Category: Climate change

New book – ‘Energy Poverty: Global Challenges and Local Solutions’

Two years in the making, this 21-chapter book was released by Oxford University Press (OUP) on December 20, 2014. It addresses the importance of energy access in reducing poverty and increasing human welfare, a topic just beginning to receive widespread visibility. A brief description of the book is attached below; a Table of Contents can be found at the following website:
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/energy-poverty-9780199682362?cc=dk&lang=en&

image

Edited by Antoine Halff, Benjamin K. Sovacool, and Jon Rozhon

A one-stop treatment of energy poverty, an issue whose pivotal role in the fight for human development and against poverty is only now being recognised
A practical guide and reference work for policymakers and practitioners in the field
Provides a fresh perspective on tomorrow’s energy challenges
Brings together diverse viewpoints and includes contributions from experts and practitioners from all over the world, including China, India, Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East
Includes chapters from authors at the cutting edge of research: Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Han Wenke, head of China’s Energy Research Institute, Nigel Bruce of the World Health Organisation, and Jason Bordoff, former senior advisor on energy to President Barack Obama”

I also attach a copy of the chapter I was privileged to write, ‘Energy and Water: A Critical Linkage”, on a topic that is also receiving increasing attention. It is a bit long compared to my usual blog posts, but worth reading. A special gift awaits those who read to the end of the chapter.
…………………………………………
image
Page 2
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image
image

More on the Lighting Revolution

This blog post is stimulated by an OpEd piece in today’s (12 December 2014) Washington Post. I reproduce it here as published before I comment on what it says.

“One of the most boneheaded anti-government policies of the last decade is back”

By Stephen Stromberg

A vintage-style incandescent light bulb (C) is shown with an LED light bulb (L) and a compact florescent (CFL) light bulb on December 27, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois (note: this picture not reproduced in this blog post). These incandescent bulbs, which have been in use for more than 100 years, are being replaced by the more energy efficient compact florescent and LED light bulbs. (Photo Illustration by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
In the trillion-dollar budget deal Congressional leaders revealed Tuesday, Republicans didn’t press to defund the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate change rules. But they did uphold one of the most boneheaded anti-government riders of the last decade.

Some quick background: The United States wastes astounding amounts of electricity on light bulbs. The Energy Department figures that American homes spend about 10 percent of their electricity bills on lighting, and households that use old, Edison-era incandescents convert less than 10 percent of the electricity they buy for their bulbs into light. The rest uselessly dissipates as heat.

Though households quickly save money on energy bills when they buy more expensive bulbs that waste less power and last longer, Americans for years didn’t push the transition forward absent a government nudge. This left hefty national savings on the table, as well as a surprisingly large environmental dividend. The EPA calculates that every incandescent bulb switched for a more efficient compact fluorescent bulb saves about 84 pounds in carbon dioxide emissions every year. The Energy Department figures that a transition to super-efficient LED bulbs by 2027 would save about 44 large power plants’ worth of electricity (h/t Brad Plumer).

So Congress passed some simple light bulb efficiency standards in 2007. Lawmakers didn’t ban incandescent bulbs. Instead they demanded that bulbs produced in or imported into the U.S. use no more than a certain amount of electricity to produce a certain amount of light. If manufacturers could make incandescents less wasteful, they could produce the improved bulbs freely. One result has been a boom in the commercialization of new lighting technologies that could save Americans some $6 billion next year.

Another result was an upsurge in counterproductive ideological fuming from the right: In a different budget compromise passed earlier this year, Republicans added a rider prohibiting the Energy Department from enforcing the bulb standards. The rules are still technically on the books, and major manufacturers have switched over to producing better bulbs. But the government won’t be able to stop anyone from playing to people’s short-term bottom line by producing, importing or selling ancient Edison bulbs. It’s not clear whether that will happen on a large scale, in part because retailers have been selling leftover inventories of old-design incandescent bulbs over the course of this year. But those supplies will run out. Regardless, in the latest budget deal Republicans again tacitly encourage undercutting the efficiency rules, keeping the rider in place.

Among other overblown complaints, critics have argued that the light that new bulb designs put out doesn’t feel the same as that of the old incandescents. In fact, bulb manufacturers have made great strides in adapting bulbs to Americans’ tastes. Even if they hadn’t, avoiding a few drawbacks in otherwise functional bulbs clearly isn’t worth wasting $6 billion and creating tons of extra emissions every year. Any rational government would push this transition along. I’m still not sure what kind of government Republican lightbulb hawks want.”

This is a topic I’ve commented on before (see my earlier blog post entitled ‘Lighting: A Revolution in Progress’) but feel the need to comment on again as some members of Congress are still pushing a policy that acts against the U.S. national interest – i.e., the need to reduce energy unnecessarily wasted in producing light. About one fifth of U.S. generated electricity goes into lighting, a large fraction, much of which can be saved by switching to more efficient and increasingly less costly forms of lighting such as LEDs. In addition to reducing the need for power plants to provide this electricity, associated carbon emissions and consumer electricity costs can be reduced significantly. This transition is inevitable and is picking up speed as LED costs come down as large-scale manufacturing of LEDs takes place.

My point in revisiting this topic is to emphasize some of the important points in the OpEd piece that unfortunately still need emphasizing with some members of Congress and the public: the economic and environmental benefits of switching from traditional incandescent light bulbs to LEDS are abundantly clear and U.S. Government action to impose standards on light bulb performance is not a ban on incandescent bulbs as some people have misrepresented. As the Oped correctly states: “So Congress passed some simple light bulb efficiency standards in 2007. Lawmakers didn’t ban incandescent bulbs. Instead they demanded that bulbs produced in or imported into the U.S. use no more than a certain amount of electricity to produce a certain amount of light. If manufacturers could make incandescents less wasteful, they could produce the improved bulbs freely.” If legislators see this imposition of standards as objectionable, then they must also be opposed to the variety of energy efficiency performance standards other Congress’ have mandated since the 1970s on devices such as refrigerators, air conditioners, and hot water heaters. Let them speak up if that is their position and take their arguments to and their chances with the American public rather than sneaking undiscussed items into must-pass budget legislation.

I would also like to take this opportunity to restate, in a simple example, the clear energy and economic benefits of switching from incandescents to LEDs. In the world of no-brainers this stands at the top of the class. In my earlier blog post I did this calculation for a CFL (compact fluorescent light bulb) which is now losing out to LEDs. The LED example is even more compelling.

In this example I compare a 60 Watt incandescent bulb (Sylvania A19 Soft White Dimmable) with an LED replacement (CREE 60W Soft White A19 Dimmable LED). The former are available at Lowe’s for $4.49 for a package of 8, and the 11 Watt LED is available at Home Depot for $7.97. The Sylvania bulb is advertised to have a 2,000 hour life while the identically shaped LED bulb is advertised to have a lifetime of “22.8 years (Based on 3hrs/day)”.

For purposes of calculation let me round the numbers off to 55 cents per bulb for the incandescents and $8 per bulb for the LED. Electricity is assumed to cost 10 cents/kWh. The LED lifetime is (3hours/day)x(365days/year)x(22.8years)=24,966 hours. In this amount of time you would replace the 55 cent incandescent light bulb 12.5 times.

Thus, after 24,966 hours the cost of using the incandescent bulb would be (0.06kW)x(24,966hours)x($0.10/kWh) = $149.8 + (12.5bulbs)x(0.55cents/bulb) = $156.7 (Note: this does not take into account any costs associated with replacing the bulb at least 12 times). The cost of using the LED to provide an equivalent amount and quality of light would be (0.011kW)x(24,966hours)x($0.10/kWh) = $27.5 + (1bulb)x($8/bulb) = $35.5.

This simple comparison demonstrates why a switch from incandescents to LEDs is inevitable and is already underway as initially high LED costs come steadily down. Even at $8/LED bulb the economic comparison ($36 vs $157) is devastating to incandescents, even improved incandescents that have been developed in response to the new efficiency standards. The economic argument for consumers is only buttressed by the benefits to electric utilities that need fewer power plants to meet lighting needs, and by the associated environmental benefits. Given that lighting needs consume about 19% of global generated electricity the benefits of this lighting revolution in combatting global warming and climate change are obvious.

While there can be debatable policy differences on how to generate the electricity we need, there should be no argument about proceeding down the LED path. This really is a no-brainer that even ‘Republican lightbulb hawks’ should understand.

Looking Back at Energy Policy in the 1970’s

Recently I have spent some time cleaning up some boxes in my basement, as ‘requested’ by my wife. Three of the boxes contained personal files from my several years as Staff Scientist with the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee in the mid 1970’s. This was the period following the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-4 when the U.S. first began to think seriously about energy policy. The history of this period is still largely to be written, and it promises to be a rich history. It also represents a unique period in recent American political history in that Democrats and Republicans occasionally cooperated to pass legislation that was deemed to be in the national interest.

Reviewing the files in the boxes took me several days because I.found the contents much more interesting than anticipated after 35 years of non-attention. I also will donate the files to the Senate Archives after I have absorbed more of and thought more about the contents.

The Oil Embargo focused U.S. attention on the country’s significant and increasing dependence on imported oil from unstable and often unfriendly parts of the globe. While only about a quarter of total oil consumption was affected at the time, the Embargo was a rude shock to Americans when they had to endure higher prices and long lines at gas stations and even alternate day access to the pumps based on their license plate numbers.

Suddenly, energy became a dominating issue and the Ford Administration and the Congress were struggling to reassure the American public and devise policies that addressed this increasing import dependence. Lots of disagreements ensued, particularly on oil pricing, but attention also began to be focused on limiting energy demand and indigenous energy resources. Thus was born a large push for greater use of America’s large resources of coal and for increased use of nuclear power. Most economists talked of the one-to-one relationship between gross national product and energy consumption (not true, as has subsequently been demonstrated) and a favorite theme of nuclear supporters at the time was to call for a “doubling every decade”, meaning that we should double the number of nuclear power plants every ten years until the turn of the century. It was also a time when domestic oil production had just peaked and natural gas supplies were thought to be in limited supply. This led to restrictions on the use of natural gas, reduced use of oil for power generation, announcements of many new nuclear power plant construction projects, increased attention to reducing energy demand in buildings, industry, and transportation, attention to non-fossil fuel energy resources (read ‘renewables’), and calls for a national energy strategy. In the intervening years we’ve made progress on a number of these issues, some more than others, but we still lack a national energy strategy, a critical missing piece as we penetrate further into the 21st century.

A major step forward was the passage in 1975 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA – Public Law 94-163), the country’s first comprehensive energy legislation. It passed that summer in the House by more than a 3:1 margin and by 3:1 in the Senate, triggering a 3-month House-Senate Conference to iron out differences. The bill, as finally negotiated, was signed by President Ford just before Christmas that year despite Republican threats of a Presidential veto. It created many features of our current energy scene, which are discussed below. I also want to recognize those I consider the major legislative leaders, both Republican and Democrat, who fought for this legislation across party lines and brought it to the President’s desk. I do not believe that they have yet received the full recognition that they richly deserve.

EPCA’s primary goals were to increase energy supply, reduce demand, put a focus on energy efficiency, and give the President more tools with which to respond to energy supply disruptions. It’s primary actions were to:
– establish the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The need for such a reserve had been recognized for decades, since the 1940’s, but the Oil Embargo underscored the critical need for such a reserve.
– Part B/Title III established the Energy Conservation Program which gave “authority to develop, revise, and implement minimum energy conservation standards for appliances and equipment.” It also authorized an appliance labeling program, to assist consumers in making energy- and cost-wise purchasing decisions.
– Part A/Title III established the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for new automobile fleets. This legislation, which remained unamended for 32 years, is still the nation’s most impactful energy conservation measure.
– other provisions included loan guarantees to encourage domestic coal and oil production by smaller firms, and additional presidential authority to act in times of emergencies.

The principal legislative leaders behind EPCA (see photos below) included Fritz Hollings (D-SC) who was the prime mover in the Senate of the CAFE legislation, Warren Magnuson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee On Commerce, Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson (D-WA) who chaired the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Ed Muskie (D-ME) who chaired the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Chuck Percy (R-IL), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Tunney (D-CA), all strong Senate supporters of energy conservation, John Dingell (D-MI) who chaired the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Harley Staggers (D-WV) who chaired the House Science and Technology Committee, and Phil Sharp (D-IN) who shepherded the CAFE legislation through the House. One must also give credit to President Gerald ‘Gerry’ Ford of Michigan who signed the bill into law despite severe pressure not to from many of his constituents and advisors. All deserve the thanks of a grateful nation for putting national interest ahead of party politics as we don’t do too often today.

My final thought is the recognition that critical energy issues were clearly identified in the 1970’s, 40 years ago, but that progress since then has been slower than then hoped for. This has hurt the country in terms of preparing for the future (wje still lack a national energy policy codified by the Congress), less job creation and economic growth in clean energy industries, and unnecessary environmental degradation. We have made progress in the years following the scary wake-up call to the nation following the Oil Embargo and the Iran-Iraq War of the late 1970’s when global oil production was curtailed. Nevertheless, we can and must do better in the future if we are to successfully combat global warming and climate change (this became a public issue only after Jim Hansen at NASA began to talk about the issue in 1979) and ensure America’s place in the emerging and inevitable renewable energy society.

In order, left-to-right: Sen. Ernest ‘Fritz’ Hollings, Sen. Warren Magnuson, Sen. Henry ‘Scoop’ Jackson, Sen. Ed Muskie Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. John Tunney, Sen. Charles ‘Chuck’ Percy, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. Harley Staggers, Rep. Plil Sharp.

imageimageimageimageimageimageimageimage
imageimage

A Letter to President Obama

This letter, which will be published as a blog post, is a followup to my earlier post entitled ‘A Conversation With S. David Freeman’. In that post I stated:
“….. despite the obvious resistance that Obama faces from Republicans on anything he proposes, and the need to keep a Democratic Senate if at all possible (so that his last two years in office will not be even more difficult than his first six years), should the President think big and propose what he knows the country needs as opposed to what is politically feasible? My heart says yes, and the side of me that claims to be practical, after many years in Washington, DC, tries hard to understand Obama’s strategy and support it. But Dave may be right – we may have an intellectual President whose nature just won’t allow him to stick his neck out. As I said to Dave, the test for me will be after the November elections, when Obama will have no Democratic candidates to protect and nothing to lose by proposing farseeing energy and environmental legislation. He will not succeed in getting it passed by the most dysfunctional Congress I’ve seen in forty years, but as Dave says, we have to start somewhere.”

I’m also aware that a number of my liberal/progressive friends and colleagues, in addition to Dave Freeman, have expressed disappointment with the President for not doing more on energy and environmental issues as they assumed he would when he was elected. I have resisted joining this group and continue to support the President’s analytic and pragmatic approach to dealing with these issues. It has led to some difficult discussions, and despite my long and transparent political history led one long-standing friend to write: “…it is interesting, for sure, to see you moving toward the real Democrats.”

Needless to say, I disagree with this friend’s characterization of what a true Democrat believes, as if there is only one way to address these issues, and we will have to agree to disagree. Nevertheless, these interactions with friends and my own impatience about seeing more done quickly to achieve a clean energy society, leads to this appeal to you as you approach the final two years of your presidency.

Once we are past the elections in the first week of November you will have little reason, in my opinion, to hold back on your vision for this country’s energy future. I believe you have a clear understanding of what that future must be, but that vision has to be translated into a national energy policy that is codified by the U.S. Congress. As a nation we need to set long-term goals for moving away from dependence on fossil fuels and toward an energy system increasingly dependent on increased energy efficiency and renewable energy generating sources, as the European Union has done and even China is doing in its multiple five-year plans. You need to level with the American public about the policy choices we have to make now to ensure we are well on our way to that energy future that other nations have identified more clearly than we. Republicans and some Democrats may not agree but your leadership is needed to point the way forward and put pressure on the Congress to protect our long-term interests.

You have recently taken important steps to do what you feel you can reasonably do within your executive powers to reduce energy-related carbon emissions. You are taking some political heat for that. but that comes with the job and as best I can tell from media reports the majority of Americans agree with your approach. What is less clear is your vision for a long-term clean energy policy and how we can move rapidly to that end, which is part-and-parcel of addressing global warming/climate change and improving national security. Your all-of-the-above energy strategy leaves many of us wanting more clarity from you on the hard choices we have to make to ensure our energy future. This letter is a request for such clarity while you still have a chance to make a significant difference as President. It will undoubtedly lead to further political attacks, but so what? You were overly patient with Republican intransigence in your first Administration, a serious mistake that took you too long to learn from, and you must not repeat that again in setting out your goals for the future. They will huff and puff and perhaps slow down national progress, as they threaten to do on health care, but you must lead in pointing the way. We will get there eventually but the sooner the better. You can make a difference and I await your post-November 4th leadership.

Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue

A detailed report on fracking (‘Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue’), co-authored with two Swedish colleagues Gustaf Olsson and Andreas Lindstrom, was released today by SIWI, the Swedish International Water Institute. The report’s Executive Summary is included below; the full report can be found at http://www.siwi.org.

SIWI Report no. 24/Executive Summary
“Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing – Framing the Water Issue” by Andreas Lindström, SIWI, Dr. Allan Hoffman, US Department of Energy/retired, and Prof. Gustaf Olsson, Lund University.

The emergence of shale gas and shale oil has quickly changed the landscape of opportunities for energy provision and security in different regions of the world. Difficulties in assessing the actual quantity of existing global shale hydrocarbon reserves produce opposing views on whether the world is on the verge of a “shale gas revolution” and, if it is, how long it could last. Some argue that shale gas may constitute a backbone of energy supply for specific countries for decades to come, while others say the peak may have passed already.

Despite this, some nations – such as the USA – have already started an ambitious exploitation of this comparatively cheap energy resource, providing new and favourable conditions for domestic energy supplies and costs, and creating new jobs in the booming shale industry. For various reasons other countries have not taken the plunge, despite assessed quantities of shale resources. These reasons include fear of possible severe environmental impacts. These are often associated with shale gas extraction accomplished through the technology known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”; evidence of the impacts is emerging in places where intense, unregulated fracking takes place.

Many of these impacts make themselves felt in water resources. Fracking is a water-intensive activity, and as the reserves are often found in dry areas extraction poses additional challenges in what are often already water-stressed environments. The vast water quantities needed over the life span of a shale gas well, where water is used to fracture rock under high pressure, pile further stress on local fresh water sources which are already needed for many different purposes. At times when water supplies are running short in a specific area it has to be transported to the fracking site from afar.

Water quality is also under threat from fracking as well as the quantity available. Many chemicals used in the fracking fluid (the composition of which is often protected for commercial confidentiality reasons) have increasingly been found to be harmful both to the environment and to human health, yet poor regulations and legislation governing fracking often allow accidents which contaminate surrounding water sources. There is a need for greater responsibility, through developing codes of conduct and regulatory systems governing fracking so as to protect water resources and the environment. It should be adopted by all nations currently exploiting or liable to exploit shale resources as part of their energy supply.