U.S. Transitional Energy Strategies and Policies Continue to Not Address the Climate Change Elephant in the Room

This month the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to limit greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) for coal, gas, and oil-fired thermal power plants with implementation for coal in 2030, and 2032 for gas. The set limits vary based on the size and age of facilities.

Carbon Capture Reality

The EPA policy relies on carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects to reduce GHGs from fossil fuel energy sources. The reality is, however, that of the 3,400 coal and gas-fired plants currently operating in the U.S., a mere handful (less than 10) have CCS installed. So between now and 2032, utilities are going to have to churn out more than one new CCS project a day to meet the deadline. Considering the regulatory environment to get approval for modifications to existing power plants let alone standalone direct-air-capture (DAC) technology, it seems the EPA is “blowing smoke.”

Green Hydrogen Reality

The EPA proposal also addresses the use of green hydrogen as a substitute in gas-fired thermal power stations. A reality check shows that total annual regional production of green hydrogen in 2022 amounted to 691,000 metric tons. That’s enough hydrogen to generate 33 megawatt hours of energy, a fraction of what natural-gas-fired plants produce at an average of between 600 and 700 megawatts.

Green hydrogen production requires electrolyzers that use renewable energy to remain green. Think about it. Why do you need the gas when you already have wind and solar producing zero-emission, renewable energy? It is adding an unnecessary extra step just because some existing gas-fired plants can be converted to use green hydrogen.

EPA Policy and GHG Savings

Here’s another bit of lunacy. Although the EPA has proposed GHG limits and the adoption of green hydrogen where possible, if  coal-fired plant operators shut down or install CCS, total emission reduction will amount to 28% by 2032. At the same time the policy notes the need for utilities to invest and build more natural gas-fired plants as part of a “transitional energy strategy” of which we will talk more.

The Transitional Fuel Conundrum

The legacy of natural gas as a transitional fuel from coal goes back to the administration of Barack Obama when it was first proposed. Natural gas produces about 50% less carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHG polluting gasses and particulate matter than coal.

The Obama administration became convinced by fossil fuel energy industry lobbyists and major utilities that a two-step approach involving eliminating coal and substituting it with natural gas would bend the carbon curve downward while the country could gear up its renewable and other zero-emission energy capacity. The reason for retaining the burning of a fossil fuel to produce electricity was that renewable intermittency needed a reliable legacy  baseline capacity provided by fossil-fuel power.

The insanity of the policy was that it traded one polluting fuel for a lesser one while ignoring alternatives. And the Obama administration and those that have followed it have continued to the lunacy while ignoring other solutions including:

• Zero-emission nuclear fission which remained strangled by regulations and decades-old designs, and the problem of managing radioactive waste, far easier to deal with than fossil-fuel-warming air pollutants.
• Zero-emission geothermal which continued to get very little attention even though it posed a much smaller footprint than wind or solar, and the potential capacity within the U.S. was and is enormous. Add to that, the technology and skills needed to find geothermal sources and operate facilities fit very will with a workforce used to drilling for oil and gas.
• And battery and other energy storage technologies whcih got little attention although these technologies could serve to backup renewable wind and solar and cover intermittency issues.

Net Result of EPA Proposed Regulations

What is the estimated cost of implementing the latest EPA proposal thrashed out with the cooperation of utilities and fossil-fuel providers? It comes in at between $10 and $14 billion with retail electricity rates expected to rise by 0.2% annually.

The end result of the proposal if implemented would be a decrease in CO2 emissions by 617 million tons annually from coal-fired power plants when what is needed amounts to between 100 and 1,000 Gigatons (a gigaton is a billion metric tons) annually by 2050.

So in other words, a lot of nothing that sounds like good policy but in fact is greenwashing.

What We Will Look at Next

This proposed policy governing U.S. utilities is being joined by others in the global community with their own net-zero short and long-term strategies. I intend to explore what the European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, China and others are doing and weigh in on what will undoubtedly show the inadequacies of current activities by governments on the climate change file.