Got Gas?

Not that kind! But it does seem that while dependence on fossil fuels might be waning, that King Coal has been reduced to scullery maid, we most certainly are not even close to weaning ourselves off of our toxic relationship with carbon-based fuel-source products. Despite the Trump administration’s laissez-faire deregulation of the coal industry, which not only cannot be scrubbed of its toxic addition to greenhouse gasses but likewise cannot be stripped of its killing effluents in the energy-making process itself, coal-as-an-energy source has nevertheless plunged worldwide as the major source of electricity on earth. Even in the land of the Trumpers, coal usage has dwindled from over 50% in 2000 to 30% in 2016… and falling. Coal mines continue to shut down, demand continues to plunge and coal-related jobs continue to vaporize.

While nuclear power has remained relatively stable – at 20% for the United States – it is clearly not an industry of expected growth. Too many mega-disasters and the issues of what to do with spent fuel rods with thousands of years of radioactivity have poisoned this form of energy generation big time. Renewables, hydroelectric and “other” have risen to 16% of our energy total. But what is surprising is how much natural gas power generation has risen, particularly as that abundant resource is being discovered in massive US-based reserves. Since 2000, when about 17% of our power came from burning natural gas, that number has doubled to 34%.

As the above picture-chart from Princeton University suggests, the new fracking methods – used in natural gas extraction – have profound environmental risks. Yet even in the super-environmental State of California, natural gas usage has risen steadily as well. This is a trend that has many Californians clearly concerned.

“Although cleaner than coal, natural gas is nonetheless a fossil fuel that emits greenhouse gases. Natural gas is mostly made up of methane, and there are concerns about leaks because methane, if released into the atmosphere, is about 30 times more potent than CO2.

“‘When you take into account the environmental impacts and the dangers of climate change associated with natural gas, it might be natural, but it’s not good for the environment,’ said Dan Jacobson, state director at Environment California… In California, there’s a growing school of thought that there is too much natural gas in the system.

“A Los Angeles Times investigation last year reported a growing glut of power in the state. California power plants, based on estimates, were on track to produce at least 21% more electricity than needed by 2020… ‘We’ve been building up our gas-fire infrastructure at a rate that we could turn off every solar panel and every wind turbine right now and we wouldn’t skip a beat,’ said Bill Powers, an engineer and consumer advocate based in San Diego.

“Powers says the $2.2-billion, 558-megawatt Carlsbad Energy Center, scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, is not needed. San Diego Gas & Electric officials have called it “the new workhorse for the region” and say it will help California meet its target of 33% clean-energy generation by 2020 and 50% by 2030… Others point to the fact the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility was offline for 17 months, but Southern Californians did not experience serious power outages as evidence the facility is not crucial to grid reliability.

“Aliso Canyon is the site of the largest methane leak from a natural gas storage facility in U.S. history. It forced the evacuation of more than 8,000 households in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of Los Angeles County.” Los Angeles Times, January 22nd.

While price makes natural gas compelling, the writing is on the wall. If California is the leader in this transition, the technological changes in the field suggest that despite its abundance, natural gas likewise is nothing more than a transitory power source. “‘If in a few years you can produce power at $25 a megawatt-hour from a solar field or buy it at a gas plant at $35, just on cost alone a lot of solar is going to be built, even in states where there’s no green mandate and no pressure to go green,’ Powers said.

“Zoback, of Stanford’s Natural Gas Initiative, isn’t so sure natural gas will lose its grip that quickly… ‘My sense is that we’re going to see expanded use of natural gas for the next 20 years,’ Zoback said. “In the following 20, it will have a useful decline; and 40 to 50 years from now, I think we will be using very little natural gas. We’ll largely have renewable sources…

“The development of energy storage systems powered by batteries may also pose a challenge to natural gas… Right now, gas ‘peaker’ plants are fired up to meet energy demands, such as when large numbers of utility customers turn on their air conditioners during heat waves… But supporters of battery storage see a day when peaker plants will be replaced — by storing up energy when, say, wind and solar are producing at their maximum amounts and then deploying that energy when wind and solar production ebbs.” LA Times. That could be a very long transition! Especially as the Trump Administration takes dead aim at the solar panel industry, with a particular jab at Trump’s arch enemy, California.

“The Trump administration announced Monday [1/22] that it would impose hefty tariffs on the cheap, imported panels that have driven the rapid expansion of solar power in the United States, a move that industry groups warned would slow the spread of renewable energy and cost thousands of jobs in California and elsewhere… Companies that install solar panels will probably trim their workforces, industry analysts warned, as the tariff — which starts at 30% on the imported panels and gradually declines each year — threatens to substantially raise the price of solar power in the United States.

“Imposition of the tariffs drew protests from environmentalists, who said the move would set back efforts to combat global warming, and from the solar power industry… The levies, said Abigail Ross Hopper, chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Assn., ‘will create a crisis in a part of our economy that has been thriving, which will ultimately cost tens of thousands of hard-working, blue-collar Americans their jobs.’… California, where the renewables industry has taken off, will be among the states hardest hit by the new levies… The industry trade group estimates the tariffs on solar panels will cost 23,000 jobs nationwide within the year, and that billions of dollars in potential investment in solar power will evaporate because of them.” Los Angeles Times, January 23rd.

The reality from mounting climate change data does nothing but increase the level of proof between mankind’s use of fossil fuel and the ensuing greenhouse effect with seriously impactful global warming. And as my January 21st Death by Mythology blog evidences, the political ramifications of unending droughts, massive hurricanes/cyclones, wildfires and severe flooding are creating conflicts, massive population displacement/migration and political instability all over the world. Food production, survival and habitability are being battered under the duress of climate change.

On the positive side, however, scientists have been able to narrow their forecasts of expected climate change from these greenhouse gasses, to reflect a slightly lesser degree of change. The study – “Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability” – was published on January 17th in Nature (International Journal of Science). Remembering that one unit in Celsius = 1.8 units in Fahrenheit:

“What the researchers landed on was an ECS [“equilibrium climate sensitivity”] range of 2.2 to 3.4°C, compared to the commonly accepted range of 1.5 and 4.5°C. Admittedly, 2.2 on the low end isn’t ideal for the future of our planet. (For each degree of warming, for example, you might expect up to a 400 percent increase in area burned by wildfires in parts of the western US. Very not ideal.) And the researchers say this means the probability of the ECS being less than 1.5°C—the Paris Climate Agreement’s super optimistic goal beyond the 2°C goal—is less than 3 percent. The upside, though, is they say this new estimate means the probability of the ECS passing 4.5°C is less than 1 percent.”

Read: Horrible but not necessarily the Apocalypse. While there will be plenty of death and destruction along the way, both humanity and the planet can survive the expected numbers, even if life might just be miserable for billions of people and large sections of the earth may no longer be food producing or even fit for human habitation.  The fact that the planet has massive remaining reserves of fossil resources might make us lax in adopting alternatives, but one way or the other, humanity will learn to adjust its carbon footprint to decrease the misery index, as climate deniers simply fade into the “Believe it or Not” annals of history.

I’m Peter Dekom, and how much human being care about the quality of their lives within the earth’s ecosystem will determine how we cope with the growing misery coefficient inherent in letting pollutants continue to drive climate change.