The Big Picture
By Sam23 April
Table of Contents
Introduction
Last summer California had unusually hot weather, parts of the state experienced rolling brownouts. Which is a power company’s euphemism for “You’re using more electricity than our power grid can provide, so we’ve divided our customers by geographic areas and each area will be allotted power according to a time schedule.”
The media reported increased air conditioning use was partly responsible for the brownouts, the major culprit was recharging Electric Vehicles (EVs) during peak usage hours.
California’s Governor Gavin Newsom’s 10-billion-dollar plan to replace the state’s gas-guzzlers with zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) failed to balance renewable energy development with EV sales. The “National Plan” is to replace 60% of the internal combustion engine vehicles (ICE) with ZEVs by 2035. The Governor moved the State’s EV plan up five years to 2030.
In Newsom’s defense, a new Wyoming wind farm was scheduled to be online to supply California with additional power; but like most government projects it has been delayed by environmental regulations, red tape, and political grease. Ironically, the past policies of the people demanding green energy are now the biggest obstacle to achieving green energy.
Utility Companies
Before we begin the conversation on renewable energy, let’s take a moment to discuss US electric utility pricing. Utility pricing regulations were originally instituted to reduce utility customer costs by limiting a utility’s profits. The regulations allow utilities to recoup their operating costs (which tend to be higher than most public companies), and to profit only from investments made for physical infrastructure upgrades, provided the upgrade costs are reasonable, will improve the quality of service, and are environmentally safe.
The Utilities don’t have a financial incentive to reduce their overhead or customer prices. The only way they can increase their profits is by increasing their infrastructure spending. The more they spend, the more they can charge, and the more they profit. The utility companies and their vendors both realize, the more infrastructure improvements cost, the greater the profits for both parties. It’s a recipe for perpetual rate hikes. The electric utility companies will happily spend more money than is needed to improve the grid, providing they continue to own the grid, and it continues to be the major source of electricity for consumers.
Of the 10.8 Million GW-hours of electrical energy generated by the US in 2021, the Grid only had storage for 4.6 GW-h. Nearly all the energy stored came from solar and was used by the utilities to arbitrage prices. (i.e., the electricity was stored when electricity prices were low, and discharged (sold) when prices were high.
The Grid
The grid controls the movement of electricity from generating sources to its end-uses. It has been designed to supply the maximum amount of electricity that the country might consume within a 24hour period (peak load). The peak load which is roughly twice the normal demand (average load), is a best-guess safeguard against brown-outs.
Power plants, across the U.S. are linked together through a network of power lines. Electricity can be quickly shifted from one area of the country to another to supply unexpected demands.
The grid relies upon consistent sources of energy to maintain a real-time balance between electricity produced and electricity consumed. It does this by bringing different electric generating sources on-and-offline as required.
For instance, hydro power plants have a number of generators which can be brought on and offline to meet fluctuating electric demands. The same is true for nuclear power plants, coal and natural-gas fired plants. The one thing they all have in common is a readily available source of energy.
For the Grid to be effective, the supply of electricity must always be substantially greater then the average demand. Unfortunately, excess energy is not stored; some is used for transmission and distribution, the rest is simply discarded.
In 2021 the US consumed only thirty-five percent (35%) of the electricity sent to the Grid, 5% was lost on transmission and distribution, and 60% was wasted, or rejected.
…
The fastest way to de-carbonize 60% of the power sector, is to develop electric storage systems that can save the unused electricity until its needed. These storage systems could be placed at substations near consumption points to minimize wide area outages.
After twenty years and a trillion dollars, only 19% of the Grid’s energy is being produced from renewable sources and more than half of that energy is being lost or discarded. The utility companies added 4.6 quads of electric storage systems to the supply side of the Grid in 2021.
Click for a brief description of different Energy Storage Systems.
The Environment
We all want clean air to breath and clean water to drink. We all want our food to be free of contaminants and safe to eat. We want our country’s natural beauty to seen by our children, grandchildren and their descendants.
Since the 1950’s millions of people around the world have protested against air, water, light and noise pollution. President Nixon and the U.S. congress, in response to pressure from a growing environmental movement, created the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970.
In 1972 the United Nations joined the fight against pollution when they created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and adopted the Stockholm Declaration and Plan of Action.
During the 1970’s and 1980’s the EPA successfully improved the nation’s water quality. They outlawed the use of hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), they set & enforced strict industrial and transportation emission standards. Air quality improved and the ozone hole over Antarctica began to shrink.
In 1980 the agency was poised to become just another bloated, regulatory bureaucracy until researchers found, there was an overabundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere, which if left uncontrolled, would subject mankind to dangerous “Climate Changes”, global warming, followed by glacial melting, rising ocean levels, flooding of low-lying areas, dramatic changes to long term weather patterns, and catastrophic food supply problems.
According to the UN, “The science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change emissions … we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and invest in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable. … Wealthier countries are obligated to fulfill a commitment made in the Paris Agreement to provide $100 billion a year in international climate finance.”
That means every man, woman, and child in the US will have to pay the UN roughly $300 per year for an indeterminate amount of time.
(Note: As of 2023, China, United States and India, are the Three largest Co2-equivalent polluters in the world. The US is the only one of the three, that meets the UN’s definition of a “wealthier country”. The US is obligated to contribute $100 billion a year to international climate finance. China (2nd largest world economy) and India (the 6th largest) do not have to contribute; in fact, they are entitled to a share of the US’s contribution.)
Fossil Fuels? No; Renewables? Yes
By 2010 nearly all of the UN member countries had consented to work together to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources. The common goal was to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2100. The biggest proponents of the move were energy-poor nations, like the European Union. The biggest opponents were the energy-rich OPEC states. The U.S, despite being energy-rich, sided with its European Union friends.
Most countries agreed, by 2030, they would all do what they could to, cut global Greenhouse Gas Emission levels to 1/2 of what they were in 2005. Environmental scientists believed the 2030 goal was reachable by simply replacing the fossil fuel sources used to generate electricity with solar and wind. Today, renewable energy development and deployment is behind schedule. It’s on pace for a global temperature rise of 2.1 °C before 2100.
Most countries also agreed to be Net Zero by 2050. (i.e. All greenhouse gas emissions will be cut as close to zero as possible, any remaining emissions will be re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests.)
The International Energy Agency (iea.org) and the US Energy Information Administration (eia.gov), are the leading information sources for energy generation and consumption. Nearly every article written about global warming or renewable energy is based upon facts provided by one of the two organizations. Both organizations are known to quote one another, and both report, net zero by 2050 is unattainable with our current technology. New technology must be invented and/or perfected between now and 2030, if we are to reach net zero by 2050.
That new technology may be at hand. On Monday, December 5, 2022, after 60 years of dedicated pursuit, scientists, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory “conducted the first controlled fusion experiment in history“. Now that Fusion ignition has been achieved, the prospect of clean fusion energy is a real possibility.
The Energy-Rich & Energy-Poor
From IEA reports, it’s obvious the world has countries with an abundance of fossil fuels (the energy-rich) and others with little or none (the energy-poor).
The energy-poor nations, like the European Union, are the leading promoters of the renewable energy movement. That’s understandable, no nation wants to be dependent upon another for its energy. It’s bad for the county’s psyche and it’s bad for their economic bottom line. On the other hand, the energy rich nations ignore the calls for more renewable energy sources. Renewable energy reduces their influence and it’s bad for their economic bottom line. The US is the world’s largest fossil fuel producer per capita. The Biden Administration has said, “to hell with the bottom line, full steam ahead, let’s be an example for the world”.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the energy-rich nations have been the bullies in the room. The energy-poor were defenseless until the 1990’s when they found their “big gun”, CLIMATE CHANGE.
When the energy-poor-Europeans pointed the “big gun”, at the USA, the American political leaders threw up their hands-in-surrender. After all, we Americans don’t like to be seen as “the bad guys” and we definitely don’t want to be labeled as “planet killers”.
The current administration has allocated trillions of dollars for renewable energy research and development, all in the hope that our scientists will develop (within the next 7 years) the technology needed to meet the Paris Accord goals. They also committed all of us to fossil-fuel-free transportation and the electrification of America. Meanwhile, amidst the threat of conflicts with Russia and China, the administration has curtailed the development of all fossil fuels, putting our nation’s security at risk, and leaving us without a safety net.
The second largest fossil fuel producer per capita is Russia. When the world pointed the “big gun” at Putin, he saw it as an opportunity to make his European neighbors so dependent upon Russian energy, they wouldn’t dare interfere with his plans to rebuild the old Soviet Union.
China is the world’s thirteenth largest fossil fuel producer per capita. Unlike Russia, China is the biggest supporter of renewable energy. They joined the IEA as an associate member so they could keep-a-finger on the organization’s pulse, without having to meet the organization’s member commitments. When the world pointed the “big gun” at China, Xi Jinping saw an opportunity and formulated a clever plan; they would manufacture the products needed to produce renewable energy and sell them to the rest of the world. Then they would use the profits from those sales to pay for their own renewable energy program. China will break free from future energy dependencies, while other countries like the US, foot-the-bill.
How much renewable energy is needed?
Let’s take a moment to become familiar with some energy measurements. Whenever possible, Quads will be used here as the common denominator to compare various sources and uses of energy.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) measures energy sources in quads. One (1) quad = 1 quadrillion (or 1,000 trillion) British Thermal Units (BTU). One (1) quad is also the electrical equivalent of 293,071,083 Mega Watt hours (MW-h) of electric energy. For comparison, the average household in the US uses 10.7 MW-h per year.
The U.S. produced roughly 97 Quads of energy in 2021; 80% came from fossil-fuels, 8% from Nuclear and 12% from renewable sources. 38% (37 Quads) of all the energy produced was sent to the US electric grid, and 65% of that (24 Quads) was lost or never used.
Table0 summarizes the total U.S. energy produced in 2021 and its consumption by sector. It also includes a breakdown for the renewable energy produced and consumed. llustration-1 depicts the total U.S. energy flow, while Illustration-2 depicts only the flow of the nation’s renewable energy.
A Quad of Renewable Energy
In 2021, the US used fossil fuels to generate 21.5 Quads of electric energy. The first part of the Biden Administration’s “2035 CO2 emission reduction plan” is to replace the energy produced by burning fossil fuels, with energy produced by solar and wind farms.
Over the past decade the output from a single solar panel has grown dramatically. It’s not because the panels have become far more efficient, but because manufacturers are making larger panels with more solar cells. Wind turbine output has has also increased dramatically; in-part because of efficiency improvements, but mostly because wind turbines have become substantially larger.
The energy produced by solar and wind, varies with location and local weather conditions. For instance, a 500-MW solar farm in the dessert southwest can generate twice the energy of an identical solar farm in Connecticut. A wind turbine on the central plains will generate more electricity than its counterpart in Alabama. The largest wind turbines currently being made are ocean based and destined for installation off the mid-Atlantic coast.
if we were to use 500-MW solar farms to generate 1-Quad of electric energy (and these farms used the latest 665 watt bi-facial solar panels on a single axis mount) the number of farms needed would vary by the amount of sun available at a farm’s location.
In Upton County, Texas, we would need: 152 solar farms, (228 million solar panels and 1,246 square miles of land) to generate 1-Quad of energy. That same 1-Quad in Connecticut would require 276 solar farms, 415 million solar panels and 2,269 square miles of land (Solar-Example).
If we were to use 1,500-MW offshore wind farms to generate 1-Quad of electric energy, we would need 3,700 15-MW wind turbines and 3,147 square miles of ocean surface area (Wind-Example). 1-Quad of energy can also be generated by 36 1-GW nuclear reactors or 2,788 30-MW hydro-power plants.
The following table summarizes the number of units and the square miles of surface area needed to generate 1-Quad of electric energy from different renewable sources.
Carbon Goals 2035 & 2050
In its first year, the Biden administration restricted the use and development of fossil fuels. They committed to a 50-52% reduction in Green-House-Gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. They committed to de-carbonize the US power sector and end the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035.
If the administration is to keep its commitments, it’s must replace 24.1 Quads of fossil fuel energy with renewable energy (21.7 Quads to de-carbonize the power sector plus another 2.4 Quads for EV recharging).
The following table summarizes the number of units and the square miles of surface area needed to generate 24.1-Quads of electric energy from different renewable sources. The table also includes the same info for net zero by 2050.
Note, the EIA predicted an 8% increase in the US population from 2021 to 2035 and only a 1% increase in Grid electric usage. The assumption appears to be, buildings in the Residential and Commercial sectors will replace 10 Quads of Grid energy with solar photovoltaic systems, and solar thermal water heaters.
The electrification of America has begun. Electricity is replacing petroleum & natural gas as a power source. In 2021, the transportation sector used twenty-five (25) quads of petroleum and Natural Gas energy. Nearly all of that energy is slated to be replaced with energy from renewable sources.
The US Climate Change Program
Who is in-charge?
Who is in-charge of the US climate Change Program? It’s a simple question, but it doesn’t seem to have a simple Google answer.
President-elect Joe Biden created a new cabinet level position, the “Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change, and appointed John Kerry to the position. Kerry is a former Secretary of State, and he played an integral role in the development of the “Pairs Accord”. Kerry is tasked with ”fighting climate change and coordinating programs across multiple agencies”. The press named him the “climate czar”, but it appears, he (and his counterparts in other countries) do little more than fly around the world screaming “You’re killing the planet and we’re all going to die”. Kerry is the President’s “Chicken Little”.
If Kerry is not responsible for the country’s climate change program who is? The National Security Council has its Senior Director for Climate and Energy. The National Economic council has the Council Lead on Climate Change. The council on Environmental Quality has the Senior Director for Environmental Justice and the White House has its Office of Domestic Climate Policy. All the above positions, according to a White House Organizational chart report directly to the President’s Chief of Staff, who reports to the Vice President, and she reports to the President.
There is also the National Climate Task Force headed by the National Climate Advisor. It includes: all the members of the President’s Cabinet, Administrators of ( General Services, the EPA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration), The Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, directors of (the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy), plus Assistants to the President for (Domestic Policy, National Security Affairs, Homeland Security and Counter terrorism, and Economic Policy).
It appears as if all the people above report directly to the President. We know from the President’s schedule, that’s impossible. It also appears as if the President’s “all of government approach” is being led by a committee without a leader. The committee’s climate change solution seems to be based on the “crap plan” (i.e. let’s throw a lot of crap against a wall and see what sticks”). The program deserves more than a vague set of goals and a trillion-dollar budget. It needs a real leader, one with a realistic game plan and milestones by which we can measure the program’s progress.
Conclusion
The Biden administration is betting that wind and solar will replace fossil fuels as the Grid’s major energy source by 2035. That plan will change the American landscape. Nearly every building in the country will have solar electric and/or solar heating devices mounted on the roof. Plus, if we were to use today’s technology and divide the grid’s 2035 projected electric load equally between solarpv and ocean wind turbines, we would need more than 3,600 (500 MW) solarpv farms covering roughly 15,000 square miles and 500 (1,500 MW) wind farms covering 38,000 square miles of coastal ocean surface.
The administration is also betting that it can, within the next twelve (12) years, force 60% of America’s drivers to dispose of their internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and buy electric Vehicles (EVs). We will all have to scrap our ICE vehicles because there won’t be a resale market and the administration doesn’t have a retrofit plan. Don’t bet against the administration. They are doing everything within their power to win the bet, including crippling America’s petroleum and natural gas industries.
The US is following the UN’s goal of a net zero economy by 2050. (i.e. All greenhouse gas emissions will be cut as close to zero as possible, any remaining emissions will be re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests.) The International Energy Agency (IEA), and the US Department of Energy agree that it is impossible to achieve net zero using today’s technology. The administration is gambling the nation’s future on technology that must be invented and operating within the next seven years. They don’t have a backup plan.
What happens if we don’t have that new technology operational within seven years? According to the screaming Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, our planet will fall into a spiraling death spin from which there is no escape.
Of all the renewable sources being developed, clean nuclear fusion energy appears to be the world’s best hope.
The leaders of the United States and the European Union are hellbent on eliminating fossil fuels as quickly as possible. The rush is good for the EU; it produces less than 1% of the world’s fossil fuels. It’s not so good for the US. We are the world’s largest fossil fuel producer. Our fossil fuel production makes us energy independent and keeps our economy sound, which in turn, pays for our climate change programs. Only climate change idiots or a compromised administration, would rush to kill their golden goose before they have a replacement.
The Biden administration curtailed the development of all fossil fuels and sold a sizeable portion of the US Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China. Now we’re buying oil from OPEC to replenish those reserves. The administration has compromised our national security. Our military currently runs on petroleum, and we don’t have enough of it to fight a prolonged battle. The administration, by prematurely killing our oil and gas industry, is also killing our ability to use our own oil to quickly resupply any needed military fuel.
It’s time for common sense. It’s time for US and EU leaders to pause, take a deep breath, and look around.
Russia is not going to stop producing and using fossil fuels. It’s their best non-nuclear weapon. They used Europe’s dependence on Russian oil, to hold NATO at bay while they invaded Ukraine.
China will only stop producing and using fossil fuels when they have a proven viable alternative. Meanwhile, they will continue to be climate change fear mongers; telling the world, “If you want to save the planet, stop using fossil fuels now.”
China has outsmarted us again. They are using the American public’s fear of climate change and politicians like John Kerry, as a means to make us pay for their energy independence. They manufacture the materials needed for renewable energy projects. We rush to buy them, and they use the profits to pay for their own renewable energy program; eventually becoming energy independent at our expense.
Nations that control energy have power over nations that do not. China is quietly trying to control both the fossil fuel industry and the renewable energy industry. They’re making alliances with Russia and the OPEC countries. There is little we can do to stop them. We are dependent upon China for thousands of products from pharmaceuticals to renewable energy parts.
Most of the middle eastern OPEC nations share a hatred for the US. It’s easy for them to look at China and say, “the enemy, of my enemy, is my friend.” However, when it comes to China alliances, that adage, is a short-term view of a long-term conflict. It should be amended to, “the enemy, of my enemy, is my friend, until he’s not.”
Our best hope for a secure future is to continue using our fossil fuels until we’ve proven we don’t need them anymore. The EU’s best hope for energy independence is to follow our lead and share our fossil fuels until they have a viable alternative.