First, the region is running out of river basins to develop. In addition, environmental and social concerns often challenge the completion of such projects.
Take the case of Brazil. From July to the end of September the country suffered a nationwide rolling blackout. From then on, the government has sought to increase the use of natural gas in electricity generation as an alternative to hydropower in times of need. This was the case in , , and Under the circumstances, it is arguable whether Brazil has a better choice than to turn to natural gas. A replacement with a hydrocarbon, no matter how benign, is not an improvement.
Sometimes an increase in natural gas-powered electricity is much better for the environment. Natural gas is definitely a good step in the right direction, and other renewable sources are rapidly becoming viable in more and more parts of the world. Methane gas is 36 times as warming as carbon dioxide over years, and 86 times as warming as CO2 over 15 years according to the IPCC. In drilling, transporting and storage it leaks. Because it is so strong a warming gas, just a few percent leakage makes it worse for the climate than oil and coal.
All energy investment now should be in efficiency and in solar, batteries, wind, and other truly low carbon forms of energy. Investment in methane fuel natural gas is a catastrophe for the planet. Controlling the leaks only very slightly reduces the growing release of warming gases, and does not stop them.
Setting up infrastructure for liquified natural gas is even worse, because it needs extra energy to be compressed. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Your Name required. Your Email required. Your Message. CC-IGO 3. No derivative work is allowed. Note that link provided above includes additional terms and conditions of the license.
For questions concerning copyright for authors that are not IADB employees please complete the contact form for this blog. The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDB, its Board of Directors, or the countries they represent.
Attribution: in addition to giving attribution to the respective author and copyright owner, as appropriate, we would appreciate if you could include a link that remits back the IDB Blogs website. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. That is, EPA has to show that power plants can cut emissions using methods that have been adequately demonstrated and can be done at a "reasonable" cost. What EPA decided is that utilities could reduce emissions from their coal and natural gas power plants using three different methods — these methods are known as "building blocks" in the rule:.
Building Block 1: Operate coal plants more efficiently. Operators of coal-fired power plants often carry out "heat rate improvements" that allow more electricity to be produced while burning less coal. This might include things like improving boiler operations or optimizing cooling systems. Depending on the part of the country, EPA estimated that operators could reasonably improve coal-fleet efficiency an extra 2.
That, in turn, would curb carbon-dioxide emissions. Building Block 2: Run gas plants more often, coal less. Burning natural gas for electricity produces less CO2 per megawatt-hour than burning coal does.
So if states ran their gas plants more often and coal plants less, they could reduce emissions while generating the same amount of electricity. EPA decided it'd be reasonable for states to increase the utilization rate of their existing natural gas combined cycle fleet to 75 percent — which would curtail coal use and emissions.
Building Block 3: Ramp up renewable power. Finally, if states built more wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, or biomass, they could reduce the overall carbon intensity of their power plant fleet. EPA conducted a detailed study of what level of clean energy growth was reasonable in each region, based on historical trends, cost curves, grid reliability, and so forth. EPA didn't assume each region would install the maximum feasible amount of clean energy. Instead, it aimed for a target deemed "reasonable," cost-wise.
Even so, this building block is bolder than what was in the draft proposal, in part because wind and solar prices have dropped in the past year. In setting this building block, the EPA argued it would be feasible for renewables to provide somewhere around 26 percent of US electricity by Now, these three building blocks are not what states actually have to do to cut emissions. These building blocks are only there so that EPA can calculate what a reasonable reduction from fossil-fuel power plants looks like.
States can pick their own preferred route to cutting emissions if they want. This is just how EPA sets the baseline for cuts. Also, note that Building Block 3 is the most controversial one here — because it relies on actions outside of the power plant, or "outside the fence line," to reduce emissions. Industry groups are certain to challenge this building block in court , and if it's nullified, the plan's emissions targets will become correspondingly weaker.
Next, the EPA calculated what would happen if these three building blocks were applied throughout the entire Eastern Interconnection. These plant numbers were the basis for setting statewide goals. What's more, since the power-plant targets in the Eastern Interconnection were the least stringent of all three grid regions in the country, EPA decided to adopt them nationwide. Again, they keep emphasizing "reasonable cost" over maximum stringency throughout the rule.
Finally, EPA applied the new power-plant targets to individual states, depending on each state's power mix. So let's take Indiana as an example. So, to figure out Indiana's statewide goal for , EPA looked at what would happen if its plants all applied the building blocks above, with this little formula:. And that's it. That's Indiana's goal. Simple, huh? If you want the more complicated, math-heavy explanation, here's how EPA describes the process.
And here are some spreadsheets where you can follow along with EPA's math. Good luck. Okay, so the EPA applied its fancy formula to all 47 states, and derived a different emissions target for each one. You can find them all listed on this page.
The EPA has also posted a more detailed set of goals for each state that looks like the table below — we'll use Indiana again as our example:. Let's walk through this, because it's important. That's because Indiana was already scheduled to close some coal plants and replace them with natural gas generation. Indiana also has to meet certain interim targets along the way, so it can't just procrastinate until the very last minute.
Again, Indiana's plan to achieve these cuts can include virtually any measures it sees fit — as long as it hits these targets.
There's an important footnote here: If Indiana decides to take action between and to boost clean energy or take certain steps to improve energy efficiency in homes and companies, it will get extra credit against these targets.
In other words, states have incentive to take some actions before , though they're not required to. Now comes another thrilling twist. So far, we've been talking about Indiana's "rate-based" goals: the amount of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.
But alternatively, Indiana could come up with a plan to stay below a "mass-based" target — that is, the total amount of CO2 the state's power plants are emitting. If Indiana chose this option, it would have to reduce its overall power plant CO2 emissions from EPA tried to make sure the rate- and mass-based goals were roughly equivalent. The formula for converting between the two is even more byzantine, and if I delved into it here I'd lose my last two readers. But there are pros and cons to adopting one or the other.
If a state adopts a rate-based goal, then emissions can technically increase over time with economic growth — it's just that the carbon intensity of power plants has to go down. By contrast, EPA estimated that mass-based goals might be a little cheaper to comply with, as well as more useful for setting up cap-and-trade programs. Multiple regulations would come into play. So this third option is available if states want to streamline this whole process.
Climate Central has created an excellent interactive map showing every state's "mass-based" targets, as well as the percentage cuts that each state will have to make between and As you can see, some states have to make bigger cuts, percentage-wise, than others — although the differences are much less pronounced than in the draft rule. But it's not always obvious which states will have to do the most work to hit their goals.
It really depends on a state's specific situation. Take New Hampshire. It has to cut power plant emissions 14 percent by But as Sam Evans-Brown points out , the state might be able to get much of the way there by simply continuing to participate in RGGI, a cap-and-trade program for power plants in the Northeast that has been running since Other states, by contrast, have a tougher slog.
Ken Ward Jr. The only way to judge the stringency of the cuts is to scrutinize each state in detail. Now that the EPA has set its goals, states have to submit plans by for how they'll meet those emission targets. If they have a good excuse, states can get an extension and submit a plan by These state plans can include a vast array of different techniques. States can ramp up renewable energy to hit their targets, for instance.
They can reduce output from their existing coal plants and ramp up output from natural gas plants. They can build nuclear plants or increase output from existing nuclear plants. That said, states no longer get extra credit for prolonging the life of existing nuclear plants at risk of closing — a feature of the draft rule.
States could figure out how to reduce losses from their power lines. Utilities could even enact programs to help homes and businesses use energy more efficiently. Or states could go more radical still. They could implement a carbon tax yes, EPA allows this. They could even join existing cap-and-trade systems — like RGGI in the Northeast — or start new ones. Indeed, the EPA's final rule makes it easier for states to join such trading programs.
The only real limitation here is the EPA. The agency will have to look over each state's implementation plan and judge whether the state is likely to meet its emissions goal — and then approve or deny the plan. This is why the next president is so crucial to how the Clean Power Plan works, since he or she will likely be overseeing that whole approval process. By the way, because states have so many different options, you should be very wary of any projections for what the US energy mix will look like in under this plan.
Lots of press reports have been suggesting that natural gas will lose under this plan, or renewables will win out or whatnot. But as Michael Levi points out , the truth is we simply have no idea right now.
So much depends on how states react and what their plans actually look like. Now, it's entirely possible that some states may simply refuse to submit their own plans to meet the EPA's targets.
0コメント