Wind turbines generate electricity at a 400-megawatt facility in Peetz, Colo. (UPI Photo/Gary C. Caskey/NEWSCOM/FILE)
Can Obama’s clean energy plan save the climate?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 01.12.09
In a major economic speech Thursday at George Mason University, President-elect Barack Obama called for doubling domestic production of alternative energy over the next three years.
As Monitor reporter Peter Grier notes, Mr. Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan – a stimulus package expected to total at least $800 billion – will put energy front and center. The plan includes boosting the efficiency of homes and government buildings and kick-starting domestic clean energy. To quote from Obama’s speech:
To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75 percent of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of 2 million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills. In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.
Obama also pledged to develop a national smart energy grid that would “save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation.”
Obama’s change.gov site gives the details of the plan, which include $150 billion over 10 years in clean-energy funding and a requirement that 25 percent of American electricity come from renewable sources by 2025
Reactions
Grist’s Kate Sheppard reports that big environmental groups are for the most part pleased. Her story includes quotes from the leaders of the Sierra Club (”win-win”), the Alliance for Climate Protection (”a crucial first step”), Friends of the Earth (”a refreshing break from the past”), and the Blue Green Alliance (”the smart way to think about economic development”).
Ms. Sheppard notes, however, that the plan does not include specific provisions for funding mass transit, an omission that worries some environmentalists.
As CNN reports, some key Democrats have criticized Obama’s stimulus plan, saying that it relies too heavily on tax breaks instead of direct investment. At Climate Progress, Joseph Romm, a former Clinton energy adviser, cites a story in Environment & Energy Daily that notes that, of the plan’s expected $300 billion in tax breaks, only $10 billion go toward clean energy, a ratio that Mr. Romm calls “distinctly unimpressive.”
Others are wondering if Obama’s clean-energy goals are even possible. Reuters reports that Rex Tillerson, the CEO of Exxon Mobil, believes that doubling domestic production of renewables in three years will be “very challenging,” in part because he believes the United States cannot double its output of biofuels and lacks the manufacturing capacity to build enough wind turbines.
Mr. Tillerson believes that the best way to boost clean energy is to impose a carbon tax, a belief shared by Al Gore; Obama’s Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu; and Obama’s economic adviser Lawrence Summers, but not by Obama himself, who supports a cap-and-trade scheme.
But will it do the trick?
Assuming that the US actually could double alternative energy production by 2012, how far would that go toward solving the climate crisis?
A little. According to the US Department of Energy’s Renewable Energy Data Book [PDF], 9.4 percent of total US energy production – this includes both electricity and transportation – comes from renewable energy sources, mainly hydropower and biomass. (Another 11.7 percent comes from nuclear power, which is not mentioned in this plan.) Check out this chart of US energy production from the book:
The remaining nonrenewable energies – oil, coal, and natural gas – contributed to the roughly 7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions that the US belched out in 2007, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Let’s be wildly optimistic and assume that every single one of these new geothermal stations, solar concentrators, and windmills will take a bite out of the most carbon-intensive source of energy: coal.
Coal accounts for one-third of US energy production, and, according to a 2006 spreadsheet by the EIA, emits about 2,300 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent, which is about one-third of the total. So if the US were to increase renewables to account for 10 percent more of our overall energy production and reduce coal production by the same proportion, then we’d reduce our total greenhouse gas emissions by about 10 percent.
I’m making two other huge assumptions here. First, that US energy production won’t change at all except for the increase in renewables, and second, that all of these wind turbines and solar power stations have a negligible carbon footprint. In other words, this 10 percent figure is probably too high, unless the US also makes major improvements in energy efficiency.
And it’s not enough to curb climate change, even if every other country effected a similar emissions reduction.
According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report, if the world’s wealthy countries were to cut their emissions by 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels (US emissions are now about 15 percent higher than they were in 1990), carbon dioxide concentrations would stabilize at 450 parts per million, the figure that the UN panel believed was the safety threshold.
But a report [PDF] by top climate researchers published last year in The Open Atmospheric Science Journal found that the UN panel ignored crucial feedback loops. The true safe threshold, they said, is 350 parts per million. This number, the report concluded, should be respected “[i]f humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.”
Current atmospheric greenhouse concentrations are at about 387 parts per million and rising.
So a 10 percent emissions reduction is a modest start, and getting up to 25 percent renewables by 2025 would be another baby step, but if the world’s leading climate scientists are right, these by themselves won’t be enough to save us from catastrophic climate change.
<< Can we run our cars on human fat? | MainComments
2. John | 01.12.09
Clearly the President Elect see’s our energy future as being vitally important in terms of our reliance on Foreign oil, environmental concerns, and as economi stimulus.
If the plan is not bold or aggressive enough, or won’t work…then it needs to go back to the drawing board. But at least he seems committed to it.
The “smart grid” is required both to modernize our transmission and to elimiate the inefficiency, and also to manage and integrate power from the new alternatives of Wind and Solar. We still need the ability to store it (energy from the alternatives)in the form of hydrogen or to supply power for bio-fuel manufacture.
I still like Pickens Plan but there is a reason why Europe has large installed capacities of Wind power and yet is not able to use anywhere near the installed capability. We need to understand that fully.
4. Joel Ronne | 01.12.09
Another assumption made here that makes the estimate over optimistic is that the 9.4% renewable share is based on annual energy production. Obama has not said he will double renewable energy production but will double renewable energy capacity. Also Obama is not including large hydro in the renewable base he proposes to double.
“The United States currently produces roughly 24,000 MW [megawatts] of wind, solar, and geothermal power. Before the financial crisis brought the renewable industry to a halt, the wind industry publicly announced the expectation to install at least 7500 MW in 2008,” the Obama transition aide said in an email. “By providing significant loan guarantees and ultimately later down the road a national [renewable portfolio standard], we are confident we will get the wind industry back on track. In addition to the 20,000+ MW of wind, we are confident that with the same combination of support and renewable standards, the geothermal and solar industries can install 4,000 MW of new power.”
A rough estimate of the actual impact:
Of the 24 GW Obama proposes to bring on line in the next three years if we assume a technology split of 20 GW, 1 GW and 3 GW for wind, geothermal and solar and assume corresponding capacity factors of 33%, 75% and 20% we should end up with an annual addition of power of 58,000 GWh, 6,600 GWh and 5,300 GWh respectively for a total of 70,000 GWh.
With the 2007 renewable production accounting for 2.5% at 105,000 GWh the addition of 70,000 GWh would increase the renewable percentage by 1.7% from 2.5% to 4.2%.
So a better number for the coal displacement would be 1.7% rather than the 10% assumed in this article. However wind generally does not displace coal because it is intermittent, it generally replaces the least efficient natural gas generation on the grid.
I think Obama’s proposal is great and a step in the right direction but we still have to be realistic about the out results.
5. Ben N | 01.12.09
Pretty much have to stop burning coal. Globally have to. Ten percent goals = deck chairs on the titanic. Thirty to fifty percent = meaningful target. People will freak. They also freaked finding out about the first atomic bomb and the first moon walk. So much is possible if we can stop arguing and focus.
6. Charles Blake | 01.13.09
We know that the Milankovich cycles are the link to global temperature fluctuations. These 100,000-year orbital cycles, 12,000-year inter-glacial cycles and the 26,000-year Precession of the Equinoxes are where our recent warming trend came from. Man-made pollution is insignificant to this process. We have now turned the corner and are headed toward a long-term arctic/glacial trend. We also know that it is the temperature that controls the atmospheric CO2 levels as opposed to the trendy, but erroneous idea that CO2 levels control the temperature. With that in mind, we need to rethink climate policy and start working on how folks are going to live, work and survive in increasingly colder climates over the next 20,000 years, especially in the northern tier states. How will we transport goods when winter temperatures are consistently sub-zero? How will people affordably heat their homes and businesses? Will there be a continuous migration to southern states and how will those states deal with a burgroning population? What will happen to the northern states when they become undesirable for habitation due to the excessive cold? How will this cooling trend effect agriculture? Global cooling is our next problem.
7. R. Moen | 01.13.09
During the campaign it seemed that special interest groups controlled Mr. Obama’s energy plan — I was worried. Now he’s consulting scientists — I’m pleased. The new Secretary of Energy Mr. Chu, a physicist, understands that to address global warming it’s imperative we retire coal generation plants. NASA’s leading climate scientist, Dr. Hansen, wrote a open letter to Mr. Obama stating the same. He also believes that only nuclear power can replace coal (see the Global Warming page on http://www.energyplanusa for the link).
8. Mike Higgins | 01.14.09
“… if the world’s leading climate scientists are right, these by themselves won’t be enough to save us from catastrophic climate change.”
The good news is that the “world’s leading climate scientists” to which the author refers are NOT right. They have proven to be dead WRONG time and time again.
The increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is NOT driving global warming. If there were such a correlation, 2008 would be the hottest year on record instead of being the 14th coldest year in the past 30 years, as measured by NASA satellites — the most accurate measurement we have of Earth’s average temperature.
The following would appear to be closer to the truth:
THE CHIEF REASON for skepticism at the official position on “global warming” is the overwhelming weight of evidence that the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, prodigiously exaggerates both the supposed causes and the imagined consequences of anthropogenic “global warming”; that too many of the exaggerations can be demonstrated to have been deliberate; and that the IPCC and other official sources have continued to rely even upon those exaggerations that have been definitively demonstrated in the literature to have been deliberate.
In short, science is being artfully manipulated to fabricate what are in essence political and not scientific conclusions – a conclusion that is congenial to powerful factions whose ambition is not to identify scientific truth but rather to advance the special vested interests with which they identify themselves.
Click on the following link for the full report:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf
9. stan | 01.14.09
We are not going to make a dent in CO2 output without an aggressive rebuilding of our Nuclear Energy infrastructure. Meaning… we can build the reactors cheaper, use American manufacturers and engineers and use “fast breeder” technology. The other non-carbon emmitters (solar/wind/geo)are necessary but, are not going to get the atmospheric relief that we really need. Its a plain hard reality the green lobbyists have no choice but to accept or be in the way of the real change needed.
10. Nobody | 01.15.09
The problem is that Obama himself and his teams seem to be a bunch of economic illiterates who barely understand what’s involved in switching economy to the low carbon mode. Oil can be as cheap as $20 per barrel and in this sense doubling the output of the alternatives can at best lead to lower prices for all types of energy, including oil, which in turn will stimulate more demand for everything including oil itself. Unless Obama is ready to impose carbon tax, which he is not, this alternative energy will simply add itself to the market instead of actually replacing something. It’s incorrect to say that the US is addicted to oil. The US is addicted to cheap energy and as long as it’s not ready to drop this addiction, it will continue going in circles led by populist demagogues like Obama and his friends.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Jim Baird | 01.12.09
The principle tenants of sustainable development are the three “Rs”, reduce, reuse, recycle.
The initial heat produced by the global inventory of nuclear waste is on the order of the energy output of 200 operational reactors. The energy return on investment for North America’s unconventional oil resources – oil sands and oil shale ranges between 3 and 5.2/1. This free, carbon-free energy source, which is currently going to waste, has the potential to produce close to 6 billion barrels of synthetic oil annually.
Returning the global inventory to North America to develop this resource insures it never falls into the hands of proliferators or terrorists.
The major problems associated with spent nuclear fuel are:
1.it generates heat which can over the long-term break down the crystalline structure of rock in which it is placed and can induce hydrothermal convection that can transport hazardous material back to the biosphere;
2.removing the heat producing plutonium and other long-lived elements from the waste is expensive and creates a proliferation risk; and
3.the process of radiolysis can break down water into hydrogen and oxygen which can detrimentally react with spent fuel bundles and their containers.
These liabilities are assets in terms of producing and upgrading of unconventional oil deposits.
Hydrogen released by the process of radiolysis and the heat generated by a repository within an unconventional formation would over turn the equilibrium of the system and contribute both to the in situ cracking and mobilization of synthetic oil. The high-energy flux of spent nuclear fuel in a heavy oil or bitumen will fracture (upgrade) a portion of the long chain kerogen molecules in an unconventional formation to form oil and gas.
A recently published study, http://nbbusinessjournal.canadaeast.com/journal/article/504736, notes the unprecedented capacity of bitumen to sequester radioactive materials. Much of Canada’s bitumen is also found beneath a capping shale formation that precludes either hydrocarbons or radionuclides from migrating to the surface.
Lord Oxburgh, one of the world’s leading geologists and former British chairman of Shell, has said of the Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method, “I have often myself wondered whether it would be feasible to harness the heat generated by sequestered nuclear materials. I suspect that the major problems might well be political rather than technological.”
The political reality is; North America’s auto industry is collapsing due in no small part to the high cost of oil, Alberta’s oil sands development is collapsing due to costs and carbon considerations, and waste is the impediment to Nuclear powers capacity to fill America’s electrical needs and its potential to produce hydrogen.
We can reduce the heat of nuclear waste, which has the potential to degrade the geologic containment properties of a repository such as Yucca Mountain by converting this heat into work. We can reuse nuclear waste first to produce our unconventional petroleum resources and then recycle it, once the major heat producing and most dangerous fission products have decayed, should that be considered desirable.