10
America's Energy Future-
A Solid Basis for Optimism
More than 50 percent of the electricity in America is produced by coal-burning power plants-the dirtiest of fossil fuels. The dangers of burning coal are well-documented. It produces "acid rain," which has severely damaged our forests and waterways and cost society nearly $25 billion each year.1 It pumps an estimated 150 tons of mercury into the air each year which can cause neurotoxicity in fetuses, as well as enter the food chain. Research also shows that air pollution and other contaminants from burning fossil fuels kill 64,000 Americans a year-more than who die from auto accidents.2
These facts alone are enough cause to shift our energy system to clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a three-volume study by 2,400 scientists on climate change due to global warming presented to the United Nations in December 1995 makes the shift even more imperative. The study projected a 1 to 3.5 degree centigrade increase in world temperatures by the year 2100 based on projected carbon emissions. The study also projected a 15 to 95 centimeter rise in sea levels.3
While scientists continue to debate the impact of increased CO2 emissions,
global average surface temperatures during the past decade have been the highest
in recorded history.4
It appears clear that there is significant risk of climate change that could
severely undermine standards of living for people in all countries, and do so
for hundreds of years to come.
August 23, 1996, Washington, D.C. The backdrop is perfect. A spectacular photograph of the earth-that familiar NASA picture of an emerald-green jewel hanging out there in empty space-stretches from stage floor to the high-beamed ceiling of the Grand Ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel. You can't miss the message during this mini-conference on renewable energy: Ours is a majestic birthplace, a magnificent home in the heavens-and we need to keep it that way.
And that's the point the speaker is making right now. But he's also talking about how precarious our home has become. Christopher Flavin is senior vice president of the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, D.C. and co-author of Power Surge: Guide to the Coming Energy Revolution. He is also one of America's leading authorities on the hazards of global warming and the need to shift to renewable energy technologies. Flavin is addressing 400 Natural Law Party candidates and supporters assembled in Washington for the party's national nominating convention. The message Flavin gives is a nonpartisan one-the same he would give to the Republicans and Democrats.
It's summer 1996-less than 18 months before the conference on global warming scheduled to be held in Kyoto, Japan-and the facts about the dangers of carbon dioxide emissions are starting to seep into the public awareness. And Christopher Flavin, with his books and lecture tours and research, is at the forefront of the education of America.
This is what he tells us:
A direct consequence of an energy system that consumes fossil fuels is that we are dumping roughly six billion tons of carbon into the world's atmosphere each year. These are fossil fuels that took billions of years to pile up in the earth's crust, and they are now being consumed in a relatively short period of time. In fact, in the last century, since the fossil fuel age started, we've significantly altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Scientists around the world are working hard to figure out exactly what this increase in concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is going to give us-and our descendants.
"The changes in average global temperature that scientists are projecting may not seem all that extraordinary," Flavin says. "But when you work with computer models that are used to simulate the world's climate, and you look at all of the feedbacks that exist, it turns out that the changes will dramatically affect the various relationships that determine the climate we have in particular regions of the world today."
Areas that are relatively hot and dry today may become even hotter and drier, and turn into desert. Areas that are warm, tropical, and wet will probably become wetter and subject to more frequent and more severe tropical storms. The strength of hurricanes and the length of hurricane season are likely to strengthen. In fact, a variety of changes that are likely to increase in the earth's weather systems would increase the number of natural disasters, increase the magnitude of those damages, and also seriously threaten food production in many countries as changing weather patterns undermine our ability to grow food.5
Flavin's not letting up. He says that we might be able to cope with this change if we had a population of a billion or two billion on the planet and didn't have all of our pre-existing environmental problems.
"But in today's increasingly crowded world, it's clear that climate change could severely undermine standards of living for people in all countries, and do so over many centuries to come," he says.5
"The problem is that once greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere, there's no easy way to remove them," he says. "With a local air pollution problem, you can put in place new technologies or new policies and change the problem overnight. It's the same thing with solid waste; it's the same thing with a lot of environmental problems. But with global climate change it's going to be irreversible for centuries to come.6
"Basically, this is a problem that we're bestowing on our children and grandchildren and leaving it up to them to craft a solution-a solution that's going to be much more difficult in the future than it is now," he says.
Actually, Flavin is optimistic about the future. He gives two reasons: energy conservation and new technologies.
"Technologies and policies are at hand to deliver a new kind of energy system relatively quickly," he says."It may seem hard to imagine that we could replace our oil refineries, internal combustion engines, and coal-fired power plants with solar-powered generators, wind turbines, fuel cells, and other new technologies. But remember, the energy system we have today was created about 100 years ago. And look at the rapid pace of change that we've seen in computers and telecommunications-all in the past 20 years. With the energy technologies we have today we can certainly create a very different kind of energy system-a sustainable energy system-over the next 20 years."
How can we push for that change? someone else asks. The market will drive it, he says, and it will be driven through cost-savings. As an example, he ticks off a few facts showing the waste and inefficiency of the current energy system:
"The whole system can be made much more efficient, and that will cut energy use of all kinds," he says. "That means even if new energy technologies are a little more expensive at first, they will still be more economical in providing the lighting, transportation, computing power, and other services that we need."
It's also time to move away from an energy system that is based on digging up and transporting bulk fuels, consuming them rather inefficiently, and putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he says.
"We need to shift to a system that is based on manufactured technologies that are efficient and that are decentralized and modular in nature," he says. "Already there are economies of scale. For example, a power plant is on the market that you could hold in your hand, and it costs less per kilowatt than the coal-fired power plant that's probably providing power to your home. There are also newer technologies, such as gas turbines and fuel cells, and manufactured renewable energy technologies, such as wind turbines and solar cells.
"In many cases, the cost of these technologies is already very competitive with fossil fuels and will fall further as they go into mass production in the next few years," he says.
Another sign of change on the horizon is wind energy-the fastest growing energy source in the world today-and yet few people know about it, he says. Nuclear is growing at only one percent per year, coal has not grown since 1990, and natural gas is growing at only two to three percent per year. But the wind power industry has averaged a growth rate of 20 percent per year since 1990, and, in 1995, it grew at 32 percent.
Flavin is a compelling speaker and everyone is silent, listening. He outlines what's ahead and what needs to be done to get there.
"We're at the beginning of a new age," he says. "We have to change some energy policies to get new technologies into the market. We need to charge for pollution rather than letting people pollute for free. And we need to tear down the market barriers that currently prevent wind-power and solar-powered generators from gaining access to the energy grid."
There are many environmentalists among the 400 candidates here at this convention,
and there are many others-doctors, business leaders, lawyers, housewives, retired
people, etc.-who are working to change our energy and environmental policies.
Looking out over the audience, Flavin says, "If politically-motivated people
like yourselves get involved and work at the state and national level to make
these policy changes, we can and will have an energy revolution in the next
twenty years. We will create a sustainable energy economy."
Green Energy
I am standing in a corn-stubbled farm field outside the tiny town of Cedar, Iowa. It is icy-cold and there are two inches of snow on the ground. In front of me, Tom Factor stands ten rungs up on an aluminum ladder that is braced against a metal tower that rises another 160 feet in the air. Attached to the tower, every 50 feet or so, are wind vanes, solar and temperature sensors, and tiny cups that catch stiff winds coming today from the north and spin furiously around. Factor is working to program a "logger box" at the base of the tower, which connects together all the cables from the instruments above. He is unscrewing things, jiggling wires, and screwing things back in.
Factor is Director of the Iowa Wind Energy Institute, and this is a wind monitoring station. The station, one of 20 that Factor patrols, collects data for the Iowa Energy Center, a state-mandated agency for conducting research, and helping to put in place programs that can reduce Iowa's dependence on fossil fuels. These stations measure the wind to help plan a utility-scale implementation. Such stations, found in windy areas all over the country, are a key link in the rapidly growing high-tech world of renewable energy technologies. These technologies represent the energy future of America.
It is a crystal clear day. I walk to stay warm while Factor works. There is not a cloud in sight. I turn and behind me, maybe 15 miles away (this part of Iowa is very flat, you can see a long way) I spot huge billowing clouds erupting out of the horizon. "What is that?" I shout over to Factor. He turns. "That's a coal plant. It supplies electricity to our whole region. That's the smokestack from the plant."
That represents the past. Coal is shipped by train from Wyoming to fuel Iowa. The coal is burned in plants that pump carbon dioxide and pollutants into the air, contributing heavily-most scientists now agree-to global warming and acid rain, and posing a threat to the very health of the planet. This is an archaic technology compared the one that stands quietly before me. The information from these wind monitoring stations will be used to run huge wind turbines. Such turbines are economical, clean, and entirely renewable (it's going to be a long time before America runs out of wind). This is the present-and the future.
Factor is a member of the American Wind Energy Association, active in projects with the National Renewable Energy Laboratories, and an advisor to the Natural Law Party's energy platform committee.
We are far from telephones and power lines so a cellular phone, attached to the data logger and powered by a solar panel, downloads the data at regular intervals to computers at the offices of the Iowa Wind Energy Institute. Factor then analyzes the data and report to the Iowa Energy Center in Ames. His maps and reports are posted on the Energy Center's web site. The National Renewable Energy Laboratories, a division of the United States Department of Energy, in Boulder, Colorado, as well as meteorologists, independent power producers, and energy planners will use Factor's data to help estimate what the output characteristics of different wind turbines would be in different locations-vital information for understanding the economics of implementing wind energy in America.7
I ask him why he needs to collect such detailed information.
"Very small differences in wind speed make huge differences in the electricity-generating potential of the wind," he says. "If you have a site that has an annual average of 12 m.p.h. and another site that has an annual average of 14 m.p.h., the 14 m.p.h. site will produce as much as 40 to 50% more electricity, with the exact same equipment, as the 12 m.p.h. site. That may seem like a very small difference in wind speed-one that you probably wouldn't notice if the wind was blowing on your face-but the difference in electricity production and economics would be vastly different."
Factor folds up the ladder and slides it into the back of his stationwagen. His work is done. We head home, an hour away, and I ask him questions about the future of renewables-wind, solar, and biomass; how America's energy portfolio is changing; why the change is happening so fast-and, yet, why it's taking so long.
We turn off a muddy farm road and pick up Highway 210 heading south. Outside my window, in the distance, we can still see smoke pouring out of the coal smokestacks. Eighty-six percent of Iowa's energy-and at least that much nationwide-comes from burning coal, and it has been that way for decades.8 But times are changing, renewable energy technologies are proving their worth, and the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that within the next 10 to 20 years, wind energy in particular will be a significant part of the U.S. energy portfolio. Experts estimate that Iowa alone has enough wind resources to supply five percent of the energy needs of the entire nation.
"There many advantages of wind energy," Factor says. "The construction of new wind power plants is now cost competitive, and often more cost effective than fossil fuel alternatives, such as coal and diesel. Wind energy also keeps jobs and money in the state. A wind farm of 100 turbines can be maintained by servicing turbines one at a time instead of closing down the whole plant for service as is often the case with fossil fuel plants. You can also produce the electricity in incremental amounts. If you need a little more energy, you can put up a few more turbines instead of building another large-scale power plant."
Critics claim there are disadvantages to wind; in particular, the fact that wind is intermittent, but Factor says that's becoming less of an issue because of the deregulation of the electric utility industry.
"Wind energy is now being sold on the open market and, like any commodity, it can be shipped anywhere in the country. If it's windy in the Midwest and we're producing excess power here, then that energy can be shipped across transmission wires to the East or to the South, and vice-versa. There also are systems that hybridize wind and solar, or wind and hydroelectric power, giving you solar-generated electricity or hydro-generated electricity when the wind is not blowing."
I ask, If wind is so economical, abundant, and clean, why does it represent such a small portion of the energy pie? It's a loaded question, but I want to hear Factor's answer.
"One reason is because it's still cheaper to continue to fuel an old coal plant than to build a new renewable energy plant," he says. "The cost of producing a kilowatt of electricity by fueling an existing coal plant is about 1.5 cents. The cost of producing a kilowatt of electricity from a new wind power plant is 4.5 cents. But if wind power had access to the low cost financing options available to utilities and was being produced on the scale of fossil fuel plants, it would probably cost 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That would make it far more cost competitive."
Even as Factor talks about the potential cost-effectiveness of wind energy, there are more advanced technologies than wind, such as hydrogen fuel cells, but their costs are high.
"Fuel cells are probably the energy source of the future," Factor says. "They produce steam as a by-product-an energy source without pollution. Fuel cells can store power from solar roof tiles and solar window coatings or a small wind turbine. A cell can be placed in the basement of a house, thereby completely eliminating costly transmission grids. People would have their own clean sources of electricity. But it's not currently financially viable to implement. This is one of many examples of innovative products being developed with a view towards solving our fossil fuel dependence.
I ask Factor how America ranks in the world for renewables.
"Europe is far ahead in renewables compared to the U.S. For example, Europe in 1996 has held down CO2 emissions to just one percent above the 1990 levels, while U.S. emissions rose nine percent during the same period.9 Within the U.S., California has taken the lead in renewables, with Minnesota, Texas, and now Iowa supporting the greatest new growth. Here in Iowa contracts have been signed and the installation will take place in the next two years for close to $250 million worth of wind turbines. That represents a little more than one percent of Iowa's electricity generation."
What has the reaction been from the fossil-fueled utilities?
"They have been opposed from Day One. In 1992, the Iowa state legislature implemented an alternative energy production law which mandated that the utilities produce a tiny fraction-1.2%-of their total electric output from alternative renewable energy sources. The utilities resisted it. They fought heated battles in the courts and in the media. They claimed the plan would cost taxpayers millions of dollars to install these new technologies. They also claimed renewables were not necessary, that they were already producing enough clean electricity. Independent power producers found themselves caught up in the courts for 5 years, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, fighting batteries of utility lawyers who employed every kind of stalling tactic. Fortunately, the state law was upheld, with a few alterations."
Have the fears of the utilities come true?
"It certainly doesn't appear that way," Factor says. "In fact, the utilities are starting to understand that developing wind energy is very smart. It's a hedge against the inflationary costs of fossil fuels, and it gives them hands-on experience with a new technology that is going to become an important part of their portfolio as the years progress."
The free market is also starting to show its force.
"Many people are requesting and willing to pay more money on their utility bill to assist the installation of renewable energy sources," he says. "There are many surveys that show there is a very large customer base that will pay more for 'green energy'-renewable energy or energy from clean sources-and these surveys have been verified with contracts. Consumers are starting to understand that they can vote with their dollars, they can push forward the transition to a better world through their buying choices."
I ask Factor about the other renewables. Iowa has plenty of sunlight and plenty of crops. While he believes that wind energy holds the most promise, solar and biomass will also play an essential role in a renewable energy portfolio. He discusses their pros and cons.
"Solar energy has many excellent applications and is very useful in certain parts of the country. Currently, photovoltaic solar panels cost five to eight times more per kilowatt than wind energy because the solar panel materials and their efficiency are not yet as cost-effective wind energy. In sunny areas with little wind and modest energy requirements solar can make a big impact. And costs will drop significantly with increased demand and breakthroughs in technology. Also, passive solar heating and hot-water collectors can significantly reduce electricity usage.
Because there's so much cropland and crop residue in Iowa, Factor says, there's considerable research being done in the state on biomass.
"Biomass generators burn a fuel source-such as crop residues, grass, or wood-that generates heat to drive a turbine,"˙he says. "There are also biomass digesters that directly digest grains and produce methane, which is then burned. They can also produce methane from city waste which reduces land fill and odors while recycling trash. But there are some potential problems with biomass. First, if you grow special crops for biomass, such as switch grass, it can take precious farm land out of food crop production. Second, you may end up using a lot of energy to harvest and transport the fuel source. And third, you may have to use polluting pesticides or fertilizers to grow a mono-culture type of plant. So it's debatable whether biomass will become a very major electricity-producing fuel source. However, biomass will definitely have some important applications in certain locations, particularly here in Iowa where there's a lot of crop residue."
What will it take to shift America's energy consumption away from fossil fuels towards renewables?
"Government incentives are needed to support new energy sources," Factor says. "Because of our current utility and automotive corporate infrastructure, if we rely only on economic forces, the rate of change will be too slow. Look at federal tax incentives for the fossil fuel industry. This is a mature industry which needs no support, yet it receives over $5 billion each year.10 And this doesn't take into account the enormous costs of keeping our oil pipeline open to the Middle East, or the health and environmental costs of fossil fuels."
Factor supports a wide range of policy changes, including overhauling fossil fuel subsidies; giving tax credits to energy producers using renewable technologies; and setting portfolio standards that would require power producers to provide a minimum of 10% of their power from renewable sources by the year 2010. Basically, he wants to level the playing field for independent power producers to deliver renewables.
But there's another reason to change our energy system.
"China and the rest of the developing world are looking to the U.S. as an economic and technological model," he says. "They are poised to implement an energy infrastructure to support electricity and automobiles that is just like ours. If that happens, the impact on health and the environment could be catastrophic. We have to set an example for the world through our use of reasonable renewable technologies.11
"But it all comes down to education, because energy is market-driven," he says. "People have to want green energy, even at a slightly higher price initially at least, because they know it will save the environment now and for their children's children. We have to protect the future today."