Energy clean sweep

Powering the massive deployment of a low-carbon technology mix

February 29, 2016 | by MEGHAN LEPISTO

Global warming has the energy sector in an innovation arms race, demanding adaptations along two fronts: those prompted by the effects of climate change, and those needed to limit climate change.

The latter, says Greg Nemet, an associate professor of environmental studies and public affairs, will require the strongest force.

“Meeting even the less ambitious goals agreed upon by the United Nations in December in Paris implies a near complete decarbonization of energy in developed countries by mid-century, and for the entire world by the end of the century,” he says, referring to the landmark accord approved by 196 countries at the 2015 World Climate Change Conference (COP21).

This global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions calls for limiting the increase in the global average temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels – a point scientists have identified as the threshold for averting the most devastating effects of climate change – with a more aggressive target to contain warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Domestically, recent regulations announced by the Obama administration and Environmental Protection Agency – namely, a lower federal ozone standard and the Clean Power Plan, which requires states to curb power plant carbon dioxide emissions by a cumulative 32 percent by 2030 – also carry immense implications for energy markets and technology (and impending legal challenges; 27 states and an array of industry groups have filed more than a dozen cases to block the Clean Power Plan, and as of press time the U.S. Supreme Court has halted the rule’s implementation while it is under review at the U.S. Court of Appeals).

“The issue of carbon dioxide emissions is definitely going to reshape a lot of important connections between the energy sector, the transportation sector, consumers, and air management organizations,” environmental studies Professor Tracey Holloway said last summer ahead of the Energy Summit she chaired on campus, hosted by the Wisconsin Energy Institute, which drew attendees from industry, academia, nonprofits and regulatory agencies to discuss ways to reduce emissions without disrupting the economy. “It’s a transformation that’s already happening – decisions are already being made, laws are already being passed, permits are already being applied for – so the time to work together is now.”

INFRASTRUCTURE UPDATE

So, what will this transformation entail, to decarbonize the energy system?

Nemet, who studies links between energy technology and public policy, envisions the future will include a much more diverse set of means from which to derive energy services. It will require a transition from a fossil fuel-based system with heavy environmental impacts to one that primarily utilizes low- and zero-carbon renewable sources like wind, solar and other as-yet-unknowns – combined with energy conservation and carbon capture and storage.

Renewable sources, including biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind, currently account for about 10 percent of energy consumed in the United States and 11 percent worldwide, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates. Specific to electricity generation – the energy sector’s largest source of carbon emissions – in 2014 about 67 percent of U.S. electricity came from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas and petroleum), 19 percent from nuclear power, 6 percent from hydropower and 7 percent from other renewable sources. Globally, renewables account for about 23 percent of electricity generation.

Also key to consider: By 2050, global energy demand is expected to double as the projected human population reaches nearly 9 billion. The world must now simultaneously maximize energy benefits and minimize environmental degradation.

“The changes implied by the UN agreement, and already planned on by nearly 200 countries, are so fundamental that it seems likely we will have a period of transition, perhaps for a couple of decades and perhaps quite chaotic, during which many promising ideas will be tried,” Nemet says. “We won’t know until later which ones will work best and where and for whom, and some probably don’t even exist yet.”

Quick take: Energy challenges, solutions and successes

Tisha Schuller, an environmental scientist and member of the Nelson Institute Board of Visitors, consults private clients in energy policy, business strategy, politics and community engagement. She previously served as president and CEO of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association.

Tisha Schuller

An advocate for “deescalating the energy wars,” Schuller shared her take on today’s energy landscape.

What do you see as the most critical emerging energy issues? 

The most pressing challenge is the hyper-polarization and partisan divides that exist on energy issues. These prevent genuine discussion and debate about what the problems are, how they should be prioritized, and where we can craft realistic policy solutions. Without dialogue, there is no possibility for progress.

Where are solutions likely to be found?

Technology innovation and the marketplace have created the energy abundance and affordability that we currently enjoy and that have raised millions of people out of poverty. We still have 1.4 billion people on this planet that require access to energy, and we must continue to innovate and provide energy access.

Do particular successes come to mind that we might build upon?

Absolutely! At no time in human history have humans had it so good, largely thanks to abundant affordable energy. When someone living in poverty is given access to energy, birth rates fall, life expectancy increases, and all kinds of great societal improvements are possible. Prioritizing access to energy around the world will allow us to address global prosperity and sustainability with more empowered (literally) world citizens.

POTENTIAL ENERGY

While the long-term impacts of the global climate accord signed in Paris, and individual nation’s carbon-cutting commitments, aren’t yet known – and likely cannot halt global warming independently – the uniting of nearly every country to cut greenhouse gas emissions has already triggered one immediate effect: a signal of market momentum, spurring record investments in clean energy spending.

More than a dozen countries, including emissions heavyweights China, India, Saudi Arabia and the United States, and 20-plus private investors, led by Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, announced $20 billion in funding for energy research and development at the UN climate summit.

Last year also saw record investments in clean energy installations – $329 billion spent globally toward renewable power capacity in 2015, according to the research group Bloomberg New Energy Finance – even amid low fossil fuel prices. Sixty-four gigawatts of wind capacity and 57 gigawatts of solar photovoltaic capacity were installed around the world last year, a 30 percent increase over 2014 and an indication of the technology’s increasing cost-competitiveness.

In the United States, renewables were the biggest source of new power added to the electrical grid in 2015. This breakout demand is expected to continue as Congress recently granted multiyear extensions to several renewable energy investment tax credits, reducing net installation costs.

Nemet, who has studied how different public policy scenarios affect solar technology development and the cost of climate change mitigation, says stunning drops in the price of solar photovoltaic systems, along with new business models that make photovoltaics even more affordable and preferences for the unique attributes of solar, are also driving the industry’s growth. More than 7 gigawatts of solar power generation were installed in the United States last year; Wisconsin, for its part, added an unprecedented 7 megawatts, enough to power more than 1,000 homes.

He believes this combined international drive behind clean energy was critical ahead of the UN climate summit. “Part of the reason Paris produced a real agreement – in addition to increasing concern about [climate change], tremendous preparation beforehand, and then skillful diplomacy during – is broad optimism that addressing the problem is getting more feasible,” Nemet says.

This optimism is justified, he says, because low-carbon energy is showing potential in an array of areas: from breakthroughs in electric vehicles to new energy materials, and from improvements in energy storage to better conductors for electricity transmission to advances in absorbing carbon emissions.

UW-Madison researchers are studying many of these methods of energy production, storage and transport, developing promising solutions that balance environmental impact, cost and accessibility. Their list of innovations includes coaxing sunlight into greater energy yields, utilizing battery power more efficiently, engineering microbes that can better convert plant biomass to energy, and reducing the energy footprint of motor technology.

“Low-carbon technology is improving rapidly, far faster than almost anyone expected,” Nemet says. “And models are emerging – not theoretical ones, but in real-life places – in which people are living a high quality of life with a relatively low carbon footprint.”

THE NUCLEAR OPTION

As researchers and industry work to develop commercial-scale low-carbon energy solutions, debate remains over where nuclear power might fit in the mix. Some climate scientists and other stakeholders suggest that including nuclear in the energy portfolio would benefit national security, the environment and the economy.

In Wisconsin, lawmakers are considering lifting a decades-old moratorium on building new nuclear power plants in the state, placing UW-Madison faculty – renowned for their depth of knowledge of nuclear energy – at the center of a conversation over nuclear’s future role.

Paul Wilson, a professor of engineering physics and interim chair of the Nelson Institute’s Energy Analysis and Policy certificate program, studies the technical and policy aspects of nuclear power and has spoken broadly on the topic. The risks posed by climate change warrant a new look at “the next generation of safe nuclear technology,” Wilson wrote in December in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in a collaborative column with Jack Williams, a professor of geography and director of the Nelson Institute Center for Climatic Research. The pair called nuclear power “an essential element of a climate-safe and business-friendly energy portfolio.”

“It is doubtful Wisconsin – and the nation — will be able to reduce carbon emissions to safe and acceptable levels without nuclear power,” Wilson also said in January in the Wisconsin State Journal. Nuclear energy today provides more than 60 percent of the country’s low-emission electricity, and estimates suggest U.S carbon emissions would be 27 percent higher without nuclear power.

The construction of nuclear plants is costly, though, and concerns remain over the associated dangers of nuclear power, including the catastrophic effects of nuclear accidents. More than 170,000 residents were evacuated from the area of the most recent accident, occurring in 2011 at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan, and 1,000 square kilometers of surrounding land, or 386 square miles, are still considered uninhabitable.

But some climate advocates say that the risks of nuclear energy can be reduced by placing nuclear plants in geologically stable regions and using the latest technology. They contend that nuclear’s risks pose less of a threat than the harm caused by unconstrained greenhouse gas emissions, while other environmentalists argue for a 100-percent renewable energy approach.

Nemet cautions that writing off certain technologies too quickly – even those with obvious problems – could interrupt advancements toward climate adaptation and mitigation.

“A big focus of innovation is overcoming bottlenecks, so it would be a mistake to think of technologies as frozen in time. They get better, and more innovation effort would help,” he says. “Nuclear power today is expensive and we have not agreed on what to do with the spent fuel, but that doesn’t mean it will stay that way.”

In the end, Nemet says, all options should be considered. The historical record of technological change suggests that focusing on one or two silver bullet technologies would be misguided, “in large part because almost every technology creates new problems when deployed at very large scale,” he explains, “and we need massive deployment of low-carbon energy to meaningfully address the climate problem.”

“The challenge of decarbonizing the world economy – or even a local economy – is incredibly large and will play out over many decades,” he adds.

Urban low-emission leaders

Cities consume 78 percent of energy worldwide, making them a paramount factor in efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. And many are leading the charge.

By 2050, all of Frankfurt, Germany’s energy will
originate from renewable, mainly local sources,
resulting in a 95 percent decrease in emissions.

Over a third of 162 global cities surveyed by CDP, a nonprofit organization aimed at driving sustainable economies, currently draw more than three-quarters of their electricity from non-fossil fuel sources. Several have completely transitioned to 100 percent renewable energy: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Aspen, Colorado; Burlington, Vermont; Curitiba, Brazil (a country with 15 fossil fuel-free cities); Greensburg, Kansas; and Reykjavik, Iceland.

Frankfurt, Germany, which topped the inaugural Sustainable Cities Index from the Center for Economics and Business Research, has curbed carbon emissions by 15 percent since 1990 while increasing its economic power by 50 percent and its office space by 80 percent. By 2050, all of Frankfurt’s energy will originate from renewable, mainly local sources, resulting in a 95 percent decrease in emissions.

A growing body of research suggests that a shift to chiefly renewable energy can be feasible and cost-effective. One recent study, published in January in the journal Nature Climate Change, posits that wind and solar energy could power most of the United States by 2030 without raising electricity prices, and cut electricity-sector carbon dioxide emissions by up to 78 percent below 1990 levels.

In Burlington, environmental and economic factors drove the switch to renewable energy, a local utility representative said in an interview with PBS NewsHour, and will likely save the city $20 million over the next two decades. Utility rates there haven’t increased since 2009.

Hot topic: Energy and climate resilience

Energy sector adaptations don’t stop at curbing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate global warming. The effects already induced by a changing climate also require response.

Coming off Earth’s hottest year ever recorded, and with global temperatures forecasted to continue to rise, seasonal energy demands are in flux. Higher summer temperatures and increased cooling needs are expected to raise peak electricity demand and hike costs.

In September 2015, for example, as most of the United States experienced record and near-record warmth, temperature-related energy demand rose 80 percent above average across the country, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

With global temperatures forecasted
to continue to rise, seasonal energy
demands are in flux.

“From a global perspective, it’s quite clear that climate change will lead to an increased demand for cooling that will offset the decline in demand for heating,” says Associate Professor Greg Nemet.

A dramatic increase in access to electricity and air conditioning in the developing world, as well as growing demand for goods like food that must be refrigerated during transportation and storage, also contribute to the increased demand.

Michael Shellenberger, who will discuss climate policy and action at the Nelson Institute Earth Day Conference in April, spoke about this challenge in a recent interview with Allianz Journal.

“Adaptation to global warming is going to require more energy. But more energy demand also boosts technological innovation,” he told Allianz. “In the long run, innovation accelerates the decarbonization of energy, and thus the joint goals of climate stabilization and human development.”

Meeting increased global demand, Nemet says, will involve a combination of better efficiency in energy end-use, more energy supply, a greater share of that supply met by electricity, and possible changes in behavior.

A changing climate is also likely to place greater stress on energy infrastructure and delivery through sea level rise and an uptick in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, from hurricanes to severe drought to heavy rainfall and flooding. Minimizing energy vulnerabilities will require a more resilient – and possibly different – grid system, Nemet says, “in which disruptions have more local effects, rather than broad, cascading ones.”

Steve Vavrus, a senior scientist at the Nelson Institute Center for Climatic Research, has met with several Wisconsin utility managers as they plan for a changing climate. He says one wild card is an expected increase in wintertime precipitation falling as freezing rain rather than snow, “which can bring down power lines and wreak expensive havoc.”