tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/power-plants-25444/articlesPower plants – The Conversation2023-11-23T19:04:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2182312023-11-23T19:04:01Z2023-11-23T19:04:01ZPollution from coal power plants contributes to far more deaths than scientists realized, study shows<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/560874/original/file-20231121-4173-worc70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C107%2C5083%2C3435&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kids jump on a trampoline as steam rises from a coal power plant in Adamsville, Ala., in 2021. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/kids-jump-on-a-trampoline-at-their-grandparents-home-as-news-photo/1232409457?adppopup=true"> Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Air pollution particles from coal-fired power plants are more harmful to human health than many experts realized, and it’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915">more than twice as likely to contribute to premature deaths</a> as air pollution particles from other sources, new research demonstrates.</p>
<p>In the study, published in the journal Science, colleagues and I mapped how U.S. coal power plant emissions traveled through the atmosphere, then linked each power plant’s emissions with death records of Americans over 65 years old on Medicare.</p>
<p>Our results suggest that air pollutants released from coal power plants were associated with nearly half a million premature deaths of elderly Americans from 1999 to 2020.</p>
<p>It’s a staggering number, but the study also has good news: Annual deaths associated with U.S. coal power plants have fallen sharply since the mid-2000s as <a href="https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-us-coal-power-is-disappearing-and-a-supreme-court-ruling-wont-save-it-187254">federal regulations compelled operators</a> to install emissions scrubbers and many utilities shut down coal plants entirely.</p>
<p>In 1999, 55,000 deaths were attributable to coal air pollution in the U.S., according to our findings. By 2020, that number had fallen to 1,600.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2941/lucas-maps-GIF5.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2"><figcaption> How PM2.5 levels from coal power plants in the U.S. have declined since 1999 as more plants installed pollution-control devices or shut down. Lucas Henneman.</figcaption></figure>
<p>In the U.S., coal is being displaced by natural gas and renewable energy for generating electricity. Globally, however, coal use is <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2022">projected to increase</a> in coming years. That makes our results all the more urgent for global decision-makers to understand as they develop future policies.</p>
<h2>Coal air pollution: What makes it so bad?</h2>
<p>A landmark study in the 1990s, known as the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199312093292401">Harvard Six Cities Study</a>, linked tiny airborne particles called PM2.5 to increased risk of early death. Other studies have since linked PM2.5 to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12152656">lung and heart disease, cancer</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.3300">dementia</a> and other diseases. </p>
<p>Following that research, the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/timeline-particulate-matter-pm-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs">began regulating PM2.5 concentrations in 1997</a> and has lowered the acceptable limit over time.</p>
<p>PM2.5 – particles small enough to be inhaled deep into our lungs – comes from several different sources, including gasoline combustion in vehicles and smoke from wood fires and power plants. It is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#PM">made up of many</a> different chemicals.</p>
<p>Coal is also a mix of many chemicals – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.070">carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, even metals</a>. When coal is burned, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php">all of these chemicals</a> are emitted to the atmosphere either as gases or particles. Once there, they are transported by the wind and interact with other chemicals already in the atmosphere.</p>
<p>As a result, anyone downwind of a coal plant may be breathing a complex cocktail of chemicals, each with its own potential effects on human health.</p>
<figure><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/2934/lucas-gif1.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=720&fit=crop&dpr=2"><figcaption> Two months of emissions from Plant Bowen, a coal-fired power station near Atlanta, show how wind influences the spread of air pollution. Lucas Henneman.</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Tracking coal PM2.5</h2>
<p>To understand the risks coal emissions pose to human health, we tracked how sulfur dioxide emissions from each of the 480 largest U.S. coal power plants operating at any point since 1999 traveled with the wind and turned into tiny particles – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915">coal PM2.5</a>. We used sulfur dioxide because of its known health effects and drastic decreases in emissions over the study period.</p>
<p>We then used a statistical model to link coal PM2.5 exposure to Medicare records of nearly 70 million people from 1999 to 2020. This model allowed us to calculate the number of deaths associated with coal PM2.5.</p>
<p>In our statistical model, we controlled for other pollution sources and accounted for many other known risk factors, like smoking status, local meteorology and income level. We tested multiple statistical approaches that all yielded consistent results. We compared the results of our statistical model with <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba5692">previous results</a> testing the health impacts of PM2.5 from other sources and found that PM2.5 from coal is twice as harmful as PM2.5 from all other sources.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two people stand outside an older brick home with power plant smokestacks in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/561153/original/file-20231122-17-wwzsob.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Residents living near the Cheswick coal-fired power plant in Springdale, Pa., publicly complained about the amount of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and coal particles from the plant for years.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/marti-blake-speaks-to-the-postman-in-front-of-the-smoke-news-photo/874051624">Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The number of deaths associated with individual power plants depended on multiple factors – how much the plant emits, which way the wind blows and how many people breathe in the pollution. Unfortunately, U.S. utilities located many of their plants upwind of major population centers on the East Coast. This siting amplified these plants’ impacts.</p>
<p>In an <a href="https://cpieatgt.github.io/cpie/">interactive online tool</a>, users can look up our estimates of annual deaths associated with each U.S. power plant and also see how those numbers have fallen over time at most U.S. coal plants.</p>
<h2>A US success story and the global future of coal</h2>
<p>Engineers have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200410">designing effective scrubbers</a> and other pollution-control devices that can reduce pollution from coal-fired power plants for several years. And the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/Cross-State-Air-Pollution/overview-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-csapr">EPA has rules</a> specifically to encourage utilities that used coal to install them, and most facilities that did not install scrubbers have shut down.</p>
<p>The results have been dramatic: Sulfur dioxide emissions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.670200410">decreased about 90%</a> in facilities that reported installing scrubbers. Nationwide, sulfur dioxide emissions decreased 95% since 1999. According to our tally, deaths attributable to each facility that installed a scrubber or shut down decreased drastically.</p>
<p><iframe id="F1X0R" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/F1X0R/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>As advances in fracking techniques reduced the cost of natural gas, and regulations made running coal plants more expensive, <a href="https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S2010007819500088">utilities began replacing coal with natural gas</a> plants and renewable energy. The shift to natural gas – a cleaner-burning fossil fuel than coal but still a greenhouse gas <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-announces-a-sweeping-methane-plan-heres-why-cutting-the-greenhouse-gas-is-crucial-for-protecting-climate-and-health-168220">contributing to climate change</a> – led to even further air pollution reductions.</p>
<p>Today, coal contributes about 27% of electricity in the U.S., <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T02.06#/?f=A">down from 56% in 1999</a>.</p>
<p>Globally, however, the outlook for coal is mixed. While the U.S. and other nations are headed toward a future with substantially less coal, the International Energy Agency <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2022">expects global coal use to increase</a> through at least 2025.</p>
<p>Our study and others like it make clear that increases in coal use will harm human health and the climate. Making full use of emissions controls and a turn toward renewables are surefire ways to reduce coal’s negative impacts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218231/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucas Henneman receives funding from the Health Effects Institute, the National Institute of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency.</span></em></p>The longest-running study of its kind reviewed death records in the path of pollution from coal-fired power plants. The numbers are staggering − but also falling fast as US coal plants close.Lucas Henneman, Assistant Professor of Engineering, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2139992023-10-17T12:20:30Z2023-10-17T12:20:30ZWhat is a virtual power plant? An energy expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553720/original/file-20231013-23-zo06aw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=26%2C8%2C5964%2C3979&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A large-scale battery storage system in Long Beach, Calif., provides renewable electricity during peak demand periods.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/weikko-wirta-aes-southland-director-of-operations-and-vice-news-photo/1243414725">Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After nearly two decades of stagnation, U.S. electricity demand <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/">is surging</a>, driven by growing numbers of electric cars, data centers and air conditioners in a warming climate. But traditional power plants that generate electricity from <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54559">coal</a>, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439">natural gas</a> or <a href="https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/decommissioning-status-for-shutdown-us-plants">nuclear energy</a> are retiring faster than new ones are being built in this country. Most <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57340">new supply</a> is coming from wind and solar farms, whose output varies with the weather.</p>
<p>That’s left power companies seeking new ways to balance supply and demand. One option they’re turning to is virtual power plants. </p>
<p>These aren’t massive facilities generating electricity at a single site. Rather, they are aggregations of electricity producers, consumers and storers – collectively known as distributed energy resources – that grid managers can call on as needed. </p>
<p>Some of these sources, such as batteries, may deliver <a href="https://theconversation.com/these-3-energy-storage-technologies-can-help-solve-the-challenge-of-moving-to-100-renewable-electricity-161564">stored electric power</a>. Others may be big electricity consumers, such as factories, whose owners have agreed to cut back their power use when demand is high, freeing up energy for other customers. Virtual power sources typically are quicker to site and build, and can be cleaner and cheaper to operate, than new power plants. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-KQEt5QqPXU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Virtual power plants are more resilient against service outages than large, centralized generating stations because they distribute energy resources across large areas.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A growing resource</h2>
<p>Virtual power plants aren’t new. The U.S. Department of Energy <a href="https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/20230911-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Virtual-Power-Plants_update.pdf">estimates</a> that there are already 30 to 60 gigawatts of them in operation today. A gigawatt is 1 billion watts – roughly the output of <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-much-power-1-gigawatt">2.5 million solar photovoltaic panels</a> or one large nuclear reactor.</p>
<p>Most of these virtual power plants are industrial customers that have agreed to reduce demand when conditions are tight. But as growing numbers of homes and small businesses add rooftop solar panels, batteries and electric cars, these energy customers can become not only consumers but also suppliers of power to the grid. </p>
<p>For example, homeowners can charge up their batteries with rooftop solar when it’s sunny, and discharge power back to the grid in the evening when demand is high and prices sometimes spike. </p>
<p>As smart thermostats and water heaters, rooftop solar panels and batteries enable more customers to participate in them, DOE estimates that virtual power plants could <a href="https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/20230911-Pathways-to-Commercial-Liftoff-Virtual-Power-Plants_update.pdf">triple in scale by 2030</a>. That could cover roughly half of the new capacity that the U.S. will need to cover growing demand and replace retiring older power plants. This growth would help to limit the cost of building new wind and solar farms and gas plants. </p>
<p>And because virtual power plants are located where electricity is consumed, they’ll ease the burden on aging transmission systems that have <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/21/why-its-so-hard-to-build-new-electrical-transmission-lines-in-the-us.html">struggled to add new lines</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A hand points to a lighted electronic panel." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553740/original/file-20231013-26-wjqdxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A battery display panel inside a model home in Menifee, Calif., where 200 houses in a development are all-electric, equipped with solar panels and batteries and linked by a microgrid that can power the community during outages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/scott-hensen-vice-president-of-floor-planning-for-kb-home-news-photo/1244677704">Watchara Phomicinda/MediaNews Group/The Press-Enterprise via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>New roles for power customers</h2>
<p>Virtual power plants scramble the roles of electricity producers and consumers. Traditional power plants generate electricity at central locations and transmit it along power lines to consumers. For the grid to function, supply and demand must be <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-curtailment-an-electricity-market-expert-explains-185279">precisely balanced at all times</a>.</p>
<p>Customer demand is typically assumed to be a given that fluctuates with the weather but follows a fairly predictable pattern over the course of a day. To satisfy it, grid operators dispatch a mix of <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/?id=B">baseload sources</a> that operate continuously, such as coal and nuclear plants, and more flexible sources such as gas and hydropower that can modulate their output quickly as needed.</p>
<p>Output from wind and solar farms rises and falls during the day, so other sources must operate more flexibly to keep supply and demand balanced. Still, the basic idea is that massive facilities produce power for millions of passive consumers. </p>
<p>Virtual power plants upend this model by embracing the fact that consumers can control their electricity demand. Industrial consumers have long <a href="https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/past-present-and-future-us-utility">found ways to flex their operations</a>, limiting demand when power supplies are tight in return for incentives or discounted rates.</p>
<p>Now, thermostats and water heaters that communicate with the grid can let households modulate their demand too. For example, <a href="https://neep.org/blog/smart-energy-home-blog-series-smart-water-heaters">smart electric water heaters</a> can heat water mostly when power is abundant and cheap, and limit demand when power is scarce. </p>
<p>In Vermont, Green Mountain Power is <a href="https://greenmountainpower.com/news/gmps-request-to-expand-customer-access-to-cost-effective-home-energy-storage-is-approved/">offering its customers incentives</a> to install batteries that will provide power back to the grid when it’s needed most. In Texas, where I live, deadly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102106">blackouts in 2021</a> highlighted the importance of bolstering our isolated power grid. Now, utilities here are using <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/tesla-virtual-power-plants-vpp-ercot-puc-texas-grid/691713/">Tesla Powerwalls</a> to help turn homes into virtual power sources. South Australia aims to connect 50,000 homes with solar and batteries to build that country’s <a href="https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/consumers/solar-and-batteries/south-australias-virtual-power-plant">largest virtual power plant</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People wait at a propane gas station, bundled in heavy clothes." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/553749/original/file-20231013-15-n4pyp1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People line up to refill propane tanks in Houston after a severe winter storm caused electricity blackouts and a catastrophic failure of Texas’ power grid in February 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-line-up-at-a-propane-gas-station-to-refill-their-news-photo/1231242378">Go Nakamura/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Virtual power, real challenges</h2>
<p>Virtual power plants aren’t a panacea. Many customers are reluctant to give up even temporary control of their thermostats, or have a delay when charging their electric car. Some consumers are also concerned about the <a href="https://smartgrid.ieee.org/bulletins/july-2018/security-and-privacy-concerns-in-smart-metering-the-cyber-physical-aspect">security and privacy of smart meters</a>. It remains to be seen how many customers will sign up for these emerging programs and how effectively their operators will modulate supply and demand.</p>
<p>There also are challenges at the business end. It’s a lot harder to manage millions of consumers than dozens of power plants. Virtual power plant operators can overcome that challenge by rewarding customers for allowing them to flex their supply and demand in a coordinated fashion. </p>
<p>As electricity demand rises to meet the needs of growing economies and replace fossil fuel-burning cars and furnaces, and reliance on renewable resources increases, grid managers will need all the flexibility they can get to balance the variable output of wind and solar generation. Virtual power plants could help reshape electric power into an industry that’s more nimble, efficient and responsive to changing conditions and customers’ needs.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213999/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Cohan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some power plants don’t have massive smokestacks or cooling towers – or even a central site.Daniel Cohan, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2048892023-05-16T12:41:27Z2023-05-16T12:41:27ZEPA’s crackdown on power plant emissions is a big first step – but without strong certification, it will be hard to ensure captured carbon stays put<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526015/original/file-20230513-80599-50hj2p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=836%2C0%2C2108%2C1350&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Power plants contribute a quarter of the United States' climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/polluted-beauty-royalty-free-image/991612992">Howard C via Getty images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. government is <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-new-carbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-tackle">planning to crack down</a> on power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, a lot of money is about to pour into technology that can capture carbon dioxide from smokestacks and lock it away.</p>
<p>That raises an important question: Once carbon dioxide is captured and stored, how do we ensure it stays put?</p>
<p>Power plants that burn fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, release a lot of carbon dioxide. As that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere, it traps heat near the Earth’s surface, <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide">driving global warming</a>. </p>
<p>But if CO₂ emissions can be captured instead and <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport.pdf">locked away for thousands of years</a>, existing fossil fuel power plants could meet the proposed new federal standards and reduce their impact on climate change. </p>
<p>We <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XO3TyEUAAAAJ&hl=en">work on</a> carbon capture and storage technologies <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/172390">and policies</a> as a scientist and an engineer. One of us, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jOPykuwAAAAJ&hl=en">Klaus Lackner</a>, proposed a tenet more than two decades ago that is echoed in the proposed standards: For all carbon extracted from the ground, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1323-0_3">an equal amount</a> must be disposed of safely and permanently. </p>
<p>To ensure that happens, carbon capture and storage needs an effective certification system. </p>
<h2>EPA’s proposed carbon crackdown</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power">proposed new power plant rules</a>, announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 11, 2023, are based on performance standards for carbon dioxide releases. They aren’t yet finalized, and they <a href="https://theconversation.com/bidens-strategy-for-cutting-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-could-extend-the-lives-of-fossil-fuel-power-plants-204723">likely will face fierce legal challenges</a>, but the industry is paying attention.</p>
<p>Power plant owners could meet the proposed standards in any number of ways, including by shutting down fossil fuel-powered plants and replacing them with renewable energy such as solar or wind.</p>
<p>For those planning to continue to burn natural gas or coal, however, capturing the emissions and storing them long term is the most likely option. </p>
<h2>How CCS works for power plants</h2>
<p>Carbon capture typically starts at the smokestack with <a href="https://www.rff.org/publications/explainers/carbon-capture-and-storage-101">chemical “scrubbers</a>” that can remove more than 90% of carbon dioxide emissions. The captured CO₂ is compressed and sent through pipelines for storage.</p>
<p>At most storage sites, CO₂ is injected <a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/strategic-program-support/natcarb-atlas">into underground reservoirs</a>, typically in porous rocks more than 3,300 feet (1,000 meters) below the surface. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cutaway and closeup shows how CO2 is trapped in rock pore spaces." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525964/original/file-20230512-23-7qw92n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A cutaway of the Earth shows how impermeable rocks cap CO₂ reservoirs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/">Global CCS Institute</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Geologists look for sites with multiple layers of protection, including impermeable rock layers above the reservoir that can prevent gas from leaking out. In some sites, CO₂ chemically reacts with minerals and is eventually immobilized as a solid carbonate.</p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage is <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-epas-new-power-plant-standards-proposal-gives-it-a-boost-but-ccs-is-not-a-quick-solution-205462">currently expensive</a>, and developing the pipeline and storage infrastructure will likely take years. But as more CCS projects are built – helped by some <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/45q-enhancements">generous tax credits</a> in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – costs are likely to drop.</p>
<p>The Sleipner project in the North Sea has been putting away <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610217317174%5d.">roughly 1 million</a> metric tons of CO₂ a year since 1996. In Iceland, CO₂ is injected into volcanic basalt rocks, where it reacts with the stone and rapidly <a href="https://www.carbfix.com/">forms solid mineral carbonates</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A US map shows reservoirs across the Plains, Southeast and Midwest in particular, as well as the coasts." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/525958/original/file-20230512-24221-4sjmk9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Several regions of the U.S. have geological reservoirs with the potential to store captured carbon dioxide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-sequestration-overview_.html">Environmental Protection Agency</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the U.S., companies have been injecting CO₂ into underground reservoirs for decades – initially, as a way to force more oil out of the ground. Today, these “enhanced oil recovery” projects can receive tax credits for the CO₂ that remains underground. As a result, some now inject more carbon into the ground than they extract as oil. </p>
<p>While there have been no notable CO₂ releases from geologic storage, <a href="https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M292/K947/292947433.PDF">other gas storage leaks demonstrate</a> that injection has to follow well-defined safety rules. Nothing is guaranteed. </p>
<p>That’s why monitoring and certification are essential.</p>
<h2>How to effectively certify carbon storage</h2>
<p>The EPA has rules for CO₂ storage sites, but they are focused on protecting drinking water rather than the climate. Under <a href="https://www.epa.gov/uic/class-vi-wells-used-geologic-sequestration-carbon-dioxide">those rules</a>, monitoring is required for all phases of the project and for 50 years after closing to check the safety of the groundwater and ensure that material injected underground does not contaminate it.</p>
<p>However, the current <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/coal/carbon-storage/faqs/permanence-safety">monitoring techniques</a> don’t measure the amount of carbon stored, and the rules do not require that leaked carbon be replaced. </p>
<p>To provide more direction, we developed a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">certification framework</a> designed to ensure that all carbon is stored safely and for the tens of thousands of years necessary to safeguard the climate.</p>
<p>We envision liability for the captured carbon dioxide shifting from the power plant owner to the storage site operator once the carbon dioxide is transferred. That would mean the storage site operator would be held liable for any leaks.</p>
<p>Under <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">the framework</a>, a certificate authority would vet storage operators and issue certificates of carbon sequestration for stored carbon. These certificates could have market value if, as the EPA suggests, power plant operators are held responsible for the carbon stored. Future regulations could expand this requirement to other emitters, or simply demand that any carbon released is cleared by a corresponding certificate showing the same amount of carbon has been sequestered.</p>
<p>Careful monitoring, paired with certification that requires storage site owners to make up any losses, could help avoid <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/24/shell-ccs-facility-in-canada-emits-more-than-it-captures-study-says.html">greenwashing</a> and ensure that the investments meet the nation’s climate goals. </p>
<p><iframe id="Fsawi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Fsawi/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Certification can be useful for carbon stored in any quantifiable storage reservoir, including trees, oceans and human infrastructure such as cement. We believe a <a href="https://keep.lib.asu.edu/_flysystem/fedora/c160/Conceptual_framework_certification_v2_1.pdf">universal approach to certification</a> that sets minimum requirements and responsibilities is necessary to assure that carbon is stored safely with a guarantee of permanence, regardless of how it is done.</p>
<p>Climate change will <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/briefing-room/2022/04/04/quantifying-risks-to-the-federal-budget-from-climate-change/">cost trillions of dollars</a>, and the federal government is putting <a href="https://www.wri.org/update/carbon-removal-BIL-IRA">billions into research and tax breaks</a> to encourage development of carbon capture and storage sites. To avoid dubious methods, corner-cutting and greenwashing, carbon storage will have to be held to high standards. The U.S. can’t afford to pin a large chunk of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate/">its climate strategy</a> on carbon storage without proof.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204889/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Arcusa receives funding from Arizona State University.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Klaus Lackner receives funding from Arizona State University and the Kaiteki Institute at ASU.</span></em></p>Fossil fuel power plants can avoid most emissions by capturing carbon dioxide and pumping it underground. But to be a climate solution, that carbon has to stay stored for thousands of years.Stephanie Arcusa, Postdoctoral Researcher in Carbon Sequestration, Arizona State UniversityKlaus Lackner, Professor of Engineering and Director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2047232023-05-12T12:21:11Z2023-05-12T12:21:11ZBiden’s strategy for cutting carbon emissions from electricity generation could extend the lives of fossil fuel power plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/525709/original/file-20230511-13703-wovxm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5756%2C3748&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The James H. Miller coal power plant in Alabama emitted as much carbon dioxide in 2021 as 4.6 million cars.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/steam-rises-from-the-miller-coal-power-plant-in-adamsville-news-photo/1232409184">Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>On May 11, 2023, the Biden administration <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-new-carbon-pollution-standards-fossil-fuel-fired-power-plants-tackle">proposed new regulations</a> to curb carbon pollution from existing power plants. The new rules replace the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which was proposed in 2015 but ran into <a href="https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2017/09/clean-power-plan-carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines/">multiple legal challenges</a> and never took effect. Nonetheless, in a high-profile 2022 ruling, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530">West Virginia v. EPA</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Obama administration’s approach <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-has-curtailed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-pollution-and-sent-a-warning-to-other-regulators-185281">exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority</a> to regulate power plant carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act.</em> </p>
<p><em>Jennifer K. Rushlow, dean of the Vermont School for the Environment and a law professor at Vermont Law & Graduate School, explains how the new regulations are designed and the delicate balance they attempt to strike between slowing climate change and avoiding further legal setbacks.</em></p>
<h2>1. How has the Biden administration tailored these regulations in response to the West Virginia v. EPA ruling?</h2>
<p>The scent of <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530">West Virginia v. EPA</a> is all over the new proposed rules. How could it not be? The Supreme Court accused the Environmental Protection Agency of attempting a “wholesale restructure” of the nation’s energy mix because the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan essentially required existing fossil fuel power plants to either use cleaner fuels or close. </p>
<p>The new proposed regulations attempt to thread the needle between meeting the Biden administration’s climate commitments and avoiding another gutting in court. To do that, they focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from individual power plants with on-site technologies, instead of requiring a large-scale shift from fossil fuels to renewables. </p>
<p>The rules rely on ambitious and relatively new emissions reduction technologies, like <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-carbon-capture-and-storage-epas-new-power-plant-standards-proposal-gives-it-a-boost-but-ccs-is-not-a-quick-solution-205462">carbon capture and storage, or CCS,</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-hydrogen-and-can-it-really-become-a-climate-change-solution-204513">low-carbon hydrogen fuel</a>. The EPA proposes to use CCS to reduce emissions from large coal plants with long life expectancies. For large natural-gas-fueled power plants that provide <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/?id=B">baseload power</a> – meaning that they run continuously – the agency proposes at least partial replacement of natural gas with hydrogen fuel.</p>
<p><iframe id="lJMSX" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/lJMSX/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>2. Do the draft rules indicate that EPA is responding to energy industry critiques of the Clean Power Plan?</h2>
<p>There are a variety of strategies built into EPA’s approach in the new rules that I believe aim to secure buy-in from fossil fuel interests and mitigate against conservative backlash. The proposal takes a tiered and staggered approach to which power plants will be regulated, how stringently, and by when. </p>
<p>First, the EPA goes out of its way to accommodate coal plants that are <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860m/">already scheduled to close</a> or anticipate shutting down in the next couple of decades. It proposes much less stringent standards for these plants, since they will not be able to spread the cost of adopting new controls over many years of operation. Since the regulations are so light for those facilities, and the plants are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-04/u-s-coal-power-to-fall-45-by-decade-s-end-in-fossil-fuel-shift?sref=Hjm5biAW">already closing due to other economic factors</a>, it will be hard to blame these rules for the loss of coal plants. </p>
<p>Along the same rationale, the EPA is only regulating baseload natural gas plants right now and leaving regulations for smaller plants and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=P">peaker plants</a> – those that run only during peak demand periods – for another day. </p>
<p>Second, the rule’s reliance on carbon capture and storage, in my view, ought to be music to fossil fuel companies’ ears. CCS has long been their preferred climate mitigation tool because it is one of the only means of reducing carbon emissions that does not hamper the continued extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Even better <a href="https://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/blog/2021/03/01/federal-legislation-supports-ccus-as-economy-wide-climate-solution">from their perspective</a>, the captured carbon effluent can be injected into geological formations for underground storage and actually flush out buried crude oil that would otherwise be unreachable – meaning even more oil production. </p>
<p>The EPA solicits very specific comments in these regulations from interested parties, like the energy industry, on questions such as the time frame required to implement a particular technology and what size facilities should be subject to which standards. In addition to genuinely wanting to get the rules right, this deferential approach may be designed to build an administrative record that can withstand judicial scrutiny when the agency <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/republican-states-threaten-legal-action-bidens-power-plant-regulations">is inevitably sued</a>. If the regulated community provides feedback on those items, and the final rule shows that the agency was responsive to that feedback, it will be harder for a court to find that compliance with the rule is not feasible.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1656690710999977988"}"></div></p>
<h2>3. Do you see legal vulnerabilities in the proposed new rules?</h2>
<p>The EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants is derived from the Clean Air Act, which <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411">requires the agency</a> to set emissions limits using a standard that reflects the “best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated,” taking into account cost and other factors. </p>
<p>For coal plants, the agency identifies carbon capture and storage as the “best system of emission reduction.” The draft rule states that CCS has been “adequately demonstrated” – meaning that some plants are using it – and that the cost is manageable, thanks to tax incentives in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-signs-inflation-reduction-act-its-climate-promise-relies-heavily-on-carbon-capture-meaning-thousands-of-miles-of-pipeline-188591">Inflation Reduction Act</a>. </p>
<p>This reasoning is a little thin. CCS is an emerging technology that’s not yet widely used, in part because it is <a href="https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-efficient-carbon-capture-and-storage">so expensive</a>. In fact, the EPA could point to only a handful of existing projects to show that the technology has been “adequately demonstrated.”</p>
<p>However, regulated coal plants won’t necessarily be required to use CCS itself. Rather, they will be required to reduce their emissions to a level that could be achieved using CCS. If they can find other means, they are welcome to use them. But since CCS is expensive and not yet widely used, some observers speculate that the new rules will cause coal plants to shut down or switch to cleaner fuels, as the Clean Power Plan required. </p>
<p>This is not a topic that the EPA wants to revisit with the Supreme Court. However, if the court’s conservative majority sticks to its avowed preference for “<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-triumph-of-textualism-only-the-written-word-is-the-law/">textualist” interpretations of the law</a>, the proposed regulations provide plenty of room for the court to find in the administration’s favor, on the basis that the new rules stick to much more familiar territory within the Clean Air Act than the Clean Power Plan did. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DmCCAiNgKC0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This video, which aired several months before the West Virginia v. EPA ruling, examines West Virginia’s opposition to broad curbs on power plant carbon emissions.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. How do these regulations conform with Biden’s focus on environmental justice?</h2>
<p>In addition to greenhouse gases, fossil fuel power plants emit deadly air pollutants that <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year-78874">contribute to thousands of deaths every year</a>. And they disproportionately harm the health of nearby low-income communities and communities of color. </p>
<p>Carbon capture and storage doesn’t reduce these pollutants at any significant scale, nor does it prevent <a href="https://theconversation.com/urban-oil-wells-linked-to-asthma-and-other-health-problems-in-los-angeles-160162">public health</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-taxpayers-foot-the-cleanup-bill-for-bankrupt-coal-companies-56415">environmental and cultural</a> damage caused by fossil fuel extraction projects. As a result, some communities view CCS as incompatible with environmental justice principles. </p>
<p>Some of these criticisms surfaced last year, when the White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/news-updates/2022/02/15/ceq-issues-new-guidance-to-responsibly-develop-carbon-capture-utilization-and-sequestration/">developed guidance on CCS</a>. For example, the Indigenous Environmental Network – a grassroots coalition of Indigenous peoples and tribal governments – delivered scathing comments that CCS <a href="https://www.ienearth.org/environmental-justice-organizations-post-comments-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-to-the-white-house-council-on-environmental-quality/">perpetuates fossil fuel extraction</a> and combustion that harm Indigenous communities. </p>
<p>These draft rules may widen the rift between traditional environmentalists, some of whom prioritize curbing climate change at all costs, and environmental justice community advocates who face immediate harm from fossil fuel power plants, as well as mounting and disproportionate impacts from climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204723/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer K. Rushlow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After the Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s strategy for reducing power plant carbon emissions in 2022, the Biden administration is taking a narrower but still ambitious approach.Jennifer K. Rushlow, Dean, Vermont School for the Environment, and Professor of Law, Vermont Law & Graduate SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2045132023-05-09T12:23:06Z2023-05-09T12:23:06ZWhat is hydrogen, and can it really become a climate change solution?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523875/original/file-20230502-3972-7fcrkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=681%2C0%2C6035%2C3938&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hydrogen has potential, but it faces some big challenges, including a lack of pipeline infrastructure.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/hydrogen-pipeline-illustrating-the-transformation-royalty-free-image/1391407475?phrase=hydrogen&adppopup=true">Petmal/iStock/Getty Images Pluss plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Hydrogen, or H₂, is getting a lot of attention lately as governments in the U.S., Canada and Europe <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/US-National-Innovation-Pathway.pdf">push to cut</a> their greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>But what exactly is H₂, and is it really a clean power source?</p>
<p>I specialize in <a href="https://und.edu/directory/johannes.vanderwatt">researching and developing H₂ production techniques</a>. Here are some key facts about this versatile chemical that could play a much larger role in our lives in the future.</p>
<h2>So, what is hydrogen?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/">Hydrogen</a> is the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2186">most abundant element in the universe</a>, but because it’s so reactive, it isn’t found on its own in nature. Instead, it is typically bound to other atoms and molecules in water, natural gas, coal and even biological matter like plants and human bodies.</p>
<p>Hydrogen can be isolated, however. And on its own, the H₂ molecule packs a heavy punch as a highly effective energy carrier.</p>
<p>It is already <a href="https://www.fchea.org/hydrogen-in-industrial-applications">used in industry</a> to manufacture <a href="https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/a/ammonia.html">ammonia</a>, <a href="https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/m/methanol.html">methanol</a> and <a href="https://www.fchea.org/transitions/2022/3/14/hydrogen-in-steel-making-update">steel</a> and in <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=24612">refining</a> crude oil. As a fuel, it can store energy and reduce emissions from vehicles, including buses and <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-shipping-is-under-pressure-to-stop-its-heavy-fuel-oil-use-fast-thats-not-simple-but-changes-are-coming-204271">cargo ships</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="4jd52" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/4jd52/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Hydrogen can also be used to generate electricity with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal or natural gas power plants. That potential is getting more attention as the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power/">U.S. government proposes new rules</a> that would require existing power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.</p>
<p>Because it can be stored, H₂ could help overcome intermittency issues associated with renewable power sources like wind and solar. It can also be blended with natural gas in existing power plants to reduce the plant’s emissions. </p>
<p>Using hydrogen in power plants can reduce carbon dioxide emissions when either blended or alone in <a href="https://solutions.mhi.com/power/decarbonization-technology/hydrogen-gas-turbine/">specialized turbines</a>, or in <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells">fuel cells</a>, which consume H₂ and oxygen, or O₂, to produce electricity, heat and water. But it’s typically not entirely CO₂-free. That’s in part because isolating H₂ from water or natural gas takes a lot of energy.</p>
<h2>How is hydrogen produced?</h2>
<p>There are a few common ways to produce H₂:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/electrolysis">Electrolysis</a> can isolate hydrogen by splitting water – H₂O – into H₂ and O₂ using an electric current.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming">Methane reforming</a> uses steam to split methane, or CH₄, into H₂ and CO₂. Oxygen and steam or CO₂ can also be used for this splitting process. </p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/intro-to-gasification">Gasification</a> transforms hydrocarbon-based materials – including <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/biomass">biomass</a>, coal or even <a href="https://netl.doe.gov/research/Coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/biomass-msw">municipal waste</a> – into synthesis gas, an H₂-rich gas that can be used as a fuel either on its own or as a precursor for producing chemicals and liquid fuels.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Each has benefits and drawbacks.</p>
<h2>Green, blue, gray – what do the colors mean?</h2>
<p>Hydrogen is often described by colors to indicate how clean, or CO₂-free, it is. The cleanest is <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/">green hydrogen</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/">Green H₂</a> is produced using electrolysis powered by renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar or hydropower. While green hydrogen is completely CO₂-free, it is costly, at around <a href="https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c5bc75b1-9e4d-460d-9056-6e8e626a11c4/GlobalHydrogenReview2022.pdf">US$4-$9 per kilogram</a> ($2-$4 per pound) because of the high energy required to split water.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing different colors of hydrogen and how each is made" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=269&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523508/original/file-20230429-14-wsto7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The largest share of hydrogen today is made from natural gas, meaning methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_Green_hydrogen_policy_2020.pdf">IRENA (2020), Green Hydrogen: A guide to policymaking</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other less energy-intensive techniques can produce H₂ at a lower cost, but they still emit greenhouse gases.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/">Gray H₂</a> is the most common type of hydrogen. It is made from natural gas through methane reforming. This process releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and costs around <a href="https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c5bc75b1-9e4d-460d-9056-6e8e626a11c4/GlobalHydrogenReview2022.pdf">$1-$2.50 per kilogram</a> (50 cents-$1 per pound).</p>
<p>If gray hydrogen’s CO₂ emissions are captured and locked away so they aren’t released into the atmosphere, it can become <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/clean-energy-green-hydrogen/">blue hydrogen</a>. The costs are higher, at around <a href="https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c5bc75b1-9e4d-460d-9056-6e8e626a11c4/GlobalHydrogenReview2022.pdf">$1.50-$3 per kilogram</a> (70 cents-$1.50 per pound) to produce, and greenhouse gas emissions can still escape when the natural gas is produced and transported.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman in a work vest adjusts a mechanical system with pipes on a small wall." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/523880/original/file-20230502-3102-9c1irb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=529&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An electrolyzer system at a hydrogen production plant in Mallorca, Spain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/worker-handles-the-electrolyzers-gas-generation-system-of-news-photo/1251748022?adppopup=true">Jaime Reina/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another alternative is <a href="https://energypost.eu/clean-turquoise-hydrogen-a-pathway-to-commercial-readiness">turquoise hydrogen</a>, produced using both renewable and nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources provide clean energy to convert <a href="https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/ceew-research-on-natural-gas-pyrolysis-for-low-carbon-and-clean-green-hydrogen-production-india.pdf">methane – CH₄ – into H₂ and solid carbon</a>, rather than that carbon dioxide that must be captured and stored. This type of <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.iecr.1c01679">pyrolysis technology</a> is still new, and is estimated to cost between <a href="https://www.ceew.in/sites/default/files/ceew-research-on-natural-gas-pyrolysis-for-low-carbon-and-clean-green-hydrogen-production-india.pdf">$1.60 and $2.80 per kilogram</a> (70 cents-$1.30 per pound).</p>
<h2>Can we switch off the lights on fossil fuels now?</h2>
<p>Over 95% of the H₂ <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming">produced in the U.S.</a> today is gray hydrogen made with natural gas, which still emits greenhouse gases. </p>
<p>Whether H₂ can ramp up as a natural gas alternative for the power industry and other uses, such as for transportation, heating and industrial processes, will depend on the availability of low-cost renewable energy for electrolysis to generate green H₂.</p>
<p><iframe id="7PRzA" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7PRzA/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>It will also depend on the <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-delivery">development and expansion of pipelines and other infrastructure</a> to efficiently store, transport and dispense H₂.</p>
<p>Without the infrastructure, H₂ use won’t grow quickly. It’s a modern-day version of “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Continued use of fossil fuels for H₂ production could spur investment in H₂ infrastructure, but using fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases.</p>
<h2>What does the future hold for hydrogen?</h2>
<p>Although green and blue hydrogen <a href="https://www.shearman.com/en/perspectives/2021/10/hydrogens-present-and-future-in-the-us-energy-sector">projects are emerging</a>, they are small so far.</p>
<p>Policies like Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions limits and the 2022 U.S. <a href="https://www.ey.com/en_us/energy-resources/3-key-attributes-of-the-us-renewables-landscape">Inflation Reduction Act</a>, which offers tax credits up to $3 per kilogram ($1.36 per pound) of H₂, could help make cleaner hydrogen more competitive. </p>
<p>Hydrogen demand is projected to <a href="https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/study-shows-abundant-opportunities-for-hydrogen-in-a-future-integrated-energy-system.html">increase up to two to four times</a> its current level by 2050. For that to be green H₂ would require significant amounts of renewable energy at the same time that new solar, wind and other renewable energy power plants are being built to provide electricity directly to the power sector.</p>
<p>While green hydrogen is a promising trend, it is not the only solution to meeting the world’s energy needs and carbon-free energy goals. A combination of renewable energy sources and clean H₂, including blue, green or turquoise, will likely be necessary to meet the world’s energy needs in a sustainable way.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/204513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannes van der Watt receives funding from the United States Department of Energy</span></em></p>Hydrogen is getting a lot of attention as the EPA prepares to propose new emissions rules for power plants. But it has a problem: almost all of it used today is made from fossil fuels.Hannes van der Watt, Research Assistant Professor, University of North DakotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1872542022-07-26T11:58:20Z2022-07-26T11:58:20Z3 reasons US coal power is disappearing – and a Supreme Court ruling won’t save it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/475714/original/file-20220722-26-44ugwr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=366%2C485%2C4283%2C2792&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Coal was the dominant fuel for U.S. power plants until 2016. This PacifiCorp power plant in Utah still uses it.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pacificorps-hunter-coal-fired-power-pant-releases-steam-as-news-photo/1182367628">George Frey/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. coal industry chalked up a rare win this summer when the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">issued a ruling</a> limiting the government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. But that doesn’t mean coal-fired power plants will make a comeback. </p>
<p>As an economist, I analyze the coal industry, including power plant construction and retirement plans. I see three main reasons U.S. coal plants will continue to close down.</p>
<p>A detail related to the Supreme Court case helps tell the story. The case, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">West Virginia v. EPA</a>, involved the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">Clean Power Plan</a>, a set of Obama-era regulations proposed in 2015 that would have required power plants to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. For those powered by coal – historically the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions">dominant source of carbon dioxide emissions</a> in the U.S. electricity sector – that likely would have meant <a href="https://www.schwabe.com/newsroom-publications-Clean_Power_Plan_Update_070722">shifting away from coal</a> altogether. </p>
<p>Yet even though the Clean Power Plan never went into effect, coal use has declined so much that the U.S. power sector <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#electricitygeneration/entiresector/allgas/category/all">has already met</a> the plan’s <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">2030 target</a>. </p>
<h2>Why the power sector is moving away from coal</h2>
<p>At its peak in 2007, coal was responsible for almost <a href="https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf">2 trillion kilowatt-hours</a> of electricity generation in the U.S., equivalent to powering over 186 million homes for the year.</p>
<p>By 2021, that total had <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/">dropped by 55%</a>.</p>
<p>The drop was due in large part to an industrywide <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20150321">shift in electricity generation</a>, away from coal-fired units toward natural gas and renewable energy. That shift is happening for three main reasons.</p>
<p><iframe id="Hw5Hu" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Hw5Hu/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>1. Natural gas prices</h2>
<p>Natural gas prices have decreased significantly – <a href="https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-10/trends-in-electricity-prices-during-the-transition-away-from-coal.htm">over 60%</a> between 2003 and 2019 – mainly because of improvements in <a href="https://www.epa.gov/uog/process-unconventional-natural-gas-production">hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling</a>, which allow drillers to extract more gas from shale.</p>
<p>The influx of natural gas led to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.338">substantial increases in additions of natural gas-fired electricity generators</a>. These natural gas power plants are newer, have similar and sometimes lower fuel costs, and are more efficient at generating electricity than the existing coal-fired generators. </p>
<p>They also are able to come online at full power within one to 12 hours, while a coal-fired generator can take up to 24 hours to be fully ready to produce power. Because of this necessary lead time, it is difficult to rely on coal-fired generators when demand rises and the power grid needs more electricity quickly. </p>
<p>For example, the electric system faces the highest demand for electricity generation between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. on weekdays. If demand spikes, a coal-fired generator will miss the window when electricity is needed. Natural gas generators can meet the demand much faster, often making them more profitable for utilities.</p>
<p><iframe id="VjiXw" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VjiXw/11/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>2. The rise of renewable energy</h2>
<p>Solar and wind energy are now <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/May/Renewable-power-generation-costs-in-2018">cost competitive</a> with fossil-fueled generators, primarily because of technological advancements.</p>
<p>Many <a href="https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/state-renewable-energy-policies">states</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/renewable-sources/incentives.php">the federal government</a> also offer incentives for renewable energy production, which lowers the cost to install them. President Joe Biden’s climate plan aims to increase those incentives. And, once built, renewable energy sources have no fuel costs and relatively low operational costs compared with coal-fired generators.</p>
<p>A record <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818">17.1 gigawatts</a> of wind capacity came online in the U.S. in 2021 <a href="https://windexchange.energy.gov/projects/tax-credits">after a tax incentive was extended</a>, and 7.6 gigawatts are planned this year.</p>
<p>Solar energy accounts for 46% of all new electricity generating capacity expected to join the grid in 2022, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818">about 21.5 gigawatts</a>.</p>
<p><iframe id="CY8Gj" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/CY8Gj/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>3. Environmental regulation</h2>
<p>The government has instituted several environmental regulations over the past few decades aiming to reduce sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury and other hazardous air pollutants <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulatory-information-sector/electric-power-generation-transmission-and-distribution-naics-2211">emitted</a> by the electric power sector. </p>
<p>These hazardous emissions are <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php">linked</a> to health problems including respiratory illnesses and neurological and developmental damage, as well as smog, acid rain and climate change. According to the <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-545r#:%7E:text=Compared%20with%20natural%20gas%20units,and%20carbon%20than%20natural%20gas.">U.S. Government Accountability Office</a>, coal-fired generators are by far the largest electricity-sector sources.</p>
<p>To comply with the regulations, coal power plant operators have installed scrubbers to remove the pollutants from their emissions, switched coal types to lower-sulfur coal, and invested in other methods to reduce sulfur and other impurities. As a result, <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1756-2171.12294">costs have increased</a> for the coal-fired fleet.</p>
<p>These higher environmental mitigation costs, coupled with lower wholesale electricity prices over recent years, have meant coal plant operators have had a tougher time recovering the cost of the capital investments to maintain their older coal-fired generators. Instead, many have chosen to retire those units.</p>
<p><iframe id="HSXEx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HSXEx/9/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Coal power’s future: More early retirements</h2>
<p>So what does this mean for the future of U.S. coal power?</p>
<p>The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that coal generators account for <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50838">85% of the electric generating capacity</a> being retired this year nationwide.</p>
<p>This trend is expected to continue, with substantial coal generator retirements occurring <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf">by 2030</a>. This is a result of both market factors – cheap natural gas and affordable renewable energy – and regulatory measures.</p>
<p>Coal is used more widely in other countries, including China, and U.S. coal companies have <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/imports-and-exports.php">increased their exports</a> in recent years. However, at the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59159018">2021 United Nations climate change conference</a>, over 40 countries committed to completely shift away from coal, and 20 others – including the U.S. – pledged to stop government financing of coal use, unless it includes carbon capture technology. </p>
<p>The Biden administration, which has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/climate/biden-inflation-climate-manchin.html">struggled to get its climate policies</a> through a deeply divided Congress, appeared to have movement on a large climate change-focused package in late July. An agreement announced by Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/3577308-schumer-manchin-agree-on-billions-of-dollars-for-electric-vehicles-solar-panels-and-other-clean-energy-priorities/">included support for renewable energy and electric vehicles</a>. The administration has been weighing new regulatory options that could further affect the cost of generating electricity with coal.</p>
<p>It all adds up to a difficult economic environment for U.S. coal power for the foreseeable future.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated July 28, 2022, with an agreement announced on Biden’s climate plan.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/187254/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca J. Davis receives funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. </span></em></p>An economist explains coal power’s rise and fall in charts.Rebecca J. Davis, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance, Stephen F. Austin State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1717912021-11-23T07:35:46Z2021-11-23T07:35:46ZWhy the oil industry’s pivot to carbon capture and storage – while it keeps on drilling – isn’t a climate change solution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432745/original/file-20211118-13-17icw4c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C46%2C5184%2C3409&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most carbon dioxide captured in the U.S. today is used to extract more oil.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/pump-jacks-at-the-belridge-oil-field-and-hydraulic-fracking-news-photo/566447215">Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014">decades of sowing doubt</a> about climate change and its causes, the fossil fuel industry is now shifting to a new strategy: presenting itself as the source of solutions. This repositioning includes rebranding itself as a “carbon management industry.” </p>
<p>This strategic pivot was <a href="https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/hundreds-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flooding-cop26-climate-talks/">on display</a> at the Glasgow climate summit and at a <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/fueling-the-climate-crisis-exposing-big-oil-s-disinformation-campaign-to">Congressional hearing</a> in October 2021, where CEOs of four major oil companies talked about a “lower-carbon future.” That future, in their view, would be powered by the fuels they supply and technologies they could deploy to remove the planet-warming carbon dioxide their products emit – provided they get sufficient government support. </p>
<p>That support may be coming. The Department of Energy recently added “carbon management” <a href="https://www.energy.gov/fecm/articles/our-new-name-also-new-vision">to the name</a> of its Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management and is <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/cash-infused-carbon-capture-office-expands-does-climate-mission">expanding its funding for carbon capture and storage</a>. </p>
<p>But how effective are these solutions, and what are their consequences?</p>
<p>Coming from <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/gdae/researchers/">backgrounds in economics, ecology</a> <a href="https://capitalismstudies.org/research/public-economy/">and public policy</a>, we have spent several years <a href="https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41247-020-00080-5.pdf">focusing on carbon drawdown</a>. We have watched mechanical carbon capture methods struggle to demonstrate success, despite U.S. government investments of over <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44902.pdf">US$7 billion in direct spending</a> and at least a <a href="https://www.rollcall.com/2020/04/30/treasury-ig-a-decade-of-carbon-capture-tax-credits-were-faulty/">billion more in tax credits</a>. Meanwhile, proven biological solutions with multiple benefits have received far less attention.</p>
<h2>CCS’s troubled track record</h2>
<p>Carbon capture and storage, or CCS, aims to capture carbon dioxide as it emerges from smokestacks either at power plants or from industrial sources. So far, CCS at U.S. power plants has been a failure.</p>
<p>Seven large-scale CCS projects have been attempted at U.S. power plants, each with hundreds of millions of dollars of government subsidies, but these projects were either canceled before they reached commercial operation or <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44902.pdf">were shuttered</a> after they started due to <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CCS-Tech-and-Costs.pdf">financial</a> or mechanical troubles. There is only one commercial-scale CCS power plant operation in the world, <a href="https://www.power-technology.com/projects/sask-power-boundary-dam/">in Canada</a>, and its captured carbon dioxide <a href="https://dualchallenge.npc.org/">is used to extract more oil from wells</a> – a process called “<a href="https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/co2_eor_primer.pdf">enhanced oil recovery</a>.”</p>
<p>In industrial facilities, all but one of the <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-Global-Status-of-CCS-Report_Global_CCS_Institute.pdf">dozen CCS projects in the U.S</a> uses the captured carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery.</p>
<p>This expensive oil extraction technique has been described as “<a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/storing-co2-through-enhanced-oil-recovery">climate mitigation</a>” because the oil companies are now using carbon dioxide. But a modeling study of the full life cycle of this process at coal-fired power plants found it <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es902006h">puts 3.7 to 4.7 times as much carbon dioxide into the air as it removes</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="0QJIj" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0QJIj/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The problem with pulling carbon from the air</h2>
<p>Another method would directly remove carbon dioxide from the air. Oil companies like <a href="https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/news-media/latest-news/oxy-and-carbon-engineering-partner-to-combine-direct-air-capture-and-enhanced-oil-recovery-storage/">Occidental Petroleum</a> and <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2019/0627_ExxonMobil-and-Global-Thermostat-to-advance-breakthrough-atmospheric--carbon-capture-technology">ExxonMobil</a> are seeking government subsidies to develop and deploy such “direct air capture” systems. However, one widely recognized problem with these systems is their immense energy requirements, particularly if operating at a climate-significant scale, meaning removing at least 1 gigaton – 1 billion tons – of carbon dioxide per year. </p>
<p>That’s about 3% of annual global carbon dioxide emissions. The U.S. <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda">National Academies of Sciences</a> projects a need to remove 10 gigatons per year by 2050, and 20 gigatons per year by century’s end if decarbonization efforts fall short.</p>
<p>The only type of direct air capture system in relatively large-scale development right now must be powered by a <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda">fossil fuel</a> to attain the extremely high heat for the thermal process. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259/negative-emissions-technologies-and-reliable-sequestration-a-research-agenda">National Academies of Sciences</a> study of direct air capture’s energy use indicates that to capture 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide per year, this type of direct air capture system could require up to 3,889 terawatt-hours of energy – almost as much as the total electricity <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/">generated in the U.S. in 2020</a>. The largest direct air capture plant being developed in the U.S. right now uses this system, and <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/oxy-taking-contrarian-approach-to-net-zero-emissions-by-developing-oil-resources-reusing-co2/">the captured carbon dioxide will be used for oil recovery</a>.</p>
<p>Another direct air capture system, employing a solid sorbent, uses somewhat less energy, but companies have struggled to scale it up beyond pilots. There are ongoing efforts to develop more efficient and effective direct air capture technologies, but some scientists are skeptical about its potential. One study describes enormous material and energy demands of direct air capture that the authors say make it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17203-7">“unrealistic.”</a> Another shows that spending the same amount of money on clean energy to replace fossil fuels is <a href="https://research.american.edu/carbonremoval/2019/11/13/jacobson-mark-2019-why-carbon-capture-and-direct-air-capture-cause-more-damage-than-good-to-climate-and-health/">more effective at reducing emissions, air pollution and other costs</a>. </p>
<h2>The cost of scaling up</h2>
<p>A 2021 study <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20437-0">envisions spending $1 trillion a year</a> to scale up direct air capture to a meaningful level. <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-politics-breakingviews/breakingviews-review-bill-gates-engineers-climate-risk-clarity-idUSKBN2AJ1I4">Bill Gates</a>, who is backing a direct air capture company called Carbon Engineering, estimated that operating at climate-significant scale would cost $5.1 trillion every year. Much of the cost would be borne by governments because there is no “customer” for burying waste underground. </p>
<p>As lawmakers in the U.S. and elsewhere consider devoting billions more dollars to carbon capture, they need to consider the consequences.</p>
<p>The captured carbon dioxide must be transported somewhere for use or storage. A 2020 study from Princeton estimated that <a href="https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/Princeton_NZA_Interim_Report_15_Dec_2020_FINAL.pdf">66,000 miles of carbon dioxide pipelines</a> would have to be built by 2050 to begin to approach 1 gigaton per year of transport and burial.</p>
<p><iframe id="etQ3K" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/etQ3K/17/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The issues with burying highly pressurized CO2 underground will be analogous to the problems that have faced nuclear waste siting, but at enormously larger quantities. Transportation, injection and storage of carbon dioxide bring health and environmental hazards, such as the risk of <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gassing-satartia-mississippi-co2-pipeline_n_60ddea9fe4b0ddef8b0ddc8f">pipeline ruptures</a>, <a href="https://eesa.lbl.gov/projects/potential-impacts-of-co2-leakage-on-groundwater-quality/">groundwater contamination</a> and the release of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2018.11.002">toxins</a>, all of which particularly threaten the disadvantaged communities historically most victimized by pollution. </p>
<p>Bringing direct air capture to a scale that would have climate-significant impact would mean diverting taxpayer funding, private investment, technological innovation, scientists’ attention, public support and difficult-to-muster political action away from the essential work of transitioning to non-carbon energy sources. </p>
<h2>A proven method: trees, plants and soil</h2>
<p>Rather than placing what we consider to be risky bets on expensive mechanical methods that have a troubled track record and require decades of development, there are ways to sequester carbon that build upon the system we already know works: biological sequestration.</p>
<p>[<em>Science, politics, religion or just plain interesting articles:</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-checkoutweekly">Check out The Conversation’s weekly newsletters</a>.]</p>
<p>Trees in the U.S. already sequester <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-chapter-6-land-use-land-use-change-and-forestry.pdf">almost a billion tons</a> of carbon dioxide per year. Improved management of existing forests and urban trees, without using any additional land, <a href="https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/NZA%20Annex%20P%20-%20Forest%20carbon%20sink.pdf">could increase this by 70%</a>. With the addition of reforesting nearly 50 million acres, an area about the size of Nebraska, the U.S. could sequester <a href="https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/img/NZA%20Annex%20P%20-%20Forest%20carbon%20sink.pdf">nearly 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year</a>. That would equal about 40% of the country’s annual emissions. Restoring <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.06.037">wetlands</a> and <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i1399e/i1399e.pdf">grasslands</a> and <a href="https://functionalfertiliser.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Lal-article-jswc.2020.0620A.full_.pdf">better agricultural practices</a> could sequester even more.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Looking up toward the crowns of giant sequoia trees." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432455/original/file-20211117-21-miyapl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Storing carbon in trees is less expensive per ton than current mechanical solutions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/sequoia-forest-royalty-free-image/502687891">Lisa-Blue via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Per ton of carbon dioxide sequestered, biological sequestration <a href="https://www.climateadvisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Creating-Negative-Emissions_Climate-Advisers_June-2018-copy.pdf">costs about one-tenth as much</a> as current mechanical methods. And it offers valuable side-benefits by reducing soil erosion and air pollution, and urban heat; increasing water security, biodiversity and energy conservation; and improving watershed protection, human nutrition and health.</p>
<p>To be clear, no carbon removal approach – neither mechanical nor biological – will solve the climate crisis without an immediate transition away from fossil fuels. But we believe that relying on the fossil fuel industry for “carbon management” will only further delay that transition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171791/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>June Sekera receives funding from Rockefeller Brothers Fund</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neva Goodwin is a co-founder and member of the Steering Committee of the EcoHealth Network.</span></em></p>Most carbon dioxide captured in the U.S. today is used to extract more oil. Two scholars point to another way: biological sequestration.June Sekera, Senior Research Fellow, Visiting Scholar, The New SchoolNeva Goodwin, Co-Director, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1568272021-05-17T12:25:25Z2021-05-17T12:25:25ZHow much energy can people create at one time without losing control?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397959/original/file-20210429-15-16cifi2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1%2C1198%2C944&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fire a set of high-power lasers at a tiny speck of hydrogen isotopes and you can initiate nuclear fusion, the process that powers the Sun.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/reports-recommend-stepped-up-u.s.-investment-in-fusion-energy">National Ignition Facility</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281719/original/file-20190628-76743-26slbc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/curious-kids-us-74795">Curious Kids</a> is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">curiouskidsus@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>How much energy can we create at one time without losing control? – Luis, age 9, Brookline, Massachusetts</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>Above our heads there is a powerful energy source created by nature, the Sun. Because the Sun is 93 million miles from us, only one-billionth of <a href="https://web.extension.illinois.edu/world/energy.cfm">the Sun’s total energy output</a> reaches the Earth, creating a world blooming with life. The energy that the Sun gives the Earth’s surface every second is more than the total electricity generated from <a href="https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics?country=WORLD&fuel=Energy%20supply&indicator=TPESbySource">all power plants in the world in the entire year of 2018</a>.</p>
<p>Here on Earth, humans power machines mostly by harvesting energy: for example, harvesting the energy of falling water and converting it to electricity in hydroelectric power plants. To create energy, you have to <a href="https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/energy/274180#200190-toc">convert matter to energy</a>. </p>
<h2>Chain reactions</h2>
<p>One way to do that is to split <a href="https://www.ducksters.com/science/the_atom.php">atoms</a>, the basic building blocks of all matter in the universe. Do so controllably and you can produce a steady flow of energy. Lose control and you release a lot of energy all at once in a nuclear explosion.</p>
<p>The core of every atom, the <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Atomic_nucleus">nucleus</a>, is made up of even smaller particles, protons and neutrons. The force holding the nucleus together stores a huge amount of energy. To obtain energy from the nucleus, scientists came up with a process of splitting a heavy atom into lighter atoms. Because the lighter atoms don’t need as much energy to hold the nucleus together as the heavy atoms, energy is released as heat or light. This process is called <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Nuclear_fission">nuclear fission</a>.</p>
<p>When one atom is split, a <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Nuclear_chain-reaction">chain reaction</a> starts: The split atom will trigger another atom to be split, and so on. To make the chain reaction controllable, scientists developed ways to slow down the splitting, such as absorbing some of the split particles. </p>
<h2>Nuclear power</h2>
<p>Nuclear power plants harvest the energy released by splitting atoms controllably. The world’s largest nuclear power plant is the <a href="https://www.power-technology.com/projects/kashiwazaki/">Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station</a> in Japan. It consists of seven nuclear reactors, with a maximum capacity of about 8,000 megawatts. The world’s largest single nuclear reactor is a tie between the the two reactors at China’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-france-nuclear/china-launches-worlds-first-epr-nuclear-project-in-taishan-idUSKBN1OD0Y4">Taishan Nuclear Power Plant</a>. Each Taishan reactor has a capacity of 1,750 megawatts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="diagram showing a nuclear reactor, turbine, generator and condenser, and electric power lines leading to a residential neighborhood" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397901/original/file-20210429-14-1vrkcqz.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear power plants use nuclear reactions to heat water to produce steam that drives turbines that in turn drive generators that produce electricity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flickr.com/photos/nrcgov/32897176197/">Nuclear Regulatory Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This amount of power is much smaller than uncontrolled nuclear reactions, such as atomic bombs. Nowadays, the energy output from detonating an atomic bomb is equivalent to the electricity the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant generates in half a year.</p>
<p>A downside of fission is <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Radioactive_waste">nuclear waste</a>. The split atoms are usually unstable and emit dangerous radiation. Nuclear waste needs to be stored properly for many years.</p>
<h2>Fusion near and far</h2>
<p>Scientists have also discovered another type of nuclear reaction, one that produces energy without nuclear waste. As two lighter atoms combine into a heavy atom, the lost mass converts into energy. This process is called <a href="https://kids.kiddle.co/Nuclear_fusion">nuclear fusion</a>. Fusion is happening in the core of the Sun. In every second, the Sun burns about <a href="https://www2.nau.edu/%7Egaud/bio301/content/sun/sun.htm">600 million tons of hydrogen into about 596 million tons of helium</a>, yielding <a href="http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/09/05/how_much_energy_does_the_sun_produce/">energy equivalent to trillions of atomic bombs</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A cutaway illustration of a massive metal structure with a cylindrical core surrounded by a hollow ring filled with blue light" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=641&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/397936/original/file-20210429-13-60a8zy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This cutaway illustration shows what the core of a nuclear fusion reactor would look like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.anl.gov/highenergy-physics-nuclear-physics-and-fusion-energy-science">Argonne National Laboratory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, it is very difficult to achieve nuclear fusion on Earth. Fusion happens only at extreme conditions, such as the very high temperatures and pressure of the Sun. Scientists have yet to effectively demonstrate controllable nuclear fusion that produces more energy than it consumes, but <a href="https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines">they are working hard to do so</a>. One way is to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-powered-lasers-deliver-fusion-energy-breakthrough/">shoot high-power lasers</a> from different directions at a tiny speck of <a href="https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsisotopes">hydrogen isotopes</a>.</p>
<p>Nuclear fusion energy would be a promising energy solution in the future. But don’t forget, we have a huge nuclear fusion reactor above our heads, the Sun. With the improving efficiency of <a href="https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/solar-energy/433607">solar energy</a>, we don’t even need to create energy, just capture more of what the Sun gives us every day.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to <a href="mailto:curiouskidsus@theconversation.com">CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com</a>. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.</em></p>
<p><em>And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156827/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Xuejian Wu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists are working on ways to make lots of energy by converting matter into energy. The trick is keeping the process under control. One possibility is nuclear fusion – the Sun’s power source.Xuejian Wu, Assistant Professor of Physics, Rutgers University - NewarkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1538682021-03-01T13:17:20Z2021-03-01T13:17:20ZWhat’s really driving coal power’s demise?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/386024/original/file-20210224-22-1lj36wr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C46%2C4409%2C2906&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The use of coal for electric power has been declining fast in the U.S.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/TrumpEnergyPlanLawsuit/813504a562c64f3d9a1740cc5c40aa91/photo">AP Photo/J. David Ake</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>People often point to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/climate/coal-climate-change.html">plunging natural gas prices</a> as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13360">new research</a> shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.</p>
<p>We studied the retirement of U.S. coal-fired units from January 2008 to September 2016 and compared the effects of various market factors, regulations and activism on their early closure. In all, 348 coal-fired units either retired or switched to natural gas during that time.</p>
<p>Among the many pressures on coal power that we reviewed, a federal regulation implemented in 2015 had the biggest overall effect. The <a href="https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2017/09/cross-state-air-pollution-rule-and-section-126-petitions/">Cross State Air Pollution Rule</a> requires states to reduce soot and smog pollution that blows across states lines, including from power plants. We estimate that it was responsible for reducing the expected production life of the coal power units that it affected by a total of 1,170 years. </p>
<p>Looking at coal units individually, however, we found that the <a href="https://coal.sierraclub.org/">Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign</a>, backed by <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2020/09/bloomberg-philanthropies-and-sierra-clubs-beyond-coal-campaign-reaches">over US$174 million</a> to date from Bloomberg Philanthropies, had the most impact per targeted plant. </p>
<p>The campaign works by generating public pressure on utilities and state and local politicians to close down coal-fired units, often through targeted lawsuits. When the Beyond Coal campaign targeted a coal-fired unit, we found that the unit’s life expectancy, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12618-3">normally 50-60 years</a>, was reduced by an average of just over two years.</p>
<p>The Cross State Air Pollution Rule was the second-biggest factor per individual plant, though it affected more plants. It reduced the expected life span of each coal-fired generating unit that it affected by an estimated average of about 21 months.</p>
<p>We were surprised to find that neither low natural gas prices nor the adoption of renewable energy significantly reduced the life of coal units. Both have been widely touted by politicians and business leaders as the market-based drivers of coal plant retirement.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chart of the changing costs of coal and gas" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384663/original/file-20210217-17-14op206.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Falling natural gas prices had little impact on coal-fired power plant closures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David Drake and Jeffrey York</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, while adoption of renewable energy alone did not reduce coal units’ life spans, the average use of each source of renewable energy in an area did have a significant impact. Coal units operating in regions with high average renewable energy use retired an average of 15 months earlier.</p>
<p>It is important to note that a large number of coal plants were already nearing the end of their lifecycles during this period. But through statistical modeling, we were able to isolate the impact of each of these interventions on accelerating the retirement of a given unit.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>A rapid transition away from carbon-intensive energy sources such as coal is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet. Burning coal releases <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11">nearly twice as much carbon dioxide</a> per unit of energy produced as natural gas does, and natural gas’s contribution to global warming is significant.</p>
<p>From 2011 through 2018, coal-fired generating capacity in the U.S. contracted by 23%. We estimate that the emissions impact of the accelerated retirements we studied was equivalent to taking <a href="https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle">38 million typical passenger cars off the road</a>.</p>
<p>The common narrative has been that <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/08/biden-coal-energy-industry-policy-renewables-natural-gas/">market forces and economics have driven the demise of coal</a>. However, our research suggests that a continued focus on federal policy is a more effective route for reducing emissions. </p>
<p>The Biden administration has already <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/01/27/960941799/biden-to-pause-oil-and-gas-leasing-on-public-lands-and-waters">halted new leases</a> for coal, oil and gas extraction on federal lands. And its climate task force – which includes the Cabinet-level department and agency heads – <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/02/11/readout-of-the-first-national-climate-task-force-meeting/">met in</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/climate/biden-climate-change.html">February</a> to start coordinating <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-plans-to-fight-climate-change-in-a-way-no-u-s-president-has-done-before-152419">governmentwide</a> climate change solutions. Those likely will include new regulations and could include a price on carbon.</p>
<p><iframe id="blZjG" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/blZjG/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>Our current work sheds light on where responsibility lies for the acceleration of coal-fired power unit retirements through late 2016.</p>
<p>Next, we are interested in expanding on our findings about differences between renewable energy use and initial adoption. Understanding how to increase use of renewable sources, while creating new businesses and jobs, is a critical research agenda for addressing climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153868/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Contrary to popular belief, falling natural gas prices didn’t significantly accelerate coal power plant retirements. Here’s what did.David Drake, Assistant Professor of Strategy, Entrepreneurship and Operations Management, University of Colorado BoulderJeffrey York, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship, University of Colorado BoulderLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1536182021-01-20T15:58:54Z2021-01-20T15:58:54ZTrump’s big gamble to gut US power plant emissions rules loses in court, opening a door for new climate rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379760/original/file-20210120-13-1iuqyb5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C259%2C4423%2C2693&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fossil fuel power plants contribute to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases that trap heat near Earth's surface.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/WyomingCarbonCapture/0e6867759b014ed184bb4f6e2301a5a4/photo">AP Photo/J. David Ake</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Joe Biden got a big judicial win for his climate agenda just hours before his inauguration as U.S. president. The case involved federal plans for cutting power plant emissions and a big gamble by the Trump administration.</p>
<p>Nearly a <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=3">third</a> of the U.S. carbon emissions driving climate change come from electricity generation. To try to cut those emissions, the Obama administration in 2014 issued the <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan.html">Clean Power Plan</a> – a set of rules targeting high-emitting power plants, particularly those burning coal.</p>
<p>The industry sued, and before the Clean Power Plan could go into effect, the Supreme Court suspended it so the legal disputes could be resolved. It was still in limbo in 2019 when Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency formally repealed the Clean Power Plan and issued an extremely weak substitute called the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/affordable-clean-energy-rule">Affordable Clean Energy</a> rule that had far looser limits on pollution.</p>
<p>In issuing its own rule, the Trump administration took a big gamble. Trump’s goal was not only to replace the Obama administration rule but to ensure that no future president could ever adopt anything similar.</p>
<p>Trump’s substitute rule merely required limited retrofits of existing coal fired power plants, whereas Obama’s rule involved moving the power system toward cleaner energy sources. To prevent similar future actions, Trump’s EPA placed all its chips on an argument that EPA had no legal power to do anything beyond the retrofits.</p>
<p>On Jan. 19, 2021, a U.S. appeals court <a href="https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/dc-cir-ace-decision-jan-21.pdf">rejected the Trump EPA’s sole legal argument</a>, potentially opening the door for Biden to issue a Clean Power Plan 2.0.</p>
<h2>Getting to the next Clean Power Plan</h2>
<p>The appeals court vacated Trump’s rule and sent it back to the EPA to reconsider, with just hours left in the Trump administration.</p>
<p>It’s conceivable but unlikely that one of the other parties to the case can get the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene at this point. When there’s a change in administrations, courts routinely grant a request to hold the case until the government can reconsider its position.</p>
<p>The appeals court acknowledged that the Clean Air Act <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean">requires</a> EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, the court considered the original Obama plan moot because it had been overtaken by events, so Biden’s EPA will have to start anew in crafting its own approach.</p>
<p>Unless the Supreme Court jumps in, the ruling means his administration can use an approach similar to Obama’s, involving greater use of renewable power sources, shifting from coal power to natural gas, using biomass and other alternatives.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/section-111-d-of-the-clean-air-act_the-legal-foundation-for-strong-flexible-cost-effective-carbon-pollution-standards-for-existing-power-plants.pdf">process</a> is complicated. The Biden administration will have to set requirements for how much each state has to cut power plant emissions. Then it would have to review states’ plans for achieving the limits. The result could be major reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The administration will have some help. Biden’s leadership team includes Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, who oversaw development of the Clean Power Plan.</p>
<p>The biggest unknown is how a conservative 6-3 Supreme Court might rule on a future Biden plan.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/daniel-farber/">law professor</a> who has worked on energy issues for years, I believe it would be unwise for the Biden EPA to put all its bets on using this one tool for reducing emissions, given the risk that the Supreme Court could reject it. <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-has-a-congressional-shortcut-to-cancel-trumps-regulatory-rollbacks-but-it-comes-with-risks-153426">There are</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-plans-to-fight-climate-change-in-a-way-no-u-s-president-has-done-before-152419">other tools</a>. Still, the ruling opens up possibilities.</p>
<p><iframe id="g9z3f" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g9z3f/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>‘A series of tortured misreadings’</h2>
<p>Both the Trump and Obama rules relied on <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411">section 111(d)</a> of the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions from stationary sources, such as power plants.</p>
<p>However, the Trump EPA reinterpreted the law as allowing EPA to consider only a narrow category of regulations. It argued that it could only require coal-fired power plants to engage in very limited retrofits. The practical effect was to eliminate any meaningful reductions in carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The appeals court determined that the law simply didn’t say what Trump’s EPA claimed.</p>
<p>“The EPA has ample discretion in carrying out its mandate. But it may not shirk its responsibility by imagining new limitations that the plain language of the statute does not clearly require,” the majority wrote in a 2-1 opinion. They described the EPA’s actions as “a tortured series of misreadings.”</p>
<p>The dissenting judge did not contest this point. Instead, he claimed that even the Trump EPA’s token regulations of emissions from coal plants went too far. The majority had little trouble rebutting his arguments, which even the Trump administration had rejected.</p>
<p>The upshot of the court’s ruling was that the Clean Air Act does allow EPA to use a broad range of tools to cut carbon emissions.</p>
<h2>Trump’s regulation rollback losses</h2>
<p>Trump’s ACE rule was typical of many of his rollbacks, in that it swung for the fences. It is not the only time where Trump agencies reread statutes in a way designed to minimize regulation of industry. In <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-real-reason-president-trump-is-constantly-losing-in-court/2019/03/19/f5ffb056-33a8-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html">other situations</a>, the administration took other kinds of legal risks in pursuit of the outcomes it wanted: ignoring criticisms made in the public notice period rather than rebutting them, cherry-picking evidence in obvious ways, or even trying to evade public notice altogether.</p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>So far, the <a href="https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup">track record</a> of Trump’s rollbacks in court has been dismal. The appeals court ruling in the power plant case merely confirms that many of the rollbacks rested on shaky legal grounds. These legal flaws will make it easier for Biden to undo many of the rollbacks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153618/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Farber does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An appeals court described the EPA’s effort as ‘a series of tortured misreadings’ of US law.Daniel Farber, Professor of Law, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1291882020-01-22T10:19:49Z2020-01-22T10:19:49ZHow climate-related weather conditions disrupt power plants in Indonesia and affect people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310178/original/file-20200115-151825-10j2tdl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3992%2C2211&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Indonesia's power plants are vulnerable to climate-related events, such as floods and droughts. </span> </figcaption></figure><p>Severe weather conditions triggered by climate change can adversely affect the operation of power plants.</p>
<p>Heavy rainfall, heatwaves and lightning can disrupt electricity transmission and distribution networks and cause power outages.</p>
<p><a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/31910/Stronger-Power-Improving-Power-Sector-Resilience-to-Natural-Hazards.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">A 2019 World Bank report</a> showed natural shocks and climate change caused 44% of power outages in the US between 2000 and 2017 and 37% of outages in Europe between 2010 and 2017. </p>
<p>This cost electricity utilities, consumers and governments billions of dollars per year. </p>
<p>Similar cases also happen in Indonesia.</p>
<p><a href="https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-vulnerability-of-the-power-sector-to-climate-variability-and-">Our study</a> found disruptive weather and climate change disrupt the electricity supply chain, including electricity generation, transmission and distribution, affecting Indonesia’s state-owned electricity company (PLN) and its consumers. </p>
<p>Based on extensive field work in February and March 2018, the study involved interviews and focus group discussion supplemented by published reports and PLN’s internal reports.</p>
<p>At least three categories of severe weather events may disrupt the operation of power plants in Indonesia.</p>
<p><strong>1. Heavy wind and rainfall</strong> </p>
<p>Heavy wind and rainfall are by far the most significant threats to the power distribution networks.</p>
<p>In the Java-Bali region alone, these events accounted for more than <a href="https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/141600596/energies_12_03640.pdf">95% of weather-related power outages during 2014–2015</a>. </p>
<p>Strong winds knocked down trees and billboards onto power distribution lines.</p>
<p>Heavy rainfall also led to widespread power cuts as soaked, heavy tree branches touched distribution wires. </p>
<p>Heavy rainfall also made coastal power plants and transmission substations more vulnerable to floods. This could lead to emergency power shutdowns.</p>
<p>A notable example is a severe flood on the northern coast of Jakarta in January 2013 that forced the gas-fuelled Muara Karang power plant <a href="https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/456148/pltgu-muara-karang-kembali-beroperasi/full&view=ok">to shut down for 12 days</a>. </p>
<p>Furthermore, <a href="https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/456148/pltgu-muara-karang-kembali-beroperasi/full&view=ok">more than 500 units</a> of inundated distribution substations in the Central Jakarta region were turned off for safety reasons. The incident <a href="https://money.kompas.com/read/2013/01/27/16293745/kerugian.karena.listrik.padam.saat.banjir.rp.116.miliar">cost the state US$15 million</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Baca juga:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jakartas-flood-costs-will-increase-by-up-to-400-by-2050-research-shows-129698">Jakarta's flood costs will increase by up to 400% by 2050, research shows</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Coal and gas power plants are also at risk from heavy rainfall and rising seawater temperature. Excessive river flow due to heavy rainfall could also transport waste into power plants. This would disrupt the cooling water system and, in a worst-case scenario, force the plants to shut down.</p>
<p>In addition, excessive water will turn coal into sticky sludge and reduce power plants’ efficiency. </p>
<p>In another example, in March-April 2010, excessive water entered the reservoirs of three Citarum hydro power plants in West Java, leading to lasting <a href="http://jurnalth.pusair-pu.go.id/index.php/JTH/article/view/245/169">downstream flooding</a>. </p>
<p><strong>2. Rising seawater temperature and heatwaves</strong> </p>
<p>Rising seawater temperatures and heatwaves can also affect the operation of power plants.</p>
<p>For coal power plants, seawater temperature affects their cooling systems. This system circulates seawater through pipes to absorb heat from steam and discharges the warmer water back to the sea. Warmer seawater reduces the energy efficiency of the power plants.</p>
<p>Higher seawater temperature also triggers jellyfish blooms. In April 2016, an <a href="https://regional.kompas.com/read/2016/04/30/17114311/Ribuan.Ubur-ubur.Serbu.PLTU.Paiton.Mesin.Pembangkit.Masih.Terganggu">inflow of jellyfish</a> forced Paiton coal power plant in East Java to shut down for 20 days. This caused an estimated loss of $21.7 million for PLN.</p>
<p><a href="https://news.detik.com/berita-jawa-timur/3201707/bmkg-sebut-perubahan-iklim-dingin-sebabkan-migrasi-ubur-ubur-ke-laut-utara-jawa/komentar">Indonesia’s Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency has explained</a> that an extremely cold temperature in Australian seas triggered the jellyfish outbreak. The change in temperature forced jellyfish to migrate to the warmer North Java Sea.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHuHclylwpc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Large numbers of jellyfish threaten to shut down an Israeli power plant every summer. In recent years, several other power plants around the world have faced the same threat.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Heatwaves are a particular concern for natural gas power plants. These plants need ambient air to produce electricity. The higher the air temperature, the lower the efficiency of a gas power plant, which then reduces its power outputs. </p>
<p><strong>3. Severe drought and lightning</strong> </p>
<p>Extreme dry seasons affect hydro power plant operations.</p>
<p>Drought reduced generating capacity in Saguling and Cirata hydroelectric power plants, both located in West Java, in 2011, resulting in <a href="http://iesr.or.id/kekeringan-potensi-rugi-pln-rp-55-t/">estimated financial losses of $51.5 million for the utilities</a>.</p>
<p>Power plants’ transmission networks are prone to lightning strikes. </p>
<p>A lightning strike can damage power transmission equipment and result in power failures.</p>
<p>PLN recorded 107 incidents of lightning strike-related power outages in the Java-Bali transmission network from <a href="https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/141600596/energies_12_03640.pdf">2011-2017</a>.</p>
<h2>Climate-related weather extremes affect consumers</h2>
<p>Floods in 2014 and 2015 forced PLN to shut down the inundated distribution substations for safety reasons. It affected 89,000 consumers. They could not get electricity for an average of <a href="https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/141600596/energies_12_03640.pdf">16 hours in 2014 and 1.7 hours in 2015</a>.</p>
<p>Floods earlier this month forced PLN to turn off nearly <a href="https://katadata.co.id/berita/2020/01/02/banjir-jakarta-pln-masih-padamkan-listrik-di-1082-wilayah">2,500 distribution substations in Greater Jakarta</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Baca juga:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/jakartas-flood-costs-will-increase-by-up-to-400-by-2050-research-shows-129698">Jakarta's flood costs will increase by up to 400% by 2050, research shows</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Power interruptions are inconvenient and lead to economic losses for consumers and electric power utilities. </p>
<p>For households, power outages make it impossible to turn on air conditioners, causing inconvenience and discomfort, especially in cities with warmer temperatures. Power failures also affect household tasks, children’s educational outcomes, and other social activities (like transportation, hospitals, food deliveries).</p>
<p>Weather-related power outages affected PLN financially due to the reductions in electricity sales and damaged infrastructure. Unfortunately, the total loss has not been estimated to date. </p>
<p>In some cases, PLN had to generate electricity from diesel power plants, which are costly compared to coal or natural gas, to compensate for the power plants hit by extreme weather. </p>
<h2>Climate-resilient infrastructure is a necessity</h2>
<p>Amid the constant threats of weather-related power outages, analysis of the vulnerability of Indonesia’s electricity sector to climate change is still lacking.</p>
<p>Given the sector’s vital role in meeting the target of <a href="https://en.tempo.co/read/923712/indonesias-target-of-electrification-set-at-99-9-percent-in-2019">99% of the population having access to electricity</a> as well as the national target of <a href="https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/09/02/indonesia-cut-emission-29-percent-2030.html">reducing CO₂ emissions by 29% by 2030</a>, the country must improve the sector’s resilience to climate crisis. </p>
<p>To do that, the government first needs to acknowledge that electricity infrastructure in our country is vulnerable to the threats of climatic changes. </p>
<p>The government should then find strategies to achieve a low-carbon, climate-resilient electricity sector. These strategies should be part of Indonesia’s <a href="https://www.bappenas.go.id/files/2913/4985/2794/national-action-plan-for-climate-change-adaptation-ran-api-synthesis-report__20121226163242__0.pdf">National Action Plan for Climate Change Adaptation</a> published in 2012. </p>
<p>Second, the government needs to increase awareness of the electricity sector’s stakeholders, like PLN and independent power producers, on climate change consequences for their business operation sustainability.</p>
<p>It is crucial for electric power companies to include climate change risks in their long-term business strategies and capacity building.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129188/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kamia Handayani receives funding from LPDP. Besides as a researcher at the University of Twente, Kamia Handayani also affiliated with PT PLN (Persero) as an employee on learning assignment.
</span></em></p>Climate change affects power plants in Indonesia, eventually disrupting energy supply to consumers.Kamia Handayani, Guest researcher of Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), Department of Governance and Technology for Sustainability (CSTM), University of TwenteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1241442019-10-10T21:06:52Z2019-10-10T21:06:52ZClimate change is a top issue for Canadians. What should voters look for?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296307/original/file-20191009-3917-nkrwzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=107%2C53%2C2860%2C2061&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh participates in a climate strike event as he makes a campaign stop in Victoria on Friday, Sept. 27, 2019. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>From <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-siberia-russia-wildfires/">forest fires in Siberia</a> to <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/high-temperatures-smash-all-time-records-alaska-early-july-2019">record-high temperatures in Alaska</a> to the <a href="http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/2019/08/europes-warm-air-spikes-greenland-melting-to-record-levels/">melting of the Greenland ice sheet</a>, 2019 has seen the mounting evidence of climate change. </p>
<p>With <a href="https://abacusdata.ca/election-2019-is-a-battle-to-define-the-agenda/">climate change being one of the top issues in the federal election,</a> we need to take a look at what effective emissions reduction policies look like.</p>
<p>The party platforms differ substantially on their strategies to reduce emissions. During the English language debate, party leaders discussed their policies on oil and gas extraction, home retrofits and transportation, among others. The range of possibilities spanned from doing very little (Conservative) to aggressive (NDP and Green), and in between (Liberal).</p>
<h2>Energy and emissions in Canada</h2>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296341/original/file-20191010-188783-1hv5csv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Canada’s energy and non-energy emissions, in megatonnes (Mt)</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Data from UN Climate Change</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2017, more than 80 per cent of Canada’s human-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas emissions were from the <a href="https://unfccc.int/documents/65715">extraction, conversion and consumption of energy derived from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas and crude oil</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296343/original/file-20191010-188792-1lpglcr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Primary energy supply for Canada, in petajoules (PJ)</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510002901">Data from Statistics Canada, Table 25-10-0029-01</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">Limiting global temperatures to 1.5C this century</a> will require net-global emissions to reach zero by no later than 2055. </p>
<p>Since <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/paris-agreement.html">Canada is a signatory to the Paris climate agreement</a>, the federal, provincial and territorial governments need policies that reduce energy-related emissions rapidly, yet are both politically and economically palatable.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296345/original/file-20191010-188807-4yz0xw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Energy demand in Canada’s end-use sectors, in petajoules (PJ)</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=2510002901">Data from Statistics Canada, Table 25-10-0029-01</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These policies will need to target the different energy systems found across the country: the primary energy supply (more than 80 per cent supplied from sources of crude oil, natural gas, coal, and natural gas liquids); the energy conversion processes (thermal power plants and refineries); the distribution processes and the end-use sectors (industry, transportation, buildings and agriculture/forestry).</p>
<h2>Emissions reduction policies</h2>
<p>Broadly speaking, there are three categories of energy policy that can be used to reduce emissions: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222646526_The_four_'R's_of_energy_security">reduction, replacement and restriction</a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Reduction</em></strong></p>
<p>These policies aim to reduce energy demand without changing the system or its energy supply. If the policy leads drivers <a href="https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/planning.shtml">to take fewer trips or use less fuel</a>, it has done its job. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you-114671">Here's what the carbon tax means for you</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Other examples of reduction policies include financial incentives to reduce energy demand, such as <a href="https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-invests-in-energy-efficiency-retrofits-in-canadian-municipalities-811885531.html">encouraging building retrofits through grants and low-cost loans</a> and <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/05/f15/35876.pdf">reducing heat losses from industrial processes</a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Replacement</em></strong></p>
<p>These policies aim to change our energy sources or parts of our energy system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They can be focused on parts of the energy system, like replacing incandescent bulbs with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) or conventional vehicles with hybrid-electric vehicles. </p>
<p>They can also focus on the sources of the energy being consumed, like <a href="https://www.americancoalcouncil.org/page/biomass">replacing coal with co-fired coal and biomass in a thermal generating station</a> or <a href="https://www.targray.com/biofuels/blends/e10-ethanol">substituting petroleum transportation fuels with mixtures of petroleum and biofuel</a>.</p>
<p><strong><em>Restriction</em></strong> </p>
<p>These policies are a more aggressive type of replacement policy. They target parts of the energy system and the energy it consumes, replacing them with new processes and energy sources to meet existing demand. </p>
<p>For example, the <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/page/end-coal">transition from coal to natural gas and renewables in Ontario</a> to improve air quality is an example of a restriction where thermal plants operating with coal were shuttered in favour of new natural gas, solar and wind facilities. Restrictions can also apply to end-use sectors, such as consumers opting to buy electric vehicles rather than conventional petroleum vehicles.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-vehicles-canada-tops-the-charts-for-poor-fuel-economy-115213">When it comes to vehicles, Canada tops the charts for poor fuel economy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Emissions reduction and energy security</h2>
<p>Developing and implementing the necessary emissions-reduction policies for a rapid decline in emissions is challenging, since these policies will impact every sector of Canadian society. </p>
<p>This can be seen in <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/pricing-pollution-how-it-will-work/putting-price-on-carbon-pollution.html">the five provinces that are subject to the federal government’s carbon-pricing system</a>, which targets energy-use in all sectors of the economy: industrial, transportation, residential and commercial buildings and agriculture.</p>
<p>To be acceptable, the policies must be implemented with minimal risk to the supply and price of energy to Canadians and the Canadian economy. However, policies that are ill-conceived or poorly implemented can inadvertently increase the risks to the energy security of an energy system. </p>
<p>An energy system is said to be energy secure if it is <a href="https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v42y2012icp221-231.html">resilient to risks from events caused by human activities, natural disasters, structural failures and policy changes</a>. Secure systems are able to <a href="https://www.iea.org/topics/energysecurity/">maintain the availability and affordability of the energy consumed by the end-users</a>.</p>
<p>The world has seen several recent examples of energy systems that are not resilient. In 2011, an <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">earthquake and tsunami caused a nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan</a> affected both the affordability and availability of electricity. The risk of downed lines causing fires forced <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-power-shut-off-257-000-Bay-Area-residents-14500945.php">Pacific Gas and Electric to cut electricity supply to 800,000 customers</a> in California. Similarly, the <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/explaining-sky-high-gasoline-prices/article25579063/">rapid increase in gasoline prices</a> in 2008 affected the commuting habits of many Canadians.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296347/original/file-20191010-188807-1tvtpmm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Carlos Lama reads by the light of his phone in a restaurant in Sausalito, Calif., on Wed., Oct. 8. 2019. Pacific Gas & Electric cut power to more than half a million customers in Northern California hoping to prevent wildfires during dry, windy weather throughout the region.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Dep/Marin Independent Journal via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With each disruption, the energy system must <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274097636_The_effects_of_event_occurrence_and_duration_on_resilience_and_adaptation_in_energy_systems">adapt to the new conditions</a> to remain secure. Adaptation can, in turn, be a risk to the availability and affordability of the energy supplied to the jurisdiction. </p>
<p>If we look at the major parties’ approaches to this conundrum, we find several trade-offs. </p>
<p>The Conservative Party’s strategy of moving ahead with greenhouse gas intensive oil and gas projects does have the benefit of mitigating the risks of availability and affordability for consumers, but comes with serious long-term climate change risks. </p>
<p>The Greens and the NDP present the opposite option, with action on climate change coming at the expense of energy security. </p>
<p>The Liberals lie somewhere in the middle. They are offering some climate action, but meaningful risks to both energy security — from higher carbon pricing — and long-term climate change impacts — from continued expansion of oil and gas extraction — remain. </p>
<h2>The climate-action backlash</h2>
<p>Canada currently relies on emissions intensive energy sources. If we are to achieve our emissions reductions targets by 2055, reduction policies will likely have an impact on the availability and affordability of energy. </p>
<p>We have already seen examples of politicians ignoring or scrapping existing emission reduction policies and groups affected by the policies pushing back against them. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/climate/climate-rule-trump-reversing.html">United States</a>, the Trump administration is reversing many climate regulations, and <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/gilet-jaunes-yellow-vests-go-green-as-europeans-demand-climate-action/a-47638974">in France</a>, the unequal application of climate policy was one of the main reasons the yellow-vest movement was formed. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/296348/original/file-20191010-188787-1xsi5yl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Yellow vest protesters march in Paris, May 11, 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Michel Euler</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-jason-kenney-carbon-tax-queens-park-1.5121307">While in Canada</a>, Conservative premiers are pushing back against the federal government’s carbon-pricing policies. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-doug-ford-doctrine-short-term-gain-for-long-term-pain-116131">The Doug Ford doctrine: Short-term gain for long-term pain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So what is the climate-conscious voter to do? </p>
<p>They should look for details on how each party plans to transform the energy system and its impact on their province. This means understanding how electricity is generated, how buildings are heated and cooled, and how goods and people are moved.</p>
<p>In Monday’s debate, the prime minister said, “We recognize
that transition to clean energy will not happen overnight.” </p>
<p>While undoubtedly true, one is left with the question, how many nights do we have?</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124144/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Larry Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Polls show that climate change is one of the top-three issues for Canadians heading to the ballot box.Larry Hughes, Professor and Founding Fellow at the MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1196072019-07-01T15:17:30Z2019-07-01T15:17:30ZRetire all existing and planned fossil fuel power plants to limit warming to 1.5°C<p>It will be very difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by enough to halt global heating at 1.5°C – the threshold at which catastrophic climate change becomes more likely – according to <a href="https://nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1364-3">a new paper</a> published in Nature. </p>
<p>If the Earth <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">warms by more than 1.5°C</a>, millions of people could be displaced by sea level rise and global crop yields could decline. Fortunately, political will to prevent this <a href="https://theconversation.com/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-says-uk-government-now-what-118712">seems more widespread than ever</a>. The UK recently became the first major economy to pass a commitment to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law">net zero emissions by 2050 into law</a>. Sounds positive, so what’s the problem?</p>
<p>Well, the new study has shown that if the world continues to use its existing power plants, it’s likely that the target of 1.5°C will be exceeded. If all the fossil fuel plants and other carbon-emitting infrastructure that’s currently planned are built, this target will certainly be exceeded. There is a significant number of fossil fuel plants currently operating worldwide. Their continued use would mean enough greenhouse gas emitted to overrun the carbon budget for keeping world temperature rise below 1.5°C. </p>
<p>Excluding all other sources of emissions, the infrastructure that’s currently operational and planned to go into use within the next decade would consume two thirds of the world’s carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C.</p>
<h2>The path to 1.5°C is narrowing</h2>
<p>People have known about the dangers of climate change <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html">since at least the 1980s</a>, but even so, the age of many fossil fuel energy plants currently operating worldwide is striking. Almost half of these power stations – running on coal, oil and gas – were commissioned after 2004. The Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gas emissions came into force in 2005. The world is now committed to emissions from these plants unless they’re closed early. Even stopping the construction of new fossil fuel power stations won’t be enough to meet the target of 1.5°C.</p>
<p>Capturing and storing the carbon dioxide (CO₂) these plants produce <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c7ee02342a">would also help</a>, but this technology is needed on an industrial scale in almost every power plant to make a substantial impact. At the moment, there are only <a href="http://www.ccsassociation.org/faqs/ccs-globally/">21 in operation or in construction</a> in the whole world. There are plans for more, and in the UK <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uks-biggest-carbon-capture-project-is-step-change-on-emissions">there are plans to capture carbon</a> from a chemical plant in Cheshire and from Drax, the UK’s biggest power plant. But previous plans for carbon capture and storage at <a href="https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/white_rose.html">Drax were scrapped in 2015</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/glue-could-be-the-magic-ingredient-for-cheap-and-efficient-co-capture-119441">Glue could be the magic ingredient for cheap and efficient CO₂ capture</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Drax currently runs 50% on biomass – organic material, such as wood or other crop plants. It’s considered a renewable fuel as the timescale to produce it is relatively short. The carbon emitted from biomass is absorbed when the plants are growing and released when they’re burnt for energy. In this way, the technology is said to be a “net-zero” carbon emitter. This could be part of the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/beccs-the-story-of-climate-changes-saviour-technology">solution for reducing emissions</a>, but the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0961953415001609">life cycle impacts</a> of any energy solution need to be fully understood. If they aren’t, there’s a risk that more environmental problems could emerge.</p>
<p>Closing fossil fuelled power plants might be possible in some countries, but the difference in the average age of these plants across the globe is stark. Coal-fired power stations in China and India are on average just over ten years old. In the US and the European Union, the average age is over 30 years. The paper shows that the world’s newer plants are in countries where electricity demand is growing – it’s less likely they’ll be able to close them soon.</p>
<p>Existing electricity and industry infrastructure accounts for just under 80% of committed emissions – that is, those emissions that will come from the infrastructure that’s already in use. It might seem that the easy solution would be to just stop using it. But even as we commit to net zero emissions by 2050 in the UK, we’re supporting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/27/uk-spent-nearly-2bn-on-fossil-fuel-projects-overseas-last-year">fossil fuel projects overseas</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/16/uk-green-energy-investment-plunges-after-policy-changes">cutting funding for renewable technologies</a>. The new study shows that if the UK is serious about meeting our commitments, we cannot continue like this.</p>
<p>The study’s authors believe that the world has a reasonable chance of avoiding 1.5°C of warming if governments do two things. First, prohibit all new infrastructure that emits CO₂, including those which are proposed but haven’t been built. Second, retire existing infrastructure in industry and energy as soon as possible. Without these changes, the authors say, the goals adopted in the Paris Agreement are already in jeopardy. Fossil fuel-powered plants that can’t be closed need to be coupled with carbon capture and storage technology. </p>
<p>As climate emergencies are declared, this paper outlines the level of commitment that’s needed by everyone to deliver radical emission reductions. Without fundamental change to the current situation, our global climate will warm beyond 1.5°C.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1119607">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119607/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marcelle McManus receives research funding from UKRI, in particular through the Supergen Bioenergy Hub. </span></em></p>A new study lays out what must happen immediately for any hope of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.Marcelle McManus, Professor of Energy and Environmental Engineering, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1109612019-02-22T11:42:24Z2019-02-22T11:42:24ZUtilities are starting to invest in big batteries instead of building new power plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259141/original/file-20190214-1758-1hkveub.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This is what a 5-megawatt, lithium-ion energy storage system looks like.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pnnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=990">Pacific Northwest National Laboratory</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Due to their decreasing costs, <a href="https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/archive/is_lithium_ion_the_ideal_battery">lithium-ion batteries</a> now dominate a range of applications including electric vehicles, computers and consumer electronics.</p>
<p>You might only think about energy storage when your laptop or cellphone are running out of juice, but utilities can plug bigger versions into the electric grid. And thanks to rapidly declining <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/">lithium-ion battery prices</a>, using <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-energy-storage-is-starting-to-rewire-the-electricity-industry-93259">energy storage</a> to stretch electricity generation capacity. </p>
<p>Based on <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=a1U0FOYAAAAJ&hl=en">our research</a> on <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ILteTxGUH0AC&hl=en">energy storage costs and performance</a> in North Carolina, and <a href="http://go.ncsu.edu/energy_storage">our analysis</a> of the potential role energy storage could play within the coming years, we believe that utilities should prepare for the advent of cheap grid-scale batteries and develop flexible, long-term plans that will save consumers money.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259345/original/file-20190215-56204-iv2o29.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All of the new utility-scale electricity capacity coming online in the U.S. in 2019 will be generated through natural gas, wind and solar power as coal, nuclear and some gas plants close.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37952">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Peak demand is pricey</h2>
<p>The amount of electricity consumers use varies according to the time of day and between weekdays and weekends, as well as seasonally and annually as everyone goes about their business. </p>
<p>Those variations can be huge.</p>
<p>For example, the times when consumers use the most electricity in many regions is <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15051">nearly double the average</a> amount of power they typically consume. Utilities often meet peak demand by building power plants that run on natural gas, due to their <a href="https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/transparent_cost_database#blank">lower construction costs</a> and ability to operate when they are needed.</p>
<p>However, it’s expensive and inefficient to build these power plants just to meet demand in those peak hours. It’s like purchasing a large van that you will only use for the three days a year when your brother and his three kids visit. </p>
<p>The grid requires power supplied right when it is needed, and usage varies considerably throughout the day. When <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-energy-storage-is-starting-to-rewire-the-electricity-industry-93259">grid-connected batteries</a> help supply enough electricity to meet demand, utilities don’t have to build as many power plants and transmission lines.</p>
<p>Given how long this infrastructure lasts and how rapidly battery costs are dropping, utilities now face new long-term planning challenges.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259095/original/file-20190214-1745-1fy1ojh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grid-scale batteries are being installed coast-to-coast as this snapshot from 2017 indicates. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Battery Storage Market Trends, 2018.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Cheaper batteries</h2>
<p><a href="https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/94-percent-new-electricity-capacity-usa-from-renewables/">About half</a> of the new generation capacity built in the U.S. annually since 2014 has come from solar, wind or other <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37952">renewable sources</a>. Natural gas plants make up the much of the rest but in the future, that industry may need to compete with energy storage for <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3">market share</a>.</p>
<p>In practice, we can see how the pace of <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/6-charts-showing-the-renewables-threat-to-gas#gs.HiVuwxsu">natural gas-fired</a> power plant construction might slow down <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/garcetti-la-5-billion-rebuild-coastal-gas-plants#gs.dOBX0UQP">in response</a> to this new alternative. </p>
<p>So far, utilities have only installed the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/">equivalent of one or two traditional power plants</a> in grid-scale lithium-ion battery projects, all since 2015. But across <a href="https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystorage/">California, Texas, the Midwest and New England</a>, these devices are benefiting the overall grid by improving operations and bridging gaps when consumers need more power than usual. </p>
<p><iframe id="ctGM9" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ctGM9/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Based on our own experience tracking lithium-ion battery costs, we see the potential for these batteries to be deployed at a far larger scale and disrupt the energy business.</p>
<p>When we were given approximately one year to conduct a study on the <a href="http://go.ncsu.edu/energy_storage">benefits and costs of energy storage in North Carolina</a>, keeping up with the pace of technological advances and increasing affordability was a struggle.</p>
<p>Projected battery costs changed so significantly from the beginning to the end of our project that we found ourselves rushing at the end to update our analysis.</p>
<p>Once utilities can easily take advantage of these huge batteries, they will not need as much new power-generation capacity to meet peak demand.</p>
<p><iframe id="RdJ7C" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/RdJ7C/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Utility planning</h2>
<p>Even before batteries could be used for large-scale energy storage, it was hard for utilities to make long-term plans due to uncertainty about what to expect in the future.</p>
<p>For example, most energy experts did not anticipate the dramatic decline in <a href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdW.htm">natural gas prices</a> due to the spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, starting about a decade ago – or the incentive that it would provide utilities to <a href="https://phys.org/news/2018-05-natural-gas-prices-war-coal.html">phase out coal-fired power plants</a>.</p>
<p>In recent years, <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-achievement-sunshot-goal-new-focus-solar-energy-office">solar energy</a> and <a href="https://emp.lbl.gov/wind-technologies-market-report">wind power</a> costs have dropped far faster than expected, also displacing coal – and in some cases natural gas – as a source of <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy">energy for electricity generation</a>. </p>
<p>Something we learned during our storage study is illustrative.</p>
<p>We found that lithium ion batteries at 2019 prices were a bit too expensive in North Carolina to compete with natural gas <a href="https://www.clarke-energy.com/natural-gas/peaking-station-peak-lopping-plants/">peaker plants</a> – the natural gas plants used occasionally when electricity demand spikes. However, when we modeled projected 2030 battery prices, energy storage proved to be the more <a href="https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.oct.storage-threat-to-peaker-plants">cost-effective option</a>. </p>
<p>Federal, state <a href="https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-ladwp-will-phase-out-natural-gas-operations-three-power-plants">and even some local</a> policies are another wild card. For example, Democratic lawmakers have outlined the <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey">Green New Deal</a>, an ambitious plan that could rapidly address climate change and income inequality at the same time.</p>
<p>And no matter what happens in Congress, the <a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/">increasingly frequent</a> bouts of <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/polar-vortex-set-to-test-midwest-grids-amid-ferc-resilience-debate/547231/">extreme weather</a> hitting the U.S. are also expensive for utilities. <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18271">Droughts reduce hydropower</a> output and <a href="https://www.powermag.com/intense-summer-heatwaves-rattle-worlds-power-plants/?pagenum=1">heatwaves make electricity usage spike</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/259392/original/file-20190217-56246-cjo28x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Scattergood power plant in Los Angeles is one of three natural gas power plants slated to shut down by 2029.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Power-Plants-Los-Angeles/854bad6a63634491bb61f835c593b255/2/0">AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The future</h2>
<p>Several utilities are already investing in energy storage.</p>
<p>California utility <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/pges-recording-breaking-battery-proposal-wins-loses#gs.Sr3iJwMw">Pacific Gas & Electric</a>, for example, got permission from regulators to build a massive 567.5 megawatt energy-storage battery system near San Francisco, although the <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pge-to-file-for-bankruptcy-protection-as-california-wildfire-costs-mount/545974/">utility’s bankruptcy</a> could complicate the project.</p>
<p>Hawaiian Electric Company <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electric-industries-announces-mind-blowing-solar-plus-storage-cont#gs.d6b2toPJ">is seeking approval</a> for projects that would establish several hundred megawatts of energy storage across the islands. And <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/taming-the-duck-arizona-public-service-seeks-106-mw-storage-for-solar-plan/527088/">Arizona Public Service</a> and <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/final-irp-proposal-for-puerto-rico-calls-for-mini-grids-and-rapid-solar-and#gs.yX3tmTbf">Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority</a> are looking into storage options as well.</p>
<p>We believe these and other decisions will reverberate for decades to come.
If utilities miscalculate and spend billions on power plants it turns out they won’t need instead of investing in energy storage, their customers could pay more than they should to keep the lights through the middle of this century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremiah Johnson receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the NC Policy Collaboratory. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph F. DeCarolis receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the NC Policy Collaboratory to conduct related research on energy systems.</span></em></p>Energy storage could prove an inexpensive way for power companies to handle heat waves and other times when consumers use more electricity than usual.Jeremiah Johnson, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State UniversityJoseph F. DeCarolis, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1059332018-11-01T10:50:03Z2018-11-01T10:50:03ZCoal can’t compete with cheaper alternatives and the industry’s true costs are higher than they appear<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/243340/original/file-20181031-122168-1mx3qop.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Big Brown coal plant in Fairfield is among the Texas power stations that have been shut down.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Coal-Plant/2b2ed2206ad24aef83f93cd918fe210d/1/0">AP Photo/David J. Phillip</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are costs associated with electricity beyond what shows up on your monthly bill.</p>
<p>When that energy comes from coal, residents who live downwind pay through <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01227.x">poorer health</a> and, as with all fossil fuels, the whole world pays for this combustion in the form of a <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/">warmer climate</a>. Cleaning up or closing the nation’s dirtiest power plants could help stem the damage all around.</p>
<p>As an <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=U4vSW6MAAAAJ&hl=en">atmospheric scientist</a>, I worked with two students to compute some of the often-overlooked <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2018.1537984">costs of coal-fired power stations</a>. We found that the damage to public health and the climate this source of electricity causes far exceeds the money power generators earn from the electricity they sell. </p>
<h2>Three cents isn’t enough</h2>
<p>Texans <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/pdf/table5_a.pdf">spend roughly 11 cents for each kilowatt-hour of electricity</a>, enough to <a href="https://electricityplans.com/kwh-kilowatt-hour-can-power/">power a television for few days</a>, no matter how it was generated. Most of that revenue pays for the power to be transmitted to homes and marketed to consumers.
<a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/">Less than 3 cents</a> from every 11 cents on Texan electric bills flows to the companies that generate the power.</p>
<p>Those three pennies don’t cover even the direct costs of operating coal power plants in every case. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2018/09/17/much-texas-dropped-reliance-coal-surprised">Coal-fired power now supplies less than 24 percent</a> of the electricity Texas generates, down from about about a third in 2017 following the closure of <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36593">three large coal plants</a> in early 2018. Luminant, the company that shuttered many of those plants called them “<a href="https://www.luminant.com/luminant-close-two-texas-power-plants/">economically challenged</a>” even though <a href="https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=TX">coal is cheaper in Texas</a> than on average in the U.S.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_08.html">Coal’s woes</a> aren’t limited to Texas. As a result of the fuel’s competitive disadvantage, <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/new-campaign-will-ask-coal-users-to-face-the-cold-hard-economic-case-agai/539613/">275 of the nation’s 530 coal plants closed</a> or were <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-transition#.W9m-22hKhPZ">converted to natural gas</a> between 2002 and 2018.</p>
<p><iframe id="aogYo" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/aogYo/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The social cost of carbon</h2>
<p>If utilities had to compensate society for the cost of the pollution Texan coal-fired power plants produce, even more of them would be on the chopping block. The rationale for this concept, known as the <a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon-fact-sheet_.html">social cost of pollution</a>, is that producing electricity releases pollution that harms the climate and public health. Generating each kilowatt-hour of power from coal results in more than 2 pounds of climate-warming <a href="https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-egrid">carbon dioxide</a> along with <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11">other pollutants</a> that <a href="https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/big-brown-among-coal-fired-power-plants-scheduled-to-close/article_15561f3f-991c-57c5-b6bd-533e96540a6a.html">harm human health</a>.</p>
<p>Assuming that the <a href="https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html">social cost of carbon dioxide is around US$52 per ton</a>, near the middle of a range of government estimates, then the damage caused by coal plant emissions is roughly 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, just in terms of climate change.</p>
<p>Those climate impacts are fairly consistent across all of the 13 Texas coal plants that we studied. That’s because each power plant burns a similar amount of coal to generate each kilowatt-hour of electricity. For global warming, the location of emissions is irrelevant, since carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere for centuries and its <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/">impact is worldwide</a>.</p>
<p>For health, the location of a given coal plant matters, since more people are exposed when coal-fired power plant pollution is emitted near or upwind of densely populated urban areas. Even bigger differences arise from disparities in the various pollution-control devices that coal-fired power stations install.</p>
<p>Most coal plants already control two pollutants that are byproducts of their power generation, <a href="http://www.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/330/1/012122">ash</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32952">mercury</a>, very effectively. That leaves two pollutants, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, that are most damaging to public health.</p>
<p><a href="https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html">Nitrogen oxide emissions</a> react in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone, sometimes referred to as smog. <a href="https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution">Sulfur dioxide</a> converts into microscopic particles known as particulate matter that increase rates of heart attacks, strokes and other diseases.</p>
<p>Together, power plant emissions of these two <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-other-reason-to-shift-away-from-coal-air-pollution-that-kills-thousands-every-year-78874">pollutants kill tens of thousands of Americans</a> each year, scientists estimate.</p>
<p><iframe id="qABsW" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qABsW/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The dirtiest plants</h2>
<p>In our study, we ran computer models to simulate how much air quality and health would improve if certain Texas coal power plants shut down. As we explained in an article published in the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2018.1537984">Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association</a>, we found that coal power stations lacking modern devices to control sulfur and nitrogen pollution cause far more damage to public health than cleaner plants. </p>
<p>Certain coal plants emit five times as much nitrogen oxides as cleaner plants, while others emit 20 times more sulfur dioxide than the ones that have modern scrubbers.</p>
<p>Overall, we estimated that Texas coal plants were responsible in 2015 for several hundred deaths per year, mostly due to particulate matter from the unscrubbed sulfur pollution.</p>
<p><iframe id="y184z" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/y184z/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Sulfur and nitrogen regulations</h2>
<p>The dirtiest power plants continue to emit so much more pollution than their competitors by slipping through the cracks of a patchwork of state and federal regulations.</p>
<p>Nationwide <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works">cap-and-trade programs</a> for nitrogen oxide emissions and sulfur dioxide emissions, such as the federal <a href="https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/acid-rain-program">Acid Rain Program</a>, let companies trade their allowances for emitting pollution. </p>
<p>That can be a cost-effective approach, since it motivates utilities to clean up their act. But the EPA has failed to cut national caps as quickly as power plants have cleaned up or closed down. This inaction created a glut of pollution allowances and drove their <a href="https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/2018-so2-allowance-auction">price down to just pennies</a> per ton, even though the resulting health and environmental damage is typically worth <a href="http://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1343-0">thousands of dollars per ton</a>. </p>
<p>The authorities have applied more direct regulations unevenly. The EPA has required control devices for nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide at new coal plants since the early 1980s, but not necessarily at older ones. A 2014 study by Duke University researchers found that nearly 80 percent of U.S. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.036">coal power plants did not meet the pollution limits</a> required of new plants.</p>
<p>States have mandated stringent nitrogen oxide controls at power plants in cities that violate ozone smog standards, but not in locations that are at times upwind of those regions. </p>
<p>Most <a href="http://environment.law.harvard.edu/2018/04/regional-haze-rule-rollback/">states required sulfur scrubbers</a> nearly a decade ago as part of their plans for reducing haze in scenic areas. But Texas has failed to finalize its own <a href="https://www.epa.gov/visibility">Regional Haze Rule</a> plan for nearly a decade, leaving it to the EPA to step in.</p>
<p>Although the environmental agency proposed <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/312138-the-most-important-pollution-rule-youve-never-heard-of">stringent plant-by-plant sulfur dioxide</a> rules in 2016 that were similar to those other states were enforcing, the EPA now proposes a new <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/08/27/2018-18497/promulgation-of-air-quality-implementation-plans-state-of-texas-regional-haze-and-interstate">cap-and-trade</a> program that would require no <a href="https://www.texasobserver.org/trump-epa-will-allow-texas-coal-plants-nearly-double-sulfur-dioxide-emissions/">pollution reductions</a> in Texas at all.</p>
<h2>Phasing out</h2>
<p>Even if federal and state regulations remain this lax, coal plants won’t last forever. The <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812">average U.S. coal plant is now 39 years old</a>. The three in Texas that closed in early 2018 were among the five most polluting ones in the state that we studied. A <a href="https://deceleration.news/2018/08/29/deely-coal-plant-cps-energy-closure/">fourth could close by early 2019</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-u-s-likely-to-end-2018-with-record-decline-in-coal-fired-capacity/">Texas closures are part of a national</a> and <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants">global wave</a>. Coal is becoming a less popular source of electricity <a href="https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/">due to it costing</a>, <a href="http://calculators.energy.utexas.edu/lcoe_map/#/county/tech">in most locations</a>, more than alternatives like natural gas, wind energy and solar power.</p>
<p>Still, as coal pollution continues to warm the climate and kill tens of thousands of Americans per year, delaying the inevitable comes at a heavy cost for us all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105933/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Cohan has received funding from NASA, the EPA, and the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>A study of the social cost of carbon emitted by the shrinking fleet of Texan coal plants suggests that closing more of them down would be good for the climate and public health.Daniel Cohan, Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering, Rice UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/978162018-06-06T19:42:56Z2018-06-06T19:42:56ZHere’s why Trump’s new strategy to keep ailing coal and nuclear plants open makes no sense<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222052/original/file-20180606-137322-hp0z0l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Indian Point nuclear power station outside New York City will be decommissioned by 2021.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Indian-Point-Closure/ee524de393c746129685aa7733767a26/17/0">AP Photo/Seth Wenig</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Donald Trump recently ordered Energy Secretary Rick Perry to take “immediate steps” to stop the closure of <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-orders-perry-to-stop-coal-nuclear-retirements/524805/">coal and nuclear power plants</a>.</p>
<p>And according to a draft memo that surfaced the same day, the federal government may establish a “<a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/380740746/DOE-Coal-Nuke-Subsidy-Plan-1">Strategic Electric Generation Reserve</a>” to purchase electricity from coal and nuclear plants for two years. </p>
<p>Both proposals, which have garnered <a href="http://www.powermag.com/more-groups-weigh-in-on-trump-move-to-save-coal-nuclear-including-supporters/">little support</a>, are premised on these power plants being essential to national security. If implemented, the government would be activating <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-said-to-grant-lifeline-to-money-losing-coal-power-plants-jhv94ghl">emergency powers</a> rarely tapped before for any purpose.</p>
<p>Based on my four decades of experience as a <a href="https://www.law.wvu.edu/faculty-staff/full-time-faculty/james-van-nostrand">utility regulatory attorney and law professor</a>, I can see why this proposal has caused much controversy, partly because of how energy markets work.</p>
<h2>No credible evidence</h2>
<p>To be sure, these industries are in trouble.</p>
<p>The share of U.S. power derived from coal has fallen from about one-half in 2000 to less than one-third in 2017. Despite <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/15/trumps-love-affair-with-coal-215710">Trump’s full-throated support for the coal industry</a>, another roughly 12 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity, or about 4 percent of the American coal fleet, is <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060076419">slated for retirement in 2018</a>. According to a tally from environmental advocacy group the Sierra Club, 36 coal plants have retired since Trump was elected and according to various announcements, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/conservative-groups-pan-trumps-move-to-bail-out-coal-nuclear-plants.html">another 30 will close</a> and <a href="https://content.sierraclub.org/coal/environmentallaw/plant-map">few new coal plants</a> are being planned or built.</p>
<p><iframe id="OWP7d" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OWP7d/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The share of power generated by nuclear reactors, despite holding steady at about one-fifth of the national grid since 2000, is about to slide. More than 1 in 10 of the nation’s nuclear reactors are <a href="https://www.sparklibrary.com/addressing-plight-existing-nuclear-part-1/">likely to be decommissioned by 2025</a>. If completed, the <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-projects-at-georgias-plant-vogtle-to-continue/">only two large-scale ones under construction</a> will cost far more than originally planned.</p>
<p>But are experts worried about any electricity shortages or outages between now and 2025? Well, no. Other alternatives, mainly natural gas, wind and solar energy are poised to <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-may-dismantle-the-epa-clean-power-plan-but-its-targets-look-resilient-68460">keep filling the gaps</a> created in recent years by other coal plant closures.</p>
<p>When the Energy Department assessed whether the ongoing wave of coal and nuclear plant retirements are <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741">threatening grid reliability</a>, it found <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/doe-grid-study-sparks-mixed-reviews-from-power-sector/503468/">no cause for alarm</a>.</p>
<p>Disregarding the findings of its own study, the agency proceeded to ask the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-obscure-federal-agency-that-soon-could-raise-your-electric-bill-5-questions-answered-on-ferc-88510">Federal Energy Regulatory Commission</a>, an independent federal agency known as FERC that regulates energy rates and policies, for permission to subsidize coal and nuclear plants. The agency unanimously <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-rejects-doe-nopr-kicking-resilience-issue-to-grid-operators/514334/">rejected that proposal</a>.</p>
<p>More recently, PJM Interconnection – the nation’s biggest grid operator – declared that its <a href="https://twitter.com/pjminterconnect/status/1002597213783117824">power supply is not in jeopardy</a> and that there is no reason to take this anticipated policy move. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1002597213783117824"}"></div></p>
<p>The North American Reliability Corporation, the federal entity responsible for power reliability, has reached <a href="http://www.powermag.com/nerc-report-natural-gas-renewable-generation-will-offset-coal-nuclear-closures/">similar conclusions</a>.</p>
<h2>Unprecedented intrusion</h2>
<p>In short, there is no emergency that justifies this unprecedented intrusion into the electricity markets that would warrant forcing taxpayers and utilities to pay a premium to keep coal and nuclear plants online.</p>
<p>The only “emergencies” are the <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/coal-nuclear-plant-operator-files-for-bankruptcy-asks-trump-for-a-bailout/">financial woes of the plant owners</a> caused by the <a href="https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2017/10/06/the-decline-of-coal/">rapid decline coal consumption</a> and the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36112">nuclear industry’s weak outlook</a>.</p>
<p>But the Trump administration appears to be arguing that a provision known as <a href="https://www.energy.gov/oe/services/electricity-policy-coordination-and-implementation/other-regulatory-efforts/does-use">Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/perry-doe-looking-very-closely-at-defense-production-act-to-save-coal-n/523187/">Defense Production Act</a> grant the secretary of energy the power to nationalize parts of the power sector during wartime or amid other emergencies. </p>
<p>I believe that the sole rationale for this new policy is as a way for Trump to keep his campaign promise to <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-trump-negotiate-a-better-coal-deal-for-taxpayers-71130">revive the ailing coal industry</a>.</p>
<p>Most likely, nuclear reactors are included in the proposal because that industry is increasingly unable to compete. Also, some companies, on the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-firstenergy-bankruptcy/firstenergy-nuclear-coal-plant-units-file-for-bankruptcy-protection-idUSKCN1H81GX">brink of bankruptcy</a>, have <a href="https://twitter.com/cleantechfacts/status/1002666443077537797">stepped up their lobbying</a>.</p>
<p>However, <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/exelon-ceo-no-grid-emergency-to-justify-doe-coal-nuke-bailout/525042/">Exelon</a>, which operates more U.S. nuclear reactors than any other company, has <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/exelon-ceo-we-need-federal-intervention-on-grid-resilience#gs.KY0Cm8Y">not openly endorsed</a> this action.</p>
<h2>How America’s power markets work</h2>
<p>The nation’s regional power markets operate much like an auction to cover the constantly changing, hour-by-hour demand for electricity from consumers large and small. <a href="https://www.energymanagertoday.com/wholesale-electricity-markets-explained-0109432/">Procedures vary in different parts of the country</a>, but typically electricity producers “bid” into the market based on what it costs them to operate. The rules generally require regional grid operators to dispatch the lowest-cost power available.</p>
<p>Companies selling power generated in <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/power-gas-index-8-regional-charts-show-the-link-between-gas-and-electric/433468/">natural gas-fired power plants</a> have managed to lower their costs considerably in recent years because of low natural gas prices, a result of increased drilling from the spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.</p>
<p>The cost of <a href="https://theconversation.com/wind-energys-swift-growth-explained-94626">electricity powered by wind</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-are-better-ways-to-foster-solar-innovation-and-save-jobs-than-trumps-tariffs-90532">solar energy has also declined</a> sharply due to technological advances and tax credits which are being phased out. Those changes have made the competition stiffer. Meanwhile, the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html">costs of producing power in coal and nuclear</a> plants have gotten higher.</p>
<p><iframe id="Qf3BY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Qf3BY/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In many cases, the <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/the-state-of-us-wholesale-power-markets-is-reliability-at-risk-from-low-pr/443273/">power generated by coal and</a> <a href="https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44715.html">nuclear power plants</a> sells at prices that are too low to cover operating costs. The federal government does not typically intervene in wholesale electricity markets, other than to enforce rules intended to ensure that the competition is fair.</p>
<p>Because it would override the results of competition, I have no doubt that the Trump administration’s proposals would mark a radical intervention by the government into the electricity markets.</p>
<h2>Winners and losers</h2>
<p>Shareholders of the energy companies that own money-losing coal and nuclear plants stand to gain if this policy gets implemented because they are unable to compete in the wholesale power markets without this kind of assist.</p>
<p>Other power companies, utilities, taxpayers and electric ratepayers – meaning homeowners, businesses and anyone else who pays to keep the lights on – would lose out. We’d all have to pay a premium to pay for this <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-trumps-soviet-style-coal-directive-would-upend-power-markets/524906/">unprecedented form of government intervention</a>.</p>
<p>As former FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has said, this departure from a <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/how-trumps-soviet-style-coal-directive-would-upend-power-markets/524906/">historically market-driven system would drive up rates</a>. Kevin McIntyre, the current FERC chairman, says his <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/energy-department-has-the-power-to-save-coal-and-nuclear-plants-ferc-chairman-says">independent panel may not have any say</a> over whether the administration can move ahead with this policy.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, this policy would do little in terms of climate action. While nuclear power does generate largely <a href="https://www.axios.com/nuclear-power-plant-carbon-climate-targets-56106f75-8bab-4a5a-847c-1db7997cb38f.html">carbon-free electricity</a>, the older coal-fired power plants that would otherwise stop operating are <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=77&t=11">among the dirtiest and least efficient units on the grid</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, there’s no clear legal rationale for this kind of policy. Like most scholars of law and energy, I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t usher in a wave of lawsuits filed by the oil, natural gas and renewable energy industries, utilities and even irked homeowners.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Van Nostrand currently serves as a consultant on clean energy issues for the New York State Energy & Research Development Authority and Natural Resources Defense Council. </span></em></p>There is simply no credible evidence supporting the contention that America is experiencing a grid emergency.James Van Nostrand, Director, Center for Energy and Sustainable Development; Professor of Law, West Virginia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823512017-08-11T00:58:56Z2017-08-11T00:58:56ZWhy the withering nuclear power industry threatens US national security<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181699/original/file-20170810-20110-1q2r5s3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After spending $9 billion on a nuclear power plant construction in South Carolina, project developers have pulled the plug. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/scegnews/31860263040/in/photolist-VLcwq5-VLcvWQ-VyZp6w-VCfpQi-Vet1CY-Qxobd1-Qxob7Q-PQfwoN-R4cWo3-Qxoc51-R7ApHk-QTrYjW-Qxobuo-P3vWse-PHcYXo-P3vVYP-R4cVuQ-QxoaYy-P3vXtx-Q4cg3d-P3vWYe-P3vV6X-P3vXwZ-Q6VsVK-Q4chmq/">SCE&G</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>These are tough times for nuclear power in the U.S. Power plants under construction are facing serious delays, halts and cost overruns. Utilities in South Carolina <a href="http://www.thestate.com/news/state/article165339302.html">abandoned a project</a> to complete construction of two power plants in August, while the cost of the only nuclear plant now under construction has <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/tab-swells-to-25-billion-for-nuclear-power-plant-in-georgia-1501691212">ballooned to US$25 billion</a>. </p>
<p>And it’s no secret that several existing nuclear power plants are at <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-us-shutters-aging-nuclear-plants-cutting-emissions-will-become-more-costly-50047">risk of shutting down</a>. In fact, that specter is one of the key motivations behind Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s recent request to the Department of Energy for an <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741">analysis of the challenges facing conventional power plants</a>. </p>
<p>While the environmental and reliability impacts of the closures are well-understood, what many don’t realize is that these closures also pose long-term risks to our national security. As the nuclear power industry declines, it discourages the development of our most important anti-proliferation asset: a bunch of smart nuclear scientists and engineers.</p>
<h2>Weapons inspectors</h2>
<p>The challenges facing our aging nuclear fleet are numerous. Cheap natural gas and the rapid growth of low-cost renewables like wind and solar, which have helped drive electricity prices <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-us-shutters-aging-nuclear-plants-cutting-emissions-will-become-more-costly-50047">downward</a> for the first time in decades, make it hard for nuclear power plants to operate profitably. At the same time, the variability of renewables pushes conventional thermal power plants fueled by natural gas, coal and nuclear sources to operate more flexibly to fill gaps when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.</p>
<p>This is a problem for U.S. nuclear plants, as ramping their output up and down causes wear and tear, increasing costs. And lingering safety concerns in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011 don’t help either.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181700/original/file-20170810-27677-160keb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Inspectors from the IAEA survey the ruins of Iraq’s facility to produce highly enriched uranium in the 1990s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8490753593/in/photolist-dWikek-dWikde-dWikcK-dWikcr-dWoYpS-dWik5a-dWoYhd-dWik3V-dWoYfE-dWihmM-dWihkp-dWihjZ-dWoVrw-dWoVqQ-dWihht-dWoVoL-dWihgg-dWoVnh-dWihev-dWoVkE-dWihdx-dWifNg-dWifMp-dWifLT-dWoTVY-dWifJt-dWoR95-dUf1LV-dUkC5o-dUkBPf-dUkBJ5-dSsDM7-dSn5At-dSn5zD-dKipA4-dKoSvG-dKoSqj-dWtkzA-dWnGzX-dWtkz5-dWtkx1-dWtkwy-dWnGxk-dWtkp7-dWnrsz-dWt5uo-dWnrnc-dWnrkr-dWp3i9-dWp3hE">International Atomic Energy Agency</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>All of these factors are converging at once, creating significant financial losses for nuclear plant owners. At least 20 nuclear plants are at risk of <a href="http://www.thirdway.org/report/preserving-americas-clean-energy-foundation">closure</a>, if natural gas prices remain low and other market fundamentals don’t change.</p>
<p>This scenario creates headaches for power grid operators and planners who like the reliability of nuclear power plants. It also creates philosophical conundrums for environmentalists who rightly fret about the challenges of long-term radioactive waste storage but also decry the replacement of zero-carbon nuclear power with carbon-emitting natural gas plants.</p>
<p>But there is a third reason why a declining U.S. nuclear power industry will have long-term consequences: the national security risks associated with nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>It is the irony of nuclear power. While many worry that the prominence of nuclear materials for power production increases the risks of weapons proliferation, the opposite is also a problem. The loss of expertise from a declining domestic nuclear workforce makes it hard for Americans to conduct the inspections that help keep the world safe from nuclear weapons. And with the recent news about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the need for inspections feels like a pressing priority.</p>
<p>The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (<a href="http://www.dtra.mil/">DTRA</a>), the U.S. agency responsible for addressing these risks directly, employs <a href="http://www.dtra.mil/About/Who-We-Are/">2,000 people</a> to tackle chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. Hundreds work on the nuclear mission alone. Another <a href="https://www.iaea.org/about/staff">2,500 people</a>, including <a href="https://www.bnl.gov/isd/documents/79280.pdf">200 Americans</a>, work at the International Atomic Energy Agency (<a href="https://www.iaea.org/">IAEA</a>), a multi-national organization created for the sole purpose of ensuring peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The IAEA is tasked with conducting regular inspections of civil nuclear facilities and auditing the flow of nuclear materials and experts. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=664&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181710/original/file-20170810-20984-7azfml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=834&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist, was integral to the U.S. negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/inl/14980223721/in/photolist-oPKyBk-hKukZ2-fJYnvb-oxxkHk-f5xCvA-fJYnoY-9Y1S7h-hJ7kwt-fJFQUx-yCpuYi-hKj6Mx-ykNMhj-fJFR1R-fJYmVU-fU1bKu-fU1bLm-fJFQLP-fJYn4q-McsFrY-oxzTWX-oxyuxe-MApUbj-eBVNFR-qKSzLK-ayx63F-eBVPvH-oPLp2B-f19vR8-HfV5C5-ayzLrq-oQ3gPT-f1oSAs-p4jrqE-PF8vuY-eBVPC6-Q4QvNa-Q29XrC-Q4Qv4e-f1oSrh-PF8t5Y-qXKLPG-Q4Qwsr-Qf5cm6-Q4Qw64-eBVQ4p-Q4QxpB-oxyact-p79eHV-oxxnoC-eBZ1Nw">Idaho National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many of our nuclear inspectors come from the military and national labs – whose missions are more weapons-related – and from the power sector. The demise of the power sector cuts off a flow of civilian talent that can use its background to help distinguish illegal weapons projects from peaceful programs to generate electricity. </p>
<p>Quite simply, it is in our national interest to maintain the expertise needed to staff the DTRA, while also contributing to the international agencies committed to keeping the world safe from nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>In the U.S. more than <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/03/f30/U.S.%20Energy%20and%20Employment%20Report.pdf">50,000 people</a> are currently employed making nuclear fuels or at the power plants that use them. If the nuclear industry is allowed to wither, we might not have the homegrown talent to help manage the risks.</p>
<h2>Next-generation nuclear</h2>
<p>Bailing out decades-old power plants with government handouts or <a href="https://theconversation.com/compete-or-suckle-should-troubled-nuclear-reactors-be-subsidized-62069">subsidies</a> seems like a step backwards. So how to proceed? The simplest approach is to issue zero-emissions credits (<a href="https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/04/06/ohio-lawmakers-taking-up-nuclear-plant-subsidies.html">ZECs</a>) or to put a price on carbon. Doing so harnesses the efficiency of markets while allowing nuclear power to compete because of its low-carbon footprint.</p>
<p>A carbon price or ZEC – which admittedly faces formidable political challenges – would be an immediate lifeline for existing power plants. That buys us time, but doesn’t take us all the way there. We also need to aggressively invest in research and development for modern nuclear fuel cycles that are smaller, flexible, less water-intensive, passively safe, proliferation-resistant and can be replicated in a factory to reduce costs. Reinvigorating the industry would create the need for a steady stream of people trained in nuclear physics and engineering. As a result, the world would be safer and cleaner.</p>
<p>There are already strong economic, reliability and environmental reasons to keep nuclear a part of the national fuel mix. Enhancing our national security makes the argument even more compelling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82351/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael E. Webber receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas). A full list of sponsors for Webber's research group at UT Austin is disclosed here: <a href="http://www.webberenergygroup.com">www.webberenergygroup.com</a> </span></em></p>Nuclear power plants don’t just pump out steady, carbon-free electricity; they also help produce the people the US needs for nuclear weapons inspections.Michael E. Webber, Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Deputy Director of the Energy Institute, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/650362016-09-14T22:05:36Z2016-09-14T22:05:36ZFactCheck: Have eight of Australia’s 12 most emission intensive power stations closed in the last five years?<blockquote>
<p>But in Australia we are seeing a very significant change. We’ve seen eight out of our 12 most emission intensive power stations close in the last five years. All of those have been coal.<strong>– Environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2016/s4532539.htm">interview</a>, September 5, 2016.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>When discussing Australia’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg said that that eight out of the nation’s 12 most emission intensive power stations have closed in the last five years. All were coal, he said, describing the pace of change as “very significant”.</p>
<p>Is that right?</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for data to support the minister’s assertion, a spokesperson referred The Conversation to the following table:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=290&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136875/original/image-20160907-25253-c7a2ez.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">tCO2-e/GWh means tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per gigawatt hour of energy produced. It is a way of expressing emission intensity. This table lists eight emission intensive power stations that have closed in the last five years and four emission intensive power stations that remain open.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Office of Josh Frydenberg</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Let’s test his statement against publicly available data. </p>
<h2>Power station closures</h2>
<p>Emission intensity is a measure of the greenhouse emissions produced per unit of energy. If a power station produces a lot of greenhouse gases per unit of energy generated, then it is a high emission intensity power station. </p>
<p>It’s true that eight emission intensive power stations have closed in recent years. Sticklers may say that change occurred over six years, not five (depending on when the process of closure began), but it’s close enough.</p>
<p>These power stations closed at a time when <a href="https://theconversation.com/four-years-of-falling-electricity-demand-can-this-continue-11465">electricity demand was falling</a>, although it has <a href="https://theconversation.com/rising-electricity-demand-could-be-here-to-stay-44190">picked up again</a> recently. </p>
<h2>Are those eight among the <em>most</em> emission intensive power stations in Australia?</h2>
<p>They’re in the ball park – although it depends a bit on which power stations you include on the list of “most intensive power stations in Australia”.</p>
<p>Frydenberg’s table includes 12, but his list doesn’t mention two Western Australian power stations – Worsley and Muja AB – which are among the most emission intensive power stations in Australia. </p>
<p>There could be good reasons for omitting these two from the top list. Worsley, for example, is a cogeneration plant, meaning that some of the energy it produces is fed into the electricity network and some is diverted for industrial use by a local alumina refinery in the form of steam energy. Or that list may only be considering the averaged combined emission intensity of the three power stations at Western Australia’s Muja facility (not just the Muja AB station), which would bring the emission intensity down.</p>
<p>The list may also have not included any Western Australian power stations because when people talk about Australian power generation, it’s quite common to use data for the <a href="http://www.aemc.gov.au/Australias-Energy-Market/Markets-Overview/National-electricity-market">National Electricity Market</a> - which covers all states except Western Australia and the Northern Territory.</p>
<p>In summary – the eight listed as having closed in the last five years are definitely among the top 14 most emission intensive power stations in Australia. They may also be among the top 12, depending on which Australian power stations you include in the list of the nation’s most emission intensive. </p>
<h2>How do we know they’re among the most emission intensive power stations?</h2>
<p>We know that’s true because of data contained in a recent <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/-/media/76109DEF94684C3C84035625EEC5EFFB.ashx">report</a> commissioned by the <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/">Australian Energy Market Operator</a> and undertaken by consulting firm ACIL Allen.</p>
<p>The Australian Energy Market Operator is responsible for operating Australia’s largest gas and electricity markets and power systems. It runs the <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM">National Electricity Market</a>, the power system that covers the eastern states of Australia and South Australia. It also runs the <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/About-AEMO">Wholesale Energy Market.</a></p>
<p>We can check Frydenberg’s statement against the most up-to-date <a href="http://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/-/media/CBDCEE131A424EA2B54366056B9ACCD3.ashx">data</a> from the ACIL Allen report, which details the emission intensity of various power stations in Australia. </p>
<p>This chart, using the ACIL Allen data, shows the capacity and emission intensity of Australian coal generators with high emission intensity.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W8tNU/8/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="520"></iframe>
<h2>Has there been ‘very significant change’ in Australia?</h2>
<p>That depends on what you understand by the phrase “very significant”. What we do know is that the closure of these eight power stations hasn’t put a significant dent in Australia’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>Using publicly available data, we can calculate how many million tonnes of emissions these eight power stations produced back when they were all operating – around five or so years ago. </p>
<p>To do that, you multiply the electricity produced by a power station (measured in gigawatt hours and sourced from <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/media/Files/Electricity/Planning/Reports/ESOO/2015/2015%20NEMHMIR%20spreadsheet.xlsx">here</a>) by that station’s emission intensity (sourced from <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/-/media/76109DEF94684C3C84035625EEC5EFFB.ashx">here</a> and <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Planning-and-forecasting/National-Transmission-Network-Development-Plan/-/media/7BE995A56EB6419C8A523817F85E015C.ashx">here</a>).</p>
<p>The result? The eight powers stations that closed down produced about 12.7 million tonnes of emissions in 2010-11, and about 10.06 million tonnes of emissions in 2011-12 (after some had either closed or reduced their output).</p>
<p>Australia’s total emissions for 2011 were <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7c0b18b4-f230-444a-8ccd-162c8545daa6/files/data-sources-nggi-dec-2015.xlsx">544.9 million tonnes</a>. So the eight power stations contributed roughly about 2% to Australia’s 2011 emissions, back when they were all still in operation.</p>
<p>For 2011, the emissions produced by Australia’s electricity sector was <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/7c0b18b4-f230-444a-8ccd-162c8545daa6/files/data-sources-nggi-dec-2015.xlsx">200.5 million tonnes</a>. So as a proportion of emissions caused by electricity generation, the eight power stations were responsible for about 5-6% of Australian electricity emissions in 2011. </p>
<p>The eight plants that closed were all quite small, and consequently made a smaller contribution to the electricity sector’s total greenhouse gas emissions. </p>
<p>The aggregate capacity of the eight closed power stations totalled about 2550 megawatts, and produced 9670 gigawatt hours of energy in 2010-11. In contrast, one of the plants still operating, Loy Yang A, has a capacity of 2210 megawatts and produced 16,880 gigawatt hours in 2010-11. </p>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Josh Frydenberg got his figures right on power station closures – but it’s a matter of interpretation whether that represents “a very significant change”.</p>
<p>The minister got it right that eight emission intensive power stations have closed over the last five or six years. </p>
<p>Frydenberg also got it right that these eight were among the top 12 (or top 14, depending on how you measure it) most emission intensive power stations in Australia.</p>
<p>But to put that in perspective, the eight powers stations that closed down produced about 12.7 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions in 2010-11 – or roughly about 2% of Australia’s overall emissions in that year. <strong>– Dylan McConnell</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a thorough and well-explained analysis, using impeccable sources to reach a very fair conclusion. <strong>– Hugh Saddler.</strong></p>
<hr>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This is a comprehensive FactCheck. There are a couple of additional points worth noting here. </p>
<p>The eight closed coal plants were certainly amongst the most emissions intensive in our electricity industry. However, beyond the question of the two West Australian coal plants raised in the FactCheck, the ACIL Allen report highlights the actual uncertainties in calculating plant emission intensities. It also flags the very high emissions intensity of several small distillate (liquid fuel) generators. However, these are used for only peaking duties so make a very minor contribution to overall electricity sector emissions. </p>
<p>Why did they close? A range of reasons, no doubt. Beyond the falling demand for generation over this period and small size of the plants noted in the FactCheck, all but two of the stations were over 40 years old. Their closure might also well be linked to the introduction of a carbon price on the electricity sector in mid-2012 (its removal only two years later was rather unexpected by industry participants). </p>
<p>Finally, there is the question of what replaced the output of these eight emissions intensive generators. Renewable generation has certainly increased over this time under the Renewable Energy Target. Unfortunately for emissions, the last two years have also seen <a href="http://www.pittsh.com.au/assets/files/Cedex/CEDEX%20Report%20Sept%202016%20Rev00(1).pdf">falling gas-fired generation</a> including the temporary closure (cold storage) of one of the National Electricity Market’s most <a href="http://www.stanwell.com/wp-content/uploads/Swanbank-E-December-2014.pdf">modern and lowest emission fossil fuel plants, Swanbank E</a>. The key reason is much higher gas prices driven by the start of liquid natural gas (LNG) exports from Queensland. </p>
<p>Finally, it is <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/new-coal-plans-in-victoria-south-australia-under-scrutiny-34935">interesting to see</a> that the owners of one of the remaining high emissions coal plants in operation, Loy Yang B, have just <a href="http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/about-us/news-centre/news-and-updates/news/2016/september/12/epa-to-assess-works-approval-application-for-loy-yang-b-upgrade">applied to upgrade the plant</a> and hence extend its life and generation output. <strong>– Iain MacGill</strong></p>
<p><em>UPDATE: Engie, the firm that owns the Hazelwood power station, <a href="http://www.gdfsuezau.com/media/UploadedDocuments/News/Hazelwood%20Clousure/Hazelwood%20closure%20-%20Media%20release.pdf">announced</a> in November 2016 that it would close the Hazelwood plant in March 2017. Engie also said it has decided to appoint a financial adviser for the possible sale of Loy Yang B coal power station in the Latrobe Valley.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><div class="callout"> Have you ever seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. For complex topics, we sometimes ask a third academic to be an additional blind reviewer. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</div></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65036/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dylan McConnell has received funding from the AEMC's Consumer Advocacy Panel and Energy Consumers Australia.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Saddler is a member of the Board of the Climate Institute</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain MacGill is a Joint Director of UNSW Australia's Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets. The Centre has received funding from a range of government sources including the Australian Research Council, Energy Consumers Australia and ARENA. Iain is a member of the ARENA Advisory Panel which provides advice to support the development and selection of projects and initiatives for funding by ARENA. He also contributes unpaid expert advice to a number of government organisations, industry associations and not-for-profit groups in the clean energy area within Australia and internationally. Iain's share portfolio includes AGL which owns a range of coal, gas and renewable generation in Australia.</span></em></p>Environment and energy minister Josh Frydenberg said that eight out of Australia’s 12 most emission intensive power stations closed in the last five years. Is that right?Dylan McConnell, Researcher at the Australian German Climate and Energy College & the Melbourne Energy Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/554152016-03-02T17:40:49Z2016-03-02T17:40:49ZPower plants needn’t be ugly – let’s make them green and beautiful<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113615/original/image-20160302-25902-7fcaqa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tidal Lagoon, Swansea Bay, as envisaged by LDA Design.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">http://www.lda-design.co.uk</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Energy suppliers often refer to their industry as being caught in a “trilemma”, as people demand electricity that is both secure and cheap, while also being clean.</p>
<p>But maybe it’s time to add a fourth consideration to the list – beauty.</p>
<p>Just as we marvel at Roman aqueducts or Victorian railways, so we could design power plants, solar panels, turbines and other infrastructure to be beautiful additions to the landscape. As we move away from ugly coal and gas, we have a great chance to celebrate low carbon energy with imaginative new designs.</p>
<p>UK energy minister <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/beautiful-nuclear-power-stations-can-win-over-sceptics-says-energy-secretary-amber-rudd-10301365.html">Amber Rudd</a> seems to agree. Speaking last year about nuclear energy, she stated: “I think it is a reasonable ambition to make sure that these big projects have aesthetic appeal as well [as being functional] to help win the public over.”</p>
<p>Yet there are two problems to look out for. First, it is unreasonable to merely mask controversial or potentially environmentally damaging developments with a veneer of “attractiveness”. Managing public opinion with pretty designs does not supplant other valid concerns such as the choice of location or huge construction costs. </p>
<p>Second, even where “beautiful” design is sought as part of an environmentally responsible scheme, how individuals define and perceive “beauty” will certainly be a highly variable affair. One person’s majestic wind turbine is another person’s imposing eyesore. Like any type of architecture, judgements about beauty will depend on highly personal preferences, and how the new design relates to its existing context.</p>
<h2>Big infrastructure demands bold designs</h2>
<p>The quest to find an appropriate aesthetic when designing novel infrastructure is not new. When the Victorians built the UK’s railway system a century and a half ago, the scale of this new technology and the visual and environmental changes it brought to urban and rural landscapes alike were immense – and <a href="https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/ind_rev/rs/denault.htm">hotly debated</a>. </p>
<p>Engineers and architects designed large viaducts and impressive stations to be beautiful as well as functional. Though their alien structures were decried by some as ugly impositions, with time those same buildings have come to be part of the cherished character of British landscapes. </p>
<p>In the 1950s, nuclear power once again called for unprecedentedly large and unusual buildings. At <a href="https://magnoxsites.com/site/trawsfynydd">Trawsfynydd</a> in Wales, the leading designers of their time took up the challenge. Architect Sir Basil Spence and landscape architect Dame Sylvia Crowe designed a nuclear power station in a bold modernist style. </p>
<p>Although decades have passed and the plant has been decommissioned, opinions about its aesthetic value continue to be divided; some praise the architecture as “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/dec/21/snowdonia-nuclear-power-station-wales-architecture">optimistic, triumphant [and] pioneering</a>” while others would be happy to see the building completely disappear.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=332&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113547/original/image-20160302-25902-mc7n41.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modernist masterpiece or concrete calamity?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimkillock/4890702572/">Jim Killock</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Good design can add to the landscape</h2>
<p>We need innovative and sensitive design ideas for new energy systems, not just to “win over” the public but to actually improve the environment. Recent examples of well considered and multifunctional energy landscapes do exist. </p>
<p>At <a href="http://www.iba-hamburg.de/en/projects/energieberg-georgswerder/projekt/energy-hill-georgswerder.html">Georgswerder Energy Hill</a> in the German city of Hamburg, large wind turbines stand proudly atop an artificial mountain of landfill in a post-industrial area. Purified groundwater onsite is captured and used for energy, and the sunny side of the mountain is graced by solar panels. Visitors learn about renewable energy at a visitor centre before walking up to an elegant public “horizon line” walkway that encircles the mountain and gives expansive views of the city beyond. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113548/original/image-20160302-25879-1uc7khs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">View from the hill.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/svensson/14340538339/">Alexander Svensson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Norway, the <a href="http://qz.com/395064/this-norwegian-power-station-isnt-just-green-its-beautiful/">Øvre Forsland hydroelectric power station</a> similarly aims to be educative, to reflect the local context, and to unapologetically attract attention.</p>
<p>One interesting example on the drawing board is the proposed <a href="http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/">Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay</a>. The power station consists of a large artificial lagoon formed by a sea wall, with water allowed in and out through underwater electricity turbines. Electricity is harvested from the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-artificial-lagoons-can-be-used-to-harvest-energy-from-the-tides-38403">difference between low and high tides</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/113552/original/image-20160302-25869-16tssib.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Don’t book your holiday just yet – building work hasn’t started.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.tidallagoonswanseabay.com/about-us/image-gallery/116/">Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The plans include space for walkers and cyclists along the top of the sea walls, and an iconic, ark-shaped offshore visitor centre <a href="http://juicearchitects.com/4A_15_Iceberg.htm">(pictured above, by Juice Architects)</a> on the far side of the lagoon. Landscape architects LDA have already received the highest accolade in their field – <a href="http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/casestudies/casestudy.php?id=405">the Presidents’ Medal</a> – for creatively developing a scheme which “puts place-making at its heart and seeks to integrate a major renewable energy project into the lives of local people”. </p>
<h2>Celebrate change through design</h2>
<p>Given the grim consequences of climate change and the political stakes associated with generating energy, the question of aesthetics may seem trivial. Investments in renewables obviously need to be based on more than just appearances.</p>
<p>However, as society quickly transitions to better sources of energy, <a href="http://architizer.com/blog/power-plant-architecture/">designers are embracing</a> the opportunity to reflect and celebrate the change. Seeing how big power plants, as well as hugely important small-scale <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-more-big-power-plants-civic-energy-could-provide-half-our-electricity-by-2050-38183">community initiatives</a>, can fit within the landscapes that people use and enjoy is a real challenge. </p>
<p>There will probably never be a power plant or solar panel that everyone deems beautiful. But debating beauty and design alongside function is vital to achieve better renewable energy developments.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/55415/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nicole Porter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Celebrate the shift to renewable energy with bold designs that add to the landscape.Nicole Porter, Assistant Professor, Architecture & Built Environment, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.