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...

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...

Surely, defining a carbon footprint isn't difficult, right?  There are various on-line tools available to allow anyone to do just that. This is an issue I've been investigating.  My reason for doing so arises from a concern that policy analysis and decision-making is as solid as the data are upon which they rest.  Recently, I came across a passage in a report titled Carbon Emissions – a Northwest Perspective that summed up the challenge, "There are multiple ways to tabulate a carbon footprint and this report’s approach will differ from others.  If carbon regulations are passed on the state or regional level then agreeing on a methodology for defining a carbon footprint will be critical."  This excerpt zeros in on the issue of using data that are consistent in their development. To date, my review of methods in California, Oregon, and Washington indicate that each state uses somewhat different approaches to develop the raw data used to define carbon footpri...

What's the significance of buying products made outside Oregon or outside the U.S.? Certainly, there are many reasons why we might care about where - and how - the stuff we buy is made. What I'm interested in is how total CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of goods purchased by Oregonians changes as the locus of production changes.  For 2005, CO2e emissions from consumption of goods and services by Oregonians resulted in 56.7 MMT CO2e (note that some but not all the goods purchased were from within Oregon). If Oregonians purchased the exact same goods and services but they were all made outside of Oregon, those emissions would climb to 67.7 MMT CO2e. If instead of buying U.S. made products, Oregonians purchased that same bsdket of goods  all made outside the U.S., total CO2e emissions jump to 113.5 MMT.

A bill (SB1547) signed into law in March '16 does not contain language banning coal-fired electricity from delivery to Oregon's retail customers.  Even so, the Oregon Global Warming Commission’s 2017 Biennial Report to the Oregon legislature (Report) erroneously reports the existence of such a ban after 2030.   It also erroneously reports that both Portland General Electric (PGE) and PacifiCorp (PAC) are prohibited from allocating to Oregon retail customers any cost or benefit from coal-fired plants.  Figures 7-9 in the Report illustrate past and future CO2 emissions by these two utilities (Fig. 7 for PAC and Fig. 8 for PGE) and the statewide CO2 emission levels (Fig. 9) assume that Oregon takes credit for lowered CO2 emissions, even though SB1547 did not address coal plant operation in any way.  Furthermore, the statute in question expressly permits PGE to continue to include costs of its portion of Coalstrip in Oregon retail rates after 2030.  The law als...