Rediscovering the Will to Change: A New Energy Economy

Summary.  The growth of the U.S. from an agricultural society to an industrial power was driven in important ways by ambition, a positive attitude, and an ability to see opportunities and develop them.  Examples of changes that contributed to this growth include new means of transportation and communication.

As our economy grew and matured, however, unforeseen harmful effects of some activities became apparent.  Acid rain from electric generation was identified as the cause of dying forests.  Synthetic refrigerants were flagged as the cause of the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere.  Increased carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy was marked as the cause of global warming and its harms. The industries in question ignored the science behind these findings, and fought the need to change their business activities.

Global warming remains an unresolved problem.  Because of the vast size of the fossil fuel industry and the major changes already brought about by global warming it needs to abandon its resistance to change.  Its business model of providing energy for a growing and developing world remains, but needs to switch to carbon-free sources and to develop new technologies.  This new model will still yield profits for the industry, and continue to provide jobs for the economy.

 

American growth.  Throughout much of our history America has been a country marked by people bent on succeeding.  An entrepreneurial spirit drove the development and widespread adoption of new devices and new technologies that dramatically advanced our economic growth and improved living conditions for our population.

Railroads.  For millenia news and articles of commerce could travel no faster than men, or their animals, could carry htem.  The advent of the industrial revolution in the early nineteenth century, however, brought coal-powered transportation; railroads crossed the landscape faster and further than had been possible earlier.  This dramatically accelerated commerce and the exchange of technologies among populations separated by large distances, improving the lives of the participants.   Coal was also the fuel used in the growing iron and steel industry that permitted forging the rails, building the bridges, and providing the skeletons for new skyscrapers rising in cities.  The force behind all this growth was the vision of the industrialists and architects who created these enterprises and buildings.

Automobiles.  Human ambitions also led to the development of the gasoline engine and its use to power individual transportation, the automobile.  This depended on newly discovered sources of liquid fuels, the petroleum deposits in Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and elsewhere.  Liquid fuels provided vastly improved convenience and independence to the consuming public, as well as to the military.  The foresight and ambition driving this change is another example of the positive attitudes of the entrepreneurs behind this growth. 

This spirit gave rise to America's exceptional industrial expansion, helped it survive the Great Depression of the 1930's, and was the spirit invoked by President Roosevelt and our military leaders to fight the war that ultimately defeated the Axis powers. 

Electronics.  A final example is drawn from the electronics industry.  Over the course of the 20th century electronics moved completely from analog to digital circuitry based on solid state transistors.  This transformation likewise was driven by forward-looking scientists and entrepreneurs.  Its growth was highly dependent on creativity and resilience, since the pace of technological advance, and therefore the competition in the industry, was very intensive.

Optimism.  These examples are cited to emphasize the "can-do" enthusiasm that has marked the growth of America over its history.   Much of our expansion was further promoted by favorable state and congressional action.  The Homestead Act drew Americans with a vision to move west and spread roots in a new setting.  Railroad expansion likewise was fostered by supportive laws.  Recovery from the Great Depression and fighting the Second World War depended crucially on the cooperation between the president and Congress.

Resisting change: Acid rain.  In more recent decades, however, interest groups have opposed the need, based on scientific findings, for changes in their operations.  In the 1970s forests in the American northeast and southern Canada began dying mysteriously.  Lakes and rivers had massive fish die-offs.  Scientists eventually traced the cause to the presence of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, strong acids when they combine with moisture, in the exhaust gas from coal-burning power plants.  The plumes from these plants became windborne and carried the acids many hundreds of miles from their sources.  The acidic moisture fell to the ground whenever it rained.  The acidity became so severe that forests could no longer tolerate it and died in vast swaths.  The same phenomenon occurred in Europe.

The solution to this malady lay in desulfurizing the exhaust gases of the offending power plants or fuel switching to low sulfur fuels.  The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed limits on how much sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides could be emitted by the power plants.  The power companies objected vigorously to what they protested would be the great expense required to implement this remedy. 

As of 2014 EPA projected that acid emissions would fall between 54 and more than 70% from 2005 levels, with estimated health savings of $120 to $280 billion per year . The measures have been effective, as the acid rain problem has diminished significantly in recent years.

 

Depletion in the ozone content of the upper atmosphere.  Ozone, a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms, forms by the action of sunlight on the more common oxygen molecule, consisting of two oxygen atoms.  Depletion of ozone over Antarctica was first detected in the 1980's, and grew worse each year during that region's summer.  Ozone is important because it screens out the sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays, whereas the oxygen molecule does not.  Penetration of UV increases the occurrence of skin cancer and promotes cataracts in the eye lens.

Atmospheric scientists Mario Molina, F. Sherwood Rowland and Paul Crutzen showed that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used in aerosol spray cans, air conditioners and refrigerators, can cause the loss of ozone when combined with the action of sunlight.  (They were awarded the Nobel Prize for this work in 1995.)  The scientists strongly recommended phasing out use of CFCs for refrigeration. 

Companies in the U. S. that made CFC's, such as DuPont and Pennwalt; chemical manufacturers in Europe; and makers of aerosol spray cans mounted intense public relations campaigns questioning the science connecting CFCs with ozone loss.  They warned of massive economic loss if they were required to halt production.  Major constraints on CFC use came with the Montreal Protocol, an agreement under the United Nations (U. N.) in 1987, which U. S. President Ronald Reagan agreed to.  It called for phasing out the use of CFCs.  By 2016, Susan Solomon (who had helped identify the problem at the time of Montreal Protocol) and coworkers reported the ozone extent over Antarctica is starting to increase, decades after the Protocol was agreed to.  They were able to link the increase to lower levels of ozone-depleting chemicals in the stratosphere.

Global warming. Ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, economic progress and enhanced living standards have relied on the ready availability of energy sources, primarily fossil fuels.  Worldwide consumption of energy continues to increase, driven especially by policies promoting economic growth in the developing world.  As of 2010, providing energy to the world’s population accounted for about 8% of global economic activity, of which about US$4.4 trillion was for the fossil fuel share.  Yet scientists as long ago as the nineteenth century recognized that carbon dioxide (CO₂), the combustion product obtained when fossil fuels are burned, is a greenhouse gas leading to global warming. 

In recent decades scientists from around the world have warned that the growing accumulation of CO₂ in the atmosphere from human fuel use would have serious harmful effects on the earth’s living systems.  They have pointed out in a succession of reports, beginning in 1990, that the sooner we agree to limit fossil fuel use, the easier and more effective the abatement measures would be. 

In the United States, the economic power of the fossil fuel industry and the political power of naysayers have been directed against the predictions of harm from the scientific community.  Dr. James Hansen, a renowned climate scientist, had been warning of the effects of global warming for many years.  His concerns were suppressed by the administration of President George W. Bush, made possible since Hansen, employed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, was a government employee (James Hansen, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, Bloomsbury, 2009).  Fossil fuel interests have mounted an ongoing campaign to plant seeds of doubt among the public concerning man-made global warming (Naomi Oreskes and Erik. M. Conway, “Merchants of Doubt”, Bloomsbury Press, 2010).  U. S. Senator James Inhofe has published the book “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Controversy Threatens Your Future” (WND Books, 2012).  Scientists at Exxon Mobil in the 1970’s and 1980’s published research addressing the global warming issue.  At the time they recognized “Exxon's … ethical credo on honesty and integrity."  Yet by the late 1990’s, when the U. N.-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to limit further warming was being negotiated, the company reversed its policy and sought to raise doubts about the scientific basis of man-made global warming.

Discussion
 
The growth of the United States, and its westward expansion, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is a reflection of the optimistic, “can-do” spirit that pervaded the country in those periods.  Much of this growth depended on exploitation of new scientific, engineering and technological advances by enterprises in both the private and public realms.   

In more recent times as technology has expanded, however, unforeseen harmful effects of byproducts from the use of these technologies have become apparent.  The cases described above are examples of how commercial and political interests coalesced to refuse to accept scientific realities and to reject the remedies required.  Acid rain arose from the trace levels of sulfur present in coal and oil, while the heat of combustion converted the nitrogen of the air into acidic nitrogen oxides.  Depletion of stratospheric ozone is due to the diffusion to the stratosphere of trace amounts of man-made refrigerants.  The industries in question, electric power generation and chemical manufacturers, opposed implementing the changes needed to address the problems even in the face of compelling scientific evidence.  In the end the technological fixes for these two effects were not excessive, and remedies were put in place.

Refusal to accept the scientific validity of man-made global warming is the most profound example of the “won’t change” mentality that replaced the “can-do” attitude of American growth.  Because of the fundamental importance of the global energy industry in the world’s economy, the actions of this sector have major effects on our planet’s environmental wellbeing.  Exxon Mobil’s internal research, for example, set out the compelling need for energy companies to modify their activities and limit production of fossil fuels.  Yet by the time that the Kyoto Protocol was issued in 1997, Exxon Mobil changed its policy to one of creating doubt.  In general the world’s fossil fuel companies opposed changing their operations.  Political forces also resisted change.  Whereas Europe and most of the developed countries ratified the Protocol, the U. S. never did.  Canada and Australia, which initially agreed on policies to limit CO₂ emissions, later changed course and withdrew from the Protocol. 

 

Conclusion

In the U. S. the “can-do” mindset that inspired its early expansion and economic growth has, in the cases examined here, been replaced by a “won’t change” operating principle.  This is especially important for our planet’s wellbeing, in the global warming case.  Producing carbon-based fuels comprises an important part of the world’s gross economic product, resulting in emission of massive amounts of CO₂, a greenhouse gas. 

The world’s energy demand will continue to grow as economies develop and populations increase.  The U. N.-sponsored Paris Agreement of December 2015 recognizes the absolute necessity for worldwide change in energy production.

The present situation calls for the world’s fossil fuel companies to develop new business models. Fulfilling the growing worldwide demand for energy means that there is profit to be made in this industry.  That demand must be provided, however, by technologies that do not emit CO₂.  We have to change to an energy economy that emits near-zero carbon in order to minimize further warming.  New technologies will have to be developed.  The energy industry has to abandon its fossil fuel-driven business model, and create the vast infrastructure for provision of energy from renewable sources. It has to give up its present “won’t change” mindset and adopt again a “can-do” attitude.

 
© 2016 Henry Auer

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Part 3: Mitigation of Climate Change

Summary.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued Part 3 of its Fifth Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”, on April 13, 2014.  Part 3 reviews recent historical results on the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.  It then presents extensive modeling results projecting possible gas levels by 2100 under various emission scenarios.

The scenarios show that global action to reduce emissions to date have been insufficient to achieve a desired goal, that of limiting the world’s average temperature increase to 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the level before the industrial revolution began.  This means that the world will have to invest in mitigation more intensively.  Only certain stringent scenarios suffice to meet this objective; other more lenient ones yield higher greenhouse gas levels that result in a temperature rise higher than the goal.

If we picture the world’s energy economy as a supertanker with high inertial momentum, early intervention by one or two tugs to slow the tanker and steer it to its terminal would have been sufficient.  But now it grows late, and many tugs working at full power will be needed to bring the tanker to its terminal without a collision.

The world has to coalesce around the common objective of reaching agreement on effective mitigation goals and strategies in order to stay within the 2ºC limit.

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The IPCC has issued four previous Assessment Reports (ARs) beginning in 1990; they are summarized here.  The last of the three parts of the Fifth Assessment Report (5AR), Part 3, “Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change”, was released on April 13, 2014 and is discussed here.  This post is based on its Summary for Policymakers (SPM).  (Part 1 of 5AR, “The Physical Science Basis”, was released on September 30, 2013, reported on here.  Part 2, “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability”, was released on March 31, 2014, and is described here).

The IPCC Assessment Reports carry great weight among climate scientists and policymakers around the world.  Each part is assembled by a large group of researchers who are specialists in their respective fields, drawn from many UN member states.  The draft reports are subjected to two rounds of scientific review and approval by selected governments before being released (see Details at the end of this post.)  This process assures the most rigorous scientific validity and forms a sound basis for policy development.

Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Concentration in the Atmosphere

SPM defines mitigation as “a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases”.  (A source emits GHGs into the atmosphere and a sink removes them from the atmosphere).

Trends in Recent Annual GHG Emission Rates. The cause of short-term  warming of the earth system is the increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) brought on by human activity associated with the industrial revolution.  This includes largely the burning of fossil fuels that emit the GHG carbon dioxide (CO₂), as well as increases in other sources of CO₂ and other GHGs as well.  This is shown in the graphic “Historical Trend of Manmade GHG Emissions” (see Details), presenting rates of emission of important GHGs from 1970-2010.  These have increased critically in recent years: average emissions increased by 1.3% per year in the three decades from 1970 to 2000, but became more drastic, 2.2% per year, between 2000 and 2010.  This increase in the annual emission rate is foreseen to continue unabated in the absence of meaningful mitigation measures.

Projected Increases in Annual GHG Emission Rates to 2100.  SPM summarizes climate models that were used to project future emission rates assuming a wide range of final GHG concentrations accumulated by the year 2100.  The worst of these, the “baseline”, assumes no significant mitigation measures will be taken.  The baseline leads to more than 1,000 parts per million CO₂ (ppm; volumes of CO₂ in 1,000,000 volumes of air) by then.  A graphic showing the projected trends under several emission scenarios is shown as “Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100” in Details.  The increases shown are due to population growth, and, especially from sharp increases in energy-using economic activity.

Projected Temperature Increases.  The baseline is foreseen to produce a long-term global average temperature increase above pre-industrial times of 3.7 to 4.8ºC (6.7 to 8.6ºF); currently the temperature has increased by about 0.6 to 0.7ºC (1.1 to 1.3ºF).  (The full range of projections from the 5% to the 95% confidence level is much wider, showing the temperature could reach a higher average temperature: 2.5 to 7.8ºC).

The models for the most stringent mitigation measures are intended to keep the long term global average temperature from exceeding 2ºC (3.6ºF) above the pre-industrial level by 2100, corresponding to a GHG concentration of 450 ppm.

Mitigation Measures Are Needed to Keep Temperature Below the 2ºC Goal.  SPM evaluates how successful the various emission scenarios would be in achieving the 2ºC goal by 2100.  This builds on the modeling described above and shown in the graphic “Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100”.  It concludes with high confidence that worldwide mitigation steps in place or pledged today are insufficient to attain the 2ºC goal, and that delaying further, more stringent mitigation strategies beyond 2030 would make it more difficult to put them in place.  This would also have the effect of reducing the range of mitigation choices available to reach the 2ºC goal.   Failure to keep the emission rate in 2030 below the required level would require “much more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy over” 2030-2050, and “higher transitional and long term economic impacts”.  Because infrastructure installations underlying the energy economy have long service lifetimes, continuing a “business-as-usual” expansion of GHG-producing facilities “may be difficult or very costly to change, reinforcing the importance of action for ambitious mitigation”.  Compared to emission rates for 2010, successful mitigation pathways are modeled to reduce emissions by 90% between 2040 and 2070, and may even turn negative (i.e., become GHG sinks) by 2100.

Improvements in efficiency of energy infrastructure components as well as changes in human behavior that lead to reduced energy demand are needed to achieve the required reduction in emission rates.  If fossil fuel use were to continue, it would have to be coupled with carbon capture and storage (or sequestration; CCS), which is not yet considered to be a proven available process (please see these two posts).

National and regional mitigation policies already in place have modest results.  Cap-and-trade (market) mechanisms for reducing emissions, according to SPM, have mixed success because of loose caps or caps set too leniently.  Fuel taxes have the long-term result of reducing emission by 0.6 to 0.8% for a 1% increase in purchase price.

International efforts to constrain emissions at the global level are under way.  Negotiations to follow up on the expired Kyoto Protocol are in progress; the intention is to conclude a binding worldwide treaty by 2015 and for it to become effective in 2020.  The Protocol crucially excluded developing countries from coverage, retaining only developed countries under its terms.

Analysis

Global warming is truly a global issue, one that confronts each and every one of us on our planet.  Humanity’s emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels for energy, and of other gases as well, warm the entire earth.  This is a truly global problem, because one nation’s emissions do not affect only its territory; they are dispersed into the atmosphere and contribute to warming the entire planet.

Total accumulated GHG levels in the atmosphere, not annual emission rates, are what determine the extent of increase in the long-term global average temperature.  On the time scale of the next several human generations, CO₂, the principal GHG, persists in the atmosphere once emitted (after about 30% is consumed by photosynthesis and by dissolving into the oceans; certain other GHGs are spontaneously lost over shorter times).  For this reason, as long as humanity continues to emit CO₂ the world’s average temperature will continue to increase.  Reducing the annual GHG emission rate to near zero only has the effect of minimizing the extent by which the world’s temperature will increase.  A zero emission regime can never return the atmosphere to a lower temperature that prevailed in earlier decades, for the next several human generation times.

Imagine a supertanker loaded with oil (representing the world’s energy economy) leaving port after loading.  Its engines have to work hard to reach cruising speed (representing the world’s expanding energy economy).  When it reaches its port, it has to slow down and navigate to the terminal (representing the need for mitigation).  One or two pilot tugs could meet it far from the terminal and help slow it down, navigating through the twisting channel to the terminal (representing minimal effort expended over a long time to achieve the result).  But if the tugs meet the supertanker only at the last minute, more tugs working at their highest power are needed to slow the ship and guide it to the terminal (representing intense effort applied late to prevent a collision).

A Stitch in Time.  The IPCC has been urging the world to migrate away from use of fossil fuels, and invest in renewable energy, since its first Assessment Report in 1990.  At that time, extreme weather and climate events were not yet prevalent, so reducing greenhouse gas emissions then could well have minimized the need to remedy future damage; the presumed emissions reductions would have kept the world’s temperature increase low enough that extreme weather and climate events would have been less severe.  SPM shows, however, that that opportunity has been largely, but not irretrievably, lost. 

The urgings in successive assessment reports to begin meaningful emission reductions reflect perfectly the meaning of the old saying, “a stitch in time saves nine”.  In other words, early repair of a (tailoring or climatic) defect involving minimal effort avoids the need for later extensive repair of the worsening defect that was left untended.

The prominent climate scientist Thomas F. Stocker concluded in 2013   “…every year counts….  [The longer] the starting time of [a global mitigation program] is delayed, the [more] low [limiting temperature] targets are progressively lost.  The door for these climate targets closes irreversibly.”

SPM is a clarion call for action, sooner, not later.  Internationally, and at the national and personal level, the people of the world have to coalesce around this objective, and work with good will to achieving success.

Details

Significance of IPCC Assessment Reports.  5AR, like its predecessors, is produced by hundreds of experts from around the world, and is subjected to review by other experts and by appropriate governmental bodies before it is approved and accepted for release.  Technical details in Part 3 of 5AR are based primarily on peer-reviewed journal articles and reports produced by renowned nongovernmental organizations or government agencies.  The exhaustive review assures that the released report both represents the current state of scientific and technical expertise, on the one hand, and the points of view of governments of the IPCC, on the other. 

The steps involved in preparing the reports are summarized here , including details for Part 3:

1. Governments and organizations nominate authors, who are then selected by the organizers of the Working Group (here called a “Part”)
2. 449 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, contributing authors and review editors from over 58 countries were selected to prepare a first draft of Part 3, considering over 10,000 references to the scientific literature;
3. The first draft was reviewed by 1,530 other experts who considered 16,188 comments provided by 602 expert reviewers from 58 countries;
4. 939 individuals prepared a second draft;
5. The second draft was reviewed by 469 expert reviewers from 53 countries, and by 24 governments, who provided 19,554 comments;
6. The final draft of the Summary for Policymakers was prepared by representatives of 37 governments, considering 2,573 comments; and
7. The final draft was approved and accepted by all 195 member nations of the IPCC, and released.

As a result of this thorough drafting and review process, the ARs are rigorously objective.  The reader cannot seriously believe that the ARs offer prejudiced or directed findings or opinions. Indeed, the approval and acceptance process likely leads to consensus positions on unresolved or contentious issues while minimizing the importance granted outlying results or evaluations.

Historical Trend of Manmade GHG Emissions

 

Annual emission rates from 1970 to 2010 of GHGs in gigatonnes (billions of metric tons) per year measured as equivalents to the warming potential of CO₂.  ORANGE, CO₂ from burning fossil fuels; RUST ORANGE, CO₂ from forest loss and land use changes; LIGHT BLUE, methane (CH₄); DARK BLUE, nitrous oxide (N₂O), which arises from agriculture and other human activities; and BLACK, fluorine-containing carbon compounds frequently used in refrigeration.

LEFT PANEL shows annual emission rates, with numerical amounts and percentage of each category shown every 10 years.  The horizontal bars in the UPPER PORTION of the LEFT PANEL show that emissions increased by 1.3% per year from 1970 to 2000, but became more drastic, 2.2% per year, between 2000 and 2010.

RIGHT VERTICAL BARS give the values for 2010 with “I-beam” error bars shown, for, left to right, the total annual emission, and the emissions for fluorine-containing carbon compounds, nitrous oxide, methane, CO₂ from forest loss and CO₂ from fossil fuels.

Source: IPCC AR5 Part 3 SPM; http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

 

Projected Emissions Trajectories to 2100

 

 

Projected annual GHG emission rates.  Historical data are shown to 2010.  Projections proceed from 2010 to 2100.  Annual rates can continue rising or can curve downward, approaching minimal-to-zero emission rates by 2100. 

 

Two principal types of scenario are shown.  The solid black lines labeled with various RCP values show models for given values of excess heating of the earth system due to GHG levels. RCP8.5 (uppermost line) represents continued emissions unconstrained by meaningful mitigation measures, whereas RCP2.6 (lowest line) represents a highly stringent mitigation scenario.

 

The six colored bands show models for given ranges of atmospheric GHG gases (as CO₂ equivalents) foreseen by 2100, ranging from more than 1,000 ppm (GRAY band; minimal mitigation measures) at the top to a range of 430-480 ppm (LIGHT BLUE band; stringent mitigation measures) at the bottom.

 

Source: IPCC AR5 Part 3 SPM; http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf

 

© 2014 Henry Auer

The Sun Shines at Night: Solar Thermal Power with Storage

Summary.  The Solana Generating Station, a solar thermal electric generating facility in Arizona, has begun operation in October, 2013.  Solar thermal plants capture energy from the sun as heat, which is then used to form steam that drives a turbine generator.  Solana additionally features a thermal storage capability, based on heating a molten “salt”, to buffer extra heat energy for use when the sun does not shine.  The buffer provides up to six hours of thermal operation.  Solana’s electricity is contracted to Arizona Public Service, an electric utility company.

Solana is one of several commercial-scale solar energy facilities in the U. S. currently under construction or newly operating.  Its financing included major support from the U. S. Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program.  This program supports many projects that commercialize new or unconventional technologies that provide energy for the U. S. economy.  Only 6% of its guarantee funds were granted to projects that have been “discontinued”.  This indicates its funds have a highly creditable success rate of 94%.  The program  fulfills an important governmental function, that of supporting projects that would have difficulty attracting private investment.

Introduction.  Incoming solar radiation generates electricity on a commercial scale using two different technologies.  First, solar photovoltaic power uses semiconductor light-sensitive panels directly to generate electric current.  These include the familiar solar panels used on rooftops for local generation.  Photovoltaic power is not considered here.

The second technology is solar thermal power generation.  The heat contained in sunlight is captured in a circulating fluid that heats water to steam.  The steam is then used in a conventional turbine to generate electricity.  An industrial scale solar thermal facility with the added feature of storing heat has just become operational in Arizona; it is described here.

The Solana Generating Station has begun operation near Phoenix, AZ.    This station a) focuses the sun’s energy using mirrors to heat an oil fluid flowing through the black horizontal pipes in the photo below.

Thousands of curved mirrors focus sunlight onto black pipes to heat the oil circulating in them.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/business/energy-environment/arizona-utility-tries-storing-solar-energy-for-use-in-the-dark.html

 

The heat stored in the oil is used either to b) heat water to make steam, which then drives turbines to generate electricity, or c) heat a high temperature molten “salt” (not table salt) which stores the transferred heat in a hot salt tank.  This is shown in the image below for daytime operation of the station.

 

At night the station d) transfers the heat stored in the molten salt back to the oil, which is then used to heat water to steam, driving the electric turbines.  This is shown in the image below.



 

Enough heat is stored in the molten salt during the day for about six hours of generating service after dark.

 

Other solar energy installations have tried storing excess energy in electric batteries.  But these are expensive, and so not suitable for large installations.

 

Industrial scale electricity generation.  The Solana Generating Station operates two generating turbines to provide a peak power (power is the rate of generating electrical energy) of 280 megawatts (MW; millions of watts; a watt is a unit of power).  The parabolic mirror-circulating oil facility includes thousands of individual mirrors covering about three square miles of land.  The station was built by the Spanish electricity company Abengoa using primarily materials sourced in the U. S. 

 

The electricity provided by Solana is being sold under a long term contract to Arizona Public Service (APS), providing electricity sufficient for 70,000 customers.  In addition to the Solana station, APS will have a total installed solar power capacity of 750 MW by the end of 2013, enough to serve 185,000 customers.

 

The Solana Generating Station represents a capital investment of about US$2 billion.  The U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Loan Guarantee Program supported US$1.45 billion of this amount.  The utility customer base and long service lifetime of the station provide reasonable assurance that the loan guarantee will have been a successful venture.

 

During construction, the project provided 1,500 jobs in the local community.  Abengoa will require a small number of local permanent positions for maintenance and service of the station.

 

Discussion

 

The Solana Generating Station is but one of several industrial-scale renewable energy generating facilities being developed in the U. S.  A previous post summarizes some of the solar projects included in this category.  These too have reached fruition or are about to begin operation.

 

General descriptions of solar energy, be it photovoltaic or solar thermal, have been concerned with intermittency of service since the sun’s energy is available only during daylight hours.  The Solana Generating Station overcomes this criticism by use of its heat storage system based on molten salt heat reservoirs.  Although inevitable engineering losses arise during heat transfer into and out from the reservoirs, the station’s design permits using the sun’s energy, in the form of the heat stored in the reservoirs, to generate electricity during dark hours of the daily cycle, and/or if clouds excessively obscure sunlight.  Additionally the stored heat complements portions of the daily light cycle when other renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaic generators or wind turbines, are poorly effective.

 

The DOE Loan Guarantee Program (LGP) provided valuable financial support for this project.  The objectives of the program are summarized as “guarantee[ing] loans that support early commercial use of advanced technologies, if there is reasonable prospect of repayment by the borrower.” DOE loan guarantees are intended to promote commercial use of innovative technologies, but not to support energy research, development, and demonstration programs.

 

The LGP has provided loans totaling US$24.2 billion to 29 renewable energy and advanced technology commercial projects other than loans supporting nuclear energy.  They are summarized as having saved jobs or provided construction jobs totaling about 50,000 (although 33,000 of these are ascribed to jobs saved by loans to Ford Motor Co.).  Most of the loans are listed as “closed”.  Only a few, totaling US$1.5 billion, are listed as “discontinued”, including a loan to Solyndra Inc. which gained unfavorable political attention two years ago. 

 

In other words, only 6% of the funds guaranteed under the LGP have performed unsatisfactorily.  This is a highly positive outcome for a program intended to encourage novel or unproven technologies.  Thus the LGP has been remarkably successful in supporting the commercialization of new or unconventional technologies that promote expansion of the energy mix, and greater efficiency in transportation, for the U. S.  It is concluded that the LGP fulfills an important governmental function, that of supporting projects that would have difficulty attracting private investment.

 

  

© 2013 Henry Auer

Americans Support Expansion of Renewable Energy, Surveys Show

Summary.  Public opinion surveys in the U. S. show that more than two-thirds currently think there is solid evidence that the earth is warming.   The surveys find the public supports expansion of renewable energy.  A majority of Republicans among survey respondents are included in this supporting class.  One survey reports that Republicans believe their elected representatives do not “care much about” what they think about climate change. 

Policymakers should respond to poll results such as these and coalesce around efforts to expand renewable energy.  Many policy justifications exist to support this position.

 

Introduction.  Climate scientists from all around the world overwhelmingly agree that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed significantly to increased long-term global average temperatures over the last several decades.  They foresee a future by the end of this century, and beyond, having profoundly higher temperatures and consequent harmful impacts on human welfare and planetary climate conditions.  The substance of these projections of future harms has not changed since the first report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990. 

Policymakers around the world, especially those representing countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases, have been unable to arrive at an agreement for a meaningful reduction in these emissions.  Nevertheless, in the U. S. the public has gained increased appreciation that global warming is an issue that needs to be addressed.  This post summarizes some recent public opinion surveys of attitudes toward global warming.

Pew Research Center surveys over the first months of 2013 are summarized here.  Their survey in February 2013 found that 69% of Americans think there is solid evidence that the earth’s average temperature has been increasing in recent decades.  The trend for this question since 2006, as well as for the question of whether warming arises mostly because of human activity, is shown in the graphic below, which includes survey results from March 2013.

 

Survey results over 2006-2013 showing the percent of Americans thinking that the earth is warming (top, bronze) and that the warming is due to human activity (bottom, gold). 

Source: Pew Research Center; http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/.

 

The graphic above shows that American public opinion bottomed in 2009-2010, both on whether the earth is warming, and on whether warming is due to human activity, and has increased significantly since then.  American belief that humans have caused global warming has consistently been at least 20% lower than agreeing that warming is occurring at all.

There is a dependence of attitudes about global warming in the U. S. on affiliation with a political party or outlook.  The Pew survey in March 2013 shows that U. S. Democrats (more liberal) are far more likely than U. S. Republicans (more conservative) to agree that global warming is occurring, and that it is due to human activity (see the table below).

 

Dependence of attitudes about global warming on political identification.  “Rep”, Republican; “Dem”, Democrats; “Ind”, politically independent or unaffiliated.

Source: Pew Research Center;  http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/04/02/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/.

 

There is also a stark division by political affiliation about whether Americans regard global warming to be a problem, according to a Pew survey from October 2012.  A majority of Democrats believe it is a very serious problem, but only one-fifth of Republicans do.  Conversely, only 1 in 6 Democrats believe global warming to be either not too serious a problem or not a problem at all, whereas more than half of Republicans fall in these two groups.

 

Gallup Poll results show that there is strong support for renewable energy in the U. S. across the political spectrum.  A survey of 1,022 subjects in all 50 states gave results having a 95% confidence level with a ±4% error.  Respondents were given a choice of placing more emphasis, less emphasis, or about the same emphasis, as currently done for supplying our energy needs from various sources.  They chose “more emphasis” by large margins for solar power (76%), wind (71%), and natural gas (65%), with much lower preferences for more emphasis for oil, nuclear energy and coal.  Breakdowns by party affiliation in this survey are shown in the following table.

Source: Gallup poll, March 2013. http://www.gallup.com/poll/161519/americans-emphasis-solar-wind-natural-gas.aspx

 

It is seen that Republicans strongly support more emphasis on solar power, wind, and natural gas, but also oil.  About half of Republicans further support more emphasis on nuclear power and coal.  Democrats, on the other hand, overwhelmingly support more emphasis on solar power and wind energy, with less than one-third supporting oil, nuclear power or coal.

 

Climate Change Communication project.  George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication and Yale University’s Project on Climate Change Communication have been collaborating on the attitudes of Americans on global warming over the past several years.  They released a new report on April 2, 2013 providing results of a survey of U. S.Republicans on the subject of climate change.  938 people who had identified themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents in a previous survey taken in Fall 2012 were called back in January 2013 for this survey; 77% of those agreed to participate.  Important findings are summarized here.

More than half of Republicans surveyed think that climate change is happening.  52% agreed, 26% did not agree, and 22% didn’t know.

A large majority supports expanded use of renewable energy.  These Republicans support much more (51%) or somewhat more (26%) use of renewable energy.  (In the survey, “renewable energy” consists of solar, wind and geothermal energy.)  Most of these (69%) felt measures should be started “immediately” toward this objective.

The survey also probed this issue from the converse perspective. 51% of Republicans indicated that the U. S. should use fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and natural gas) somewhat less (31%) or much less (21%) than today.  Only 22% favored increased use of fossil fuels, giving a ratio of about 2.5 to 1 favoring less use. 

Perceived benefits of reducing use of fossil fuels outweighed perceived “costs”.  (As seen below, “costs” does not refer to monetary costs, but to social and economic factors.)  Respondents could choose more than one from among 9 listed benefits and 6 listed costs.  The three benefits chosen most frequently, among 538 of those surveyed, were “help free us from dependence on foreign oil”, “save resources for our children & grandchildren”, and “provide a better life for our children & grandchildren”.  The benefit listed as “limit climate change” was next to last.  The two highest perceived costs chosen among 477 of respondents were “lead[ing] to more government regulation” and “caus[ing] energy prices to rise”.

After having weighed the benefits, costs, and other factors 64% of Republicans think “we SHOULD take action to reduce our fossil fuel use”, whereas 35% think “we SHOULD NOT take action” (capitalization in the survey as reported).

Perceptions of politicians’ responsiveness to people.  The Republican respondents showed an apparent skepticism or alienation concerning their ability to influence political decisions.  More than half  “do not think elected officials care much about what people like me think about climate change”, and think “people like me don’t have any say in what the government does about climate change”.  Only 8% think “elected officials pay a lot of attention to the views of people like me” on this issue.

 

Analysis

 

Surveys from three different polling organizations are summarized here.  Polling results can be partly influenced by the way that poll queries are phrased.  Yet the poll results reinforce one another quite consistently, making clear that overall they reflect the thoughts and feelings of the American public.

 

Americans favor expanding support and/or development of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal energy.  The reasons given for this widened support cover a broad range, including achieving energy independence and expansion of a new economic sector with its attendant growth in job opportunities.

 

In the U. S. Congress, Republicans have opposed development of renewable energy.  There may be many factors contributing to the development of policy positions among legislators, including responsiveness to the wishes of constituents, sensitivity to economic interests, and development of support for retaining elected office.  In this regard it is significant that the survey results from all three polling organizations show that respondents who identify themselves as being avowedly Republican or favoring Republican positions strongly support development of renewable energy sources.

 

Among Republicans responding to the Climate Change Communication survey more than half think climate change is happening, and three-quarters of them support more or somewhat more use of renewable energy.  After weighing perceived benefits vs. perceived socioeconomic costs about two-thirds of Republicans surveyed think we should act to reduce use of fossil fuels. The Pew and Gallup surveys found comparable support among Republicans.  Anecdotally, the New York Times reports on April 9, 2013 that the Republican mayor of Lancaster, CA, a desert community with plenty of sunshine, is undertaking to install sufficient solar photovoltaic capacity to generate more electricity than his city needs.

 

The Climate Change Communication project found that of the Republicans surveyed more than half felt alienated or ignored by their elected representatives.  If this is a valid representation of attitudes held by the officials, it suggests they pay more attention to other considerations than to taking the opinions of their constituents into account.

 

Conclusion.  Polling shows that the fraction of Americans that thinks global warming is occurring, and that human activity is a cause, is growing in recent years.  The majority of Americans think growth of renewable energy sources should be supported.  More than half of Republicans, and in certain surveys many more, are included among those supporters.  Many reasons, most having to do with national security and economic factors, are identified for this support.  Explicit identification of global warming or similar environmental concerns is low on this list.  Elected officials who are our policymakers at the national level should pay heed to survey results such as these.  They should support expansion of renewable energy sources for all the reasons mentioned in the Climate Change Communication survey.

 

 © 2013 Henry Auer