I was perusing the 2010 Earth Day website and ran across its online petition in support of comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Aside from the expected references to green jobs, energy independence and solving climate change, I was struck by the tone of the declaration, which called for "sending a powerful message to the polluter lobby: we've had enough of dirty power, the time for change is now." I might have had a different reaction to this on another day, but for some reason it occurred to me today to wonder what would happen if the energy industry immediately capitulated to this demand. What would it mean if every power plant burning coal, oil or natural gas shut down today and remained idle? The short answer is chaos and social collapse, but let's take a quick look at why.
Before getting into the underlying numbers I can't resist the opportunity to point out that this kind of language is an understandable consequence of the decision by the Supreme Court to label greenhouse gases as "pollution." Pollution is inherently awful and emotionally energizing, while emissions are, well, more complicated and nuanced. Unfortunately, while the risks that go with climate change pose very serious problems, the solutions are not nearly as simple as the solutions to the kinds of pollution that we've been accustomed to dealing with under the legislation and regulations that the first Earth Day and its anniversaries helped to trigger. I admit this distinction has become a lost cause, but no one should be surprised by the passion and vitriol concerning greenhouse gas emissions that has resulted from this choice.
So what if we took the Earth Day petition at face value and bypassed the whole decades-long transformation that cap & trade, a national renewable electricity standard, and various other pending emissions regulations would set in motion? What if we simply shut down every fossil-fuel-burning power plant today? After all, we have all these new wind turbines and solar panels--record amounts of which were installed here last year--and we still have thousands of hydroelectric dams and 104 nuclear power plants. Together they produce vast amounts of electricity, and surely with a bit more efficiency we could make do with that, while building more wind, solar and geothermal capacity as fast as possible to keep the economy growing. Well, as it turns out, all renewable sources plus nuclear generated a bit over 1.2 trillion kilowatt-hours (kWh) last year. That's certainly more than the entire electrical output of many other countries. According to data from the Energy Information Agency, it exceeds all the power generated in 2008 in Japan, or in France and Germany combined. Unfortunately, it's also less power than the US has generated in any year since 1966.
On the face of it, that's not a fair comparison. Although we still have plenty of room for improvement--energy efficiency remains one of the most promising sources of emissions reductions available--the US actually uses energy much more efficiently today than it did in '66. One measure of that is energy consumption per dollar of real GDP. On that basis, it takes just half as much energy to produce the same output as it did when "Eleanor Rigby", one of my favorite Beatles songs, debuted. If we adjust for energy:GDP, then 1979, with its net generation of 2.25 trillion kWh, looks like a more appropriate basis of comparison to the economic work that our current zero-emission power output could do. The problem is that the US population has grown by 84 million people since then, and our economy, expressed in constant dollars, is more than twice as big as in '79--even after last year's contraction. It might even be worse than that, because we've electrified a lot of things that were previously run directly by some sort of fuel, so that slashing our power output by 70% wouldn't just cut our economy by half; it would probably force us to choose among some very high-priority uses for power that might not include the PC or other device on which you're reading my words. To say that electricity rates would have to go up dramatically is an understatement, and we haven't even accounted for the intermittency of wind and solar, which can't replace baseload coal power or on-demand gas-fired power.
There's no need to stretch this highly-simplified scenario any farther. Like it or not, we can't yet live without the power we get from all those nasty fuels we're still burning, and the day when we can is not just around the corner. After all, the wind, solar and geothermal power sources we've focused intensely on expanding accounted for just 2% of the electricity we used last year. Double them, and then double them again (10 years?) and that's still only 8%, compared to the 69% we got from fossil-based generation last year. The Senate climate bill that's expected to be released in the next week or so might well move us in the direction that the signers of today's Earth Day petition want, but that evolution can't happen nearly as fast as many of them have been led to expect.
Showing posts with label earth day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label earth day. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 21, 2008
Earth Day Pareto Principle
The Pareto Principle is familiar to many people in its more common derivation, the "80/20 Rule." How many times have we heard that 80% of some result comes from 20% of the associated effort, or some variation on that theme? Businesses often take this to imply that if employees could only be more effective with the other 80% of their effort, then they could deliver truly world-beating performance. This principle can be applied to many other areas, though, and it seems equally pertinent to tomorrow's annual celebration of Earth Day. Climate change has emerged as the largest environmental challenge, at least for the developed world, and a quick scan of the most recent US greenhouse gas inventory reveals that among the numerous sources of the gases implicated in climate change, an effective 80/20 rule applies as well.
As an outgrowth of a recent posting on the ongoing fuel vs. food controversy concerning biofuel, a reader provided a link to an article on a recent study suggesting that food type was more important than the proximity of food sources in determining the greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions associated with our grocery purchases. Surprisingly, the study found that only 4% of life-cycle emissions were associated with food transportation, compared to 83% for food production. With all due respect to cattle ranchers, it appears that reducing our consumption of beef would have a much bigger impact on food-related GHG emissions than avoiding foods grown far away, such as all that lovely Southern Hemisphere fruit that turns up during our winter. But while the global impact of such a choice is hardly insignificant, it would still rank relatively low on the overall 80/20 distribution for GHGs.
The inventory of US GHGs provides a clear hierarchy of priorities for reducing emissions. While the methane emissions from cows contribute more to climate change than cement manufacturing--widely viewed as a highly GHG-intensive industry--and actually make the top-10 of individual sources, they still pale in comparison to fossil fuel combustion. Here is the list, taken from the EPA's 2006 statistics, with some obvious combinations of line items, such as including the methane emissions of natural gas systems in the "Industrial/Commercial" fossil fuel category, and adding manure management and "enteric fermentation" to get "Animal Husbandry":
As an outgrowth of a recent posting on the ongoing fuel vs. food controversy concerning biofuel, a reader provided a link to an article on a recent study suggesting that food type was more important than the proximity of food sources in determining the greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions associated with our grocery purchases. Surprisingly, the study found that only 4% of life-cycle emissions were associated with food transportation, compared to 83% for food production. With all due respect to cattle ranchers, it appears that reducing our consumption of beef would have a much bigger impact on food-related GHG emissions than avoiding foods grown far away, such as all that lovely Southern Hemisphere fruit that turns up during our winter. But while the global impact of such a choice is hardly insignificant, it would still rank relatively low on the overall 80/20 distribution for GHGs.
The inventory of US GHGs provides a clear hierarchy of priorities for reducing emissions. While the methane emissions from cows contribute more to climate change than cement manufacturing--widely viewed as a highly GHG-intensive industry--and actually make the top-10 of individual sources, they still pale in comparison to fossil fuel combustion. Here is the list, taken from the EPA's 2006 statistics, with some obvious combinations of line items, such as including the methane emissions of natural gas systems in the "Industrial/Commercial" fossil fuel category, and adding manure management and "enteric fermentation" to get "Animal Husbandry":
True to our friend Pareto, the combustion of fossil fuels, along with other uses of them such as asphalt roofing and paving, account for 80% of our total GHG emissions--81.7% if you include the methane emitted from coal mining. The next five sources contribute 11.8%, and everything else, including iron and steel production, cement, and the entire chemical industry, tally to only 6.5% of our total emissions of 7 billion metric tons per year of CO2-equivalent gases. No other single line item exceeds 1% of the total.
That doesn't mean that the smaller sources are unimportant, particularly if they offer quick and easy opportunities for reducing emissions. However, it does mean that we can't solve the challenge of climate change without making enormous cuts in our consumption of coal, oil and, to a lesser degree, natural gas, and by extension in the fuel and electricity that we produce from them. No other rational interpretation of the data is possible. Achieving the Kyoto Protocol's US target of 7% below our 1990 emissions would require eliminating the equivalent of all current emissions from commercial and industrial uses of fossil fuels, while the 50-80% reductions mooted in various domestic cap & trade proposals could only be attained through the massive transformation of the entire energy sector, and indeed of most of the US economy.
Some suggest we can do all this in a manner that will pay for itself, creating new, high-paying industries in the process. As an optimist, I hope they are right; as a realist, I anticipate that we will encounter many painful bumps along the way, some of which might exceed the upheaval we are currently experiencing from the sub-prime crisis. In that sense, our current economic woes provide a useful test of our ability to tackle a problem on the scale of climate change with pragmatism and resolve, rather than with measures that place a higher priority on the appearance of action and the protection of key political constituencies. An effective response to climate change will also require the kind of persistent bi-partisanship with which we approached the Cold War, spanning multiple congressional sessions and presidential administrations. These might be useful criteria to keep in mind not just on Earth Day, but on Election Day.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Half Measures
Friday I wrote about the prospects for achieving significant emissions reductions in time for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in 2020. After watching the 38th Earth Day pass almost without notice, I'm a little more pessimistic. My local paper, the Washington Post, hardly mentioned the event. Included in their limited coverage were some blog excerpts from a pair of entertainment personalities who seem to think the solution to our environmental problems might be found in steps such as rationing toilet paper. Even the Post's list of ten things we can do to help the global and local environment, while entirely sensible, was hardly consistent with the scale of impending catastrophe that is conveyed elsewhere in the media. If climate change is as serious as the scientists are telling us, it won't be solved with a few well-intended and painless half measures.
The second item on the Post's list, for example, related the following "fact" about energy-saving light bulbs: "If every American home (114 million of them, at latest count) replaced one standard bulb with an energy-efficient one, it would save enough electricity to light 2.5 million homes for a year." Actually, some reasonable assumptions yield a much more impressive comparison, along the lines of lighting 12 million homes, based on the national average of 940 kW-hrs of electricity for lighting per year. However, these savings pale to insignificance at the national level, where they represent only 0.3% of the electricity we use. That doesn't mean efficient light bulbs are a bad idea, though a recent story about the hazards of cleaning up the mercury from broken ones gives pause for thought. But instead of simply jumping on board the compact fluorescent bandwagon, why didn't the Post think to admonish us about the impact of all those households buying plasma TVs, with their average 180 watts of extra power use versus the cathode-ray TVs they are replacing? At 8 hours per day of average usage, that would amount to 1.5% of annual electricity generation, or five times as much power as one efficient light bulb per household would save. That also equates to an additional dozen or so power plants, most likely burning coal or natural gas.
Compare this to the announcement yesterday of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ambitious plan for a 30% reduction in NYC's emissions footprint, based on the city's recently-completed greenhouse gas inventory. Including such measures as congestion fees and expansion of the already extensive mass transit system, the mayor's plan at least conveys the right sense of proportion.
We've heard a lot of criticism that Americans weren't asked to make any sacrifices after 9/11. So far, though, requests for sacrifices to avert a global "climate crisis" are thin on the ground, despite the fact that this problem results largely from the aggregation of billions of choices by individuals. The Congress is considering a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, and California has already enacted such a program, with a target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2020. While I generally favor this approach, I recognize that it will lead to profound and potentially costly changes in our economy. So if we're seeking voluntary measures to help mitigate climate change, shouldn't we ask people to do something that might actually matter, or even reduce the scope of regulations that will be necessary to address the problem?
The second item on the Post's list, for example, related the following "fact" about energy-saving light bulbs: "If every American home (114 million of them, at latest count) replaced one standard bulb with an energy-efficient one, it would save enough electricity to light 2.5 million homes for a year." Actually, some reasonable assumptions yield a much more impressive comparison, along the lines of lighting 12 million homes, based on the national average of 940 kW-hrs of electricity for lighting per year. However, these savings pale to insignificance at the national level, where they represent only 0.3% of the electricity we use. That doesn't mean efficient light bulbs are a bad idea, though a recent story about the hazards of cleaning up the mercury from broken ones gives pause for thought. But instead of simply jumping on board the compact fluorescent bandwagon, why didn't the Post think to admonish us about the impact of all those households buying plasma TVs, with their average 180 watts of extra power use versus the cathode-ray TVs they are replacing? At 8 hours per day of average usage, that would amount to 1.5% of annual electricity generation, or five times as much power as one efficient light bulb per household would save. That also equates to an additional dozen or so power plants, most likely burning coal or natural gas.
Compare this to the announcement yesterday of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's ambitious plan for a 30% reduction in NYC's emissions footprint, based on the city's recently-completed greenhouse gas inventory. Including such measures as congestion fees and expansion of the already extensive mass transit system, the mayor's plan at least conveys the right sense of proportion.
We've heard a lot of criticism that Americans weren't asked to make any sacrifices after 9/11. So far, though, requests for sacrifices to avert a global "climate crisis" are thin on the ground, despite the fact that this problem results largely from the aggregation of billions of choices by individuals. The Congress is considering a national cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, and California has already enacted such a program, with a target of reducing emissions by 25% by 2020. While I generally favor this approach, I recognize that it will lead to profound and potentially costly changes in our economy. So if we're seeking voluntary measures to help mitigate climate change, shouldn't we ask people to do something that might actually matter, or even reduce the scope of regulations that will be necessary to address the problem?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Earth Day + 50
This Sunday marks the 38th annual observance of Earth Day since its beginning in 1970. Rather than focus on this year's event, I started thinking about what the fiftieth anniversary of Earth Day in 2020 might look like. The focus today is on the tough challenges ahead. But considering the rate at which global interest in climate change is coalescing, much as concern for air and water pollution did in the 1960s and 70s, we ought to see great progress in reducing emissions by then. Or will we? We're pushing against an energy system with enormous inertia, and that still hasn't stopped growing. How different might the environmental impact of our energy systems be on Earth Day plus Fifty?
Consider some extrapolations. If renewable energy were able to capture 50% of the projected annual increases in US electricity generation between now and 2020--which seems attainable, based on recent experience--then by the end of the next decade renewables including hydropower would have expanded from 9% of the mix to roughly 16%. That's impressive growth, though it would still put renewables behind nuclear power, which starts at 20% and is expected to decline slightly. Fossil fuel-based power would account for 65%, down from 71% now. However, even if renewables captured 100% of the growth in electricity generation between now and 2020, giving them a 25% share of the electricity market, the resulting mix would still emit as much greenhouse gas as today's.
Turning to fuels, US ethanol consumption has quadrupled in the last decade. If it could sustain that kind of growth--assuming it doesn't run into limitations on corn supply or other inputs and that current incentives are retained or expanded--ethanol would contribute 25 billion gallons per year of motor fuel in 2020. With gasoline consumption continuing to expand at 1%/year, there would be enough ethanol to allow every gallon of gas to contain 10% ethanol, while enabling E-85 to grow to 8% of the market, a bit less than the current share for premium or mid-grade unleaded. But even if most of the extra ethanol came from cellulosic sources, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions, our vehicles would emit more carbon dioxide in 2020 than they do today, because we'd be using at least as much "base" gasoline as we do now.
These examples suggest that, from a climate change perspective, it won't be sufficient just to make our energy mix greener, if it's still growing. And while the figures above must look pretty conservative to environmentalists and alternative energy boosters, I would wager they look quite optimistic to experienced industry professionals. I'm sure you could get the marketing departments of major oil companies pretty excited by telling them that there's a new product that could deliver sales volumes almost as large as premium unleaded in a decade, without stealing any of their current sales. But I'm not sure you could convince them that they can get there from here, or that there'd be a profit in it for them.
That doesn't mean I'm pessimistic about the next decade. The best bet for achieving real progress by Earth Day 2020 might be neither economic or regulatory, but demographic. By the fiftieth anniversary of the first Earth Day, the oldest Baby Boomers will be in their mid-70s, while the youngest of us, along with the oldest Gen-X'ers, will be eligible for early retirement. Today's college students will be in their early 30s, and the oldest cohorts of the Millennial Generation will be hitting their mid-career stride, approaching their peak earning years. If their collective attitude towards the environment is as different from that of the Boomers as ours was from our parents', and if that translates into different consumption and investment patterns, then by 2020 they should be having a dramatic impact on the way that America uses energy. That might just be enough to rein in the growth of emissions.
Consider some extrapolations. If renewable energy were able to capture 50% of the projected annual increases in US electricity generation between now and 2020--which seems attainable, based on recent experience--then by the end of the next decade renewables including hydropower would have expanded from 9% of the mix to roughly 16%. That's impressive growth, though it would still put renewables behind nuclear power, which starts at 20% and is expected to decline slightly. Fossil fuel-based power would account for 65%, down from 71% now. However, even if renewables captured 100% of the growth in electricity generation between now and 2020, giving them a 25% share of the electricity market, the resulting mix would still emit as much greenhouse gas as today's.
Turning to fuels, US ethanol consumption has quadrupled in the last decade. If it could sustain that kind of growth--assuming it doesn't run into limitations on corn supply or other inputs and that current incentives are retained or expanded--ethanol would contribute 25 billion gallons per year of motor fuel in 2020. With gasoline consumption continuing to expand at 1%/year, there would be enough ethanol to allow every gallon of gas to contain 10% ethanol, while enabling E-85 to grow to 8% of the market, a bit less than the current share for premium or mid-grade unleaded. But even if most of the extra ethanol came from cellulosic sources, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions, our vehicles would emit more carbon dioxide in 2020 than they do today, because we'd be using at least as much "base" gasoline as we do now.
These examples suggest that, from a climate change perspective, it won't be sufficient just to make our energy mix greener, if it's still growing. And while the figures above must look pretty conservative to environmentalists and alternative energy boosters, I would wager they look quite optimistic to experienced industry professionals. I'm sure you could get the marketing departments of major oil companies pretty excited by telling them that there's a new product that could deliver sales volumes almost as large as premium unleaded in a decade, without stealing any of their current sales. But I'm not sure you could convince them that they can get there from here, or that there'd be a profit in it for them.
That doesn't mean I'm pessimistic about the next decade. The best bet for achieving real progress by Earth Day 2020 might be neither economic or regulatory, but demographic. By the fiftieth anniversary of the first Earth Day, the oldest Baby Boomers will be in their mid-70s, while the youngest of us, along with the oldest Gen-X'ers, will be eligible for early retirement. Today's college students will be in their early 30s, and the oldest cohorts of the Millennial Generation will be hitting their mid-career stride, approaching their peak earning years. If their collective attitude towards the environment is as different from that of the Boomers as ours was from our parents', and if that translates into different consumption and investment patterns, then by 2020 they should be having a dramatic impact on the way that America uses energy. That might just be enough to rein in the growth of emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)