Tech Talk - Coal begins to fight back

As the President moves further into his second term, he appears to be growing more willing to tackle the concerns that his supporters have over projected Climate Change over the next century. Given the makeup of the Congress it is likely that this will be through additional regulation and Executive orders. There have been a number of reports that have documented the projected costs of climate change. Some of these have been relatively modest in statement. The Copenhagen Consensus Center, for example, noted:

Climate change is real and man-made. It will come as a big surprise that climate change from 1900 to 2025 has mostly been a net benefit, rising to increase welfare about 1.5% of GDP per year. Why? Because global warming has mixed effects and for moderate warming, the benefits prevail. The increased level of CO₂ has boosted agriculture because it works as a fertilizer and makes up the biggest positive impact at 0.8% of GDP. Likewise, moderate warming avoids more cold deaths than it incurs extra heat deaths. It also reduces the demand for heating more than increases the costs of cooling, totaling about 0.4%. On the other hand, warming increases water stress at about 0.2% and negatively impact ecosystems like wetlands at about 0.1%. Storm impacts are very small, as the total storm damages (including naturally caused storms) are about 0.2%.

As temperatures rise, the costs will rise and the benefits decline, leading to a dramatic reduction in net benefits. After year 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action.

This, of course,led The Guardian to stress the post-2070 part of the comment. On the other hand there are the projections of the latest IPCC report (available here) that suggest that costs are already present in the global economy and that they see impacts ranging from a possible fall of 2% in global economic growth, as well as impacts on health and agriculture.

The projections, of which there are many, have focused on the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and have moved governments around the world to take steps to reduce gas emissions, without a lot of comment from the industries most effected by the proposed regulatory changes. It appears that this relatively low key approach is going to change as a new report prepared for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) provides some strong factual discussion points that argue rather for the benefits of carbon use, and contrast these with the costs.

It has become politically popular in recent years to increasingly demonize the fossil fuel industries, and particularly the coal industry. And I have suggested, in the past, that this was an over-reaction. However it is of value to rational discussion of the issue to recognize the points that Management Information Services have put forward in this report.

Much is made of the increased fuel use that continues to power the Industrial Revolution as it continues to spread into under-developed countries and brings their standards of living up to those enjoyed by many in North America, Europe and the more well developed countries. The transition to the better standards of life is considered to need an energy consumption, per capita, of 4,000 kWh per year.

Figure 1. The UN Human Development Index and per Capita Electricity Use (America's Power )

When one considers the relative benefits of the use of power it sometimes help to recognize the mind-set of those making the comparison. The view of someone just gaining access to electric power, and who built a windmill to provide that power, reflects a greater recognition of the benefits of electricity than sometimes seems to be currently politically correct.

The benefits brought by the available power that is now in individual hands as a result of the Industrial Revolution are manifest in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. To maintain and spread that wealth of benefits through the expanded use of electricity to an increasing global user market the IEA projects that there will be an increase in virtually all power sources for electricity over the next twenty-five years.

Figure 2. Projected Electric Power Generation by Energy Source (America's Power )

However one of the impacts of increasing regulation, and the drive to switch to alternate, renewable power sources in Europe has already been an increase in the cost of that power. This is already leading the European Union to review their policies since increasing power costs lower the competitive position of European industries relative to those of countries (such as the USA) with lower power costs.

Within the United States the report concludes that there is a negative correlation between electricity prices and the economy with a suggestion that a 10% increase in electricity prices will cause a 1 % drop in GSP. (This is an awkward argument to make given that the economies of places such as Massachusetts are significantly better with an energy cost of over $0.14/kWh that those of West Virginia where the cost is about $0.08 per kWh – though the argument is about relative change).

But the increases in power costs do not just impact the competitive advantage of industry. As prices rise, so the poorer segment of the community find it harder to meet all their living needs. There is a graph that shows their choices:

Source: National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. Figure 3. Potential Health Impacts of Increased Energy Costs on Low Income Persons (America's Power )

It is the broad use of coal that keeps the prices of power in many countries low, and the ability of many to utilize a domestic resource allows developing countries the opportunity to climb the ladder faster than the rates that they would be able to achieve without this resource. It should be remembered that over the course of the changes brought by industrialization since 1750 (as the report notes):

From 1750 to 2009, global life expectancy more than doubled, from 26 years to 69 years; global population increased 8-fold, from 760 million to 6.8 billion; and incomes increased 11-fold, from $640 to $7,300. . . . . . . in the U.S. from 1900 to 2009 population quadrupled, U.S. life expectancy increased from 47 years to 78 years, and incomes (denoted “affluence”) grew 7.5-fold while carbon dioxide emissions increased 8.5-fold.

The reality of the next decades is that coal and the other fossil fuels will, over the next twenty-five years, remain the basis for electricity generation for a significant portion of the global economy. This is likely to be particularly true for those nations that will grow the most in population and GDP over that interval.

By discounting the benefits that these improvements in life will bring to those countries, and focusing more on the hypothetical costs of anticipated problems the Administration has made a case for changing the energy mix. It is interesting to see that the industry that it likely to be most changed by their policies is now beginning to publically and with facts, shown willing to rebut some of those arguments.

Rising Energy Prices and their impact

As the United States continues through the interminable process that will end with the national elections in November, the continued poor state of the economy is playing an increasing part in the debate over the likely outcome. What seems to have slipped from the discussion, however, is the contribution that energy costs are making in their impact on the different economies around the world including that of the United States. That awareness is becoming more evident in the UK, particularly in the debate over Scottish Independence. The recent Uswitch report notes:

Energy bills have more than doubled in the last 8 years – if this trend continues bills could reach £1,582 a year by 2015 and £2,766 by 2018. But almost six in ten people (59%) say that energy will become unaffordable in the UK if the average bill hits £1,500 a year, with the average household bill today already £1,252 a year.

Yet the increasing reliance on “green energies” in the United Kingdom, and particularly Scotland, are already recognized as leading to major current and future cost increases, with consequent impacts on the strength of the economies that they support.

Figure 1. Relative energy sources for Scotland and the UK in 2010 (Scottish Government)

 The growth of renewable energy in Scotland has been remarkable over the past decade, and has received consistent support to grow beyond the current levels. The major growth has been in the use of wind turbines, which – as I saw in a recent trip to the UK, are now more prevalent than ever. (And, more encouragingly, were also turning in greater proportion than I had seen in the past).

Figure 2. Installed capacity for renewable energy in Scotland through 2010 (Scottish Government)

  Current plans and projections would increase capacity from the roughly 4.4 GW shown above to a total of 28.8 GW being possible with pipeline and projected other projects. And in 2010 Scottish turbines produced more power from turbines than from hydro power for the first time.

Figure 3. Scottish electricity from renewables by source (Scottish Government) 

 Of these, however, only 3.3 GW have progressed beyond the planning stage. Yet, given that renewable sources have supplied nearly 20% of the need at present, this suggests a much greater role in the future, with less need for more conventional fossil fuels. Currently Scotland gets most (around 75%) of its electricity from five power stations, there are the two coal-fired power stations at Longannet and Cockenzie, one gas-fired station at Peterhead, and two nuclear power stations at Torness and Hunterston. These stations will be phased out as the transition to greater reliance on “wind and wave” with a target of 16 GW to be contributed in 2020.

Figure 4. Path to a Scottish Renewable Energy Future (Scottish Government ) 

 (A. Deployment projection based upon an extrapolation of the annual deployment levels experienced in 2007-08. 

B. Deployment projection based upon an extrapolation of the annual deployment levels experienced between 2009 and the start of 2011. 

C. Deployment projection, based on Scenario B above, adjusted for the improvements in the planning/consent system that were introduced in recent years but which have not yet impacted upon actual deployment rates. 

D. The 100% target line is a straight line extrapolation between current installed capacity and the estimated levels of capacity required to achieve 100% of gross consumption from renewables in 2020. 

This hypothetical line is incorporated to identify and acknowledge the scale of the challenge. In reality, it is recognised that deployment will not follow a straight line and would be expected to accelerate towards the latter part of the decade, particularly given the potential magnitude of offshore wind deployment.) 

 The political beliefs of the Scottish National Party (SNP) now in power, which include a desire to reject nuclear power and move to greener sources of electricity is, however, bumping up against the realities of cost and practicality. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers in the UK has released a report that concluded:

The Institution’s findings suggest that the original renewable energy target split for Scotland of 50% electricity, 11% heat and 11% energy for transport, making the overall 20%, and subsequent revision of the electricity generation target to 100%, did not appear to be supported by a rigorous engineering analysis of what is physically required to achieve a successful outcome in the timescale available. 

During the research for this report, First Minister Alex Salmond announced that the Scottish Government had increased the overall percentage target for energy from renewable sources to 30% by 2020. In light of this report’s analysis, this aspirational target appears to represent an ambition that cannot be justified from an engineering perspective.

The Scottish Government has responded, in part, by emphasizing the goal of reducing energy consumption in the country by 12% by the year 2020. Yet significantly raising energy costs and demanding that society reduce demand are not obvious ways of immediately stimulating economies to return to national prosperity. About 750 million British pounds (BP) ($480 million) worth of power came on line in 2011, but the investment required to meet targets in the future will be much higher. The estimated cost for the next 17 GW of capacity is $70 billion (46 billion BP). The Scottish GNP runs around $225 billion (145 billion BP) and there is increasing question over the ability of the country to be able to attract the funding needed to achieve its targets. 

 Yet the concern that worries me more as these debates continue is that while an increasing reliance on renewable energy sources may well be politically promoted, the financial and technical ability to reach those goals is becoming increasingly unavailable. (See particularly the IME report). For, while the focus of the debate remains on that side of the supply, the construction of alternate power sources to meet the anticipated demand are not being properly addressed.

 In Scotland there is now talk of a new coal-fired power station at Grangemouth following the cancellation of a carbon capture and sequestration project at Longannet. The Cockenzie coal-fired plant will close next year, though there are hopes that it might be replaced with a natural gas-fired plant. But these things take time to permit and construct, and should the required pace of renewable sources falter, then the conservation of energy that the Scottish Government would like to see as a voluntary activity might come to be an involuntary need instead, with consequent significantly more severe impact on industry and the Scottish economy. 

 Why is this relevant to the American election? Well unfortunately, though at a slower pace, there seems to be a similar argument being made in the United States to speed up the phase-out of coal-fired power, as perhaps evidenced by the recent decision to close the Big Sandy coal-fired power plant in Kentucky, under EPA pressure. There is a presumption in discussions of the future energy costs for the country that cheap natural gas will be an easy replacement for coal. However, much of that future relies on the low prices of natural gas, and as Chesapeake are finding, just because there is a market, does not mean it is a profitable one. You can’t make up the difference between producing natural gas for $5 a thousand cu ft (kcf), and selling it at $2/kcf by increasing the volume that you sell, and thereby realize a profit. When all the dust settles it is likely there will be less natural gas on the market, at a greater price, but that is a different story. For now one can only be concerned that the failure to recognize that energy prices are playing their part in restraining national economies seems to have become a neglected part of the national discussion, which is a pity – both in Scotland and in the USA.