The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recently proposed carbon rules for power plants are the lightning rod for climate change discussions and, if implemented, will mandate changes for U.S. power generation.
Supporters laud EPA for taking action on climate issues by way of imposing change on the power generation industry.
Detractors maintain that EPA’s rules are illegal and costly, and will impact reliability. While there is broad agreement that carbon dioxide must be reduced, the issue of fossil fuels versus renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, is often divisive.
Renewables are championed as limitless resources. For example, solar energy is ubiquitous and the daily amount reaching Earth is much more than society can consume. A similar statement could be made about water and the vast amounts stored in oceans, except the issue isn’t quantity — it’s quality. Solar and wind are also inherently intermittent, which presents challenges for matching fluctuating supplies with on-demand consumer needs. Converting solar and wind energy to high-quality electricity for supporting an entire state is a material-intense prospect that would require physical space, back-up storage capacity and a rigorous state-level analysis to assess land space, material needs, and economic viability. In contrast, fossil fuels are high-quality energy resources with no intermittency problems, but with inherent carbon issues that require mitigation.
If we had an environmentally green magic wand, we could wave it at renewables and eliminate any low quality and intermittency issues, or wave it at fossil fuels and eliminate the emissions. We wouldn’t need to wave it at nuclear energy — it has none of these issues.
Absent the wand, we’re left with developing a practical strategy constrained by realistic short- and long-term concerns for climate and our economy. As such, the oft-restrained “all-the-above” energy strategy transitions from cliche to necessity.
Currently, carbon capture and storage technologies are being developed, with one of the largest under construction in Mississippi. Successful implementation will allow continued use of abundant U.S. coal and natural gas resources without the current emissions issues.
Nuclear energy is being re-established, with new units under construction in Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina.
Large-scale energy storage, which is fundamentally necessary to support efficient deployment of renewables at large scales, is maturing.
A premise of EPA’s rule is that it will provide a global example of U.S. commitment to climate change action and induce other countries to take similar actions.
However, CCS, nuclear, and energy storage innovations are a stronger example, as they hold promise for directly reducing emissions near-term when transferred to other countries, and they represent a broad, vested commitment to climate action as U.S. industry innovates and assumes the financial risks itself.
Carbon emission is a critical issue that we must confront. However, it isn’t one-dimensional. There are valid concerns that mandating change in a vital U.S. industrial sector has inherent economic risks and that EPA’s rule will not persuade other countries to substantively reduce their own emissions. The integrity of the polar ice caps is a particular concern, but unilateral efforts through EPA’s rule will have negligible impact in that regard.
Considered individually, neither fossil fuels nor renewables can meet the formidable environmental and economic objectives we face today, so we don’t have the luxury of choosing either-or.
However, a diverse energy supply based on CCS, nuclear and renewables is up to this challenge. The United States should aggressively develop CCS technology to support safe, responsible use of coal and natural gas, should promote and develop nuclear for its carbon-free and reliability characteristics, and should judiciously develop renewables and companion energy storage technologies for efficient, geographically appropriate integration into our power generation and distribution systems.
The EPA’s rules are weighted toward environmental concerns, while the economic aspects can only be assumed.
For Georgia, where utility-sector CO2 emissions have been reduced 28 percent since 2001, the rules may force premature and costly changes, such as the conversion of existing coal plants to gas, construction of new gas plants, or incorporation of renewables without sufficient time to optimize the economics.
Germany and Spain are currently experiencing unexpected consequences of large-scale, aggressive deployment of highly subsidized renewable resources. We should learn from such examples before we force changes into our own debt-laden $16 trillion economy, which cannot afford the risks of a large-scale experiment on its capacity to generate and distribute clean, reliable and affordable electricity. Neither our climate nor our economy can afford mistakes at that scale.
David Gattie is an associate professor of environmental engineering at the University of Georgia. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Georgia, the University System of Georgia, or the University System Board of Regents. Send email to dgattie@gmail.com.
Gattie: US needs multifacted approach to energy issues
