Are we really expecting a miracle?

Tags

carbon, fossil fuels, Germany, GHGs, miracle, nuclear, renewables, world

Check out this figure. It shows actual energy consumed by fuel type worldwide. If you look at the chunk provided by low-carbon technology (nuclear, hydro, and other renewables) in 2015, note that the world demand for energy has increased by this much since just 2005. That’s right. In ten years low-carbon energy use has grown 20%, but energy demand has grown by 125% of all low-carbon energy consumed in 2005.

credit: vox.com

This means we are using more fossil fuels every year. Even though renewables have high rates of growth, they are growing from a small base. Even Germany is struggling with its renewable goals because it simultaneously wants to stop using nuclear power.

With population growth and increasing affluence in many parts of the world, we can expect energy demand to keep growing. The obvious choice for many countries is fossil fuels because they are cheap and dispatch-able.

The truth is that a significant fraction of people will never opt (= pay more) for intermittent power or consume less of certain things (e.g. air conditioning, washing machines, mobility, and food). What we really need is a radically cheaper energy source that can do everything that fossil fuels can but without the CO2 emissions. Then we need the infrastructure and expertise for it to grow incredibly fast over the next several decades.

Perhaps the best way to achieve this is to get more people out of poverty and educated. It might take only a few geniuses to come up with the miracle technology. We know lowering consumption and artificially increasing the cost of energy could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but our economic and social systems prefer to ignore this. With the added strategy of fostering innovation in the energy sector, we stand a better chance.

Hopefully, we can make more miracles happen instead of just waiting for one.

Are LNG export terminals good or bad?

Tags

CO2, export terminals, fossil fuels, GHGs, LNG, methane, natural gas, oregon

The US has widely adopted hydraulic fracturing (fracking) which has domestically led to cheap natural gas. Since natural gas is 2.5 to 3 times more expensive worldwide, many expect that exporting natural gas could benefit both the US and other countries. However transporting natural gas is more difficult than oil. Companies need either pipelines or liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities/tankers to economically transport it.

credit: ihrdc.com

LNG facilities compress and cool natural gas to its liquid state (124 kPa, -162 degrees C). This allows for ocean tankers to hold 600 times as much natural gas for a given volume. While it might seem energy intensive to make natural gas that cold, keep it cold, and transport it thousands of kilometers, most GHG emissions (90%) still come from extraction and combustion.

There have been several proposed export terminals throughout the US, but two in Oregon. One in Coos Bay and another in Warrenton. While there are many other pros and cons, I want to highlight a few important ones.

Greenhouse gases

A recent study has found that natural gas exports could reduce GHG emissions. The authors assume that LNG could be used to replace coal in Asia or Russian natural gas in Europe. In both cases, there is a net reduction in total GHG emissions. This essentially supports the “bridge fuel” argument. It says that natural gas can serve as a fuel as we transition from coal to low-carbon technologies for electricity production.

However, natural gas can be used in other ways such as plastic production or home heating. These activities have less clear benefits. Also, US exports could lead to increased domestic fracking and even increased domestic coal consumption as natural gas prices increase. In addition, another study has shown that natural gas as a “bridge fuel” could increase electricity consumption, increase methane emissions, and/or delay investment in truly low-carbon technologies.

Social impacts

Domestically, a few jobs would be created. Some US companies would prefer to keep cheap natural gas prices to themselves, but LNG exports would certainly boost world economic output. Exports could provide Asian markets with cleaner-than-coal cheap electricity. It is important to acknowledge that the US and Europe grew wealthy by exploiting fossil fuels and that we don’t have the right to demand that poorer countries abandon fossil fuels immediately.

Other environmental impacts

As new pipeline must be laid to get natural gas to the export facility, significant impacts could occur. Construction and maintenance of the pipeline would necessitate a clear swath through forests (public and private) and construction that may temporarily disrupt waterways.

–

We should immediately work to reduce fossil fuel consumption; we can afford the extra costs and we are responsible for most of the current climate change. Ultimately we need an effective carbon tax. This is necessary to address climate change and could displace other taxes. It would still allow for exports when it makes sense for all parties. We’ve recognized that fossil fuels are a problem and ways to mitigate their use. We now need the political will to implement these solutions.

Today, there is a rally in Salem, OR to protest the proposed LNG export terminals. Please consider joining us, contacting your representatives, and please just discuss these issues with your friends.

Further reading

• Portland propane terminal pros and cons (environmental emphasis)
• US LNG export pros and cons (economic emphasis)

 

 

The hydrogen dud – it won’t be powering your car anytime soon

Tags

electricity, energy, fossil fuels, fuel cell, hydrogen, solar, transportation, wind

Energy can be used to do different things. Electricity is useful for lighting and computers. Heat is useful for cooking and warming your house. And gasoline is useful for transportation. However, we need to stop using fossil fuels.

Solar and wind and nuclear can provide electricity with relatively low carbon emissions. However, electricity isn’t that useful for transportation. Some proposed solutions include batteries, biofuels, and hydrogen (usually as a fuel cell). There are some big hurdles to all three; today I talk about the issues with hydrogen.

It’s a tempting solution because when hydrogen is burned as a fuel (or recombined with oxygen in fuel cells), the only byproduct is water. Technically the heat can cause chemical dissociation and other pollutants to form (like NOx), but let’s ignore that for the sake of this argument.

Hydrogen doesn’t just happen; it has to be produced. Most of the hydrogen produced today is made from natural gas. This is because it is cheaper to rearrange natural gas molecules than to make hydrogen from water. Nevertheless, proponents of wind and solar energy expect that these technologies can produce all our electricity and contribute hydrogen for transport and heating. But hydrogen might not be the way to go.

As it stands now, the energy consumption to produce hydrogen outweighs the benefit. Hydrogen vehicles can use 80% to 220% more energy than fossil fuel vehicles. Hydrogen also isn’t very energy dense. That means to use it in a personal vehicle, you need to compress it, liquify it, or use a fuel cell. All of these processes are energy-intensive and make transportation much more expensive.

Then you actually have to build the network of fuel stations. But think also, how does the hydrogen get to a fuel station? It can’t really be produced on-site without the increased costs of many inefficient machines. It can’t really be piped there, because hydrogen molecules are much smaller than hydrocarbons and escape the piping network relatively easily while also altering the pipeline’s material properties.

Neglecting the land footprint required to produce the extra electricity, we still need to build more solar panels or turbines. The US produces a lot of electricity, but only 4.4% comes from wind or solar. If all of the US’ transportation energy needs were also met by electricity, we would need 64% more energy coming from electricity (Note: this could be less if we use the electricity directly). That means solar and wind are covering 2.7% of our current need.

Furthermore remember that the US should have stopped burning fossil fuels yesterday. No new fossil fuel infrastructure should be built anywhere in the world after 2017, so the US as a wealthy (and exploitative) nation should have stopped years ago. Bottom line, hydrogen will not play a role in transportation unless huge technological advancements are made.

Ultimately we need to change the way we use energy. In transportation, personal vehicles are not ever going to be eco-friendly. We need cities that are walkable and bike-able and have good electric public transit. Freight and passenger transport between cities should be transitioned to electric trains. They won’t need batteries or blacktop or fuel stations and won’t emit pollution. These changes are necessary, but they will only happen if we recognize the opportunities and make them happen.

Further reading:

• Green Illusions Ch. 5 The Hydrogen Zombie
• Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air Ch. 20 Better Transport

Stop pretending you care.

Tags

CO2, coal, fossil fuels, fukushima, Japan, motor vehicle accidents, nuclear, premature deaths, risk, USA

All technology can kill people. Sometimes directly, but usually indirectly. And almost always at very low rates. Engineers and scientists work to identify these rates so that companies and society can prioritize resources to do the most good. However sometimes public opinion demands attention to areas that are not, and should not be, priorities.

When you look at any issue deeply enough, most of the damage is due to small effects adding up. It’s not from a single incident. I could make arguments about gun use or airplane safety or chemical exposure or tobacco use or a million other technologies, but let me just look at a few issues that relate to energy consumption.

Coal is a major killer in our electricity supply. Nothing is completely safe, but coal has the highest deaths per kWh. The CO2 emissions are causing climate change and the non-CO2 emissions are causing respiratory problems and premature deaths. However, the public wants cheap electricity and 1,000,000 premature deaths spread worldwide annually aren’t as newsworthy as an explosion at one plant.

Japan is reeling from their change in energy policy after Fukushima. Maybe 100 people are expected to die prematurely due to radiation exposure from the event, but somehow that rate of risk hasn’t been demonstrated to the population. Since there has been so much fear-mongering about radiation, Japan has increased their use of fossil fuels in the electricity supply by 50%. The extra use of fossil fuels in Japan will kill more people each year than the entirety of the Fukushima accident.

In the US, more than 30,000 people die each year from motor vehicle accidents. All nuclear radiation accidents worldwide (from power production and medical use) added together total around 5,000 deaths. But do people recognize these risks?

I challenge you. If you value human life, start caring. Look at the real risks and start contributing to making the world safer. Recognize that newsworthiness has almost no correlation with real dangers. Use less electricity, acknowledge driver error is the cause of most accidents (and it doesn’t always happen to other people), vote for policies that actually make people safer.

Costa Rica – green or greenwashed?

Tags

CO2, costa rica, ecotourism, electricity, energy, fossil fuels, geothermal, hydropower, renewables, transportation

There has recently been some news articles about Costa Rica’s reliance on fossil fuels. This one claims Costa Rica hasn’t depended on fossil fuels for the last 75 days. This one is a little more careful and corrected its language to show that only the electricity system has been free of fossil fuels since the end of 2014. However the author still avoids giving info about the rest of Costa Rica’s energy system.

credit: nathab.com

While the media is trying to show that progress on addressing climate change is prevalent, the truth is that even countries that show promising progress (Costa Rica, Iceland, etc.) are far from achieving fossil fuel independence.

Costa Rica is relatively lucky. They have a mild climate that mostly negates the need for heating and cooling. They also have large hydropower resources (providing 68% of their electricity) as well as further geothermal potential. However hydro still has many detrimental effects including displacing indigenous people, disrupting ecosystems, and flooding large areas that then emit CO2 from decaying plant matter.

Of the energy consumed in Costa Rica (0.2 quadrillion BTUs in 2012), only 44% is even generated within the country. The rest is imported. Most of these imports are petroleum products used to fuel the transportation system. Costa Rica has avoided growing biofuels since two of their largest sectors are agriculture and ecotourism. Hopefully electrified transport options will expand, but that still means they will need to nearly double the amount of electricity they produce to really stop fossil fuel use.

Another big carbon emitter? Tourists flying. Costa Rica gets nearly 12% of its GDP from 2.52 million people visiting the country each year. 40% of those are Americans. Using a flight emissions calculator, the impact of just Americans visiting Costa Rica is 1.0 million tonnes CO2 per year. Compare that to Costa Rica’s 7.5 million tonnes CO2 per year (mostly from internal transportation). Tourism flights alone probably increase fossil fuel emissions due to Costa Rica by 30%.

Costa Rica aims to be carbon neutral by 2021. Apparently they can continue to emit non-zero levels of CO2 and still be neutral if they continue their reforestation projects. While laudable, neither fossil fuel use or reforestation can continue indefinitely. And if tourism declines, as is necessary without a major new technology, where do government incentives to conserve forests come from?

Costa Rica has implemented some great polices and they are moving in the right direction. It is still a good conversation piece for talking about energy, but we need to acknowledge that transitioning from fossil fuels will not be easy. Most countries have different strengths (wind vs. hydro vs. solar) for generating electricity, but transitioning transportation away from fossil fuels will be extremely hard for everyone.

We’re headed towards disaster…

Tags

carbon dioxide, climate summer, emissions, energy, fossil fuels, world

Looking at the trends, it’s obvious that energy demand is growing. More people are demanding more energy for more affluent lifestyles. Our current energy mix is detailed by BP in their annual Statistical Review of World Energy. They have data going from 1965 to 2013. I’ve plotted the share of coal, oil, and natural gas in the world energy mix.

The International Energy Agency produces the World Energy Outlook each year. In their best guess as to where we’re headed with current policies, they suggest that overall energy demand will grow 37% by 2040 and that the mix of resources will be roughly equal parts low-carbon, coal, oil, and natural gas. I’ve included these projections to the plot above. Low-carbon sources experience the greatest growth which is good news. But the report also suggests that each fossil fuel will also experience growth out to the year 2040.

What about carbon emissions?

When burning fossil fuels you release heat. For the same amount of heat, you get different amounts of carbon emissions depending on the fuel. Coal releases about twice the carbon dioxide as natural gas, and petroleum is somewhere in between. So in most models, energy has corresponding emissions.

This ignores other important sources of greenhouse gases. For instance, land use change from forests to agriculture can add a further burden to the atmosphere. Also, raising livestock and cultivating rice can emit methane which is even more potent than carbon dioxide. Even poorly regulated natural gas mining could cancel the emissions-benefit natural gas has over coal if even a small percentage leaks from pipeline infrastructure.

But accounting only for the carbon contained in the fuel, check out the corresponding emissions given the expected growth in energy demand from above:

You can see that natural gas is less of a burden than coal, but that total emissions continue to grow because use of each fossil fuel is growing. I’ve added an area that represents the amount of emissions that Bill McKibben in his Rolling Stone article cites as the maximum amount (565 gigatons CO2) we can release to have an 80% chance at limiting warming to 2 degrees C. With a lower probability of limiting warming the IEA suggests that we can burn 1000 gigatons CO2, but this scenario still burns 95% (949 gigatons CO2) of that amount by 2040. It seems unlikely that our emissions would suddenly plummet to near-zero in 2041.

We all need to wake up to the reality of the warming climate and start advocating for change that will actually avoid the heavy impacts of warming beyond 2 degrees C. The World Bank suggests that we’re headed for 4 degrees C of warming and that:

the 4°C scenarios are potentially devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher under and malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased intensity of tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.

If you want to do something about it, join an activist branch of a group like 350.org or consider donating to grassroots efforts like Climate Summer, a program that trains students to become leaders and organizers in the climate justice movement.

The biggest first step – a path to innovation, jobs, and environmental justice

Tags

carbon fee, carbon tax, coal, deaths, efficiency, emissions, fossil fuels, innovation, tariffs, USA, winners and losers

The biggest first step to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is for the US government to implement a carbon fee for all fossil fuels at the source of production.

The US must lead

The US has the highest cumulative emissions per person of the world. That means that Americans have benefited the most from burning fossil fuels and that we must lead in the effort to reduce emissions. It should be obvious that companies shouldn’t be able to dump waste for free in a shared resource like our air.

A carbon fee

Fees or taxes are generally used by governments to discourage a behavior (eg. smoking). A carbon fee would be charged for producing fossil fuels. That means that mining coal, drilling for oil, or fracking for natural gas would cost more. The companies would pass these costs on to consumers, who would have to pay more for electricity and gasoline. But the concept of supply and demand shows that consumers would find ways to use less as costs increase.

Innovation happens

Some of these ways are sure to include increased demand for more energy efficient appliances, offices, and homes. American companies would be the first to develop top technology that could then be exported to other countries. That means that action in the US has ripple effects that include reduced fossil fuel consumption worldwide and a stronger manufacturing sector in the US.

This is not another tax on individuals

Where does all that revenue go? There are many ideas for where to put the money raised by a carbon fee. Some ideas include investment in carbon-free technology or student-loan debt relief. But maybe the fairest solution is to reduce everyone’s income tax. This would have to be done carefully to not overburden the poor who pay a higher percentage of their income towards energy and food. Done correctly, no one would pay more than they did before the fee was implemented.

There would be losers. Companies that are valued for the reserves of fossil fuels they promise to produce would see their stocks devalue unless they make a rapid change to innovate for a less carbon-intensive world. But many companies would see benefits as they develop the more efficient products that Americans and people worldwide would demand. Most people wouldn’t see a financial change, but would reap health benefits. Burning fossil fuels, kills nearly 200,000 Americans every year. Even more would avoid health costs due to air pollution.

The fee must increase each year

The carbon fee would start low and increase slowly each year. This is a signal for companies to innovate and change their business models. It’s also necessary to eventually achieve zero emissions. Remember as prices increase, people pay more and use less.

Tariffs could be used on products and fossil fuels produced in countries without a carbon fee policy. Pretty soon the policy would be adopted worldwide. Otherwise non-adopting countries would face more pressure to reduce emissions and retain manufacturing capabilities as more efficient tech is developed in other countries.

A bipartisan issue
Republicans should be able to get behind a measure that reduces income taxes for everyone. Democrats can tout their environmentalist credentials. We hear rhetoric about how the government should not choose winners and losers. But climate change is happening and that means that the laws of nature have shown us that burning fossil fuels is a losing strategy. With a carbon fee there will be new winners and losers, but only companies that fail to innovate will fall by the wayside. That sounds like how capitalism is supposed to work.

Please take a minute to let your senators and representatives know that you support the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act introduced last week.

Find your rep

Find your senators

Why does CO2 matter?

Tags

carbon dioxide, emissions, fossil fuels, frog, greenhouse gases, kevin anderson, mckay, mckibben, world

Last week we talked about the major emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2), but why does that matter? We’re talking about climate disruption, but why is CO2 the main indicator and at what level do we have to worry?

The greenhouse effect

There are many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The two with the biggest impact are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Why do we only talk about carbon dioxide? There is one major difference between the two gases. In the water cycle, water evaporates, then condenses, and falls back to the earth as precipitation. Any extra humans pump into the air falls out as rain within a couple of days. In the carbon cycle some carbon is emitted when vegetation decays, but it’s then re-absorbed by weathering rocks, the oceans, and plants. But humans add extra CO2 faster than it can be reabsorbed. This extra builds up in the atmosphere because it can’t just “rain” out.

Before the industrial revolution when we started to burn fossil fuels and deforest large areas, the atmospheric concentration was around 280 parts per million (ppm). Since then, CO2 has built up to nearly 400 ppm (and we’re adding about 2 ppm every year). With more CO2, the atmosphere traps more heat (like adding an extra blanket). We know average surface temperatures have risen about 0.8 degrees C. This is an average, so temperature in places like the Arctic and on land have risen more and places near the equator less.

Political consensus

Several years back, many countries got together and agreed to try to limit warming to 2 degrees C. This means that if we can limit the atmospheric concentration to 450 ppm, we’ll have a 50% chance at avoiding “very dangerous” climate change. That doesn’t sound like a very good gamble and we look unlikely to even hit the goal, but it’s been nearly impossible to get countries to agree to anything stricter.

So where does 350 come from?

2 degrees C of warming historically corresponds to many meters of sea level rise. This will probably be a slow increase; most estimates are an additional 2 to 3 feet rise by 2100. While not catastrophic to the world this will impose huge costs, cause millions to migrate higher, and could still wipe out low-lying countries and areas. Some scientists, including Jim Hansen, suggest that to stop this sea-level rise, we need to reduce the concentration to 350 ppm. This is how 350.org, the green group got its name.

In a Rolling Stone article, Bill McKibben made it clear that we’re in trouble. Since CO2 stays up in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, we can’t simply say that ppm CO2 will start decreasing once we stop emitting. It matters how fast we stop emissions. And fossil fuel companies currently claim to have five times as much fuel as we can burn before reaching 450 ppm. That means that if world leaders are serious about reaching that goal, then nearly 80% of all fossil fuel stocks are worthless because we will not be able to burn their products.

But what about CO2e?

In the last post, we talked about the unit CO2e. This converts other harmful greenhouse gases to a single measure. If we count other GHGs like methane and nitrous oxides, we’re already near 480 ppm CO2e.

FML, what can I do?

If you have an hour to explore these ideas further, check out climate scientist Dr. Kevin Anderson’s presentation about our current predicament. Then, I recommend you DO SOMETHING. We ultimately need government-level leadership, so start demanding climate action from your representatives. If you have the skill sets, start organizing for climate action or working on creating better technology solutions.

As comparatively wealthy citizens of the planet, I also suggest you try one or more of these personal actions suggested by David McKay. Many of these changes can make a big impact if enough people adopt them. Many can save you money and I can tell you that my quality of life is just as good after making some of these changes.

Any more ideas? Post them in the comments.

Why does energy matter?

Tags

energy, fossil fuels, population, USA, world

Energy is a versatile tool. It allows us to heat our homes. It allows us do things at night. It allows us to get from place to place. And it allows us to create stuff.

But we are destroying our life-support system with our demand for stuff. This stuff includes everything from modern essentials (eg. electricity and water) to products that aren’t so necessary (eg. junkfood, electronics, and cigarettes).

The bottom line is that there may be too many of us for the Earth to support. And our population is growing. We currently have 7,200,000,000 humans on Earth, but most estimates suggest that we will reach 10,000,000,000 in the next century. The best ways to address this population problem are to educate women, raise standards of living, and increase access to health care. But these solutions require more energy production.

If that wasn’t bad enough, many people currently living on our planet don’t have access to their basic needs like food and clean water. As affluence increases throughout the world, we further increase the amount of energy we need.

To compound things even further, nearly 80% of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels. With the added carbon emissions from human activity, our planet is quickly changing. As we trap more energy in the atmosphere and seas, temperatures are rising. This means: growing more food is harder, some diseases are more prevalent, and local water cycles are changing.

If all the current population lived like Americans, we’d need the natural resources of four planet Earths. It’s therefore pretty obvious that we need to make some drastic changes. Fortunately, with regard to energy, there are several areas ripe with opportunity. First, the biggest consumers will need to reduce their impact through conservation and efficiency. And second, new technologies are being invented that can produce energy while reducing undesirable impacts.

Unfortunately, all energy production has side effects. These side effects range from using toxic chemicals to mining to occupational hazards. Furthermore, popular articles written about energy technology often mislead the reader, omit important factors, or even confuse the concepts of energy and power.

This blog serves to explore all facets of energy conservation, production, and consumption. Its aim is to expose misleading journalism and provide a more accurate picture of our energy landscape both in the US and worldwide.