- Email: [email protected]
Response to “From a hard place to a rock: Questioning the energy security of a coal-based economy”
Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4671–4672
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Forum
Response to ‘‘From a hard place to a rock: Questioning the energy security of a coal-based economy’’ Joy Brathwaite, Stephen Horst n, Joseph Iacobucci Georgia Institute of Technology, 85 Fifth St NW, Atlanta, GA 30308, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 25 April 2011 Accepted 27 April 2011 Available online 14 May 2011
We would like to thank Sovacool et al. for engaging our recent work, however, we feel their criticisms are primarily directed at the claims of carbon capture and storage technology, which was not addressed in our analysis. The intent of our original analysis was to provide a systematic approach to judge the most efficient use of coal resources as a method for addressing the problem of foreign oil dependence. We have attempted to separate this discussion involving the most effective use of a resource from a discussion of the desirability of using the resource at all, which we feel is a separate issue. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy security Coal Coal-to-liquids
We would like to thank Sovacool et al. (2011) for their insightful critique of our recent work (Brathwaite et al., 2010). We believe an active dialog is critical to understanding different viewpoints of a complex problem. The motivation for our analysis began in late 2008 with surging oil prices convincing several influential figures in the United States including state Governors and the Air Force to consider the possibilities of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to reduce skyrocketing transportation costs. After a brief respite, oil prices are once again on the rise and the issues surrounding high energy costs are returning to the forefront of public awareness. The added external costs to the United States associated with maintaining availability to foreign oil sources has been previously documented (Duffield, 2006; Delucchi and Murphy, 2008). From this backdrop, ‘‘energy security’’ implies keeping energy prices low by ensuring an adequate supply of raw material. Being abundant in the United States, coal is an established alternative energy supply that would seem to be a natural fit to cure the ails of energy security. However, a brief review of the literature will yield a wide range of opinions on the mere definition of ‘‘energy security’’, much less an accepted solution. For example, an alternative interpretation of energy security that plays a prominent role in the present discussion involves mitigating the ecological footprint of energy consumption and ensuring the provision of energy resources for future generations (Sengupta, 1993; Stracher and Taylor, 2004). Although this interpretation identifies a different set of problems
n
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.065 Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 678 595 4774. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Horst).
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.069
from those involved with maintaining availability to foreign resources, both perspectives raise equally valid concerns about maintaining a stable energy supply well into the future. The variety of definitions that constitute the problem of energy security makes a rational and systematic evaluation of potential solutions a convoluted task. In an attempt to provide such an analysis to the previously noted interest in CTL fuels, we were drawn to the framework established by Sovacool and Brown (2009) and its potential for use as a tool to identify the impact of proposed solutions from a variety of perspectives. This framework divides energy security into four basic notions, termed dimensions, which include: (1) availability, involving minimizing foreign dependence on energy services, creating resiliency in energy supply to disruption and diversifying the types and sources of the energy supply, (2) affordability, minimizing price volatility while achieving affordable energy services to consumers, (3) efficiency, as related to reducing wasteful use by consumers and improved performance of energy consuming equipment and (4) sustainability, focused on minimizing the impact of energy consumption on the environment. We conceive a systematic analysis using these dimensions as one that tests a specific solution to an energy security problem. Here, the solution under test is the idea of partially transitioning to CTL fuels in the United States to stabilize the availability of gasoline for transportation. Therefore, we predicated our analysis on the assumption, rather than the assertion, that dependence on oil from foreign and volatile sources is undesirable to the interests of the United States. This solution to the problem of energy availability can then be analyzed from the remaining three dimensions of energy security. In order to be effective, the analysis must then consider an alternative solution to the same problem in order to make a determination between the two. While each solution
4672
J. Brathwaite et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4671–4672
should satisfy the initial problem, the better solution should have a minimum impact on other perspectives. The alternative solution chosen to achieve the same goals of the defined problem in our analysis uses coal to provide additional centralized electricity production to power electric vehicles. By framing the analysis as a comparison of these two particular solutions we are attempting to give our analysis the following context: what is the most effective use of coal resources given the need to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources? The solutions we have chosen for comparison might tacitly imply to some that coal has a particularly significant role to play in the energy future of the United States. However, we would like to emphasize that our analysis makes no distinction about the desirability of a transition that replaces oil with coal as this is an assumed constraint. Rather than passing judgment on the extent of coal usage in the future, we have attempted to restrict ourselves to determine the most effective use of coal should it be required to meet transportation energy needs. The constitution of a country’s energy portfolio will be highly dependent on the resources available, and it should have been clear that our analysis was restricted to the specific case of the United States. Sovacool et al. (2011) clearly identifies their vision of a coal-based economy as ‘‘relying almost exclusively on coal’’. Such extremes are unrealistic by almost any standard as a healthy energy ecosystem will have a diverse range of energy technologies. We envision a coal-based economy as one where coal makes up the largest share of energy production; much like we consider today’s economy oil-based even though oil makes up just under 40% of our total energy usage (LLNL, 2009). Our failure to explicitly state this definition in our original paper was an oversight on our part, but does not detract from our analysis comparing two potential uses of coal under our assumed conditions. Sovacool et al. also couched their analysis of coal technology as an assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), an unproven technique ostensibly designed to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The analysis for our increased electricity production solution was based on currently implemented coal power plants to maintain consistency with our intended goal of comparing solutions geared toward improving the availability of energy resources (NPC, 2007). Thus, their selection of CCS for electricity production and CTL fuels for transportation seems designed to highlight the dubious claims of CCS technology, rather than indict our analysis specifically. We agree with Sovacool et al.’s condemnation of the efficiency and affordability of CCS and CTL technologies. Our analysis likewise concluded that CTL technologies and associated research are a waste of resources. However, while we agree that ‘‘clean coal’’ technologies for electricity generation are currently expensive, unreliable and inefficient, we feel that continued research in this area is warranted given coal’s comparative advantage in electricity generation. Keep in mind that generated electricity from a power plant cannot be stored and the power delivered to the grid must be equal to the consumed power at all times (Blume, 2007). This means that energy demands fluctuate throughout each day on top of some base load that represents the electricity required around the clock. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are dependent on the weather and cannot currently be relied upon to provide this base load. The regulative scrutiny surrounding nuclear plants have established conditions that have seen no new nuclear plants commissioned in the United States since 1979. Furthermore, in the wake of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the well-publicized troubles at the ¯ Fukushima nuclear power plants have triggered the suspension or outright cancellation of plans for building new nuclear plants in the United States (Smith, 2011). Coal is a proven energy source that can be delivered at very low cost when not accounting for long-term
externalities, which explains why it has become such a dominant energy source for electricity in the first place. We are most thankful for Sovacool et al.’s analysis of coal from the sustainability dimension, pointing out a serious flaw in our analysis. In our rudimentary analysis, we had considered only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of coal relative to oil and found that in our scenario they would be roughly equivalent. The analysis by Sundqvist and Soderholm (2002) that attempts to account for all environmental externalities is a much more rigorous analysis and shows that coal has a nearly 60% increase in environmental cost over oil. Such a change does not impact the selection between the two ‘‘solutions’’ chosen to our assumed problem, but it does undermine the credibility of either solution to the status quo and reduces the possibility of finding common ground with opposing perspectives; even though by our assumptions we have deemed the status quo unacceptable. The work of Sovacool and Brown (2009) inspired us to explore the possibilities of their framework as a means of systematically analyzing competing solutions to problems of energy security. Given that the importance of each perspective in this debate (availability, affordability, efficiency and sustainability) is highly subjective, we are also hopeful that this same process can be used to find common ground for compromise with groups who favor alternative interpretations of energy security. We surmise from the selection of CCS coal technology and focus on the environmental impact of the coal supply chain that Sovacool et al. favors solutions that improve the sustainability perspective of energy security. In the interest of full disclosure, as engineers we favor solutions that most efficiently utilize resources. Although we identified electricity generation as a much more efficient use of coal than CTL fuels, neither solution offers much for those interested in sustainable energy security. However, we are hopeful that those interested in sustainability recognize the greater potential for carbon reduction by centralizing carbon generation to electric power plants rather than the diffuse nature of millions of internal combustion engines. Perhaps this idea could unite coal advocates and renewable advocates, if only briefly. The pursuit of compromise is often lost in the raucous posturing of ideology. We would like to thank Sovacool et al. for engaging us with a different perspective in this important debate about the future of energy harvesting. References Blume, S.W., 2007. Electric Power System Basics For the Nonelectrical Professional. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Brathwaite, J., Horst, S., Iacobucci, J., 2010. Maximizing efficiency in the transition to a coal-based economy. Energy Policy 38 (10), 6084–6091. Duffield, J., 2006. Over a Barrel: the Costs of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence. Stanford Law and Politics, Stanford, CA. Delucchi, M.A., Murphy, J.J., 2008. US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles. Energy Policy 36 (6), 2253–2264. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), 2009. Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008. Energy and Environment Data at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. /https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.htmlSS. National Petroleum Council (NPC), 2007. Electric Generation Efficiency. Working Document of the NPC Global Oil and Gas Study. Topic Paper #4. July 18, 2007. Sengupta, M., 1993. Environmental Impacts of Mining: Monitoring, Restoration, and Control. CRC Press, Florida. Smith, R., 2011. NRG drops plan for Texas reactors. The Wall Street Journal, April 20. Sovacool, B.K., Brown, M.A., 2009. Competing Dimension of Energy Security: An International Perspective. School of Public Policy. Georgia Institute of Technology. Working Paper Series. Working Paper #45. January 13, 2009. Sovacool, B.K., Cooper, C., Parenteau, P., 2011. From a hard place to a rock: questioning the energy security of a coal-based economy. Energy Policy 2011. Stracher, G., Taylor, T., 2004. Coal fires burning out of control around the world: thermodynamics environmental catastrophe. International Journal of Coal Geology 59 (1–2), 7–17. Sundqvist, T., Soderholm, S., 2002. Valuing the environmental impacts of electricity generation: a critical survey. Journal of Energy Literature 8, 1–18.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
Forum
Response to ‘‘From a hard place to a rock: Questioning the energy security of a coal-based economy’’ Joy Brathwaite, Stephen Horst n, Joseph Iacobucci Georgia Institute of Technology, 85 Fifth St NW, Atlanta, GA 30308, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history: Received 25 April 2011 Accepted 27 April 2011 Available online 14 May 2011
We would like to thank Sovacool et al. for engaging our recent work, however, we feel their criticisms are primarily directed at the claims of carbon capture and storage technology, which was not addressed in our analysis. The intent of our original analysis was to provide a systematic approach to judge the most efficient use of coal resources as a method for addressing the problem of foreign oil dependence. We have attempted to separate this discussion involving the most effective use of a resource from a discussion of the desirability of using the resource at all, which we feel is a separate issue. & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Energy security Coal Coal-to-liquids
We would like to thank Sovacool et al. (2011) for their insightful critique of our recent work (Brathwaite et al., 2010). We believe an active dialog is critical to understanding different viewpoints of a complex problem. The motivation for our analysis began in late 2008 with surging oil prices convincing several influential figures in the United States including state Governors and the Air Force to consider the possibilities of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to reduce skyrocketing transportation costs. After a brief respite, oil prices are once again on the rise and the issues surrounding high energy costs are returning to the forefront of public awareness. The added external costs to the United States associated with maintaining availability to foreign oil sources has been previously documented (Duffield, 2006; Delucchi and Murphy, 2008). From this backdrop, ‘‘energy security’’ implies keeping energy prices low by ensuring an adequate supply of raw material. Being abundant in the United States, coal is an established alternative energy supply that would seem to be a natural fit to cure the ails of energy security. However, a brief review of the literature will yield a wide range of opinions on the mere definition of ‘‘energy security’’, much less an accepted solution. For example, an alternative interpretation of energy security that plays a prominent role in the present discussion involves mitigating the ecological footprint of energy consumption and ensuring the provision of energy resources for future generations (Sengupta, 1993; Stracher and Taylor, 2004). Although this interpretation identifies a different set of problems
n
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.065 Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 678 595 4774. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Horst).
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.069
from those involved with maintaining availability to foreign resources, both perspectives raise equally valid concerns about maintaining a stable energy supply well into the future. The variety of definitions that constitute the problem of energy security makes a rational and systematic evaluation of potential solutions a convoluted task. In an attempt to provide such an analysis to the previously noted interest in CTL fuels, we were drawn to the framework established by Sovacool and Brown (2009) and its potential for use as a tool to identify the impact of proposed solutions from a variety of perspectives. This framework divides energy security into four basic notions, termed dimensions, which include: (1) availability, involving minimizing foreign dependence on energy services, creating resiliency in energy supply to disruption and diversifying the types and sources of the energy supply, (2) affordability, minimizing price volatility while achieving affordable energy services to consumers, (3) efficiency, as related to reducing wasteful use by consumers and improved performance of energy consuming equipment and (4) sustainability, focused on minimizing the impact of energy consumption on the environment. We conceive a systematic analysis using these dimensions as one that tests a specific solution to an energy security problem. Here, the solution under test is the idea of partially transitioning to CTL fuels in the United States to stabilize the availability of gasoline for transportation. Therefore, we predicated our analysis on the assumption, rather than the assertion, that dependence on oil from foreign and volatile sources is undesirable to the interests of the United States. This solution to the problem of energy availability can then be analyzed from the remaining three dimensions of energy security. In order to be effective, the analysis must then consider an alternative solution to the same problem in order to make a determination between the two. While each solution
4672
J. Brathwaite et al. / Energy Policy 39 (2011) 4671–4672
should satisfy the initial problem, the better solution should have a minimum impact on other perspectives. The alternative solution chosen to achieve the same goals of the defined problem in our analysis uses coal to provide additional centralized electricity production to power electric vehicles. By framing the analysis as a comparison of these two particular solutions we are attempting to give our analysis the following context: what is the most effective use of coal resources given the need to reduce dependence on foreign energy sources? The solutions we have chosen for comparison might tacitly imply to some that coal has a particularly significant role to play in the energy future of the United States. However, we would like to emphasize that our analysis makes no distinction about the desirability of a transition that replaces oil with coal as this is an assumed constraint. Rather than passing judgment on the extent of coal usage in the future, we have attempted to restrict ourselves to determine the most effective use of coal should it be required to meet transportation energy needs. The constitution of a country’s energy portfolio will be highly dependent on the resources available, and it should have been clear that our analysis was restricted to the specific case of the United States. Sovacool et al. (2011) clearly identifies their vision of a coal-based economy as ‘‘relying almost exclusively on coal’’. Such extremes are unrealistic by almost any standard as a healthy energy ecosystem will have a diverse range of energy technologies. We envision a coal-based economy as one where coal makes up the largest share of energy production; much like we consider today’s economy oil-based even though oil makes up just under 40% of our total energy usage (LLNL, 2009). Our failure to explicitly state this definition in our original paper was an oversight on our part, but does not detract from our analysis comparing two potential uses of coal under our assumed conditions. Sovacool et al. also couched their analysis of coal technology as an assessment of carbon capture and storage (CCS), an unproven technique ostensibly designed to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The analysis for our increased electricity production solution was based on currently implemented coal power plants to maintain consistency with our intended goal of comparing solutions geared toward improving the availability of energy resources (NPC, 2007). Thus, their selection of CCS for electricity production and CTL fuels for transportation seems designed to highlight the dubious claims of CCS technology, rather than indict our analysis specifically. We agree with Sovacool et al.’s condemnation of the efficiency and affordability of CCS and CTL technologies. Our analysis likewise concluded that CTL technologies and associated research are a waste of resources. However, while we agree that ‘‘clean coal’’ technologies for electricity generation are currently expensive, unreliable and inefficient, we feel that continued research in this area is warranted given coal’s comparative advantage in electricity generation. Keep in mind that generated electricity from a power plant cannot be stored and the power delivered to the grid must be equal to the consumed power at all times (Blume, 2007). This means that energy demands fluctuate throughout each day on top of some base load that represents the electricity required around the clock. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are dependent on the weather and cannot currently be relied upon to provide this base load. The regulative scrutiny surrounding nuclear plants have established conditions that have seen no new nuclear plants commissioned in the United States since 1979. Furthermore, in the wake of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami, the well-publicized troubles at the ¯ Fukushima nuclear power plants have triggered the suspension or outright cancellation of plans for building new nuclear plants in the United States (Smith, 2011). Coal is a proven energy source that can be delivered at very low cost when not accounting for long-term
externalities, which explains why it has become such a dominant energy source for electricity in the first place. We are most thankful for Sovacool et al.’s analysis of coal from the sustainability dimension, pointing out a serious flaw in our analysis. In our rudimentary analysis, we had considered only the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of coal relative to oil and found that in our scenario they would be roughly equivalent. The analysis by Sundqvist and Soderholm (2002) that attempts to account for all environmental externalities is a much more rigorous analysis and shows that coal has a nearly 60% increase in environmental cost over oil. Such a change does not impact the selection between the two ‘‘solutions’’ chosen to our assumed problem, but it does undermine the credibility of either solution to the status quo and reduces the possibility of finding common ground with opposing perspectives; even though by our assumptions we have deemed the status quo unacceptable. The work of Sovacool and Brown (2009) inspired us to explore the possibilities of their framework as a means of systematically analyzing competing solutions to problems of energy security. Given that the importance of each perspective in this debate (availability, affordability, efficiency and sustainability) is highly subjective, we are also hopeful that this same process can be used to find common ground for compromise with groups who favor alternative interpretations of energy security. We surmise from the selection of CCS coal technology and focus on the environmental impact of the coal supply chain that Sovacool et al. favors solutions that improve the sustainability perspective of energy security. In the interest of full disclosure, as engineers we favor solutions that most efficiently utilize resources. Although we identified electricity generation as a much more efficient use of coal than CTL fuels, neither solution offers much for those interested in sustainable energy security. However, we are hopeful that those interested in sustainability recognize the greater potential for carbon reduction by centralizing carbon generation to electric power plants rather than the diffuse nature of millions of internal combustion engines. Perhaps this idea could unite coal advocates and renewable advocates, if only briefly. The pursuit of compromise is often lost in the raucous posturing of ideology. We would like to thank Sovacool et al. for engaging us with a different perspective in this important debate about the future of energy harvesting. References Blume, S.W., 2007. Electric Power System Basics For the Nonelectrical Professional. John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ. Brathwaite, J., Horst, S., Iacobucci, J., 2010. Maximizing efficiency in the transition to a coal-based economy. Energy Policy 38 (10), 6084–6091. Duffield, J., 2006. Over a Barrel: the Costs of U.S. Foreign Oil Dependence. Stanford Law and Politics, Stanford, CA. Delucchi, M.A., Murphy, J.J., 2008. US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles. Energy Policy 36 (6), 2253–2264. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), 2009. Estimated U.S. Energy Use in 2008. Energy and Environment Data at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. /https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/energy/energy.htmlSS. National Petroleum Council (NPC), 2007. Electric Generation Efficiency. Working Document of the NPC Global Oil and Gas Study. Topic Paper #4. July 18, 2007. Sengupta, M., 1993. Environmental Impacts of Mining: Monitoring, Restoration, and Control. CRC Press, Florida. Smith, R., 2011. NRG drops plan for Texas reactors. The Wall Street Journal, April 20. Sovacool, B.K., Brown, M.A., 2009. Competing Dimension of Energy Security: An International Perspective. School of Public Policy. Georgia Institute of Technology. Working Paper Series. Working Paper #45. January 13, 2009. Sovacool, B.K., Cooper, C., Parenteau, P., 2011. From a hard place to a rock: questioning the energy security of a coal-based economy. Energy Policy 2011. Stracher, G., Taylor, T., 2004. Coal fires burning out of control around the world: thermodynamics environmental catastrophe. International Journal of Coal Geology 59 (1–2), 7–17. Sundqvist, T., Soderholm, S., 2002. Valuing the environmental impacts of electricity generation: a critical survey. Journal of Energy Literature 8, 1–18.