follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

We are Decades Away from a Cure for our Fossil Fuel Addiction

By Jen Alic | Sun, 19 August 2012 00:00 | 2

With natural gas prices low and supplies high, we are decades away from being able to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and move to renewable energy, but there is no reason for dismay.

There seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to render the renewable energy-versus-fossil fuels debate in black and white terms, in a one-or-the-other symposium. 

A sudden “switch” to clean energy is not possible; rather it must be a gradual introduction of renewable energy sources combined with an increase in domestic fossil fuels production.

Renewable energy is a natural revolution that will indeed take place, however slowly. But for now, it is responsible for only a very small percentage of energy production. Renewable energy accounts for less than 12% of total energy consumption in the US, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). The EIA’s figures for 2010 show that natural gas and coal each accounted for 22% of US energy production, followed by crude oil at 12%, nuclear energy at 8%, biomass at 4%, natural gas plant liquids at 3%, hydroelectric power at 3%, and geothermal/solar/wind at 1%.

Natural gas remains the dominant energy source and that will continue to increase in the coming decade. Fossil fuels will remain the key source of energy for decades to come, but at the same time, renewable energy will continue to develop until it can compete on the market.

There is no way around the fact that market and environment must be in line in order to see a shift to renewable energy, and this alignment takes time. For now, the market favors natural gas and it is impossible to force big business to shift to renewable energy when natural gas prices are so low. It is also impossible to convince the average consumer to go along with this. 

Interestingly, a technical report from EIA released earlier this month showed that total US carbon dioxide emissions for the first four months of 2012 were lower than they have been in 20 years thanks largely to the natural gas boom. How can a fossil fuel contribute to lowering CO2 emissions? The answer: “indirectly”. But this is a critical point. The natural gas boom made it possible for big companies to shift away from the use of dirtier coal precisely because it made the switch affordable and even cost-effective.

Nowhere is the power of the market more visible than through the natural gas boom. And this coal-to-natural gas shift was the first step towards cleaner energy; it may seem like a small step, but there can be no skipping of steps. 

This does not mean that natural gas is the answer to our climate concerns. It simply means that the market is dictating forward movement, one step at a time. This particular step was achieved rather quickly, with coal producing half of US electricity in 2005, down to 34% in 2012.

A shift away from natural gas to renewable energy sources such as wind and solar must follow the path as the coal-to-natural gas shift. For now, renewable energy technology is costly, but prices are dropping so the trend is moving in the right direction, though experiencing frustrating ups and downs. The US remained one of the world’s fastest growing wind markets in 2011, and wind power represented 32% of all new electric capacity additions in the US last year. It also accounted for $14 billion in new investments.

It is not necessary to pick a “side”. There are no sides in the clean energy debate, there is only balance, without which renewable energy cannot form a realistic future. Renewable energy is a natural and necessary progression, but it cannot happen overnight. The natural gas boom should demonstrate how this balance works and allow for some optimistic insight into the future of renewable energy along this same path.

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Jen Alic is a geopolitical analyst, co-founder of ISA Intel in Sarajevo and Tel Aviv, and the former editor-in-chief of ISN Security Watch in Zurich.

About the author

Contributor
Jen Alic
Company: ISA Intel

More recent articles by Jen Alic

Sun 18 August 2013
Egypt, Take III: No End to the Carnage
Thu 15 August 2013
Iraqi Oil Exports Slump But Optimism Abounds
Thu 15 August 2013
E.ON Sees First-Half Profit Slump in Europe
Tue 13 August 2013
Will Moribund Uranium Prices Rebound?
Sun 11 August 2013
BG Group Gets US LNG Export Approval

Leave a comment

  • Mark Goldes on August 20 2012 said:
    A direct hit by a solar storm emission that brings down power grids for months can change the energy landscape overnight.

    It can also unleash a nuclear nightmare.


    Decentralization of energy might save a few million lives.

    50 million more solar roofs would be a good place to start.
  • Mel Tisdale on August 21 2012 said:
    Sometimes I wonder if the idea of tipping points is alien to people such as Mr/Ms Jen Alic. In a world without them we could gently let market forces drive the pace of change to renewable energy.

    Unfortunately, we know that melting clathrates in the arctic are releasing methane (a potent greenhouse gas), as, too, is the melting permafrost, also in the higher latitudes. What we don't know is when the rate of this methane release will cause so much warming that it causes the rate of release to become unstoppable.

    One would have thought that the climate conditions experienced this summer would scare the living daylights out of anyone who experienced them or saw them at close range. While it is recognised that no particular climate event can be attributed to climate change, it is difficult not to when the climate behaves in a manner exactly as predicted by climate models, as it did this summer.

    Due to the longevity of some greenhouse gases we know that the current warming of 0.8 C is destined to double to 1.6 C even if we stopped all greenhouse gas production this instant. It is not surprising therefore that a business as usual approach is predicted to lead to a rise of at least 4 C, with 6 C or more quite within the range of possibility. That should be enough to concern anyone with children and grandchildren, assuming they care about their welfare.

    What is needed is to put the planet on a war footing to fight climate change, with anyone caught trying to influence the direction of the campaign by giving out misinformation, such as continually repeating long debunked theories, treated as one would a traitor.

    The situation is really that serious. As this summer shows, climate change is not an item for the back burner, it effects us today, not just future generations.

    In a war situation, it might be possible to take a realistic look at our options and fund them accordingly. We could decide whether intermittent wind and solar are really sensible options when nuclear, especially LFTR, Can do the job so much better and, given the size and safety of LFTR technology, so much less intrusively, especially in the case of wind turbines that are now despoiling so much that was once beautiful countryside.

    With local, small LFTRs there would not be the need for anything like the number of grid pylons and associated infrastructure that are also an eyesore and destined to increase in number the more we rely on wind and solar with their (desperate?) need to 'chase the weather'.

    One thing we do know is that time is not on our side. We don't know when tipping points might occur, or even if we have already passed them, so the sooner we act, the better, even if all it gives us is a bit more time to face up to facts with all the stark reality that that could mean.

Leave a comment