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...

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...

Climate Interactive has a mode l they use to assess the impact of various climate change proposals.  They're analysis is quite sobering, indicating that the 'agreement' reached at the recent Climate Change conference, the earth's temperature would increase 7 degrees F (4 degrees C) by the year 2100.  This is substantially higher than the goal for temperature rise this century is 2.7 degrees F (1.5 degrees C). This link  will take you to Climate Interactive's blog.  That blog provides some additional background to the agreed goals for temperature rise, and current efforts to limit it.  The New York Times had a fairly good overview article on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference agreement. A CBS news report contains the following chilling news: " Reducing carbon dioxide levels to 350 would mean reversing the trend of the past couple of centuries. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for as long as 100 years. And the emissions cuts currently being ple...