Those of us who are concerned about climate and carbon in our atmosphere should be worried and perplexed. Our leaders tell us they will fix climate change, yet already in cold weather we are seeing unanticipated rolling blackouts result from “Green” solutions. Are they slipping us the equivalent of opium to smoke? Think of the things they would have us believe.
About the limitations of wind and solar…
The United States in 2019 had 104 million kilowatts (kW) of wind powered, utility scale electrical generation capacity. These facilities generated 300 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric power or about 32% of their theoretical capacity. At the same time we had 477 million kW of natural gas powered electrical generation capacity producing 1.6 trillion kWh of electric power or about 38% of their theoretical capacity. The 67% of unused wind powered capacity results largely from the wind not always blowing uniformly. Much of the 62% of unused natural gas capacity results from modulating the generators in response to changes in demand. The inconvenient truth is that for 67% of the time natural gas generators must produce as though the wind generators do not exist and during up to 67% of peak demand periods the wind generated power is not available when it is needed most. Solar power sources produce an even lower portion of their rated capacity. The consequence is that utility companies investing in new solar or wind capacity have little assurance that this new capacity will be there when their customers need it most.
We are told the solution to this problem is batteries. Does it sound like a fairy tale that solar panels and windmills able to produce less than one third of rated capacity can somehow find extra energy to charge batteries to fill in the gaps when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine? These generating systems are fully used to replace fossil fuels when they are available. It is a fantasy to think they can also find the energy to charge batteries. For batteries to be used to fill in gaps in interruptible fuel sources including wind and solar, the batteries must be re-charged by continuously operating power sources such as fossil fuels or hydro or nuclear. This is the inconvenient truth that forever limits the use wind and solar to around 30% of our total power generation. We can still expand from current levels of about 9%, but without massive investment in nuclear power, fossil fuels will be with us for as far into the future as we can visualize.
About electric vehicles…
The battery assembly that powers a Tesla Model S weighs 1330 pounds and contains significant amounts of lithium, manganese, nickel, cobalt, and aluminum. All of these materials have environmental and human costs during mining and refining, including consumption of energy and water resources and erosion and residue requiring land reclamation. To minimize power requirements, the body of the Tesla is made from aluminum, which is seven times more energy intensive to produce than the steel found in most other car bodies. In terms of the environment and its carbon footprint, the electric vehicle comes off the assembly line already well behind the vehicle with an internal combustion engine.
What happens today when we add new load to the grid? Most hydro and nuclear sources are already operating at or near capacity, even in low demand periods. Wind and solar, when they are available are used to displace fossil fuel consumption. That leaves only fossil fueled capacity for battery recharging. The inconvenient truth is that, until we have a surplus of usable capacity of carbon free energy, every new electric vehicle will have its battery recharged completely powered by fossil fuel. As of today, without surplus uninterrupted green generating capacity, no electric vehicle has yet reduced our carbon footprint in the slightest amount. Unless and until we start investing in nuclear or some other carbon free continuously operating generating capacity, electric vehicles can never deliver more than one third of their carbon free promise. This truth, by the way, applies equally to the encouraged or forced migration from gas cooking or heating or drying to electric.
About a future without fossil fuels…
In search of carbon purity our new President is beginning to shut down permits for drilling operations, with the idea that somehow this will reduce our carbon footprint. Elementary economics teaches us that reducing supply from our country will have no impact on usage here or elsewhere if others rapidly replace that supply. The inconvenient truth is that others will rapidly replace any reduced supply from the United States. The immediate results of constricting drilling in our country will be unemployment for American workers, losses for American investors, losses of tax revenues for many states, increasing profits for elites in Iran, Venezuela, Russia and Saudi Arabia, less security for America and higher energy prices to Americans.
The discussion of eliminating fossil fuels often glosses over the reality that petroleum and natural gas have many uses beyond fuel. Over 25% of both petroleum and natural gas in the United States is consumed as feedstock by the petrochemical industry. These fossil fuels do not contribute to our carbon footprint and without them we would have no plastics, no synthetic rubber, no asphalt, no compressed gasses, no synthetic fibers or fabrics, many fewer lubricants, adhesives, sealers, paints, varnishes and other coatings. The gaskets in our machinery would be less reliable. Without synthetic insulation materials we would be less able to keep our homes and offices warm or our refrigerators cold. In short, our life would scarcely resemble life as we know it today. Additionally, eliminating all fossil fuels would eliminate all air travel and airfreight, much sea travel and transport, and all heavy construction and military vehicles that need to operate in remote and unpredictable locations. These uses combined require over one third of our current oil and gas production. The inconvenient truth is that extremism in the search for carbon purity brings consequences few human beings, no matter how rich or poor they seem today, will find tolerable.
About the environmental benefits of pipelines…
Continuing the search for carbon purity, our new President is beginning to shut down pipelines including some licensed and under construction and others already in operation. Aside from the immorality and illegality of these broken commitments and takings without compensation, this policy is counterproductive to realistic green objectives. The inconvenient truth is that oil and gas are with us for a very long time and the safest and most energy efficient and reliable way to transport them from well to petrochemical plants or to refineries or to ports or end users is via pipelines. It is not rocket science that pipelines are less risky, less intrusive and more efficient than trucks or unit trains for this purpose.
And about real solutions…
The good news is that we can understand and accept all these inconvenient truths and abandon pyrrhic solutions. We can reach low carbon goals with real demonstrable technology. We can reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for electric power by at least two thirds, to less than 20%, surely in two decades, perhaps in this decade if we dedicate ourselves. At this level we could also recharge electric vehicle batteries with clean energy and thereby realize their promise.
China connected its first nuclear power reactor to their grid on December 15, 1991. By 1995 they had three operational nuclear generators with a total capacity of 2.3 million kW. In the twenty-first century they have started up forty-seven reactors giving them a total of fifty nuclear reactors and a total capacity of 47.5 million kW. China currently has twelve reactors under construction that will bring them to sixty-two reactors and a total capacity of 59.4 million kW. Meanwhile, China has also installed solar and wind powered generation capacity at a pace more than double the United States’ during this period.
The United States connected its first nuclear power reactor to the grid on November 19, 1957. The oldest reactor still in operation was connected on November 9, 1969. We now have ninety-four reactors in operation with a total capacity of 96.6 million kW. Ninety-three of these have been operating accident-free since installation in1996 or before. We currently have two reactors under construction since 2013 that will bring us up to ninety-six reactors with a total capacity of 98.8 million kW. We produce 20% of our electricity with these nuclear reactors and consume more nuclear power than any other nation in the world. In sixty-four years we have had only one serious accident, at Three Mile Island. Even at that accident, serious as it was, no radiation was released from the reactor site.
We have fallen behind in the development of new nuclear capacity, not because of cost or knowledge or skill or capital, but rather because of political and regulatory strangulation. The proof of this truth is as close as the United States Navy. Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, was commissioned in 1955, In the ensuing sixty-six years the United States Navy has logged 6,200 reactor years without a single radiation incident. The Navy continues to routinely equip all submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers and many other ships with nuclear power. The active fleet currently includes 81 nuclear ships powered by 92 reactors all built by American companies, principally Westinghouse and Bechtel Corp. These shipboard nuclear reactors are more compact and less powerful than traditional land-based reactors across the world. The technology developed for them and experience operating them is driving many conversations about “modular reactors. The inconvenient truth is that we should and can converse and study less and build more modular reactors now. America is uniquely equipped to lead the world in design, manufacture and operation of this technology. We are missing this opportunity today, primarily because too many believe the first commandment of climate religion is to destroy fossil fuels. If those devout believers would pay attention to inconvenient truths, to nuclear science, and perhaps to the Chinese strategy, they might be able to visualize a future where solar and wind and nuclear and fossil fuels all are woven into the fabric of a tranquil future. All it takes to begin weaving this fabric is vision and courageous leadership. We can show the world how to conquer climate change in this decade. Do we have the courage, the leadership, and the will act?
Michael Moffitt
February, 2021