Many Paths to Net Zero Op-Ed: Can Critics of Clean Energy be right once in a while?
(Editor's note: An early version of this story contained a little bad math by the author. It should be 10,000 acres to achieve 1 GW.)
I’m no Nostradamus, but I can still write about what’s going to happen in the future and you can’t stop me. Stick that in your crystal ball.
Sorry...I got a little full of myself there. Unlike that legendary forecaster, however, my future focus is always based on what companies and luminaries in the energy world tell me, not anything I know. They will build this carbon-free world in 30 years or less, and they are committed to getting there.
Recent criticism from the United Nations and International Energy Agency, however, are showing that many countries—and maybe the companies that reside therein—are not really making the progress to Net Zero as quickly as they promised in Paris and other COP venues. What’s really happening, relentlessly, is that the earth is getting hotter, faster, and that portends less appetizing but highly compelling predictions for the future.
The C&I Energy Transition is no different. Many companies say they are going to do their best, planning projects or Renewable PPAs, Microgrids and E-Mobility whether it comes from batteries or fuel cells. If you read the posts of EnergyTech, you will easily see that billions of dollars are planned for investment in doing these things and accelerating the path to net zero.
My mantra, personally, is there are “Many Paths to Net Zero,” or MPtNZ because this particular sector loves a good (or bad) acronym. My phrase is an inside joke within EnergyTech because I’ve used it so many times.
So what I do I mean by MPtNZ? (I vow to eliminate that acronym by 2030...or maybe earlier). What I mean is illustrated by what I heard an industry veteran say a few years ago: “It’s not a race to Renewables: It’s a race to Decarbonization.”
What it means are ample helpings of solar and wind power, battery storage, small modular nuclear reactors and hydrogen. I hope those are plausible paths forward, financially and resiliency wise, for the coming demand for electricity if we convert buildings and vehicles from fossil fuels to all electric heating and cooling.
And yet I believe we probably will need a generious amount of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. And I hope carbon capture or some next-gen invention can mitigate those emissions impacts.
I live in a very red state and hear all kinds of social media quips and gibes about EV charging and grid readiness. Frankly, I can't deal with climate deniers and luddites, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I do think some very legitimate challenges and concerns lay ahead.
The reason for saying all of this is to ask a few questions for readers, based purely on what I’ve gathered from others. Every rose has its thorn, as the prophets from Poison once sang, and every clean energy resource has its not so pristine counter-impact.
So, in honor of Jeopardy, I mention each thorn in the form of a question.
Solar: What do we do about energy density and the need for as much 10,000 acres or more just to locate 1 GW of photovoltaic capacity? Where will we use all that land and how do we ensure transmission efficiency in getting it to customers?
Vehicle electrification: How we locate fleet charging stations that provide some level of certainty to grid planners and don’t blow up the transformer down the street? How do we provide energy for the mining industry to achieve these supply chain goals? How can we take the EV to see grandma 1,000 miles away and get there in decent time? Battery recycling?
Wind power: Steel manufacturing, land use and the birds? Blade and tower recycling?
Battery storage: What elements will be in ample enough supply, how long will they last, and how can we make fleet electrification happen sooner than later? Yes, what about recycling?
Hydrogen: What about energy density and interaction with methane gas? What about pipeline infrastructure and safety? If its using steam reformation to make H2, what about carbon capture? If its green electrolysis, what about water use in the midst of drought? Is it good enough to say, well, the oil and gas industry already uses tremendous volumes of water?
Coal and natural gas and fuel oil already have their negative results we’ve known about for decades. Can carbon capture be financially and results-driven enough to save those resources in the energy mix?
Why not small nuclear? It's carbon free, and if done on a smaller level, reasonably safe and relatively less expensive than utility-scale nuclear. The days of rock star protests are long over, and the world needs baseload, flexible generation which can lower emissions. Obama's Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz thinks so.
Dollars and sense. And really, the elephant in the room is money. The IEA says it will take at least $5 trillion just for Europe to reach those goals. McKinsey says about $3.5 trillion must be spent globally every year to make the journey an achieveable one.
Can we be honest with customers on how much all of this will cost and is there any guarantee to make it all work for the primary reason of saving our environment? And, to be fair on the other hand, how many trillions will be lost to the aftermath and rebuilding in the wake of so many climate disasters? Spend now or pay later?
None of these questions are anything new, but straight talk is always better than hype. Am I wrong?
Are there Many Paths to Net Zero, or is MPtNZ a wrong turn as well as an ugly acronym?
(Editor's Note: These are the ramblings of a contradictory mind and not representiative of EnergyTech.com itself. Email the messenger).
-- -- --
(Rod Walton, senior editor for EnergyTech, is a 14-year veteran of covering the energy industry both as a newspaper and trade journalist. He can be reached at [email protected]).
Follow us on Twitter @EnergyTechNews_ and @rodwaltonelp and on LinkedIn
