STAY COOL hosted “Creating a Sustainable Energy Future” on Wednesday, February 10, 2021. Thank you to our speakers and to more than 60 attendees who joined us for this informative webinar where we learned about how we can help solve climate change by transforming our energy system. Below are the questions & answers that were not addressed during the presentation. Thank you to presenters George Tynan and Scott Anders for their insights and expertise.
BIG PICTURE QUESTIONS
Do we need to replace “renewable” with “carbon-free” in the state statutes?
GT- In my view, this would be a positive step forward. The language in recent CA statutes is a step in this direction. Earlier mandates impose a Renewable Energy requirement (defined as Solar and Wind); later requirements state Clean Energy (defined, I think, as net zero Carbon). Perhaps Scott can add more on this point.
SA- SB 100 established a policy target of 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2045. It adds to California statutes a provision (Section 454.53 is added to the Public Utilities Code) that states: “It is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. The achievement of this policy for California shall not increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and shall not allow resource shuffling. The commission and Energy Commission, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, shall take steps to ensure that a transition to a zero-carbon electric system for the State of California does not cause or contribute to greenhouse gas emissions increases elsewhere in the western grid, and is undertaken in a manner consistent with clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the United States Constitution. The commission, the Energy Commission, the State Air Resources Board, and all other state agencies shall incorporate this policy into all relevant planning.” So, while California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard requires 50% renewable supply by 2030, SB 100 shifts that target to Zero-Carbon.
The IPCC has recommended a price on carbon to incentivize transition to renewables. How do you see this carbon pricing vs. regulation as a way to reach these goals?
GT- Again, I am an engineer by training. With that caveat, it seems to me that we want to push this transition in the most effective manner possible. Carbon pricing is a market-based approach whereas regulation is, well, a direct regulatory approach. I’ve read analysis suggesting that a direct, explicit but revenue-neutral carbon tax (i.e., cut other taxes to make net government tax revenue constant) is the most efficient way to “price” carbon. The key is adding a high enough cost such that it is a strong inducement to move away from fossil fuels. That is politically difficult (but that might change if enough people recognize climate change as a serious issue).
SA- While I think putting a price on carbon can help, it is not a panacea. In CA, direct regulations, including requirements for renewable electricity, have driven GHG reduction in the state. There is a role for both.
What are your thoughts on Green Hydrogen as a future energy source replacing many of the other fossil fuels?
SA- Green hydrogen is a useful tool in our GHG reduction toolbox. It can serve as energy storage, transportation fuel, and a replacement for natural gas in many cases. See recent UT article. As I mentioned on the Webinar, I like the fuel diversity that hydrogen brings. If we electrify everything, there could be a fuel diversity problem — all your eggs in one “electric” basket, so to speak. In recent days, we have heard about power outages in Texas. Imagine if everyone had an electric vehicle in that situation and could not drive for a few days. I support electrification but recognize that fuel diversity is something we should not lose sight of. I think there is a role for Green Hydrogen and electrification. At this point, as George pointed out in the Webinar, electric is winning the race in terms of passenger vehicle fuel at this point, but hydrogen could be used to replace fossil fuels in medium and heavy-duty vehicles. It will be interesting to see whether traditional fossil fuel companies can transition to green hydrogen and natural gas.
GT- Producing H from excess renewable electricity is one way to store up that energy for periods when the weather isn’t cooperating with our wind turbines and solar power systems. It can then be burned in conventional turbines and engines to produce power. The trick is getting the H to that point of use. That requires pipelines. We can mix such green H with natural gas and run it through our existing pipelines, but only up to about 15% H. Above that concentration, the H gas begins to cause problems with the pipelines (H molecules are so tiny that they can diffuse into the steel pipelines and make it become brittle over time such that it can catastrophically fail). Or we build specially designed pipelines – but that is expensive and politically unpalatable – who wants more pipelines? But maybe if the H is created, stored and converted into electricity at the same point? And we then just ship the electricity via existing power lines? Time will tell. Have to get the cost of the H generation down, which is an innovation that could happen. The other option that I find intriguing: If we could extract CO2 out of the atmosphere and combine it with green H, then we have green methane which is basically carbon neutral natural gas, and we already have a multi-trillion-dollar gas distribution and storage infrastructure in place. This also requires an innovation: cheap enough CO2 extraction from the air. And cheap clean electricity to run this system. The other option that I find intriguing: If we could extract CO2 out of the atmosphere and combine it with green H, then we have green methane which is basically carbon neutral natural gas, and we already have a multi-trillion-dollar gas distribution and storage infrastructure in place. This also requires an innovation: cheap enough CO2 extraction from the air. And cheap clean electricity to run this system.
Where are we in the use of energy through ocean tides?
GT- Tidal power makes sense in geographically localized areas where one can build the necessary structures to capture water at high tide and discharge it at low tide, thereby making electricity. But those places are few and far between, and thus for most regions, tidal power probably won’t be a significant contributor to zero-C energy. I would also point out that such structures are not environmentally benign (but then again neither is any energy technology at-scale (think of 100s of square miles of solar panels, or a million or so wind turbines with roads, power distribution lines, etc…
Do you have ideas for carbon capture market?
SA- I am increasingly convinced that we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere. So, carbon capture typically refers to capturing CO2 that results from burning fossil fuels. So, a power plant generates electricity by burning natural gas or coal and the CO2 is captured and permanently stored in some way. This is an important step in the process. But we also need to consider how to remove carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere. There are several ways to do this: natural cycles (e.g., trees), negative emissions fuel cycles that use biomass to create fuels and then when these fuels are burned, we capture the CO2, and direct air capture – mechanically removing CO2. LLNL did a report about a year ago summarizing options for removing emissions – or negative emissions. It is definitely worth a read. On a related note, there is a new XPrize to encourage innovative ideas around carbon removal.
GT- First thing is that these has to be a someone who wants to pay for the capture and then either re-use or permanent storage. There is no such entity today. Perhaps if emitters had to pay a high enough fee (tax?) per tonne then it’d make economic sense to capture and sequester the carbon.
What can we do about companies that profit from fossil fuels and don’t want things to change?
SA- As we discussed on the Webinar, one strategy is to put a price on carbon via a tax/fee or a cap-and-trade system. This would create a financial incentive to reduce carbon. Also, by advancing clean energy technologies, tipping points can occur and more polluting technologies will no longer be cost effective or desirable in the market. Recent announcements by large automakers to only build electric vehicles could be considered an example of this. Also, renewable electricity is competitive with fossil fuel generation in many cases. This coupled with natural gas prices is helping to reduce the amount of electricity produced by coal in the U.S.
GT- I’m an engineer by training and so this falls a bit outside of my expertise. but I’d say put pressure on such firms by doing business with their competitors who are trying to move to clean energy technologies. If millions of customers did that, they’d probably take notice. Some folks pressure large investment groups (e.g., pension funds, etc…) to divest from the capital markets for such companies – I don’t know if this is effective or not. Pressure government to take sensible regulatory actions.
ELECTRICITY for BUILDINGS
Individuals can also support Building Decarbonization efforts in their communities. Many local cities and the County are considering BE reach codes now! Show up at Council meetings and advocate for these efforts.
(Note: Building Decarbonization is a strategy that uses various techniques and practices to reduce direct fossil fuel use, such as gas, in buildings.) https://www.c2es.org/document/decarbonizing-u-s-buildings/
GT- I totally agree. See discussion of e.g., heat pumps above as one tool in this effort; obviously better insulation, use of ultra-efficient LED lighting (30x better than incandescent bulbs!!!), better design for passive solar, etc….
How is the use of renewable energy possible for residents in northern states, as in the northeast? Not enough sun, or room for fields of wind generators?
GT- Clearly the local weather, geography, and wind resources all play into the feasibility of renewable generation. But e.g., in the NE USA there are plenty of wind resources offshore that could be tapped. This region is also connected to Quebec and other Canadian provinces that have enormous hydropower capacity. The NE still has nuclear generation that may or may not survive due to the design of the electricity markets (I would note that Canada also has significant nuclear generation capacity and also has some very interesting nuclear technologies in development that might play a role in the future).
SA- There is potential for renewable energy all across the US. Massachusetts and New Jersey have had aggressive policies and have a significant rooftop solar market. The Midwest has strong wind potential. It is true that certain areas have higher solar potential than others, but it is generally effective across the entire US – at least the lower 49 states.
Compare the cost of electric heating with gas heating.
GT- It doesn’t make sense to simply turn electricity directly into heat via a traditional space heater. If the electricity was generated with fossil fuels, then this would actually emit more CO2 than would simply burning natural gas. What I was talking about was what is called heat pump technology. A heat pump is basically an air conditioner run backwards; in that it uses a modest amount of electrical energy to run a motor that in turn runs a compressor. The compressor then drives a working fluid inside the unit that then removes heat from the outside and transfers that heat to the inside of your house or office building. The amount of heat that is moved is much larger than the amount of energy that it took to run the motor. In this way, we can heat buildings and homes while using much less energy. If the electricity is carbon free (i.e., wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydropower) then you heat your home without any CO2 emissions. Heat pumps can also be used to heat water. They aren’t necessarily economic in regions where winters are severe, but in SoCal they make economic sense. They are coming down in price, and I suspect soon CA will mandate that new construction, and replacements of old heating systems, will be required to use heat pumps.
EQUITY
How can we ensure a commitment to equity in green jobs and businesses particularly to people of color?
SA- I see this as a systemic issue rather than just an issue for green jobs. I would say that we need to continue to work toward more equity in general across all aspects of society from housing policy to education. Also, at this point in the climate change process, we are faced with managing tradeoffs. There is no option but to pursue clean energy to help reduce the worst impacts of climate change. We have to be mindful of associated issues, like equity concerns, as we move forward. But I would argue, the issue is not whether to pursue these approaches and policies but rather how to implement them.
How affordable will the “future energies” be for those living in poverty and low-income — especially with purchasing electric cars?
GT- We didn’t really have time to discuss energy poverty in any detail. Clearly, EVs seem completely out of place when we are talking about regions that have zero (or very little) access to electricity. In these regions, simply bringing some minimum electric power to e.g., allow lighting at night, refrigeration of foods and medicines, operations of water pumps for irrigation, combined perhaps with clean cooking fuels (i.e., replace wood with cleaner-burning gaseous fuels) is really more of what is needed at first. Even this simple thing can have an enormous impact on human quality of life. Generating the power with e.g., inexpensive solar PV + batteries, instead of diesel generators is an example of how this need could be met in a sustainable manner.
TRANSPORTATION
You note that transportation systems are the largest carbon producer in San Diego county. Perhaps a better investment would involve a (much better) “European” public transportation system that expands the Trolley system to the far reaches of the county. Is an expanded Trolley system under discussion?
SA- Yes, collectively we drive about 30 billion miles per year in our region! At least in pre-COVID conditions. So, this is why transportation is such a large contributor of GHG emissions here. Yes, there is discussion at SANDAG about 5 bold moves, including expanding public transportation systems. Others also have discussed enhancing public transportation options. One major difference between many European cities and our region is the settlement patterns. Many European cities are much denser and were built before the automobile. Southern California was built for the automobile.
Do you see the electric car industry moving towards longer-range electric vehicles and work trucks?
GT- It seems clear to me that EVs for light-duty (i.e., passenger cars, light-duty trucks) are probably going to be in most of our futures. My colleagues at UCSD working on battery tech tell me that the day of 400+ mile range at a cost equal to or lower than a gasoline vehicle, and capable of fast charging (i.e., 15-20 minutes instead of many hours) isn’t that far away. So, I’m pretty convinced that for most of us, EVs will become the preferred choice – because they are better than gasoline-powered gas. Long-distance trucking (i.e., 18 wheelers driving 1000s of miles) – I’m not so sure. But who knows – maybe battery innovations will also permit electrification of that fleet as well – but that will likely take longer to happen.
SA- Yes. This is the Holy Grail for the electric transportation industry. Longer range in vehicles can help address many of the issues with transitioning to electric vehicles, including range anxiety and the need for public chargers. If you can charge up at home and get 400+ miles on a full charge, most people will not need to charge in public and will be able to do most, if not all, of their driving trips. In this scenario, a robust public charging system is needed for longer range trips, like driving to San Francisco.
Are these batteries 100% recyclable? Will this be a problem as the batteries need to be replaced or upgraded?
SA- This is an important issue. The same is true of solar panels. Energy products that have hazardous chemicals in them should be seen in terms of their life cycle – from cradle to grave (or cradle if we can make them inputs into the process again). We are an energy storage obsessed society at this point. Not only for our electric grid and related needs but also for all of our electronic devices – phones, laptops, etc. Developing a process to safely dispose or recycle all these batteries is essential.
GT- This is absolutely going to be a very serious issue! And not just batteries. Solar PV panels have a ~20-25-year life typically. Same for wind turbines. Who is going to pay for recycling more than 1 million large (i.e., 50 stories tall!) wind turbines, or a few 100s of square miles (yes that is how many are talking about) of solar PV panels every couple of decades (i.e., we have to recycle about 5-10 square miles of solar PV panels every year). There is no such market today, nor any such industry. I would note that the nuclear industry is the only sector of the energy industry that has to pay for its decommissioning and recycling/disposal costs).
NUCLEAR POWER
What are your thoughts about the main messages of Mark Z Jacobson and The Solutions Project, particularly the messages that nuclear and CCS are not needed?
SA- I am not familiar with the specific findings of that project but would say that at this point it seems increasingly likely that we will not be able to avoid enough GHG emissions to achieve the levels needed to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C. I am also increasingly convinced that we will need to remove carbon from the atmosphere either through natural or mechanical means.
GT- I am a co-author of a major paper published in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences that directly showed that Jacobson’s analysis of a 100% Renewable US Economy is simply flat-out wrong. Many studies by independent groups show that a purely renewable system that also meets the reliability requirements that we have in the US must be severely overbuilt (i.e., the peak generation capacity is many times (5-10x) larger than peak demand and requires massive increases in long distance power transmission capacity. The excess capacity would then sit idle most of the time, but the equipment must still be paid for and depreciates over time. As a result, the energy prices in such a case are high. These same analyses conclude that a high penetration renewables system (usually in the 60-80% of total energy, capable of transiently meeting all/nearly all electricity demand) combined with what Jesse Jenkins (Princeton U) refers to as firm zero-C generation (i.e., fossil + CCS and/or nuclear power) taking up the slack between total demand and time-varying renewable power generation. The costs of energy in this mixed scenario end up being lower and require less new long-distance transmission. I think the goal of zero-C economy is spot-on. I think pathway that The Solutions Project and others like them are proposing are not going to happen; as installed renewable capacity builds, these issues identified in the modeling are going to show up in the real world and then influence decisions.
How we convince Sierra Club et al. that their vehement opposition to nuclear is contrary to the goal of reducing global warming?
GT- Here I am pessimistic. In my view, nuclear power is a very powerful tool in the zero-C energy toolbox, has been demonstrated at the required scale, and from a statical point of view is a very safe (much safer than fossil fuels and on par with renewables) technology. But opposition to it is quite entrenched in many of the environmental interest groups and their leadership. I know from one: one private conversations with leaders in some of these groups that the leaders know it is a valuable tool. But they aren’t willing to state that publicly. I find the whole discussion on this topic to be largely disconnected from reality and am frankly pessimistic that in the Western world this will change anytime soon.
