Energy

In an effort to democratize information on our energy sources and dilemmas, I created this guide written in plain English vs scientific or economic jargon, so that people in other fields of study and in other professions can have a better understanding. Part I looks at the United States percent share of electricity generation using EIA 2015 data. Part II uses an excellent and very coherent study done by The Breakthrough Institute, and it takes a closer look at renewables and nuclear energy. I’m presently drafting Part III, which will breakdown energy at the global scale. In the meantime you can watch National  Geographic’s panel with President Barack Obama where he discusses the complexity of our energy issues (ff to 32:51) and this fun interview with Stephen Colbert and Jason Bordoff, Director of Center on Global Energy Policy, a think tank that I have done research for.

PART I

United States: Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in EIA 2015

  • Coal = 33%
  • Natural gas = 33%
  • Nuclear = 20%
  • Hydropower = 6%
  • Other renewables = 7%
  • Biomass = 1.6%
  • Geothermal = 0.4%
  • Solar = 0.6%
  • Wind = 4.7%
  • Petroleum = 1%
  • Other gases = <1%

Further Details

Coal is THE worst for the environment (Highest emission of greenhouse gas (CO2), and is high in particulates that lead to cancers and asthma). The term “clean coal” just means that the particulates have been removed as per the most recent government regulations and technology. It does nothing to stem CO2.

‪Oil isn’t great either, but only a small amount of crude oil is directly consumed in the United States. Nearly all of the crude oil that is produced in or imported into the US is refined into petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, and jet fuel, which are then consumed. In 2015, the US consumed a total of 7.08 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of about 19.4 million barrels per day.

Natural Gas emits less CO2 of all the fossil fuels. It’s the cheapest. BUT it’s cheap because it uses fracking, and we all know that is horrible for the environment. Recently however, due to increase in earthquakes due to fracking, in regions not traditionally associated with seismic activity, there has been reduced drilling in these areas. Additionally, the extraction and distribution via building pipelines have violated the rights of indigenous people, most recently in North Dakota. Therefore, the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior, recently released this statement. The response was met with great uncertainty given the historical context.

Note: Fossil fuel makes up 67% of US energy sources. That is huge and is mostly because its affordable and our infrastructure to distribute it nationally supports it.

Nuclear is 20% of our energy mix. It has low/no carbons emissions, but people are scared of it because of fear-mongering by well-meaning environmentalists. So far politicians are not publicly backing nuclear because of this sentiment, but nuclear has growing support among environmentalist, conservationists and climate scientists, including James Hansen. They believe nuclear plays a critical role in stemming climate change. (See Breakthrough Institute study below- Part II)

Hydropower is limited to geography and there are other environmental concerns. Same with Biomass and Geothermal which have limitations as well.

Renewables. While both wind and solar are valuable components of a broader climate action solution in the future, technological barriers, particularly with battery capacity, and lack of infrastructure, prevent renewables from scaling up. Penetration rates in every major country in the world are at at 5% – 15%. There is unfortunately the myth of 100% renewable energy that has been perpetuated by well-meaning environmentalists who cite “The Solutions Project” which is unfortunately a fringe academic theory that is filled with invalid assumptions and extrapolations.  (See Breakthrough Institute study below – Part II)

Take a look at the numbers again:

  • Solar = 0.6%
  • Wind = 4.7%

It’s a tiny percentage, and given the present technological constraints with battery storage, renewables are not scalable in the time frame we need, and we presently don’t have the infrastructure. Its a difficult reality to face since we desperately need a low/no carbon source of energy, but we are not able to deploy solar and wind yet.

So, given the rising increase in demand for energy globally, coupled with a need to decrease CO2 emissions, what are we to do? 

There are externalities and social costs for all energy sources, the key is to find the one with the least, while enabling those in the developing world to get out of extreme poverty and meet our global agreement made at COP21 in Paris.

Advocating that we can just jump straight into renewables without any increases in technology is disingenuous, but is a myth that is popularly believed, and perpetuated. Although China is taking advantage of the use of nuclear energy, in the United States, there has been enough misinformation that politicians find it difficult to support and implement into policy.

That leaves Natural Gas (the lowest CO2 emitter of all the fossil fuels). Is fracking bad? Yes. But it often prevails do to economics and the fact that it is domestic. We need at least one reliable, cheap and relatively low emission fuel to keep the economy afloat, fuel transportation and agriculture. This is why we keep seeing the push for Natural Gas, at least within the United States and Canada.

PART II


 

GDE Error: Error retrieving file - if necessary turn off error checking (404:Not Found)

 

PART III


#Misconception 1 – “The US is an oil exporting country”

The US is a net importer still (by far). It’s complicated, so stay with me…

The US has increased its oil production dramatically since 2008, and indeed is the #1 oil producer in the world, producing more oil than Saudi Arabia. BUT the US consumes a ton, and because we used to import a ton, we continue to be a net importer….

Now for more granular detail on this, which will help you to understand this paradox:

The US is actually an exporter and an importer. The reason is that the US refineries (to make gasoline from oil) are not equipped to handle US oil (sweet). They made investments decades ago to handle thicker (Saudi or Venezuelan oil). So what happens is a lot of the US crude gets exported, and Venezuelan and Middle Eastern crude gets imported to the US. Then the US refines that crude, consumes it and exports a lot of it to Latin America. US refineries are very efficient; Latin American refineries are not. So, the US is making a killing exporting gasoline to Latin America.

* Key difference there is crude vs. gasoline *

In terms of gas, prices are ridiculously low, and are not connected in price with oil in the US. They are not fungible. Oil is used for transportation, gas for electricity and heating. Gas prices have gone up a bit over the past year and a half. OPEC’s policy has helped increase prices, but they gave exceptions to Iran and I believe Libya… still that helped rebound the crude price.

Ultimately, that helps US oil production, which means greater supply in the world, which means lower prices. So basically US supply puts a cap in the price of oil, at somewhere around $55-$60. And of course, there can be cyclical pricing because it takes years to get production out, but at this point there is already enough fossil fuel infrastructure and known resources ready to pump, and they started to since prices rebounded a month or two ago.

Also note, liquid petroleum consumption in the US is flat since 2008. It probably increased a bit in 2016 (numbers are not out yet). So the reason why the US became a lot more oil independent is entirely due to fracking (word referred to both oil and gas horizontal drilling). Not because consumption is down.
#Misconception 2 – “Fossil fuels will be phased out by 2030.”

#First, it is NOT global consensus that fossil fuels “WILL” be phased out, the consensus is that it *SHOULD* be phased out.

#Second, It’s not the fossil fuel industry that is advocating fossil fuels be phased out, its climate scientists.

#Third, even if the fossil fuel industry were motivated to phase out fossil fuels by 2030 (and they are *not*), it’s still not possible. Renewables (biofuels and electric vehicles) are nowhere near competitive yet. Even with a best case scenario, we have a technology breakthrough in battery capacity, TODAY for instance, (the limiting factor in renewables), there is still no way to scale-up renewables to replace fossil fuels by 2030.

Three major reasons for that are:
1) lack of green infrastructure,  renewables are not a reliable base-load energy due to intermittence,

2) Renewables are still only 3% of our global energy mix, and

3) Even if problems 1&2 were solved, there would STILL be economic challenges to switching energy markets and scaling up at the same capacity of fossil fuels.

I hope this clears things up!

Research on the Nexus of Biodiversity Conservation, Climate & Energy Policy