MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE that humanity’s prosperity, happiness, and very existence are ultimately dependent upon the health of our planet and its abundant resources. The Earth is our primary source of wealth; the very wellspring of all health and happiness. We know this is an immutable truth – but there is a wide chasm between what we know and what we do.
Today’s post will focus on the interplay between energy and the environment; and how the energy choices we make today will affect personal, collective, and planetary health and happiness.
Humans are extremely dependent on abundant energy; not just to heat and light our homes, but also to run factories, harvest food crops, and propel ships, planes, trucks and automobiles. There are presently many electricity generating modalities available. Although this mix includes clean and renewable sources such as wind and solar, they are not yet being used to full advantage. The US continues to use fossil fuel-based sources to meet most of its energy needs; and unnecessarily so. The damage to the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere is mounting, and the time to avert irreversible consequences is running short. It is imperative that we quickly transition to clean and renewable energy sources.
If the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, we must decrease carbon emissions immediately or invite disaster (rising sea levels, superstorms, wildfires, ocean warming and hyperacidity, mass extinctions of species, etc.). Are US carbon emissions decreasing? No. Not even close. In fact, in part due to recent US government policy changes, recent research shows that our nation’s CO2 emissions increased 3.4% in 2018. This is the second-largest annual gain in more than two decades.
Anthropogenic climate change is a problem with an obvious solution. We know what to do; we are just not doing it.
Many people say that US efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions are meaningless, as countries like China and India will continue business as usual. However, that is a defeatist appraisal of the potentially catastrophic problem we have bequeathed to subsequent generations. It is obvious that we cannot go it alone; but the US can certainly lead and inspire others to follow our path.
We must take the lead in the fight against climate change, instead of whining that it is too expensive and that others don’t play fair. It is time to rekindle dying embers of character and leadership. It is time to step up, America.
Burning Coal For Energy: Time to Move On?
King Coal
You may have heard that the US has an abundance of coal. This may be true. However, the best grades of coal have already been mined, and the remaining reserves are of much lower quality and are more difficult to obtain. Coal burning is also hugely polluting, and is a major player in our climate change problem. Coal derived energy also uses vast amounts of water; shortages of which may be inevitable.
In addition, the economic cost related to adverse health effects of mining and burning coal is greater than the retail price of electricity derived from it. This markedly raises the true expense of coal, making it uncompetitive with renewables from a price perspective alone. The adverse health effects include respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurologic disease related to breathing toxic chemicals and particulate matter in polluted air, and exposure to methylmercury in the environment and the food we eat.
There is the possibility that coal may someday be able to be used with minimal environmental impact, however, despite what you may have heard, the possibility of “clean” coal is at least several decades away from large scale implementation. This may also never be truly feasible, as carbon sequestration methods are extremely expensive and fraught with danger.
Due to the expertise of engineers in the industry, current coal burning methods are definitely far superior to those in years past; but better energy options have now become available. Coal has been an extremely valuable workhorse in providing the world’s energy needs; and it has served a vital purpose.
Today, approximately thirty percent of our nation’s energy needs are still met by burning coal. This is no longer necessary. It is time to move on, to widely available cleaner and renewable energy sources that are eager to replace coal.
The US should hold on to our coal resource (it is possible that we may someday be able to utilize this in a clean and safe fashion). Instead, we currently ship much of our coal to China and other countries, exporting a possible future measure of energy security, utilizing additional liquid fuels in transport. This exported coal is often burned in countries with minimal environmental regulation; fouling the air of the planet, adding mercury to the fish in our oceans, and increasing global warming through CO2 emissions.
Coal is not a good long-term option to address world energy needs. It is imperative that we expand our vision, looking far beyond the next few decades.
Of note, former coal industry lobbyist Andrew Wheeler is now head of the Environmental Protection Agency, replacing Scott Pruitt who resigned amid allegations of financial impropriety. Another fox guarding the hen house?
Is Natural Gas a good Option?
In the US, King Coal has recently been overtaken by natural gas, the new leader in the energy mix – but not because environmentalists have convinced everyone about coal’s ecologic problems. Why then? Money, of course. Producing electricity by burning natural gas is now cheaper than producing it by burning coal.
The advent of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) proved to be the tipping point. The fracking process involves the high-pressure injection of a chemical-laden fracking fluid into a well. This creates fissures in deep rock formations, providing access to larger collections of natural gas and petroleum, and allowing them to flow more freely.
This new means of extraction has resulted in greater supplies of cheap natural gas, which now provides about 32% of US energy needs. But there are worrisome trade-offs. Fracking methods are dangerous to the environment, at times contaminating adjacent water supplies, among other associated problems. You may have seen the videos of people in natural gas fracking regions of Pennsylvania, who can now entertain dinner guests by lighting their kitchen tap water on fire.
Natural gas is no new bonanza, just another distraction that keeps us from focusing on long-term sustainable solutions. Natural gas supplies are limited. If we constructed a transportation infrastructure to support a natural gas energy model, as some propose, we would then have to subsequently soon construct another model to support an economy powered by electricity from renewable resources.
We cannot entrust our future to a resource that is polluting and finite in supply. We need solutions that will last many centuries and far beyond. Narrowing our scope to the next few decades does not make sense.
There are currently many efforts to ship natural gas in liquefied form to other countries. This uses even more energy, and causes even more pollution. Readily supplying fossil fuels to developing countries also acts as a disincentive to pursuing clean and renewable energy options. The US government may complain that other countries are not doing their part in fighting climate change, yet sees no irony in selling them fossil fuels, as long as the money keeps rolling in.
Of interest, as reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the production and distribution of natural gas results in the leakage of methane, which is 34 times stronger than CO2 at trapping heat over a 100-year period. This significantly reduces, or possibly negates, the potential climate advantage natural gas has over coal. UCS analysis also showed that a natural gas-dominated electricity system would generate CO2 emissions up to three times higher than the level below which we may limit some of the worst consequences of climate change.
Natural gas is not the best option to meet world energy needs.
Nuclear Energy: Is it Worth the Risk?
What About Nuclear Energy?
In 1951 a group of scientists at the Arco Reactor in Idaho first created electricity from a nuclear reactor. Three years later, a nuclear power plant in Obninsk, Russia was the first to crank up its generators and deliver electricity to the power grid. Hailed as a miracle of technology, power generated from nuclear fission did indeed offer many advantages over other forms of energy production. A single uranium pellet could deliver nearly as much energy as 150 gallons of oil or a ton of coal. Nuclear reactors utilized relatively little land mass, produced less greenhouse gas emissions than carbon sources, and offered continuous flow of electricity that was not dependent on weather conditions.
However, similar to coal generated electricity, nuclear power generation involves the use of tremendous amounts of water. Nuclear power also results in 25 times more carbon emissions than wind energy, when reactor construction and uranium refining and transport are considered. There also remains the possibility of more disasters like those that have occurred in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and, more recently, Fukushima. There is also the potential for terrorist or state sponsored abuse or theft of nuclear material for weaponry, or a direct attack on nuclear power plants.
And lastly, there is no place in the universe to safely store nuclear waste. The nuclear energy community must therefore sweep the dirt under the carpet, looking for remote locations to bury the spent uranium fuel rods underground. No matter how efficient the process becomes, there will always be some dangerous nuclear waste created, and there will never be any place to put it. This fact alone makes nuclear energy a very poor option.
Until an international ban in 1993, many countries dumped nuclear waste into the oceans, and there have been reports of illegal dumping off of the coast of Somalia. There are no good solutions for the problem of dealing with nuclear waste; however, scientists have determined that the safest option is to bury it underground.
Located approximately 100 miles north of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain was chosen by Congress as the permanent geological repository for U.S. generated nuclear waste. However due to various concerns, including the possible effects of earthquakes and contamination of water sources, the project has been abandoned.
Even if it were to reopen, it has been estimated that Yucca Mountain would reach its full storage capacity in a relatively few years, and the 99 nuclear reactors operating in the U.S. will still continue to produce nuclear waste, with no permanent place to store it. Other countries also face the same problem, and many are planning to build extremely expensive geologic repositories within the Earth over the next few decades.
For lack of another option, nuclear waste is now temporarily stored on site at the nuclear reactor facilities that produce it; either in storage pools or in dry cask cylindrical storage containers made of steel and concrete. Problems arise, as storage pools are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and the dry cask storage cylinders are designed to last only up to 100 years. However, due to extremely long decay half-lives, their radioactive contents remain lethal for over 200,000 years, and sometimes for much longer. Due to the above concerns, many European countries have made plans to phase out nuclear energy.
Nuclear power plants currently deliver much needed electricity to many communities (20% of U.S. electricity needs), but there are currently far better alternatives. The use of nuclear energy is a dangerous and expensive exercise that is probably best considered only as an option of last resort.
Field of Corn: Food or Fuel?
The average Iowa corn field has the caloric potential to feed 14 people per acre.
Are Biofuels the Answer?
Probably the most well-known and ubiquitous biofuel is corn. In fact, a Scientific American article reports that roughly 40% of the over 90 million acres of corn grown in the U.S. is used to produce ethanol.
Corn ethanol is predominantly used to add to gasoline, to fuel motor vehicles, as part of a controversial mandate initially designed to help America become more energy independent. However, producing ethanol from corn is an absurd exercise – as ethanol use is polluting and is also an inefficient fuel source.
We are currently utilizing about 35 million acres of prime American farmland to grow corn for ethanol, even though it is less efficient than gasoline. This means that, in a hungry world with a growing population, thirty-five million acres of valuable soil are having nutrients unnecessarily extracted yearly, and thirty-five million acres of Earth are sprayed each season with biome-altering chemicals such as Roundup. These thirty-five million acres are also blanketed by synthetic fertilizers, much of which leaches into the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico (contributing greatly to the formation of an enormous nitrogen-induced dead zone).
An enormous environmental price is being paid, to feed cars instead of people; the only real benefit of which is to keep a relatively small sub-segment of American farmers and corporations happy.
This happiness, however, will be short-lived; in pace with contaminated and exhausted soils, perishing due to improper management. Previously healthy and interactive living soil is quickly becoming relegated to a lowly role: dirt – whose job it is to keep synthetically medicated and sprayed plants from falling over.
Sugarcane is another commonly used biofuel source. Grown mostly in Brazil, sugarcane produces energy more efficiently than does corn. However, like corn-based energy, it is also quite polluting and it, too, utilizes land that could be better used for food production. Large swaths of Amazon rainforest land have been cleared to grow sugar cane, to use for fuel instead of food. This unnecessarily removes a large portion of a natural carbon sink, hastens climate change, and results in the loss of many species of animals.
Cellulosic biofuels (obtained from switchgrass, woodchips, yard debris, and municipal waste) can be utilized to create electricity. These biofuels may hold some promise, but likely in small niche markets only. Cellulosic biofuels offer advantages over current biofuels, as food-producing farmland is not used, and they are much less polluting than fossil fuels. There are still significant potential concerns; as growing cellulosic crops utilizes land that could perhaps be better used for grazing. Furthermore, burning cellulosic fuel does still result in some pollution, and scalability issues also loom large.
Clean and Renewable Energy Sources help maintain Earth’s beauty for present and future generations.
Clean, Safe and Renewable Energy
So how should we meet our energy needs? The title immediately above gives us the answer. It should also really say “Clean, Safe, Renewable, and Cheap Energy,” although that is a bit long for a title.
Any method utilized to generate electricity must use some sort of “fuel” input to do so. Most of the electricity presently generated in the U.S. comes from large utility plants that use coal or natural gas as fuel to boil water into steam, which is then used to turn electricity-producing turbines. These natural resources must first be extracted from the Earth, and then burned – causing pollution and global warming as unwanted byproducts. The amount of carbon-based fuel remaining in the ground is also a finite supply. And, unlike renewable energy sources, coal and natural gas are certainly not free of charge.
Not only are they clean, but wind and solar energy technologies use “fuel” inputs that are also inexhaustible and free. Free sunlight shines upon solar panels every day; and the breezes that turn wind turbines will never cost a dime.
Clean energy sources are already cost competitive with carbon-based energy sources, and in many regions are now the cheapest form of energy. Currently, only 8% of US electricity generation comes from wind, and 2% from solar, but they are gaining market share. (in 2018 wind and solar respectively made up 13% and 29% of all new electric capacity).
In a clean energy future, it will be necessary to continue the production of hydroelectric energy, at least for the next few decades. Hydropower presently accounts for about 7% of U.S. electricity production. The potential for major growth in this area is limited; as most of the suitable areas have already been utilized, but technological advances may increase the energy producing efficiency of existing dams.
Geothermal and wave energy may play a role in niche markets, hopefully someday expanding greatly as new innovations develop. Useful adjuncts to solar and wind, these clean energy technologies use heat from the Earth and waves from the ocean; “fuels” that are also inexhaustible, clean and free of charge.
When utilizing clean energy technologies, one must of course still pay for the hardware – wind turbines and solar panels – just like the coal and natural gas industries must pay for their turbines and factories. But a very enormous difference remains: with clean, safe, and renewable energy technologies the fuel is free – forever. There is no need to extract and pay for finite supplies of coal, natural gas, or uranium. This fact has the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries very concerned, and they are thus ready to use propaganda, lobbying, and any other weapon they can find to delay the inevitable change to renewable energy sources.
A rapid and complete transition to clean and renewable energy sources is an absolute necessity if we are to avoid many of the catastrophic effects of climate change. For this reason alone, there is no real choice but to commit to rapidly eliminating the use of fossil fuels. The fact that clean, safe, and renewable energy sources are also the most economical in the long term is merely a secondary (much appreciated) benefit.
Clean energy sources are not perfect. Any time you use any power source there will always be some price to pay. Some forms of geothermal energy development can increase the risk of earthquakes, and hydroelectric dams imperil anadromous fish populations.
Wind turbines have indeed caused migratory and raptor bird deaths; however, the industry is well aware of this issue and is making appropriate considerations when siting new towers. Also, the number of wind turbine-related bird deaths is far less than from other causes (collisions with automobiles and home windows; transmission line electrocutions, capture by house cats, etc.).
Solar energy production has been associated with land use issues; however, panels can be placed in unobtrusive areas such as the current use of rooftops. Photovoltaic panels can also be installed on land that is otherwise unusable, such as retired landfills or abandoned mining areas. They can also be placed along existing transmission and transportation corridors.
Both wind and solar technologies face intermittency issues, during nighttime or when the wind is not blowing. This problem is presently being mitigated by the use of large batteries and other energy storage devices, which are becoming much more ubiquitous and much less expensive.
There are certainly obstacles to overcome, but problems regarding these newer energy technologies have been greatly exaggerated by desperate and dying fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries, whose own ecological downsides are far worse. The concerns associated with the use of wind, water and solar technologies are trivial when compared to the problems associated with the use of nuclear or fossil fuel-based power production. It really is no contest; when evaluated against these other energy sources, clean and sustainable energy technologies are by far the better choice.
Solar Energy: Finally gets its Day in the Sun; It’s Time to Shine; The Future is Bright; The non-Prodigal Sun; A Ray of Hope…..
Here are some advantages of wind and solar power:
1. Clean air. Obtaining electricity from wind turbines and solar panels instead of carbon-based sources markedly reduces air pollution and health afflictions.
2. Energy security. Using wind, solar, and water energy sources means that the US will no longer be dependent upon fuel imports from other nations.
3. Beneficiaries of technology. Wind and solar energy efficiencies will continue to advance in step with technology. Solar panels and wind turbines continue to become more efficient – while also decreasing in price. Wind and solar will soon be the least expensive power source in almost all locales worldwide.
4. Employment opportunities. The solar and wind industries have created an enormous number of new jobs. The Department of Energy reports over twice as many new jobs in the solar industry than in the coal industry in 2016, and solar power is still in its infancy. While its use is growing extremely rapidly, solar generated power currently provides only 2 percent of the electricity that the U.S. consumes each year. This represents a tremendous opportunity to create an incredible number of new jobs in this industry. Compared to fossil fuels, clean energy technologies provide cleaner power at a lower cost – while also providing jobs and a paycheck to far more citizens. It is a win-win situation.
5. Decentralization. Solar panels, and to some extent wind turbines, offer the opportunity to obtain energy off of the grid. Rooftop or community owned solar panels do not need to tie into massive electricity transportation networks. This can result in efficiency gains, because when electricity travels along transmission lines a certain amount of power is lost as a function of distance traveled. The average loss of electricity from the power plant to the consumer is around 10%.
6. National security. Large scale utility energy production and transmission is vulnerable to the actions of terrorist groups, who could possibly use cyber malware or an electromagnetic pulse to knock out large power stations. Decentralization strategies can help mitigate risk. There will indeed need to be interconnected networks of various energy sources, however many clean energy sources (like community solar) could also function in stand-alone fashion in emergencies.
____________________________________________
I am reminded of an joke I once heard: A village began to flood during a heavy rainstorm. The rain continued to fall and many of the townsfolk fled to higher ground. As the water level continued to rise, one man climbed onto his roof. When the water was to the level of the rain gutters of his home, a fellow rowed buy in a boat, beckoning the man on the roof to join him. He was answered with the reply, “Thanks for the offer, but God will save me!” Soon the man was standing on the top of his chimney, with water up to his ankles. A helicopter showed up, hovered overhead and dropped down a rope. The man shook his head, and again yelled out “Thanks for the offer, but God will save me!” Ten minutes later the water kept rising and the man drowned. At the pearly gates to heaven the man complained to St. Pete, “I trusted in God that He would save me, yet I still drowned!” Peter replied “For heaven’s sake, He sent you a helicopter and a boat!”
__________________________________________________
Some people say that future technology will provide us with answers, and that we just need to wait patiently until the answers appear. That is wishful thinking, and is a not a viable option for the next few decades. We already have everything we need right now, and we need to stop waiting for something better. We have wind and solar energy – our helicopter and boat have already arrived. We just need to climb aboard.
Fossil fuel-based energy has had a remarkable impact on the ease with which we live our lives. But, when plotting its use against a time line of human existence, the age of carbon is merely a blip on the screen; a barely noticeable aberration impacting but a relatively few generations. It will soon be gone, nearly as quickly as it appeared.
Some may think of this carbon age as an incredible one-time gift, a bonanza that has allowed the proliferation of great numbers of people who live in relative ease. It may however eventually turn out to be a curse, a Faustian bargain that has artificially inflated world population to numbers that are perhaps not sustainable, and whose use continues to foul our air and warm our oceans to levels that may soon not be compatible with life as we know it.
One hundred years from now, and a million years after that, the fossil fuels will all be gone. But the wind will still be blowing, water will still be flowing, and the sun will continue to warm the Earth. Let’s remember this when planning our energy future.