Technical Feasibility

That something is somehow technically feasible, doesn't mean it makes economic or even environmental sense.

Let's consider the following question:


1. Is it feasible for a country to transition to 100% renewable* electricity? (Assuming there are no financial or material constraints).

The answer is almost certainly yes.**

However, that is not the important question. The important question is:

a. What would be the purpose of generating all the electricity of a country with renewables?

If the answer is: to reduce CO2 emissions, then I think we first need to make our homework.

Off the bat, neither solar PV nor wind are zero carbon emitters (once their lifecycle is considered). Sure, no technology, not even hydro, is zero emissions but according to the IPCC**** utility scale solar PV has a median value of 48 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh. Low, but not extremely low. Wind clocks in at 11 grams. Much better.

However, the numbers above do not include either the back up plant (usually fossil fuel powered) that is needed most of the time to support the relatively low capacity factors of renewable energy, nor the lifecycle emissions of the massive storage that would be required to somewhat wean renewables from fossil fuel plants.

So say, if on an annual basis wind supplies power 25% of the time and a natural gas power plant the rest of the time, the weighted emissions would be:

          25% x 11 grams/kWh + 75% x 490 grams/kWh = 370 grams/kWh

Yes, it is lower than a natural gas power plant by itself, (reduction of 120 grams/kWh) but are these modest CO2 reductions worth the double investment?

And, more important, is there a better way to invest our limited financial (and material) resources to achieve more bang for the buck?

As an exercise, the replacement of a coal plant with a natural gas plant would result in the following reduction:

          820 grams/kWh (coal) - 490 grams/kWh (natural gas) = 330 grams/kWh

The reduction in emission is almost three times larger and probably with a smaller investment that would last longer. (How long before wind turbines have to be replaced?).

Now, if we replace the coal plant with a nuclear one the numbers look this way:

          820 grams/kWh (coal) - 12 grams/kWh (nuclear) = 808 grams /kWh.

The reduction in emissions is almost seven times larger than with renewables.

Conclusion: technical feasibility by itself does not justify investments in renewable energy. More important is to consider the financial and environmental factors.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram


* By renewables we mean solar and wind in this article. Hydro is also a renewable but it is in a league by itself and we actually already have countries generating 100% of its electricity with it. Among them we have Paraguay and Albania.

** Sure, the manufacture of the wind turbines and solar panels would require massive inputs of fossil fuels, but for simplification we won't consider them at this moment.

***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Barking at the Wrong Tree?

Even though the science might (or might not) be settled, the climate discourse is still heated between those that sustain that carbon dioxide emissions are increasing the global temperature of the Earth and those that do not see it as a menace.

However, I believe this discussion is misguided and thus that we are barking at the wrong tree.

If the first camp is correct, then we need to drastically reduce our fossil fuel consumption. To be able to do this without destroying the world's economy (and thus severely curtailing the possibilities of reducing poverty and even shoving many / most of us toward that same poverty) would require a massive substitution of fossil fuels by other, lower carbon energy sources.

If the second camp is correct, the so called "deniers" then we still all probably agree that fossil fuels will not forever be cheap and abundant.

Consequently, it seems to me, both groups should agree that the (eventual) replacement of fossil fuels should be a top priority.

If we look around today, we see lots of PR from the renewable, efficiency and even the nuclear camps, but where the rubber meets the road, (in other words, massive alternative energy production ramp-up) we don't see anything worth noting.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that by the year 2040, close to 80% of our primary energy will still come from fossil fuels, however, since consumption is projected to increase in absolute terms that means more CO2 emissions than today.*

Yes, renewables (solar and wind) will survive and maybe even thrive in the coming decades but there is no way they will dominate the global energy market. Why? Because they are diffuse (in other words, weak), intermittent and unreliable. Renewables are in a sense a road to the past. Centuries ago, practically 100% of our energy was renewable but our civilization moved forward with denser and more reliable energy.

Current nuclear is not that much better. Yes, it is low carbon, yes it is orders of magnitude denser than renewables (and even than fossil fuels) but it is still too expensive and hard to scale up rapidly.

In his book Zero to One, Peter Thiel states that "only when your product is 10X better can you offer the customer transparent superiority." Well, that is certainly not yet the case respecting our current alternatives to fossil fuels.

The solution to our energy quandary has to be technology. We won't advance toward the future by walking backwards.

New nuclear (fission) designs in the drawing board seem great on paper, but to prove their concepts we would need massive implementation in the real world. This is not happening. At least not yet.

Even though it might not feel like it, our civilization has been upgrading its energy sources to better ones:

Coal is better than wood, wind and water.
Oil is better than coal.
Natural gas is better than oil.
Nuclear is better than natural gas.

Sure, the above statements are arguable, but the point is we have been moving to denser more reliable energy that is actually cleaner. (Without coal, we would probably had destroyed all our forests to use them as fuel).

So, bottom line, our civilization has been moving forward and there is no way back (at least not if we plan to support +7 billion persons).

Renewables are in a sense a return to the past. New nuclear (fission and fusion) can be a step forward, maybe even a giant step forward.

How much time do we have to replace, say, 50% of fossil fuels with nuclear? That depends on when fossil fuels will become painfully expensive / scarce.

Try as we might, this transition will probably not be fast. It may take 100, 150 years, or more, but as JFK used to say: let us begin!

Feel free to add to the conversation in Tweeter: @luisbaram

*http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/?src=home-b2

Ten Times Better

In his book, Zero to One, Peter Thiel states that "only when your product is 10X better can you offer the customer transparent superiority."

In the global warming discourse, it is often stated that fossil fuels should be replaced by renewable (solar, wind, geothermal) energy sources.

However the first question we should ask is if in fact renewables are ten times better than what they are supposed to be replacing.

Well, in reality renewables not only are not ten times better than fossil fuels, they are not even plain better. What's more, in most of the important attributes of an energy source, renewables are considerably worse than fossil fuels.

So maybe this is the reason renewables are barely represented in our civilization's total energy consumption.* And this is in spite of them being the recipients of considerable subsidies per unit of energy produced.

In his book The End of Energy Obesity, Peter Tertzakian states:

"The following framework of nine energy attributes will serve as a useful reference point for assessing how energy sources - renewable and nonrenewable - jockey for market share and for predicting how successfully we can incorporate them into our energy diet."

Following I will list Mr. Tertzakian nine energy attributes and will indicate in green where renewables are better than fossil fuels and in red where they are worse:

1. Versatility

2. Scalability

3. Storability and Transportability

4. Deliverability

5. Energy Density

6. Power Density

7. Constancy

8. Environmental Sensitivity

9. Energy Security

As we can see, the renewables loss is almost as bad as the Brazil - Germany one during the 2014 FIFA cup.

Consequently, if we are going to replace fossil fuels, we need something much better than renewables and we need a real sense of urgency in this endeavor unless we believe fossil fuels will forever be abundant and relatively inexpensive.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram


* http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2014-full-report.pdf

Political Will

We hear time and again in the climate discourse that what we need to solve the problem is "political will."

Well, maybe... but combating climate change through reducing our CO2 emissions is not something that can be done by passing a law or signing new regulations.

This is not a Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program or the Great Society of LBJ. It is probably the three of them combined and multiplied by ten, and even then...

We will not be free of fossil fuels by issuing an Emancipation Proclamation. If only it were that simple...

First, let's mention what we don't need respecting the transition to a low carbon economy:

1. To be told it will be easy. Because it won't.
2. To be told it will be cheap. Because it won't.
3. To be told it can be done fast. Because it won't.

Now, the first thing we need to understand is the MAGNITUDE of the energy we should transition from high carbon sources to lower carbon ones. And, by the way, the sooner we bury the "zero emissions" label, the better. No energy source is zero emissions. *

As we may see from the graph above, fossil fuels not only overwhelmingly dominate the energy market, but in absolute terms are the ones that are growing the fastest.**

Even though the OECD countries ARE taming their energy hunger, the non-OECD are increasing it as if they had an appointment. ***

And let's make no mistake: the overwhelming consideration for increasing energy consumption in these Non-OECD countries will be cost and ease of scalability.

The first thing we need to confront the climate challenge is to start telling the truth and this starts with Al Gore, Greenpeace, Paul Krugman and others. Here are some inconvenient truths:

a. Moving to a low carbon economy will be expensive. Very expensive. Thus the cost of energy for the final consumer will be higher, maybe even much higher.
b. If the cost of energy goes up, then the cost of almost everything else will also go up, including food.
c. After many trillions of euros of investment we will end up with less than we began with (lower carbon but more expensive energy). For the final user there would be little to see (except maybe much less pollution from coal burning).

All the people participating in a Climate March should go ahead and do it but be perfectly conscious that if they are FINALLY listened to by governments, THEIR cost of energy and everything else will go up. Is this a sacrifice they are willing to assume? Hopefully yes, but fully understanding what they are actually asking for and how it will affect them individually.

Now we are going to have to call names. It would be great just to leave this at the philosophical level but emissions won't drop just because we wish them to. No, we need MASSIVE deployments of low carbon energy. And here we have to face other truths (valid at least through the rest of this century):

1. Hydro was, is, and will continue to be the premier renewable energy.
2. Yes, wind and solar will conquer part of the energy pie but will almost certainly stay in single digits share of our global energy consumption. Why? Because they are intermittent, unreliable, diffuse and expensive.
3. (This is to some the worst of all the inconvenient truths), nuclear will have to perform the heavy low carbon lifting for our civilization. Sorry, but there is NO way around this. Make the math, it would be impossible in a financial / environmental sense to supply most of our global energy with renewables.

So, once it is boiled down to the essentials, this is the definition of political will respecting global warming:

Political will: paving the way for a massive, accelerated implementation of nuclear power.

All the rest is just talk, just platitudes, just expressing feel good words that change absolutely nothing.

Look around you! Is a massive nuclear power plant buildup currently happening in your country?

If yes, you are moving forward.

If no, it is business as usual and you are not going anywhere (except maybe to an overly hot planet).

Feel free to add to the conversation at Twitter: @luisbaram

Note: some people declare that renewable energy (solar or wind) is cheap but this is only because they piggy-back on the conventional energy grid (that ends up absorbing the costs of their intermittency). However, when all costs are considered, RE is expensive, intermittent and unreliable.

References:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

** bp.com/statisticalreview

*** www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2013).pdf

Memes in the Energy Discourse

Dear friends, for some months I have been creating memes for the energy discourse. The pictures themselves I got from the Internet.

Feel free to use them, or as we say here: feel free to steal shamelessly.

Thank you.

That is all. Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaam

Thank you.

Intermittent and Unreliable

Intermittent energy is not necessarily such a bad idea.

This first graph shows the output of a half-wave rectifier that converts alternating current into pulsating direct current. Although it is intermittent, it is reliable: you know that every second 60 (or 50) pulses of electricity will be produced.

Electronic equipment requires constant direct current (not a pulsating one) but it is easy to convert the pulsating electricity into a constant one by the addition of storage.

In the case of power supplies for electronic equipment, this "storage" is usually one or more capacitors.

So, the output, once the "storage" is added looks much more appealing:

In real life, the "ripple" can be of very small amplitude.

The amount of storage needed can be very easily calculated (and implemented) because the energy output of a half wave rectifier is intermittent but completely predictable and reliable.

On the other hand, if the output of a system is not only intermittent, but also unreliable things begin to look more complicated.

Here, as an example, we can see the electrical output of a wind turbine:

We could classify this output as intermittent and unreliable. In this circumstance the amount of storage required is not as easily calculated and unless we pretty much decide to store weeks of power we will end up short at several instances during the year.

Storing vast amounts of electrical power for weeks is a very expensive proposition and that is the reason most renewable energy in the world has back-up, usually fossil fuel plants. Some people actually prefer to call these plants "primaries" because they end up supplying the required power most of the year.

Solar photo-voltaic (PV) is not inherently an intermittent / unreliable technology. For example, in geosynchronous orbit PV provides constant power most of the year (except near the equinoxes) and even satellites in LEO (low Earth orbit) produce intermittent but reliable power (and thus the size of the batteries required for storage is modest as they need to store only a few hours of energy).

The "problem" is that on Earth we have cloud cover and seasons (not to mention variable wind patterns with their respective seasonality in the case of wind turbines).

Conclusion: intermittent / reliable power, with a modicum of storage, can easily supply power continually.  On the other hand intermittent / unreliable power can hardly provide a constant supply even with storage.

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

Is the Renewable Revolution Over?

All graphs in this blog post are from the Renewables 2014 Global Status Report. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this page.





It is obviously premature to declare the renewable revolution over, however, the latest data on the subject does indicate a substantial deceleration in investments as well as on new installed capacity.

Below, we show some highlights from this report:

For the second year in a row, investments in renewables dropped. 

It could be argued that part of the reason for this drop is that prices of these technologies have been dropping, however, the growth year over year of Solar PV (photo-voltaic) and of Wind are beginning to moderate.

In Solar PV, the percent growths year over year have been:

2005: +38%

2006: +37%

2007: +29%

2008: +78%

2009: +44%

2010: +74%

2011: +75%

2012: +43%

2013: +39% (+26%)

In Wind, the percent growths year over year have been:

2005: +23%

2006: +25%

2007: +27%

2008: +29%

2009: +31%

2010: +25%

2011: +20%

2012: +19%

2013: +12% (+7%)

Sure, the bigger the installed base the more difficult it it to maintain youthful growth rates.

On the other hand, it was China, almost single-handedly that supported the growth of both PV and Wind in 2013. The numbers above in parenthesis don't consider China.

On the positive side, Solar + Wind + Geothermal + modern biomass have finally exceeded 1% share of global final energy consumption: 

Here is the link to the full report:

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2014/GSR2014_KeyFindings_low%20res.pdf

By the Seat of Your Pants

Governments do things that would never pass muster in a disciplined corporation.

Imagine me going to the CEO of a company and telling him: give me 100 billion euros to invest in renewable energy (solar plus wind).

He would shower me with questions and demand a very carefully tailored plan.

The conversation would probably go this way:

CEO: what are you trying to achieve with those 100 billion euros?

Me: replace nuclear generation and reduce the carbon emissions of the electrical grid.

CEO: If nuclear is low carbon energy, why replace nuclear and not better fossil fuels?

Me: Because some people are afraid of nuclear.

CEO: Is that fear justified?

Me: For the most part, no.

CEO: Then why don't you spend a small part of that money in education / marketing / PR and better tackle the real culprits of Global Warming: fossil fuels?

Me: It makes sense.

CEO: Considering renewables need backup, usually fossil fuels, what is the floor of emissions an RE / FF electrical system would deliver?

Me: North of 300 grams per kWh if the backup is natural gas, north of 700 grams if the backup is coal.

CEO: Would that be enough to effectively combat global warming?

Me: No, sir, it wouldn't and today we already have important countries with electrical grid emissions well south of 100 grams.

CEO: How did those countries achieve their low carbon electricity?

Me: Without a single exception they did it mostly with hydro and / or nuclear.

CEO: Then, why are you proposing to spend loads of money on an unproven path?

Me: Well... Greenpeace says...

CEO: Greenpeace!  What do they know about energy?

Me: Not much, sir.

At this point, I was literally kicked out of his office.

Moral of the story: we cannot just pour gigantic amounts of money because we "feel" something might turn out to be a solution.

No, in the energy discourse we need to be disciplined, make our homework, evaluate alternatives and make rational choices not clouded by feelings.

Here is a suggestion respecting the basic questions we should answer during the homework phase:

http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2014/04/energy-discourse.html

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

Run Twice As Fast

“My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that.”

                                        Lewis Carroll

In the energy discourse there is lots of hype. By the way things are being reported we may get the impression that wind and solar power are just about to dominate the energy markets worldwide. Thus, a dose of reality is needed.

If the final objective in our quest to stop global warming is to reduce carbon emissions, then we are not only not advancing, we are actually going backwards. In other words, every year we seem to be breaking a new record in CO2 emissions. 

Why is this?

Because our global energy consumption is growing so fast that we literally have to run as fast as we can increasing our low carbon energy sources just to stay in place. 

Note: all graphs below are from the EIA International Energy Outlook 2013 Report. A link to the full report can be found at the bottom of this page.

Since our energy consumption is still growing at a fast pace, in order to stabilize (let alone reduce) or carbon emissions, the low carbon sources (hydro, nuclear, sun, wind, geothermal, etc.), would need to supply all the growth in energy requirements. This is not happening, not even close. Actually most of the increase in our energy supply is coming from fossil fuels themselves.

That is why our total emissions look this way:

With the exception of the years 2008-9 when the world experienced a serious recession, we seem to be breaking a new carbon emission record every year and it is forecast to continue that way until (at least) 2040.

As we may see in Figure 1, the challenge is mainly the increase in energy requirements in the Non-OECD countries.

Even though electricity is only a fraction of our total energy use, it is the most fitted to being generated by low carbon energy. However, even in this segment the record, so far, is not precisely sterling:

Conclusion:

It may FEEL like we are running to a lower carbon future but we are actually badly falling behind. We need to run much faster just to stay even in the climate race and if we want to begin reducing our carbon emissions, then our top priority should be to "run twice as fast as that" in the deployment of low carbon sources.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/

Renewable Energy Reduces Emissions

Is renewable energy (solar and wind) the best way to reduce carbon emissions?

At first sight, this question seems almost absurd and we are tempted to say: of course it is the best way!

But, is it? Before jumping to hasty conclusions let's do our homework.

This exercise is going to be a simplification, the purpose is mainly to show us that things in real life are not as simple as in the lab.

So, let's consider a country that supplies 100% of its electricity with coal plants.

According to this table (see link at the bottom of this page), these are the emissions per kWh generated with the different energy sources: **

Thus, if this country generates 100% of its energy with coal, their emissions per kWh would be ~1001 grams.

Now, let's say we install wind turbines (enough to supply 100% of the power when the turbines are producing at full capacity):

Let's say wind capacity factor at this country is 25% (in other words, turbines actually produce 25% of their plate rating on average). It is important to underline that this is not constant power: at some moments the turbines are producing at 100%, at other they produce nothing and at any other moment their output can be anywhere in between these extremes.

So, (simplifying) wind will produce 25% of the energy on an annual basis and the coal plants will produce the rest (75%).

Then we calculate the emissions that are really just a weighted average:

Annual average emissions per kWh = (25% x 12 g/kWh) + (75% x 1001 g/kWh) = 754 g/kWh.

We can see that the emissions of the system did drop, but they are still too high.

What better options do we have?

1. If we replace the coal plants with natural gas plants (which have much higher capacity factors and can be staggered since they are not wind / sun dependent) then the emissions would be:

          469 g/kWh

2. If we replace the coal plants with nuclear plants then the emissions would be:

          16 g/kWh

As we may see from the calculations above, Renewable energy investments are not the best way to reduce emissions.

Arguably, the fastest way to reduce emissions is to replace coal plants with natural gas plants, however, if the higher investment can be made (and the longer lead times are acceptable), nuclear is truly the low carbon energy solution.

Conclusion: Yes, Renewable energy reduces carbon emissions in most systems, however natural gas, nuclear and of course hydro, are better options.

Thank you.



Notes:
a. In the developed world little new electrical capacity is needed and thus Renewable energy almost directly replaces some other energy source, however in the developing world substantial additional electrical capacity is required and thus a double investment would be required: the Renewable one, plus the reliable one.
b. Sure, Renewables (wind and sun) could be combined to somewhat compensate the fluctuations of the other one. Still, at any particular moment of the year we may have no sun and no wind. At another moment we may have both which could even force us to divert (or disconnect) capacity.
c. To simplify, here we are not considering the possibility of "dumping" energy into another country or using massive storage systems.

**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Let's Lobby!

In the energy discourse it is almost impossible to obtain "fair and balanced" information. It seems everybody out there is lobbying for something, consequently "their" energy is perfect, emits zero pollutants, and creates loads of jobs while the "other" energy is the devil. As easy as that. However, real life, as always, is not black or white, we really don't have out there a picture-perfect solution for a nonexistent binary world.

Can we begin to talk, listen and respect each other instead of just pointing fingers (and even hurling insults)?

Lobbyists are PAID to blindly defend a position and thus they should probably not even be invited to the conversation because as Upton Sinclair stated:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

On the other hand, the REST of us should employ very healthy doses of skepticism when listening to them. Let's label them as what they really are: paid advertisers.

So, let's stop flying and make a soft landing. Here are some basic things we all need to understand:

• No energy is clean. Period. End of story. Elvis has left the (pick one): solar panel / wind turbine / nuclear reactor / dam. 
• Thus, no energy is zero emissions (once you consider the lifetime emissions of the respective technology). 
• The most we can say is that something is cleaner or lower carbon than something else. 
• When discussing subsidies, let's not say x receives so many dollars and y receives only this other amount. Things have to be stated in subsidies per energy produced to have a reference point.

Now, let's briefly scan the main energy sources and focus only on their most important characteristics. Let's not be distracted with side issues (like if wind turbines kill more birds than skyscrapers or not). 

Fossil Fuels:

• They are high carbon.
• In particular coal, causes a substantial number of casualties during its extraction.
• In addition to carbon, they liberate other important pollutants to the environment.
• Not considering externalities, they are the cheapest energy sources we have on a global scale.
• Our current infrastructure is built around them.
• They are convenient, reliable, flexible, high density energy sources. 
• Entire countries depend on the revenue they produce not to mention many millions of jobs all over the world.
• Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) has not been widely deployed. 
• According to the EIA, IEA, they will continue to dominate the energy market for decades to come. 

Now, let's take a look at the low carbon energy sources.

Sun and Wind:

• They are intermittent and unreliable and no amount of spin can change this. The low costs quoted for these technologies consider them piggy-backing on the conventional grid. If they were required to pay for the full effects of their intermittency / unreliability their costs would skyrocket.
• As an individual component, they seem to be low carbon, but once the system is considered (RE + FF backup), the emissions go up enough to even question if they are truly low carbon solutions.
• Storage or other means to compensate for the above have not been widely deployed.

Nuclear: 

• It is reliable, dense, safe, scaleable and produces little (although dangerous) waste.
• Is currently fighting an uphill battle against irrational fears planted by lobbyists (see above).
• Globally, it currently holds the highest market penetration in the production of low carbon electricity.

Hydro:

• It has served us well for many, many decades.
• As a percentage of our total energy consumption, it probably has reached its peak. 

Conclusion: the move away from fossil fuels will be gradual, will take many decades and they will not be replaced by the perfect energy source (which doesn't exist). We need to make hard sensible decisions minimizing the effects of the "paid advertisers."

Feel free to add to the conversation on Twitter.

Thank you.

Greenpeace Interview

This is a fictional interview with a retired executive director of Greenpeace taking place, say, two decades in the future.



GNWR: Thank you, Mr. GP for accepting to participate in this interview. We know that since your retirement you have not conceded any other interview, so we really appreciate your kindness with us.

Mr. GP: It is my pleasure.

GNWR: How do you evaluate the accomplishments of Greenpeace during your tenure.

Mr. GP: I think the balance is positive.

GNWR: Is there anything you would have done differently if you started again.

Mr. GP: Is this on the record?

GNWR: Yes, sir.

Mr. GP: Well... I... yes... let me be candid. We fought the wrong enemy.

GNWR: What do you mean by that?

Mr. GP: We fought nuclear energy too hard and now I know it is, aside from hydro which has limited capacity to grow, the premier low carbon energy source humanity has access to. So here we are, decades later, using more fossil fuels than ever and... sometimes I wonder if we were actually a barrier to real progress in climate action.

GNWR: Did you have this epiphany after leaving Greenpeace?

Mr. GP: Well... not exactly, but, you see, we are sort of a corporation and our revenue are the funds we receive from millions of persons around the world and, how can I say it... we needed a boogeyman.

GNWR: And nuclear was it?

Mr. GP: Not only nuclear, fossil fuels were in theory our main target, but nuclear has a capacity for generating irrational fears that fossil fuels cannot match, so we invested much more than our fair share in demonizing nuclear.

GNWR: And what was the final result.

Mr. GP: Well, we got our funding, alright, but as an environmental movement, we went nowhere and here we are decades later, the honeymoon with solar and wind gone, and nuclear, the only feasible, fully scaleable solution to reducing our civilization's carbon footprint is way behind where it could have been by now.

GNWR: Do you blame yourself for this?

Mr. GP: Only in part. Greenpeace was not the only environmental organization opposing nuclear. It was the fad of the moment and yes, GMOs were also unjustly attacked.

GNWR: Do you plan to mend your ways now?

Mr. GP: Not publicly. Greenpeace has now more pragmatic people leading it. This time, I think, they will really help move the environmental agenda forward.

GNWR: By supporting nuclear?

Mr. GP: Look, let's face it, even if we consider nuclear the devil we have to concede it is a low carbon devil. Besides, the new designs are safer than anything we had in the past and in all truth all things in life have an element of risk. The alternative would be to shut down civilization and go back to caves.  But that, of course, would also imply grave risks, so, there is no way out of nuclear, at least not now.

GNWR: We thank you for this extremely candid conversation you had with us.

Mr. GP: Thank you.  I actually feel better for having had this candid conversation.

Not Because They Are Easy, but Because They Are Hard

Drastically reducing our fossil fuels (FF) use without destroying the world economy and shoving most of us into a life of utter poverty is probably THE most difficult challenge humanity has ever faced.

Those that say this transition will be easy, are making a disservice to humanity. It WON'T be easy. Period.

Today, ~82% of our global total primary energy supply is delivered by fossil fuels. Consequently, the global infrastructure is built around them:
   1. Motor vehicles.
   2. Fueling stations.
   3. Air travel.
   4. Factories.
   5. Power plants.
   6. Pipelines.
   8. Maritime transportation
   9. Building space heating / water heaters
   10. What have you...

Some people believe renewable energy (mainly sun and wind) will "catch fire" just like the Internet and mobile phones did some years ago, but this optimism is misplaced.

Both the Internet, as well as mobile phones gave us the opportunity to do things we could never have done before, on the other hand, a replacement of FF by RE would not provide value to the final consumer, if at all, RE would be more expensive and less flexible. Besides RE, since it is not constant, requires FF most of the time to prop them up when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing*.

The annual capacity factor for solar PV worldwide today is ~15%, which (simplifying) means that 85% of the time something else has to produce the electricity, and that "something" is usually a fossil fuel plant.

We have also been somewhat deceived by "Moore's Law" on how fast technological improvements can take place. Integrated circuits (ICs) today have more than one hundred million more transistors per unit area than those manufactured in the 1960's. However, ICs handle information, not loads of power, so we are talking about very different things. The advances in power production and efficiency move at a snail's pace. Say, if the energy efficiency conversion of high volume solar PV is today ~14% (in other words, the percentage of the sunlight striking the panel that is actually converted to electricity), when will it reach 28%? The answer is probably never.

So, what we are currently asking of humanity is to spend many trillions of dollars to essentially end worse off than today (sure, if everything turns out right, with a lower carbon global economy). However, for the final user low carbon electricity "tastes" the same as FF electricity but is more expensive. We also need to understand that electricity is only a fraction of our total energy consumption and the energy used in transportation and industrial processes is more difficult to replace with low carbon alternatives.

So, bottom line, is the transition possible?

The answer is yes, but it will require sacrifice, more sacrifice and yet more sacrifice.  It would require a massive nuclear build up equivalent to what France already did, but in most of the other countries in the world.

We should, however, differentiate what is possible from what is probable and so far there is nothing in the pipeline, so to speak, that will reduce our absolute use of fossil fuels.

2013 was the all time record for emissions. What will be the results in 2014? In 2015?

The first step to start solving our emissions problem is to confront the brutal truth: whatever we have been doing is NOT working. Our emissions not only are not dropping, they are INCREASING.

Let's stay tuned.

* Some RE lobbyists state that RE is has already achieved grid parity. This is not accurate. Here is why:
http://gnwr1.blogspot.mx/2013/06/grid-parity.html

Emissions and Renewable Energy

Does Renewable Energy (sun and wind) reduce emissions?

The short answer is: in theory it does reduce emissions.

But what about in practice?



Here things look quite differently. Let us show why with an example.

This is obviously going to be an over simplification, but please bear with us.

Let's consider an isolated country that decides to go all out for renewable energy, in this case wind turbines.

Let's make our estimates below with a wind annual capacity factor of 30%.

So, this country will get 30% of its energy from wind turbines and the rest, say, from natural gas powered plants.

The emissions of the turbines are ~ 12 grams per kWh.

The emissions of natural gas plants are ~ 469 grams per kWh.

Thus, the emissions of the whole system would be:

     (0.30 x 12) + (0.7 x 469) = 332 grams per kWh.

If we replace natural gas by coal (with 1001 grams per kWh) then the numbers look less attractive: 704 grams per kWh for the system.

The same exercise with solar photo-voltaic would result in larger emissions since the capacity factor of solar is even lower than that of wind.

Sure, it could be argued that renewable energy could be "stored" but for the most part those systems have not been deployed and would require important investments and additional emissions during their manufacture.

Conclusion: in real life we have to consider the emissions of systems, not of individual components and when the system is considered, the ability of renewable energy to reduce emissions is limited.

This is one of the reasons why German emissions per kWh remain stubbornly high in spite of all the renewable capacity they have installed.

Peace Proposal

Since it seems that a substantial, if not most, of the efforts of many environmentalists are focused on attacking nuclear (the pre-eminent of all low carbon energies) instead of actually trying to curtail fossil fuels, the true climate culprits, this is a Peace Proposal with the intention of achieving harmony in the quest for lower emissions.

The proposal is really very simple:

Let's remove ALL subsidies from ALL energy sources: Fossil Fuels (FF), Renewables (RE), Nuclear, what have you.

Once all subsidies / tax breaks are removed, let each energy compete on its own merits. Let's not try to pick winners / losers from our desk. 

Yes, it could be argued that carbon taxes need to be applied to FF to somehow internalize their externalities, but let's start by just eliminating their subsidies.

Also, it could be argued that for RE to have priority access to the grid is a sort of covert subsidy (and it is), but let's leave it this way for the moment.

Independent of other benefits, the mentioned proposal would cause energy to increase in cost in the short term and thus waste would be reduced.

Is this proposal acceptable to both camps that are trying to reduce emissions?

Thank you.

Clean Energy

Clean Energy is really a misnomer.  There is no such thing as "clean energy".  All energy sources emit pollutants during their life-cycles.

All we can say is that there are cleaner energy sources.  In other words, some sources are cleaner than others.

Since CO2 is the main green-house gas we are now concerned about, following is a comparison of carbon emissions when different energy sources are used for generating electricity.

"A literature review of numerous energy sources CO2 emissions by the IPCC in 2011 found that that the CO2 emission value, that fell within the 50th percentile of all total life cycle emissions studies conducted, was as follows." (From Wikipedia):

Now, depending on what lobby calculates the above numbers they tend to vary somewhat, but the point is that NO energy source is clean.  Sure, there is no doubt that coal is the dirtiest one but on the other hand it is significant that, at least in this particular study, solar (which is considered by many the ultimate green energy) is dirtier than nuclear energy.

Why is this?  

Answer: although solar panels produce no carbon emissions during operation, the emissions produced during their manufacture have to be "amortized" in the energy produced by the panels during their useful life.  And these emissions are not negligible.  The silicon has to be mined, purified, fused, doped, cut, soldered, transported, installed, etc.  Plus the aluminum and glass components of the panels also go through an energy intensive manufacturing process.

And by the way, oil is located somewhere between coal and natural gas.

So, even though ALL energy sources emit carbon dioxide when you factor in their complete life cycle,  it is obvious that fossil fuels are the dirtiest.  All the rest we could label as "low carbon" energy sources.  

What humanity needs to do to prevent a climate catastrophe is to move from "high carbon" to "low carbon" energy sources.

Today the USA is significantly reducing it's carbon emissions by switching part of their coal electric utilities to natural gas.  This is probably the simplest and fastest way to reduce carbon emissions but is obviously only an intermediate step in the solution.

Long term we have to move aggressively to "low carbon" sources.

Do We Need Subsidies for Solar and Wind Power?

Well, "we" don't need the subsidies, only the solar and wind companies need the subsidies. 

However, let's face it, these industries are pretty much mature and there is really no reason to continue subsidizing them. Spain and Germany are a perfect example of where this road leads to: very expensive energy, loads of debt and then a very difficult uphill battle to remove the subsidies once these industries get used to them. 

Besides, "renewable" installations for the most part are NOT replacing conventional energy installations or preventing additional investments in conventional energy (because "renewable" energy is not constant or reliable). So at the end of the day, "renewable" energy installations are just surplus capacity that makes life more difficult for conventional generating plants (that have to adjust their output to the variability of "renewable" energy).

Let's analyze the German example. First, yes, it is true that a substantial share of this country's electricity is produced with renewables: biomass, hydro, wind and sun. Solar photo-voltaic panels, however, represent only close to 3% of the total and they have been receiving most of the subsidies for renewable energy.

For anyone interested in the facts, we would kindly recommend the main story in Der Spiegel English Edition of October 10, 2012. The story is titled: German Energy Plan Plagued by Lack of Progress.

A few excerpts below:
"With the new rates, German citizens will be paying a total of more than €20 billion ($25.7 billion) next year to promote renewable energy. This is more than €175 for an average three-person household, a 50 percent increase over current figures."
And by the way, even before these price increases, Germans were already paying +37% more per kWh than the average in Europe (as a comparison, the French pay 23% less).
"The rising cost of electricity is also a burden on businesses. According to Oettinger, energy costs now represent the biggest liability for Germany as a place to do business, especially in light of the marked increase in the number of blackouts and voltage fluctuations in the grid."
"As long as there isn't enough storage capacity, virtually every solar plant and every wind turbine has to be backed up by a conventional power plant. Without this double structure, the power supply would collapse."
And finally: 
"At the same time, however, the boom in subsidized renewable energy is ensuring that conventional power plants are no longer profitable. Since the law requires that preference be given to green energy, if it's available, gas-, oil- and coal-fired power plants frequently have to be shut down to avoid overloading the grid. This reduces their revenues while increasing costs because powering plants up and down consumes a lot of fuel and inflicts additional wear and tear on the equipment."

So in summary, no, we shouldn't subsidize "renewable" energy. Being fair, we shouldn't be subsidizing any other energy source, either.

Low Carbon Economy

Let's make no mistake: every alternative to fossil fuels is considerably more expensive.  The reason we have not moved to a "low carbon" economy is not a philosophical one, it is an economical one. 

However, just as a mind experiment, let's imagine how the world would change if the fundamental means to reduce humanity's carbon emissions was implemented: behavior modifying (in other words, painful) carbon taxes.

Sure, the only way for governments to proceed with this measure is if their citizens, in general, supported these taxes, if not, the governments could be brought down overnight.

But again, this is a mind experiment and thus let's assume that most of the seven billion plus persons on Earth support these taxes.

In order for these taxes to be "behavior modifying" they would have to increase the price of natural gas by, say, 300%, oil 400% and coal by 500%.  The differences in taxing obey to the relative "carbon intensity" of each energy source.

Not to tax all economies to death, these taxes will go hand in hand with the total elimination of all energy subsidies (both to renewables as well as to fossil fuels).  Let's say (and since we are in a planetary emergency) that in five years the full burden of these taxes goes into effect.  On the other hand, these carbon taxes could be "revenue neutral" for governments.

This is what we anticipate will happen:

• SUVs will completely be a thing of the past.
• Car sales will plummet but hybrids will dominate the (much reduced) market.  The smaller the car, the better.  Even then, full electrics will barely dent the market. 
•  Public transportation will flourish as well as "alternate" means of transportation: bicycles, electric scooters, Segways, etc.
• Buildings all over the place will be carefully insulated.
• Public lightning will be upgraded with LED technology and presence sensors: only when a person is near them will the lamps turn on.  These same technologies will be used at home and business: no longer will illumination be left on all night for decorative or safety purposes.
• Air travel will become extremely expensive and consequently its use will plummet.
• There would be an uptick on solar and wind power, but the lion's share of low carbon energy will be supplied by nuclear power.  Massive investments in new nuclear generating capacity will happen all over the world.
• Standards of efficiency will go up on all types of devices: air conditioners, fridges, TVs, computers, etc., but at the same time people will turn them off as soon as they are done using them.
• World trade will decline since fossil fuel vessels transport almost all merchandise.
• Almost everything will go up in price so people and companies will drastically curtail their consumption. 
• Zoning laws will change all over so that tight-nit communities can again be the norm: school, shopping, work, will tend to be walking distance away. 
• Innovation to replace fossil fuels will blossom.  However, no amount of innovation will stop the outrageous increase in energy prices. 
• In spite of efficiency improvements A/C will be so expensive that weather related migrations will be common place. 
• People will NOT necessarily be less happy, because consumption above a certain point doesn't add to happiness. 
• Carbon emissions WILL go down very significantly.

Now, what would happen at the global stage?

• Nations that depend on oil for most of their revenue will fall into a profound depression.  The price of oil (aside from the carbon taxes) will sink almost overnight and its consumption will be severely curtailed. Revolutions will bring down governments on these countries, but the new governments will not be able to cope either with the sudden and catastrophic reductions in revenue.  
• Car companies, airlines, trucking companies will fold left and right.  The wave of bankruptcies won't stop there as almost every other sector of the economy will be profoundly affected.
• China will be among the most affected countries since most of its manufacturing energy comes from coal and additionally transportation costs for its products will rise exponentially. 
• European countries and the USA would be relatively less affected, but the standards of living of their populations will also suffer greatly.
• Highways will be eerily empty and eventually many will be reclaimed for other uses. 
• Although the 21st Century will still be firmly in place (we'll still have our smart phones and other sophisticated technology), energy-wise we will return to the early 1900s.  Energy will be an expensive luxury and only rich people will be able to consume as much as they want.  Anything combustible, including our forests, will be under siege. 
• Food prices will skyrocket. 
• Serious social upheavals will happen all over the world.  The human population will drop considerably. At the same time the climate crisis will seem to be getting even worse due to the inertia of the Earth's systems.

Conclusion: no wonder humanity resists with all its might any reduction in carbon emissions.  In the very short term the medicine certainly seems worse than the sickness, but in the medium and long term not starting to fix the sickness today will almost certainly mean even worse consequences.

Let's all stay tuned...