it is able to source a much higher percentage of electricity from renewable hydro. That should help the possibility considerably of achieving the pledge. I do not know Mexico's fuel mix. OK so I guess the three amigos are off my shit list - for now!
No comments:
Post a Comment