Out of Reach Without Nuclear and Shale

• US emissions reduction goals for 2025 could not be achieved without nuclear power and the fracking technology necessary to extract shale gas. 
• Recent revisions by the EPA in its estimates of methane leaks from natural gas production and use do not negate the benefits of gas in reducing emissions.

In its lead editorial yesterday, the Washington Post took presidential candidate Bernie Sanders to task for his attacks on nuclear power and natural gas. The Post focused its critique on greenhouse gas emissions and the emissions trade-offs involved in substituting one form of energy for another. That speaks directly to one of the main reasons that Mr. Sanders' argument resonates with his supporters, but it ignores an even more basic problem. The energy contribution from shale and nuclear power is so large that if our goal is a reliable, low-emission energy mix that meets the future energy needs of the US economy, we simply cannot get there without them, at least not in any reasonable timeframe.

The pie chart below shows the current sources of US electricity in terms of the energy they generate, rather than their rated capacity. This is an important distinction, because the renewable electricity technologies that have been growing so rapidly--wind and solar--are variable and/or cyclical, generating only a fraction of their rated output over the course of any week, month, or year.

For example, replacing the output of a 2,000 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant such as the Indian Point facility just north of New York City would require, not 2,000 MW of wind and solar power, but between 7,600 MW and 9,400 MW, based on the applicable capacity factors for such installations. Now scale that up to the whole country. With 99 nuclear reactors in operation, rated at a combined 98,700 MW, it would take at least 375,000 MW of new wind and solar power to displace them. As the Post's editorial points out, money spent replacing already zero-emission energy is money not spent replacing high-emitting sources.

At the rates at which wind and solar capacity were added last year, that build-out would require 24 years. That's in addition to the 36 years it would take to replace the current contribution of coal-fired power generation. It also ignores the fact that intermittent renewables require either expensive energy storage or fast-reacting backup generation to provide 24/7 reliability.

That brings us to natural gas, the main provider of back-up power for renewables, and the "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing) technology that accounts for half of US natural gas production. Fracking has transformed the US energy industry so dramatically that it is very hard to gauge the consequences of a national ban on it, even if such a policy could be enacted. Would natural gas production fall by a third to its level in 2005, when shale gas made up only around 5% of US supply, and would imports of LNG and pipeline gas from Canada ramp back up, correspondingly?

Or would production fall even farther? After all, one of the main factors behind the rapid growth of shale gas in the previous decade is that US conventional gas opportunities in places like the Gulf of Mexico were becoming scarcer and more expensive to develop than shale, which was higher-cost then than today. Either way, the constrained supply of affordable natural gas under a fracking ban would not support generating a third of US electricity from gas, vs. 20% in 2006. So we would either need even more renewables and storage--in addition to those displacing nuclear power--or, as Germany has found in pursuit of its phase-out of nuclear power, a substantial contribution from coal.

One of the primary reasons cited by Mr. Sanders and others for their opposition to shale gas, aside from overstated claims about water impacts, is the risk to the climate from associated methane leaks. Here he would seem to have some support from the US Environmental Protection Agency, which recently raised its estimates of methane leakage from natural gas systems.

Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), so this is a source of serious concern. However, a detailed look at the updated EPA data does not support the contention of shale's critics that natural gas is ultimately as bad or worse for the climate than coal, a notion that has been strongly refuted by other studies.

The oil and gas industry has questioned the basis of the EPA's revisions, but for purposes of discussion let's assume that their new figures are more accurate than last year's EPA estimate, which showed US methane emissions from natural gas systems having fallen by 11% since 2005. On the new basis, the EPA estimates that in 2014 gas-related methane emissions were 20 million CO2-equivalent metric tons higher than their 2013 level on the old basis, for a year-on-year increase of more than 12%. This upward revision is nearly offset by the 15 million ton drop in methane emissions from coal mining since 2009, which was largely attributable to gas displacing coal in power generation.

In any case, the new data shows gas-related emissions essentially unchanged since 2005, despite the 44% increase in US natural gas production over that period. The key comparison is that the EPA's entire, updated estimate of methane emissions from natural gas in 2014, on a CO2-equivalent basis, is just 2.5% of total US greenhouse gas emission that year. In particular, it equates to less than half of the 360 million ton per year reduction in emissions from fossil fuel combustion in electric power generation since 2005--a reduction well over half of which the US Energy Information Administration attributed to the shift from gas to coal.

In other words, from the perspective of the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire US economy, our increased reliance on natural gas for power generation cannot be making matters worse, rather than better. That's a good thing, because as I've shown above, we simply can't install enough renewables, fast enough, to replace coal, nuclear power and shale gas at the same time.

What does all this tell us? Fundamentally, Mr. Sanders and others advocating that the US abandon both nuclear power and shale gas are mistaken or misinformed. We are many years away from being able to rely entirely on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency to run our economy. In the meantime, nuclear and shale are essential for the continuing decarbonization of US electricity, which is the linchpin of the plans behind the administration's pledge at last December's Paris Climate Conference to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% by 2025. That goal would be out of reach without them.

Energy and the 2016 Presidential Primaries

With another round of important primary elections taking place this week, I am sadly tardy in taking a high-level look at the energy positions of the candidates. The winnowing that has already taken place simplifies the task, even as it raises the stakes: A further contraction of the field after the voting in Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio could eliminate whole approaches to national energy policy.

The divide on energy between the Republican and Democratic fields also seems wider than in recent years. In 2008, when oil prices were approaching an all-time high, Republicans placed more emphasis on resource access--"drill baby, drill"--but both major party nominees supported cap-and-trade to address climate change. After recent remarks by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, this November's election is shaping up as a binary choice between the continuation of the energy revolution that has saved the US hundreds of billions of dollars, and the elevation of environmental concerns as the main criteria for future energy decisions.

I'll take a closer look at the energy positions of the remaining Democratic candidates in a future post. For now I want to focus on the Republican field, because the first round of winner-take-all primaries looks like a make-or-break moment for the two candidates with the most detailed published positions on energy:

• Kasich - On his campaign website the Ohio governor argues for increasing US energy supplies from all sources, including efficiency and conservation.  He endorses North American energy independence, but also sees the need for innovation in clean energy technology. He would rein in regulation, including the Clean Power Plan, to "balance environmental stewardship with job creation." And while he has supported the development of Ohio's Utica shale, putting the state in the top rank of natural gas producers for the first time in decades, he has also led an effort to increase state taxes on oil and gas production. The appeal of Governor Kasich's positions to moderates is understandable, although no one would mistake them for a 2016 Democrat's energy platform.
• Rubio - The Florida senator's energy proposals are even more detailed, with more of a legislative focus than Governor Kasich's. Their tone is simultaneously positive and adversarial: Senator Rubio has an upbeat vision for the role energy can play for the US, and much of it is presented on his website in counterpoint to the actions and priorities of an administration he clearly believes has largely been mistaken on energy. There's a "wonkish" flavor to much of the content, such as his argument for education reform to fill the jobs energy development can help create. Although a reference to support for the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership might be a red flag in a year dominated by populist sentiment, most of the ideas here fall solidly within the mainstream of recent conservative thought on energy.

Each of the other two remaining Republicans represents a more significant departure from their party's recent approach to energy, at least at the presidential level:

• Cruz - Senator Cruz appears to take a more overtly libertarian stance on energy and what he calls the Great American Energy Renaissance. He wouldn't just lighten federal regulation of energy, as his rivals advocate; he would take on the government's ability to regulate. For example, in addition to opposing the Clean Power Plan, he co-sponsored legislation that would make it much harder for the EPA and administration to use the federal Clean Air Act to devise other ways to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Consistent with his plan to abolish the IRS, he would also eliminate the Department of Energy. He supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but on a level playing field. Ethanol, for example, after his phase-out of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, would have to find its way into the energy mix without a federal mandate or subsidies.  
• Trump - From my quick perusal of it, the Trump website lacks the kind of specifics on energy that are found on the other candidates' sites. We are left to piece together Mr. Trump's positions on energy based on his answers to specific questions or issues, elsewhere. You can find a number of quotes from those on Google. If there's a unifying principle to his views on energy, he seems to be as deal-focused as on other topics, and less allergic to using the power of government than his opponents.  For example, he supported the Keystone XL pipeline but apparently thought we could get a better deal from Canada and the project developer. If Dilbert creator Scott Adams is correct in his analysis of Donald Trump as a Master Persuader, the details of his views on any issue like this matter less in an election than how he frames them.  

The energy context of the 2016 election could not be more different than that of four or eight years ago. A global oil glut and natural gas priced low enough to edge out coal for the top spot in US power generation are giving candidates a rare luxury. They can address energy without the pressure of angry consumers demanding immediate answers. However, even if the election will not be decided based on energy, it remains a major pillar of the economy. How candidates view energy can shed important light on the consistency of their other positions. I expect to return to this point in the weeks ahead.