Sustainability - - A Focus On Carbon

What if cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), especially CO2, is not the same as increasing the share of electricity generated using renewables? Which would you pick? As an economist, such questions interest me. This kind of question interests me because we face a slew of problems and we have a limited amount of effort available to help solve them.  If we are able to cut CO2 emissions at a lower cost one way rather than some other way, why pick the more costly approach? For many folks, there is no question of deciding between cutting GHG and installing more renewables. They are assumed to be one in the same. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? Actually, there is. Electricity planning analysis performed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is but one such body of work. In their 7th Power Plan, which was released at the beginning of 2016, is a chapter that addresses this very issue. Here's another source. What the NWPPC found is that cheaper and more e...

Not exactly. Let me explain. Our lack of even the most basic understanding of how the elecricity system operates (explained below) allows us to mistakenly imagine we are taking actions that will shut down CO2 emitting generators. A number of headlines read something like "California Poised To Require All Its Electricity To Come From Renewables."  SB100  appears to be a bit more complicated, however.  Plus, electricity complies to the laws of physics, not the laws we mere mortals devise. Hoefully, this post will identify several important implications of these distinctions. Recognize that electrons (what electricity consists of) going over the wires thorughout California flow from all generators located everywhere within what’s called the Western Interconnect (WECC).  Electrons are already present throughout all the electric wires in every building in every community at every moment in time. When you flip a light switch on, more electricity gets generated ...

The often cited study by Mark Jacobson et. al. that asserts it's economic to replace every fossil fuel use with either electricity from wind, water, and sun (WWS-only) or hydrogen produced using WWS-only in 139 countries over the next 33 years implies a massive construction program the likes of which we may not have ever seen. I find it useful to compare the implied construction program to what we have experienced in the recent past. Click  here  to see his paper on the 50 U.S. states. Over the next 33 years, even under his extraordinary drop in total electric load, he envisions approximately 5.8 million MW of new generation are needed (plus an additional 600GW for peaking and system stability). He reports that as of 2013, 2.71% (of 5.8 million MW) is currently installed, or approximately1.6 million MW. Such quantities indicate an extraordinary construction program, especially since the U.S. installed capacity rose by only about 177,400MWs over the eight year pe...

Recently, a friend sent me a copy of Bakke’s book, The Grid.  Two days ago, after getting a draft journal article off my desk, I took it off my stack and cracked its cover.  My hope is that the remainder of it is as good as its introduction and first chapter.  It's quite an accomplishment; and a very well written one.  She quickly gets to the heart of the challenge posed by integrating intermittent renewables (a tautology, once hydro is excluded) on p. 13.  She writes ”Power production isn’t just an industry, it’s an ecology.  And renewable resources are not just about the planetary good kept from public offer by corporations with other visions for their own profitable futures.  Making American power is about how technological, biological, and cultural systems work in concert to keep our lights on, our basements and roadways clear of flood water, and fresh fish on our tables. It’s delicate in all sorts of ways….it does the reader well to remember tha...

Mark Jacobson and his colleagues have performed analysis, and argued forcefully based on that analysis, that it’s economic for the U.S., and 138 other countries, to rely solely on water, wave, and sun (WWS- only) to meet all power needs by 2050. A paper published in 2015 (Energy Environ. Sci., 2015, 8, 2093) contains a table listing the number of new generators (and the size of each one) needed by type of generation if that goal is to met. The table below was contracted using Table 2 of that publication, Number of Units Needing Installation (rounded): On shore wind, 328,000; Off-shore wind, 156,000; Wave, 35,000; Geothermal, 10,000; Hydro, 3; Tidal, 9,000; Residential PV, 75,100,000; Commercial/Gov. PV, 2,747,000; Utility PV, 46,500; CSP, 2,300. Source: Jacobson, et. al., Energy Environ. Sci. (2015), Table 2, p. 2098 While only 3 new dams are needed, the analysis assumes that the installed capacity of one new dam is 1300MW. That means 3,900MW of new installed capacit...

Trump’s announcement that the US is withdrawing from the Paris climate accord is deeply disappointing.  His decision flies in the face of solid science on the role of human activity in climate change.  What is needed is climate policy grounded in a solid set of facts.  It is for this reason I take issue with the Resolution adopted by the Portland City Council and Multnomah County at the Council Session on June 1st.   "Until economic forms of utility-scale electricity storage are achieved, it will be next to impossible to economically replace all fossil fuel electricity generation with renewables."   Two policies were adopted in that Resolution.  Both policies apply community-wide, not just to City or County facilities.  One goal states that  by 2035  all residents and businesses in the City and County will only use electricity generated from renewables.  This means that PGE and PacifiCorp must deliver electri...

In a word, No. Governor Kate Brown did sign the The Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Plan (“the Plan”). While news reports heralded it as the first of its kind in the nation, those reports were wrong. For example, Oregon Public Radio (OPB) ran a story with a narrative that reflected the environmental community’s pitch. OPB’s report noted that the Plan “... put an expiration date of 2025 on all coal-fired power coming into the state and. . . require[s] utilities to replace electricity from coal with power that is 90% cleaner.” Other examples include the following headlines: “Oregon Passes Historic Bill to Phase Out Coal and Double Down on Renewables (NRDC)”; “Oregon Set To Become First Coal-Free State (Huffington Post”); “Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed one of the nation’s most aggressive pieces of pro-climate legislation into state law Friday (U.S. News and World Report)”; and “How Oregon plans to quit coal (CS Monitor).” PAC’s press release correctly stated its first key ...

Coal is a major source of carbon emissions.  According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), coal has a higher carbon content than other fossil fues typically employed to generate electricity. Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels: Coal (anthracite) 228.6; Coal (bituminous) 205.7\; Coal (lignite) 215.4 Coal (subbituminous) 214.3; Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3; Propane 139.0; Natural gas 117.0 See : https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11 How much carbon is burned per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity depends on the efficiency of the electric generator, called the heat rate, measured in but/kWh.