Trading in Nuclear for Something New: Implications of the Vermont Yankee Shutdown

Entergy announced on August 27th that it would close it’s Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, located in Vernon, Vermont, in late 2014. Following a small number of other troubled nuclear plants, Entergy cited the low cost of natural gas and “artificially low electricity markets” as the reason for the closure. The state government and many Vermont citizens are happy to see it go- but as the largest energy generator in the state, how will it change the energy landscape of Vermont and the rest of New England?

The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant

The (Brief) History of a Yankee

Vermont Yankee came online in 1972, directly in the midst of the US nuclear era. A 650 MW plant, it was originally licensed for a 40 year schedule of operation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It’s a pretty standard light water reactor, similar to most of the nuclear reactors built in the 60s and 70s that are still operating today.

But today, it’s impending closure draws celebration from many Vermonters, including Governor Peter Shumlin. In 2010, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 to block the recertification of the plant by the Vermont Public Service Board, which oversees Vermont's utility industries. So what turned Vermont’s citizens against the plant?

Nuclear power in the US has drawn criticism and distrust countrywide from the very start, due to its association with the 1940s development of nuclear weapons. Economic problems for the nuclear industry in the late 1970s seemed to break the illusion that nuclear power was to outright replace fossil fuels, and issues were joined with a renewal of public fear in 1979 over the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. One of the nuclear reactors there suffered a partial nuclear meltdown, destroying the reactor and requiring an expensive decommissioning. Finally, in 1986, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine struck a near fatal blow to the public perception of nuclear power, standing as the worst nuclear disaster in history. Chernobyl brought a new fear to the public mind- radiation.

The destroyed Chernobyl reactor in 1986. The disaster
killed dozens and left a large amount of Eastern Europe
contaminated with radiation.

Vermont Yankee carried on through this much like other US nuclear reactors- generating a steady part of US baseload energy cheaply and cleanly, while generating nuclear waste which the US still can’t decide what to do with (Link, Yucca Mountain). In 2002, Entergy bought the plant for $160 million.

Vermonters tend to have their own personal style of opposition, including the occasional 12 foot long antinuclear paper-mache cow. The steady group of Vermont nuclear protesters were galvanized in 2007 when a cooling tower at the plant partially collapsed, causing the plant to have to reduce it’s power output while repairs were completed. Then, in early 2010, Vermont Yankee reported detecting radioactive tritium in local groundwater monitoring wells. The leak was traced to a corroded steam pipe and repaired without noticeable contamination of drinking water supplies, but the cleanup was incredibly expensive for Entergy.

Yankee’s safety was the primary driver in the Vermont Senate’s attempt to prevent its relicensing. Despite the state's efforts, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was behind Vermont Yankee, offering a 20- year license extension in 2012. Entergy and the State of Vermont became locked in a long legal battle, which ended in a victory for Vermont Yankee in 2013, in which the federal government ruled the State did not have the authority to force the plant to close. Less than a month after winning their battle to keep Yankee open, Entergy announced their decision to voluntarily close the plant in 2014.

Despite their odd timing, Entergy is claiming that the plant is simply not economically sound to run given the plummeting cost of natural gas created by the new hydraulic fracturing rush. It’s unlikely that this alone would cause the plant to be too costly- after all, there are over a hundred other similar nuclear plants with no imminent plans to close- but it is entirely possible Vermont Yankee has more needed upcoming maintenance and repairs, and Entergy does not want to take their chances footing a large bill to keep the old plant running.

As to giving up just after winning the lawsuit, this might be chalked up to a moral victory- Vermont Yankee isn't Entergy’s only nuclear electric power plant, and giving up to avoid a costly legal battle would set the precedent that other states can push their nuclear plants towards closure as well. Entergy is seeking to make a point: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal governing body built to oversee and manage the US portfolio of nuclear reactors, is supreme. This is especially important as talk of new development in the nuclear industry is slowly bubbling up- Entergy doesn't want to run the risk of having further projects shut down despite their federal backing.


The End of Vermont Nuclear

The Energy Information Agency actually has data on every power station in the US- which is actually pretty great. From this you can piece together a pretty good picture of Vermont’s energy generation portfolio. Vermont has one of the cleanest generation schemes in the US- with several hydroelectric plants, some new solar and wind, and rare scattered fossil-fuel generators, the state only has a single plant that utilizes natural gas. Vermont and Rhode Island are the only two states to not have a single coal-fired power plant.

Vermont Yankee is the state’s only nuclear power plant, and yet you may be surprised to learn that it consists of nearly 3/4 of the state’s annual generation.

This has to do with the economics of scale; the dozen plus large hydroelectric projects in the state are on rivers that simply are not big enough to be huge generators. Nuclear power utilizes a smaller footprint to generate more electricity, something most renewable technologies don’t have the opportunity to do.

If you’re worried that Vermont as a state could never make up for a loss of almost three quarters of its electrical generation and that the state will go dark, you need not be. Green Mountain Power, the state’s largest transmission company, stopped purchasing power from Vermont Yankee in 2011. To be honest, one of the reasons energy generation is rarely reported by state is that it is rarely used in the same state it was produced- the US electrical grids are widely interconnected, and market sales of electricity cross borders more often than not. Although Green Mountain Power makes a point of siding with the people of Vermont by refusing a contract with Vermont Yankee, they do not state quite as directly that much of their generation comes instead from nuclear power in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

But when it comes down to it, Vermont is already an energy importer- whether it be hydroelectric power from Canada or nuclear from New England. But this still means that more economic activity is moving out of the state- which is a tough blow for a state that has struggled to keep jobs inside it's borders and has seen large drops in population. And if the energy Vermont Yankee is producing isn't used in Vermont, then the implications for New England might be more interesting.

The Evolving Energy Landscape of New England

In 2011, Vermont Yankee generated nearly 4% of the electricity generated in New England. That may not seem like a whole lot, but it will be missed- and needs to be replaced.

New England is a special place, in terms of energy. It has a very clean generation profile compared to the US as a whole, and it‘s been getting cleaner. When you take the whole region’s power supply breakdown, it looks like this:

Coal, the king of electricity in the US, is dwarfed by other technologies in the New England states which boast a staggering 50% generation through natural gas. Although cleaner than coal, natural gas still produces a lot of carbon dioxide- so while it’s environmentally better, it’s not the best. But when it comes to New England, 43% of their generation is greenhouse gas free (almost- see this), which is impressive. The bulk of that greenhouse gas free generation is though nuclear plants like Yankee.

So what will replace Yankee? Well, lets look at how New England has changed in the last twenty years:

It certainly won’t be a coal or petroleum plant, but you all already knew that. New England has been aggressively phasing out coal through fuel switching and renewables. In fact, New England has replaced 65% of it’s coal power and 98% of it’s petroleum generation to cleaner alternatives from 1991 to 2011, so it’s pretty safe to say that that’s not happening.

It’s also unlikely to come from hydroelectric power or more nuclear- hydro because nearly all of the hydroelectric sites that can be developed have been, and nuclear because there isn’t enough public support in the air yet- especially not in a victorious Vermont.

So what does that leave us? A few options stand out: solar, wind, and natural gas. Let’s take a look at each.

Replacing Vermont Yankee with Solar

A 2.2 MW solar farm recently installed in South Burlington, Vermont

When it comes to solar panels, central generation isn’t its strong suit. Solar technology has exploded on the New England grid from 0 MWh in 2007 to 6,579 MWh in 2011- but, that still is only 0.0053% of the grid’s power. That’s next to nothing.

But solar does shine in distributed generation- which is a lot harder to measure quantitatively. When you put a solar panel on your house, you buy less energy from the grid- so the grid needs to generate less energy. From the utility’s point of view, it looks identical to you having a newly efficient home. Solar is almost certainly a contributor to the decrease in energy demand across the US recently, but how much so is uncertain.

For now, though, we're considering replacing Yankee with grid power. The National Renewable Energy Laboratories (NREL) has a map of solar potential across the US- how much energy a standard solar panel could pick up on an annual basis. Looking at southern Vermont, where Vermont Yankee is now, we see that you could generate between 4.0 and 4.5 kWh per square meter of solar panel per day, on average. But we're not very good at capturing this energy- we can hardly extract 0.58 kWh per day out of this, on average. We need to generate 4,907,355,000 kWh a year. Each of our square meter solar panels would produce...

And to cover Vermont Yankee, that means we need:

23 Million solar panels covering 5,680 acres

That is a lot- and it would probably take up a bit more space because Vermont is far enough North that the panels would need to be tilted to pick up enough sun. Solar has been growing quickly, but it's unlikely that it will be able to expand quite that fast to cover the space that Yankee will leave behind.

Replacing Vermont Yankee with Wind

A wind turbine from the 40 MW, 16 turbine Sheffield Wind Farm

Wind will probably be a little more effective than solar power here. Wind is more often considered a viable part of grid-scale generation, and actually covers 0.7% of New England’s total generation. When it comes to where this wind is being generated, however, you may notice something interesting:

Maine seems to have a monopoly over wind generation, covering over 80%. That’s no coincidence- Maine has the largest amount of unpopulated wilderness, and that’s its biggest play. When it comes to wind power, people are wind’s worst enemy- shooting down projects because they would be loud, ugly, or require environmentally damaging mountaintop construction. This is often called NIMBY- the Not In My BackYard effect- and has been most famously encountered in the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts.

But lets take a look- how many wind turbines are we talking?

GE manufactures a modern wind turbine with a maximum power output of 2.5 MW, which is one of the largest on the market. This means that when enough wind is blowing, it will generate that much power. The wind doesn't blow all of the time though, so they won't generate that much power all of the time. However, the northeast is a pretty good place for wind- so we can assume that each of our turbines will have a decent output, around a capacity factor of 0.25- meaning that they're operating near full power an average of 25% of the time.

And that means:

At that rate, we'll need:

900 Wind turbines

So we’re looking at nearly 900 new wind turbines in the Northeast to match Yankee’s annual output. This is a 564% increase in the Northeast’s wind power, though- which means it would not be an easy feat. Finding locations, beating local resistance, and being able to install all of these would be remarkable. A good start would be to complete the Cape Wind project- which would result in the installation of 130 wind turbines of the coast of Massachusetts. Replacing Vermont Yankee with wind would be difficult, but it could be done.

The only problem with both wind and solar is that it fills a very different role in the electrical grid than nuclear power. Both wind and solar are intermittent sources of power, meaning that they cannot be relied on during any specific period- much of the time they won't be generating anything. Nuclear, on the other hand, is usually a baseload power source- meaning that it is always running, providing the power that is used first in the grid, and can be turned on and off when needed. Switching this baseload to renewables would stress the readiness of the grid- but wouldn't be impossible. 

Replacing Vermont Yankee with Natural Gas

The Fore River Generating Station in North Weymouth, MA

Natural gas has an advantage over wind and solar in that it has been growing at a much larger scale recently. This is mostly because of the new gas fracking boom, which has dropped the price of natural gas.

Between 2001 and 2011, New England’s annual natural gas generation has increased by 30,000,000 MWh, over six times Vermont Yankee’s output. Natural gas units have varied sizes and electrical outputs, but we can use as an example the Fore River Generating Station, a natural gas plant about the same size as Vermont Yankee, in North Weymouth just south of Boston. Given a new, similarly modern plant to Fore River as our replacement for Yankee, we are looking at:

1 Plant, containing 3 generating units

Natural gas generation is a large carbon dioxide emitter, however- and according to the IPCC estimates, a natural gas plant of the size of Vermont Yankee would produce nearly 2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. As solar, wind, and Vermont Yankee itself are nearly carbon dioxide free, this represents a sizable slip in New England’s carbon reduction goals. But natural gas has none of the siting issues as the other two- in fact, a closing coal plant could be easily retrofitted into a gas plant.

The other effect of New England’s large conversion to natural gas is that it potentially ties electricity to a fuel that’s had very volatile price rates in the past. Nuclear is one of the most stable electricity sources when it comes to cost- and so, if the natural gas fracking rush suddenly goes to bust, New England could lose out.

Finally, natural gas would never be installed in Vermont- the state has enough resistance to gas development that gas development would assuredly happen in Massachusetts, or Connecticut. This means that Vermont is losing high paying, technical jobs- something the state has been struggling with.

So what’s likely to happen? Unfortunately, it’s probably no contest- natural gas development is a nearly guaranteed replacement for Vermont Yankee. Solar and wind will certainly be growing at high rates, but are unlikely to overtake the generation of Yankee for some time. And this may be a repeated scenario across the US soon, as more domestic nuclear plants shut down due to age restrictions. The US is converting to gas faster than renewables- and is spinning down coal and nuclear. In general, this is resulting in lower greenhouse gas emissions, but results in a dangerous economic time bomb- if natural gas prices go back up, we'll see a much larger impact on energy prices in the US than ever before.

One thing that comes without a doubt is that much of Vermont is celebrating the closing of Vermont Yankee. And this isn't unprecedented- their concerns about Vermont Yankee's safety were valid. But as New England likely quietly turns to natural gas in it's absence, we must remember that sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.

Sources

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/vy.html

http://www.safecleanreliable.com/

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/08/27/vermont-yankee-nuclear-plant-shut-down/VthM9oe73f8zeaHdWJJOVN/story.html

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130827/NEWS07/308270007/Entergy-closing-Vermont-Yankee-nuclear-plant-in-2014-promises-safe-decommissioning

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/05/24/vt_utility_to_buy_power_from_nhs_seabrook/

http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2013/08/27/green-mountain-power-corp-comments-on-entergys-decision-on-vermont-yankee/

http://healthvermont.gov/enviro/rad/yankee/tritium.aspx
http://www.safeandgreencampaign.org/
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/08/15/public-service-board-may-find-vermont-nuclear-plant-not-in-the-public-good/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/02/24/nrc_confirms_2005_tritium_leak_at_vermont_yankee_plant/
http://psb.vermont.gov/
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
http://www.ge-energy.com/wind
http://www.exeloncorp.com/powerplants/foreriver/Pages/profile.aspx

Steps to a Solution: Making the Case for Natural Gas

Natural gas is one of the most hotly debated fuels of recent time. It's proponents laud its clean-burning low carbon nature and its cheap extraction and transport cost, and it's environmentalist detractors claim significant damage from natural gas extraction, and often have a general (not necessarily unfounded) dislike of fossil fuels. Both sides go back and forth with exposing “The Truth” (with a capital T) of natural gas, as displayed by the diametrically opposed documentaries GasLand and FrackNation. As a large part of Obama's plan to cut carbon emissions, however, natural gas is worth a second look.

Natural Gas: Controversial Growth

Plant McDonough-Atkinson, a coal power plant recently retrofitted to burn natural gas

It's allies call it a “bridge fuel”, able to reduce CO2 emissions before renewables take over to dominate the energy sector. And as coal has slowly declined, natural gas has been expanding rapidly in the energy sector to fill that gap.

Natural Gas Electrical Generation

Data From the EIA.

From 1990 to 2012, natural gas electrical grid generation has increased over 325%. And much of this expansion has been in just the last few years- wondering why?

There are two major factors to natural gas expansion, and the first is the mounting distrust of coal power. Coal generation is the most carbon dioxide heavy form of electricity generation in the US, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so, there's reason to distrust it. As worry over climate change and the environment mounts, coal is the primary target of emission reduction campaigns- often in the form of direct protests. As coal meets resistance, power companies are looking for alternatives- and natural gas clocks in significantly cheaper than most renewable technologies. Further, coal power plants can be retrofitted to burn natural gas, which is considerably cheaper than building a brand-new power plant. In fact, the act of replacing coal with natural gas is common enough to have its own term: “fuel switching”. This resistance to coal has actually impacted it greatly in the last 5 years, as annual coal-fired electricity generation in the US declined 24.76%. That's incredibly substantial for our largest generator.

The second major reason is a new stability in the costs of natural gas. As conventional gas wells began to slow in their production in the 1990s, natural gas prices experienced extreme volatility.

Wellhead Price of Natural Gas Produced in the US

Data from the EIA

Costs in the 1980s were rising, but smoothly- and as natural gas demand slowly increased and well production became more irregular, gas prices began to pinwheel drastically. Seriously- if this chart were a roller coaster, the passengers would be dead. But, after peaking in 2008, technology helped to pull down gas prices. Horizontal drilling techniques and hydraulic fracturing allowed new access to gas trapped in dense shale deposits that were previously considered impossible to extract economically. This has brought a little more stability to the market, and inspired trust.

Ironically, this new drilling is what has triggered much of the resistance to natural gas- there's significant public fear over hydraulic fracturing and environmental concerns. And as natural gas drilling has begun to slowly drift into the Liberal North, the Liberal North has struck back. These fears aren't totally unfounded- but when natural gas is discounted out of hand by environmentalists, I tend to hesitate- I want to take a second look.

The Bridge Fuel

First things first, lets look at the chemistry. When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are far from being created equal. Coal is composed mainly of elemental carbon- atomically the same as diamond, but in a different form (the cost of diamonds isn't the only thing keeping your utility company from burning them for electricity). But lets look at the combustion:

Combustion of Coal

It's a suprisingly simple reaction. The conversion of carbon towards carbon dioxide generates heat, which is converted to electrical power. The important thing to remember here is that the generation of CO2 is the only factor producing energy. It's the only exothermic- heat generating- reaction.

Natural gas is a little different- it's commonly called methane, and consists of a carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms- CH4. And these hydrogens make the combustion a little more complex.

Combustion of Natural Gas

You'll note that in addition to the carbon being converted to CO2, the hydrogen is converted to water- and that reaction also produces energy. This means that in the combustion of natural gas, for the same amount of carbon dioxide, you're generating even more electricity- with the balance only producing water vapor.

How much more? In 2011, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did a literature review of over 900 estimates of lifecycle CO2 equivalent emissions approximations for common electric sources, and came up with this chart:

Carbon Emissions from Different Generation Sources

Data from the IPCC
In grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh of generation

Coal produces somewhere near twice the carbon dioxide as natural gas for the same amount of energy. Now, you probably noticed that even hydro and wind power seem to be producing CO2- and that's because this is a lifecycle analysis, including the carbon produced by extraction of fuels, transporting of goods, and construction. You're still moving those wind turbine blades down the highway with a diesel truck before the turbine is built- so there's carbon there. In the case of these renewable technologies, the carbon released in the set-up is generally averaged out over the lifetime of the technology. Life-cycle analyses are great ways to get an idea of the technology with no hidden costs.

So where are we- sure, natural gas is better than coal, but, wind is still much better than natural gas, from a climate perspective. So lets take these numbers a little further. Let's look at the 50^th percentile values- those will probably be closest to the most accurate number.

Since 2007, coal power has declined. But not only has it declined, it's been replaced- other technologies are expanding to fill that gap. From 2007 to 2012, you can see the changes in generated power from some new technologies: 

And from the above chart, we can see that natural gas has displaced more coal generation than wind- 553,104 thousand MWh of coal generation to wind power's 311,917 thousand MWh over the last five years. Now of course, if that natural gas development had simply been more wind power, than we would be even better off then we are now- but this is where economics get in the way. Our electrical grid is set up for steady, baseload power, and existing infrastructure makes gas cheap and wind more expensive. The cost of wind and the needed upgrades to the electrical grid to make wind effective limit it's growth. So, if that natural gas generation had never occurred, then it's likely that it would still be coal.

If we assume that all of these technologies are displacing emissions from coal, we can calculate their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Firstly, we can determine from the differences in emissions, every thousand MWh of natural gas avoids 536 metric tons of CO2, and every thousand MWh of wind avoids 989 metric tons of CO2- showing, as we know, that each wind development has a larger impact than a gas development of a similar size. And this means, that for natural gas:

~327 million metric tons of CO2 were avoided, and for wind

~340 million metric tons of CO2 were avoided.

If you extrapolate this to all of the other technologies that grew from 2007 to 2012, you can determine which ones had a role in the US decline of coal and the decline of carbon emissions:

Wind just barely edges out natural gas in preventing coal emissions, but they are almost indistinguishable. This is important- it means that natural gas is just as effective as wind at reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Environmentalists shouldn't reject natural gas as a fuel if it has prevented the same amount of new coal carbon emissions as wind. Of course, each little bit of wind generation is does reduce more carbon than the equivalent in natural gas- but we have too give gas credit for reducing a significant portion of US carbon emissions in the last five years. 

If we want to expand this argument, we can also say that all current non-coal electricity generation is displacing emissions from coal, ignoring their changes in the last five years. The math is similar to what was above, but we'll only use the data from 2012: multiply the 2012 net generation from each technology by the amount of CO2 emissions avoided by not using coal to generate that electricity. This gives us a picture of which technologies are having the largest impacts in preventing CO2 emissions.

And we can see that natural gas has a much greater impact on reducing carbon emissions than wind or even hydropower. And there's another surprise: nuclear electric power prevents more carbon dioxide emissions than any other technology, and the US has not built new nuclear capacity since the early 1980s. It's not inconceivable to think that if nuclear had continued to be built at the same rate as in the late 1960s, coal would already be a thing of the past.

The Catch:

There's a new problem, however, with natural gas's place as a top carbon reducer- recent research seems to indicate that natural gas fracking, which is rapidly expanding, has a larger carbon footprint than conventional drilling, due to excessive gas leakage. Methane is a more potent short-term greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. As the IPCC report that the carbon numbers are based on was published in 2011, it's unclear how much of this is reflected in the analysis here. While it's doubtful that this will make it dirtier than coal, it could seriously hamper the benefits of fuel switching.

Further, natural gas will never be a cleaner source of energy than renewables, with the possible exception a large scale adoption of carbon capture and sequestration- eventually, we'll be in a position where we need to reduce natural gas in favor of renewables. Additionally, there are many claims that hydraulic fracturing has an increased risk of environmental contamination, although confirmed cases of drilling related contamination are rare. Finally, there is evidence that in rare cases hydraulic fracturing can trigger mild earthquakes. And on the nuclear front, there's a very good reason why development stalled in the 1980s- in the wake of the Chernobyl Disaster, it's impossible to pretend that the dangers of nuclear power are unimportant.

But, these problems just indicate that more research should be done, and harsher regulations should seek to eliminate risk. Hydraulic fracturing is newly widespread, which means there should be opportunities to refine the process and eliminate accidents. Fugitive emissions can be captured and put to use if enough attention is paid. There is no reason to not support the growth of natural gas, alongside supporting new safety and environmental regulations, in the fight to reduce greenhouse gasses. With more regulation ensuring stronger well walls and better control of fugitive emissions, natural gas is a significant step from coal. Dismissing it as “just another fossil fuel” is neglecting one of the country's most powerful weapons against carbon dioxide emissions.

Sources:

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/03/07/dont-be-swayed-by-faucets-on-fire-and-other-anti-fracking-propaganda/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6142/164.abstract
http://www.naturalgas.org/environment/technology.asp
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
http://www.eecworld.com/component/content/article/73-latest-news/258-a-brief-history-of-hydraulic-fracturing
http://www.energyfromshale.org/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/20/my-my-epa-declines-to-confirm-a-connection-between-fracking-and-groundwater-pollution-in-wyoming/
http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2013/8/19/ohio-earthquakestriggeredbyfracking.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/07/1229636/-NOAA-Investigation-Finds-Massive-Methane-Emissions-from-Utah-Fracking-6-to-12-Lost-to-Atmosphere#

Data Breakdown: the Presidential Address on Climate Change

At the end of last month, President Obama made a publicly televised address on his new plan to combat climate change. Al Gore called it “the best address on climate by any president ever”, and Obama laid out plans for the near future on how to combat the effects of climate change. He also indicated the progress that the US had made already- but let's see how accurate the president's facts were, and take a look at how feasible the new plan is.

If you didn't see the speech, check it out here:

I suggest you watch it as you read. Obama's charisma certainly outmatches what's in my writing- so it'll certainly add to the experience.

Let's start the breakdown:

President Obama is well spoken, even in the blistering heat at Georgetown. He's mentioned before that as a child, he was fascinated with the space program, and he starts off vividly, describing what Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, and William Anders saw when they became the first men to orbit the moon. They sent back to Earth this picture, dubbed “Earthrise”:

About this view, Lovell stated “It makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth”. It gives an impressive sense of scale, serving as a reminder that as far as we know, Earth is the only planet of her kind our there. Despite the efforts of NASA, no other planet with vibrant life or directly hospitable conditions for it has been found. 

And around the time that this photo was taken, the mechanism of global warming was first being studied and understood. We've discussed those mechanisms before. Obama states that these changes are beginning to have measurable effects on our climate. He presses that the Earth is warming, and that the 12 warmest years recorded have all occurred within the last 15 years. NASA actually has recorded global average temperatures of the Earth- and confirms this.

In fact, according to the NASA data, the 15 hottest years have been the last 15- although, any method for measuring a global average temperature is bound to have some variance and error, so Obama is likely playing it safe. Either way, the increase in global temperature is undeniable. The difference in average temperature between 1880 and 2012 is 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius), but the truly worrying part is that the increase has been regular and sustained. Many cyclical natural effects on global temperatures have been determined and quantified, namely irregularities in the Earths orbit and cycles in the energy output of the sun, but none of these have ever warmed the Earth so directly and so fast.

The Impacts of Climate Change

Obama follows up with a solid point: while global warming in itself is alarming, the term 'climate change' covers many more effects. There's a long list, and honestly most of the scenarios are still being investigated and studied, but just to start: we're looking at sea level rise, ocean acidification, increased numbers and intensity of heat waves, decreased crop yields, increased rainfall, and more destructive hurricanes. These are all secondary and tertiary effects of the greenhouse gas effect- meaning that, in general, each are caused indirectly by warmer air temperatures. For example: air temperature rise inevitably causes the temperature of the ocean to rise as well. Warmer ocean waters allow higher levels of acid gasses, such as sulfur dioxide or carbon dioxide, to dissolve and lower the pH of the water. This is the secondary effect- and the tertiary effect is damage to delicate coral reefs as a result of ocean acidity. And with each stage it gets harder and harder to determine exactly what the effects to the natural world are. 

Obama claims that we've already seen some of these secondary and tertiary effects of climate change: high heat, droughts in the midwest followed by increased rainfall, the increased destructiveness of hurricane Sandy due to higher sea level, and more wildfires which Obama says “scorched an area larger than the state of Maryland”. While many of these effects can be measured (albeit with some difficulty), they are harder to definitively attribute to climate change. However, data from the National Interagency Fire Center does support that impacts of wildfires are increasing:

Maryland is about 7,940 thousand acres in area- so he's correct. (Edit- the chart is now adjusted for inflation, all values are in 2013 US Dollars)

And I can't say the next part any better than Mr. Obama:

“So the question is not whether we need to act. The overwhelming judgment of science -- of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest... So the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late. And how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren.”

“As a President, as a father, and as an American, I’m here to say we need to act.”

Global climate change is one of the slowest burning crises that we've ever seen- and it's something the world doesn't quite know how to handle. Obama is taking a good step in the right direction- and isn't allowing any hesitation or denial when it comes to pursuing a solution. And so what are we doing?

National Climate Progress

Obama says that the United States is already taking action: doubling the gas mileage of cars by 2020, and doubling the electricity generated from wind and sun. And, in terms of wind and solar energy, we did just about double our energy output. In 2012, the US generated over 140 gigawatt hours of wind and solar energy, significantly over twice 2008 generation. This is follows a steep upward trend of development in wind and solar, and is promising.

Data from the US Energy Information Agency

And when it comes to fuel economy for passenger cars, it's a mixed bag. US fuel efficiency standards have a sordid past, and it's worth writing more on it later. In 2007, legislation was approved to increase standards for cars and trucks to a 35 MPG average by 2020- which was a hefty 40% increase from the earlier, considerably lax regulation. Obama bumped this timeline up to 2016 when he came to office, with a marginal increase in efficiency to 35.5 MPG. Further regulations have been announced with a range of 47 to 62 MPG by 2025, but have not been confirmed. As to the actual advancement of fuel efficiency, see below:

So did we double the gas milage of our cars? In terms of legislation, we are “on track” to do so- but again, legislation is unconfirmed. As for the actual MPG of the cars we've sold, we're moving in a positive direction, but slower than you might think- fuel standards deal with the fleet average milage of auto maker's new models. Historical trends show that larger, less efficient cars sell better- which means that the MPG average usually galls a little low of regulation.

Additionally, the actual fuel efficiency of cars on the road is further decreased from that of new cars sold- the older a car is, the lower it's mileage gets as parts wear down, and very few cars on the road are new. So, the final verdict? While the president is technically correct by his phrasing, it's highly unlikely that the actual fuel efficiency of US vehicles will be near double by 2020.

Obama also addresses energy security and imports here, citing rare growth in nuclear and oil. And it's looking like that improvement might continue, especially in oil and gas. And all of this does certainly contribute to some pretty good growth in US energy security, but also, as Obama claims, in carbon reductions. In fact, Obama claims that the US has reduced it's total carbon pollution from 2006 more than any other country in the world.

This is, in fact, true. It's also, again, very carefully phrased- since 2006 specifically, no country has reduced it's emissions in terms of tonnage- but that's a little easier when you start with such high emissions to begin with. Many other countries reduced carbon dioxide emissions by a much larger percentage of their overall emissions- those emissions simply weren't as large. The US has only reduced their emissions by 7.32%- while other developed nations like the UK managed to cut their emissions by a full 15%. The claim of the largest CO2 emission reductions is at the very least slightly undercut by the knowledge that the US could be doing more proportional to it's size. But, Obama freely admits that this is only the start.

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 to regulate hazardous air pollutants, and now both the Senate and the EPA have ruled that greenhouse gasses- including carbon dioxide- fall under regulation with the Clean Air Act. It's interesting to see that Obama only refers to carbon dioxide as "carbon pollution", as if to drive home the fact that it is now regulated, even though the conventional term is, in general, "carbon dioxide emissions"

And in bringing up the Clean Air Act, Obama begins to talk about what is likely the largest obstacle in the path of environmental security: Politics. While the Clean Air Act itself enjoyed well-deserved bipartisan backing, rarely do environmental regulations today receive that kind of support. And, while the EPA is actually required to draft legislation on CO2 emissions based on their coverage under the Clean Air Act (and hasbegun doing so) the general political climate is still lukewarm behind true CO2 regulations.

But Obama is pledging to drive ahead strong- and he also points out that states and even cities themselves are engaging in new clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives, working to bring down the national total. In Boston, as an example, mayor Thomas Menino has set plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and new mandatory energy use reporting by large buildings is coming into effect to help along that goal. This is reflected in similar plans in many other cities across the country. Obama is smart to acknowledge these more local efforts, as without the support and effort of the smaller actors, change is unlikely to come quickly. 

Politically, the argument against regulation of CO2 seems to be one of economics: that regulation would burden electrical utilities, automakers, and eventually, the consumer- who would pay the brunt of the cost of the required upgrades to infrastructure through taxes or higher prices of deliverables  But, as Obama said, this has never happened in the past- and especially automakers have dealt with fuel regulations well in the past. And Hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles are a large part of the new fuel efficiency increases, helping boost the average fuel efficiency of our cars. And, as Obama claims, these cars are selling faster then they have in the last five years.

They are- at a higher rate of overall sale and as a higher percentage of all vehicles sold. But in 2010 and 2011, hybrid growth had stalled, decreasing each year, indicating that growth may not be as stable and sustained as Obama is indicating (Edit- one of my friends Bhushan pointed out that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave a significant tax credit to those who purchased new hybrids, until it was phased out in 2010. This would seem to explain the dip in sales in 2010 and 2011, and shows that hybrids sold well despite the lack of federal incentives in 2012. However, increased fuel regulation will not only make them more widely available, it will also make these cars cheaper compared to other light vehicles around- and it's likely a safe bet to assume that more and more sold cars will be hybrids.).

But we wont see gasoline powered cars disappearing anytime soon either. The production of fossil fuels is something Obama wants to be clear on- he’s always touted an “all of the above” energy strategy including fossil fuels alongside renewables, which has attracted both praise and criticism from all sides. Conservatives will often complain about lopsided support for renewables when they are not economically competitive, and liberals complain about any support for fossil fuels on the basis of them being toxic to efforts to halt climate change. Obama’s stance, however, is clear:

“Now, one thing I want to make sure everybody understands -- this does not mean that we’re going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. Our economy wouldn’t run very well if it did. And transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time.”

And there is merit to this middle of the road strategy- it allows for a smooth transition to a cleaner energy system while maintaining the stability of the nation’s economy. Slow growth of renewables combined with efficiency and emission limits on fossil fuel sources will transition the economy away from a carbon intensive system. And Obama has made good on his plan- Renewables have almost doubled, Nuclear is expanding for the first time in 35 years, gas is a booming market and analysts say that the US is poised to be the number one oil producer in the world.

Obama's Plan

In fact, the only energy source that hasn’t risen in use is coal- which highlights the ingenuity of Obama’s plan. Coal, at a carbon intensity of 2.21 lbs of carbon dioxide per kWh of electricity is the dirtiest large fuel source the US has.

And power plant carbon regulations are Obama’s first point in his plan to cut emissions. These regulations are expected to heavily favor natural gas power plants, due to their cleaner burning nature. Most US utilities are fully aware of the looming regulations and have begun switching to natural gas in preparation- coal's slow decline is punctuated by steady gains in generation through natural gas fueled by the new resurgence of gas drilling.

But how clean is this, actually? Does switching out one fossil fuel for another really get us anywhere? As it turns out, yes. Natural gas burns much more cleanly with coal at a carbon intensity of 1.03 lbs per kWh, helping drive down carbon dioxide emissions. Natural gas also contains far fewer of the impurities that coal contains, which contribute to sulfur and nitrogen dioxide pollution- the vast majority of which must be eliminated in expensive scrubbing towers at coal plants.

And what impact has that conversion to natural gas had so far on US emissions? One of the best ways to measure this is to look at the average carbon intensity of our fuels- how much carbon dioxide they produce per kWh. If you look at only the coal and natural gas sectors:

While it may seem small, the carbon intensity of our fossil fuel fleet is decreasing based on the ratio of coal to natural gas plants. And although dropping from 0.95 to 0.9 looks minuscule, remember that this represents nearly 70% of our generated electricity- meaning there's a remarkable overall carbon dioxide avoidance. By continuing to install further natural gas and displace coal, that carbon intensity can drop as low as 0.61 short tons per MWh. That's significant, and certainly has it's place as one of the backbones of Obama's plan.

Obama's second point is the most praised one across the US: more solar and wind. As carbon-zero energy sources (almost- we'll discuss this later) they enjoy heavy support from environmentalists, and generally, the government. We've seen that solar and wind are expanding- and on track to continue. Any regulations on power plant emissions will only help renewables, and so they'll inevitably continue to play a larger and larger part of our energy mix.

And further, as Obama says, some of the largest detractors of climate change action need to look outside their homes more often- because an incredible amount of wind development occurs in the typically republican souther states.

Wind Power Capacity Installed By State

States with no installed wind are white. Data from American Wind Energy Association.


Although, by that he seems to be mostly highlighting Texas, as many other southeast states have no wind installed- although more for reasons of being surprisingly devoid of wind than local resistance.

Obama's plan further supports zero-carbon sources by seeking to invest in renewables while ending tax breaks for oil companies, which has the effect of swinging the economics of the issue. This is also one of the biggest points over which conservative economists and others complain of government involvement- it does, in a sense, artificially tip the economic scale of energy costs, which some worry is unsustainable.

And thirdly, Obama's plan involves regulations to increase energy efficiency in buildings and cars. As we said, hybrids and EVs are leading the charge on the automobile front, but buildings are as well a large part of this plan. Efficiency achieves many goals: it decreases energy use and carbon emissions over a long time, it reduces energy costs to the consumer, and it creates jobs in production and installation.

The effectiveness of efficiency regulations is very hard to predict on a large scale, however, but end-use efficiency benefits by being the last in the chain of energy transport. This is because electricity generated undergoes several losses before it is used- power plant efficiency losses and transmission losses being notable. If efficiency in a building means you don't have to produce extra electricity, you also avoid generating the energy that would have been lost through transmission and power plant losses.

But carbon reductions are no longer all that we need to do- as Obama says, we already missed our mark. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at 400 ppm and rising- while the IPCC says that the required atmospheric level for temperature stability rests at 350 ppm. We've about to get hit by the full brunt of climate change, Obama warns- so the next part of the plan is to prepare for this.

Climate change is blamed for exacerbating the effects of hurricane Sandy last year, which caused 18 billion dollars in damage and killed 53 people when it flooded New York City. This could happen more and more due to higher water levels in coastal cities worldwide, and we need to be prepared. It's a great thing that the Obama administration is acknowledging this- in fact, the idea that Obama is addressing climate change at all shows considerable foresight in government planning and action that is rarely present on the national level. Most regulation and government action is reactionary- and while it's true that we're already seeing the effects of climate change, the admittance of this and the steps to prevent further damage are a step in the right direction.

And the last branch of Obama's plan is to begin addressing carbon emissions abroad as well- as he says, the US still has a reputation as a world-leading country, and if anyone's got a change of impacting global emissions, it's the United States. We are not the only country emitting CO2, and we're no longer even the largest emitter, so international collaboration is imperative.

Data from the US Energy Information Agency

And so Obama plans to help spread the trade of renewable energy technologies, end support for coal abroad, and engage in more climate based negotiations with other countries. No, it's not direct action or demands on the rest of the world's carbon dioxide, but it's a start.

And our action doesn't have time budgeted in for people to drag their feet- as Obama says, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” We can't ignore this, and we are going to act, as a world, as a country, in each of our own cities and towns and communities. And Obama encourages each and every citizen to act, to educate others, to each reduce their individual carbon footprint. With the support and effort of everyone, real change can occur.

We're saving the world here, people.

Sources:

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/205.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2013/06/25/obama-emissions-energy-stocks/2455167/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMT87OP21mo
http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec12_3.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetrends/1975-2012/420r13001.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11
http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb31/Edition31_Full_Doc.pdf
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/html/PLAW-109publ58.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/tax_hybrid.shtml