Why Renewables

Presented to the NZ govt. in response to her request for comments on the 2010 energy policy document.

Why Renewables

Abstract

The reasons for increasing the portion of our energy which comes from renewable sources and decreasing our dependence on imported and domestic fossil fuels has been hashed over so many times that it is almost redundant to write such a paper. However, it is useful sometimes to have a check list and there may be an idea or two in the following which hasn't occurred to the reader. Most of this paper can be skimmed over, just reading the headlines. Please feel free to add any other reasons for renewables that occur to you. If you put them in comments, I will incorporate them into the article.


When we produce liquid fuel from, for instance, wood waste, we put CO2 back into the atmosphere that has been recently removed. We create a carbon cycle but introduce no new CO2 into the atmosphere. When we produce electricity from wind or sunshine we completely displace the use of fossil fuel and the production of CO2. It is true that if New Zealand completely ceased to release sequestered (fossil) Carbon, we would have very little effect on the world emission of green house gas. However, there are two reasons we should make the effort. First, we are citizens of the world and should do our part as a population of 4.3m. In fact, since we are part of the industrialized world and arguably produce 10 times the CO2 per capita as the average resident of this planet, perhaps we should be making the same effort as 43 million other people. The second reason is that the world is tightly connected in many different ways and any innovations we come up with can spread to other jurisdictions. People are by and large sheep. They follow innovations from others. Kiwis are innovators

Improvement of our Balance of Payments
As individuals and as a nation, we borrow in order to spend about 10% more than we earn. A portion of this is due to our import of fossil fuels. With the advent of electric cars which can be charged 'when-power-is-available' rather than 'on-demand', there will be a continuous steady reduction in our import of fossil fuels as the domestic fleet switches over to electricity. This will greatly improve our balance of payments. Even now, before the advent of electric cars, renewables could allow us to heat, run our stoves and so forth with electricity displacing fossil fuels(natural gas). To gain the full effect on our balance of payments from the uptake of electric cars, we want to be generating our electricity from renewable sources. Curiously,though, it has been reported that even if the electricity for charging electric cars was produced by coal fired power stations, there would be a small net reduction in carbon emissions. This seems hard to believe but probably has something to do with efficiencies of large power generators.

Reduction in the price of Fossil Fuels
Supply and demand is a hard task master for suppliers. As the demand for fossil fuels decreases around the world, the price of fossil fuels will decrease. We will have need of some liquid fuels for some time to come, even if our domestic fleet completely converts to electricity. Liquid fuel will be needed for non electrified trains, for heavy trucks, for earth moving machinery and so forth. Everything we can do to reduce the demand for fossil fuels will reduce its price. As with the previous argument, while our direct influence may be small, our example is large.

Strategic
While at present, at least, we are at the low end of the scale with respect to our vulnerability to terrorist attacks, we are at the high end with respect to our vulnerable to natural disasters*. If Huntley** and/or a couple of our hydro dams was disabled tomorrow, we would be hard pressed. Renewable energy in most of its forms tends to be diffuse rather than concentrated in one geographical location. As such it benefits from the Internet effect. A distributed electrical generating network is very hard to knock out either by man made or natural disasters.

*Since the writing of this blog, we have had the Christchurch Earthquake.
** New Zealand's only coal fired power station.

Stabilization and Reduction of Electricity Prices
The cost of generating electricity using fossil fuels is going one way. At the same time, the cost of generating renewable energy is coming down as we mount the technological learning curve and as large scale production cuts in. It makes sense to steadily replace our use of fossil fuels with renewables.

Improvement of our Export Competitiveness
Energy is a large part of the cost of every product we export, whether agricultural or industrial. Countries which continue to obtain most of their energy and fertilizers from fossil fuels will become less and less competitive while the converse is true for countries which adopt renewables. If we do nothing we will fall behind. If we innovate rapidly we could be ahead of the pack with a continuing competitive advantage. Being just ahead of the pack is hugely different in economic terms than being just behind the pack

Reduction of our Kyoto Expense
For better or worse, we have committed ourselves to Kyoto and an ETS. This will cost us money which comes from the taxes of Kiwis. Every Kwh we produce renewably is that much less CO2 produced and that much less money flowing out of New Zealand to no purpose.

Safety from a World Economic Meltdown
Despite the pundits trying to talk us into an economic recovery, the indicators are that the world is still well and truly immersed in deep doodoo. Worse still, economists are all talking about getting us back to a 2 to 3% growth mode. At 2% our economies double every 35 years. At 3%, every 23 years. Doubling our economy results in the use of twice the water (actually more than twice in most countries), twice the wood, twice the minerals and so forth. A doubling of the economy also produces twice the pollution and garbage. How many countries do you know that could find twice the water or harvest twice the wood without destroying their Giya support system. New Zealand is one but there aren't many others. This suicidal quest for continuous growth is very likely to lead the world again and again into more and more severe economic downturns. With globalization, we are extremely vulnerable to economic quakes in other parts of the world. This recent mini eco-quake gave us a taste of how this works. Being totally energy-independent is one of a number of vital measure to make us resilient in the face of overseas economic meltdowns.

Enhancement of our Clean Green Image
A hard to measure but undoubtedly a significant part of our export industry depends on our clean green image. For northern tourists who come from crowded, polluted environments, a vision of clean green New Zealand stays with them when they return home. This can include solar panels on house roves, wind turbines on ridges and on rail easements with wind turbines powering electrified trains. Despite what we might think of such things, spoiled as we are by our wild and wonderful country, tourists see these generators of renewable energy as the signs of responsible, thoughtful, clean citizen of the world.


If you look at the above reasons, most have to do with the good of New Zealand, not of the world and that is how it should be. True, they contribute to the good of the world, but our primary goal should be the long term welfare of New Zealand. Our focus should be on decades and even centuries rather than election cycles.

The climate change sceptic

OK, so you are a climate change sceptic. So am I. Have you heard about exposure. No I'm not talking about streaking across a football pitch or being out in the snow without a parka on. I'm talking about what a rock climber/mountaineer calls exposure. Let me give you an example.

First example. You are out with your 10 year old and you take him to a nearby climbing club where he can try bouldering. There is a really difficult pitch he tries. If he falls there is a thick mat a couple of feet below him.

Second example. You are high in the mountains. You are on a very easy path - almost like a sidewalk with your 10 year old skipping along ahead of you. The only problem is that there is a 2000 foot drop on either side just off the path. Which of these situations makes your testicles pull right up into your chest.

The bouldering situation has virtually zero exposure. The mountain walk, huge exposure. The consequences of a slip are not to be countenanced. Climate change is like that. If climate change is a reality, the consequences are enormous and it will effect your 10 year old in just about as disastrously as slipping off the path.

Further more, If we are to believe the scientists who study climate change, sudden catastrophic climate change is not some remote unbelievable happenstance such as aliens coming to earth and wiping us out. We know from various records that rapid severe climate change has happened in the past. The signatures are in rock strata ice cores and ocean bottom mud cores. A couple of pretty relatively mild ones are also contained in our culture in the form of the medieval warm period and the little ice age. The end of the last ice age was another quite severe sudden climate change and it  ended a blink of the eye just 11,000 years ago.

We have sufficiently sophisticated science to know that there are good reasons to believe that we could cause rapid catastrophic climate change. We know, for instance that there are huge reserves of clathrates (methane ice) both in the frozen lands of the Northern Hemisphere and in the mid depths of the oceans of the world that only need a little warming to start them disintegrating. A little warming and they will release their methane at a rapid rate, accelerating the warming and releasing more methane etc. We know that methane is a far more powerful green house gas than carbon dioxide. It could be that it is too late to stop them being released as there are already indications that the tundra is melting and releasing its methane*.

*Since writing this article an item in New Scientist reported that 250 methane seeps have been detected on the ocean bottom around Spitsburgen.

We also know that ice and snow reflect most of the incoming energy from the sun and that open water absorbs most of this energy. If the Arctic ice melts, the heat budget of the world is going to be strongly and suddenly changed. Already,it is reported that the Arctic ocean has heated up about 3 degrees. If the ice disappears as predicted, most of the solar radiation falling on this ocean in the summer, 24 hours a day, will cause a rapid further rise in temperature. Clathrates which have been accumulating on the bottom of the Arctic ocean since the Ermian interglacial, 125,000 years ago will start to break down.

Despite all these logical arguments none of us can be sure that a sudden catastrophic climate change is in our near future. We can not be sure that our release of Carbon dioxide is causing climate change and we can't even be sure that through some as yet undiscovered chain of cause and effect that we may not be about to go into a new ice age. However whatever you believe with regard to climate change, there are some things which are certain unrelated to climate change. In no particular order:


* The EROEI* for new oil discoveries is declining. *Energy returned on energy invested ratio. With early oil discoveries it took the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil to discover, refine and deliver to the petrol station the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil. Now the ratio in the US is around 3:1 and in Saudi Arabia 10:1. Tar sands with advances in production techniques run now at about 5.8:1 (calculating using only direct energy inputs) and the ratio falls (gets worse) sigificantly if you include the true energy inputs). It is clear that that oil is becoming more difficult to find and more energy consuming to bring to the petrol station.

Incidentally, the EROEI for wind turbines is about 20:1

*Peak oil has been reached in many countries. For instance: USA-1970, Indonesia-1997, Australia-2000, UK-1999, Norway-2001, Mexico-2004. Combining all oil producing countries together we have arguably already passed global peak oil production. Peak oil for any country or for the world is only apparent a few years after it has been passed so we will only be wise in hindsight.

*P10's, the carbon particles of less than 10 micron size are serious health hazards. They are produced by internal combustion engines and by the burning of a wide range of fuels in cooking fires. They exist in the air of all countries but are particularly prevalent in Asia, especially where there are high densities of internal combustion engines crowded together into cities and people cooking with wood and kerosine.

*There can be no doubt that we are running out of oil at a rapid rate and coal at a slower but significant rate. Lets look at measures which will ensure us a source of energy long into the future and while we are at it, lets concentrate on measures which will reduce the emissions of Carbon dioxide just in case climate change is a reality. Fortunately many measures we can take which solve the first also solve the second.


First it is a no-brainer that we should put wind turbines in any location where the wind allows. Allowing NIMBY's to block the construction of wind farms is insane. With the exception of solar-electric panels, energy generation by wind has to be about the most ecologically benign form of energy generation ever invented. Yes, you get some bird kills and if you live too close, you may be able to hear them (although they are getting ever quieter and their sound is often masked by the russle of leaves when the wind is blowing). Ironically in areas such as New Zealand where we are worried about the survival of a rare daisy or threatened snail, wind farms can be positively benefical. Once there is a commercial enterprise on a ridge, there is money available to fence in the whole area and eliminate stoats, rats and cats and weed out foreign species of plants. Each wind farm ridge can become an ecological preserve to gladden the heart of the most ecologically conservative preservationist. Instead we allow them to block wind farms. If they continue to succeed and if NIMBI's rule world wide, the various things they are trying to preserve will likely go extinct due to climate change anyway. Wouldn't that be a giggle.

Secondly, all levels of government have to come to the party. There is a huge amount governments can do, primarily by waving their cut, to encourage the uptake of all forms of renewable energy. Without a government bleeding off profit at every turn, many renewable energy projects would cost half as much with the commensurate improvement in the financial viability of these projects. Of course, reasonably priced, sustainable energy would encourage enterprise which would increase the government take. It would create a source of tax revenue so that the MP's could afford to clean the moat.

Thirdly, we can put in smart grids which provide price incentives to the consumer such that the grid is demand balanced to a large extent by the customer. At the same time, smart grids should allow a fair profit for the small generator and for the large power company so that the system is in the interest of both. A system which is punitive to any one of the interested parties is doomed to fail.

Fourthly, we can encourage the uptake of electric cars and especially cars which are simple, very well engineered, durable, inexpensive and easily repaired. If you want the car with all the bells and whistles, no problem but you will have to pay for it. The Volkswagen/Deux Cheveaux/Model T Ford of electrics would make a huge contribution to a sustainable future.

Lets put in measures which make us independent of the fossil fuel purveyors of the world and at the same time take out an insurance pollicy, just in case Climate change is a reality.