Keystone XL vs. Renewable Energy
A head-to-head
comparison demonstrates the overwhelming superiority of renewable energy over
the Keystone XL. If approved, the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast
in Texas. In addition to risks from spills and potential water impacts, the
pipeline will facilitate the mass extraction of Canada’s global warming causing
tar sands.
The Earth is
getting warmer and we know that this will have calamitous costs, we also know
that fossil fuels are the principle source of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Increased levels of GHGs have significant harmful impacts on our health, our
environment, and our climate.
We are currently
on track for catastrophic global warming if we continue with business as usual.
If we want to have a shot at keeping global temperature increases under the
internationally agreed upon upper threshold of 2 degrees Celsius, we must
radically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels.
To keep global
temperatures below this threshold we will need to abandon much of the world’s
fossil fuel reserves. This is particularly true of tar sands oil which has a
far higher emissions profile than traditional oil.
If we are to
meet growing energy needs, we will need to ramp up our use of renewables. While
this entails considerable investment, it is far less than the combined costs of
a significantly warmer world.
Emissions
from the tar sands
If approved the
Keystone XL pipeline will be a game changing contributer to climate change
causing emissions. According to the NRDC report, tar sands oil emits 81 percent more emissions than conventional
oil. If the Keystone XL goes forward a Sierra report claims it will
generate 181 million metric tons of
carbon, an emission load which is the yearly equivalent of building
51 new coal-fired power plants or putting 37 million additional cars on the
road.
The
State Department report
The State
Department’s latest report on the Keystone XL does a very poor job of detailing
the pipeline’s emissions, oil spill risks, and threats to water resources. The
NRDC showed how the pipeline would increase U.S. carbon emissions by between
935 million and 1.2 billion metric tons over the project’s 50-year timeline.
This is far more than indicated in the State Department’s report.
The Canadian
province of Alberta, home of the tar sands, has a long history of pipeline explosions and spills.
In the case of the Keystone XL, a spill could jeopardize a number of rivers and
the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water and irrigates agriculture
in parts of eight states. In 2013 alone, TransCanada, the company charged with
building the Keystone XL, had 14 U.S. spills in a single year.
Pipelines are
not only dangerous for the environment, they also kill and injure people. Since
1986, according to a ProPublica investigation, U.S. pipeline accidents have
killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly $50
billion in property damages.
The State
Department report claims that Canada’s tar sands will be exploited whether or
not the pipeline is built. However, this is refuted by a Sierra article which
states that the Royal Bank of Canada believes blocking Keystone XL would
significantly inhibit Canada’s tar sands development.
Overview
of the benefits of renewable energy
Renewable energy
provides substantial environmental and economic benefits, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists this includes:
1. Little or no greenhouse gas emissions:
According to data aggregated by the International
Panel on Climate Change, life-cycle global warming emissions
associated with renewable energy which includes manufacturing, installation,
operation and maintenance, and dismantling and decommissioning are minimal. A study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) explored the feasibility and
environmental impacts associated with generating 80 percent of the country’s
electricity from renewable sources by 2050 and they found that global warming emissions from electricity production could be
reduced by approximately 81 percent.
2. Improved public health: Implementing renewable
energy and transitioning away from fossil fuels will significantly reduce air
and water pollution from fossil fuels which lead to breathing problems,
neurological damage, heart attacks, and cancer. There is evidence to show that
replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy can increase worker productivity,
decrease premature mortality and significantly reduce overall healthcare costs.
3. Vast inexhaustible supply of energy:
The 2012, NREL study found that renewable energy can supply 482,247 billion
kilowatt-hours of electricity annually which amounts to 118 times the nation’s
annual electricity consumption.
4. Stable energy prices: Unlike fossil fuels,
renewable energy is providing affordable electricity across the country right
now, and can help stabilize energy prices in the future. While renewable
facilities require upfront investments to build, once built they operate at
very low cost and, for most technologies, the fuel is free. As a result,
renewable energy prices are relatively stable over time. Prices will also
benefit from the increased competition that is afforded by scaling renewables.
Further, renewable would decrease costs to utility companies that currently
spend millions of dollars on financial instruments to hedge themselves against
fossil fuel price volatility.
5. Reliable and resilient energy system:
Wind and solar are less prone to large-scale failure than fossil fuel powered
systems because they are distributed and modular. To illustrate the point, a
Renewable Energy World article cites a study which showed how Hurricane Sandy
damaged and disrupted fossil fuel powered electricity generation and
distribution in New York and New Jersey, while renewable energy projects in
the Northeast weathered the storm with minimal damage or disruption.
This is of great importance as we expect to experience more extreme weather due
to climate change. Unlike fossil fuel or nuclear power, wind and solar do not
require water to generate electricity which makes them better able to deal with
issues of water scarcity.
Pros
and cons of renewable energy
While there are
many very serious problems associated with the Keystone XL pipeline and the
dirty bitumen it will carry, a balanced assessment of renewables make a strong
case for clean energy. As summarized in an EEP article, renewable energy offers a slew
of useful benefits.
Wind
Pros: U.S. onshore wind resources have the potential to
generate almost 10,500 GW of electricity, 175 times more than the current
installed capacity of 60 GW. Based on the average U.S. electricity fuel mix, a
one MW wind turbine can displace 1,800 tons of CO2 emissions per year. With a
wind power capacity of 300 GW, 825 million metric tons of CO2 emissions could
be avoided annually.
Most importantly, wind turbines generate very little
emissions. Wind emits only 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of CO2E/kWh.
Cons: They generate noise pollution and can prove deadly to
bats and birds.
Solar
Pros: Solar photovoltaic (PV) modules covering 0.6 percent of
U.S. land area could meet
national electricity demand. While solar PV modules produce no emissions during
operation. Solar emits only 0.07 to 0.2 pounds of CO2E/kWh.
Cons: Solar PV modules require toxic substances (e.g., cadmium and selenium) in their
manufacturing.
Biomass
Pros: Biomass has low net C02 emissions in comparison to fossil
fuels. At combustion, it releases only the CO2 it previously removed from
the atmosphere.
Cons: Additional emissions are associated with processing. Land
use is another problem as it requires 124 acres of land to generate one
GWh of energy per year and using crop land to grow fuel can adversely impact
global food production.
Geothermal
Pros: U.S. geothermal power offsets the emission of 22 million
metric tons of CO2, 200,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, and 110,000 tons of
particulate matter from coal-powered plants each year. Geothermal emits only0.1 to 0.2 pounds of CO2E/kWh.
Cons: Some geothermal facilities produce solid waste such as
salts and minerals that must be disposed of in approved sites, but some
byproducts can be recovered and recycled.
Hydropower
Pros: Electricity generated from hydropower is virtually
emission free. Hydroelectric power emits between 0.1 and 0.5 pounds of CO2E/kWh.
Cons: significant levels of methane and CO2 may be emitted
through the decomposition of vegetation that is flooded by the dam. Other
environmental concerns include fish injury and mortality, habitat degradation,
and water quality impairment. However there are technologies that can help to
minimize some of the adverse consequences including “fish-friendly” turbines
and smaller dams.
Overall the pros
of renewable energy far outweigh the costs.
Declining cost of renewables
The cost of
renewable energy has been steadily declining and as we scale renewables this
price will continue to decline. The more we produce the lower the cost. As it
stands now wind power is currently competitive with fossil fuels and solar has
achieved grid parity with coal. Long-term wind contracts are now more than 40 percent cheaper than they were just three
years ago and the average price of a solar panel has dropped almost 60 percent since 2011.
The cost of generating
electricity from wind dropped more than 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 and
more than 80 percent since 1980. The cost of renewable energy will decline even
further as markets mature and companies increasingly take advantage of
economies of scale. These costs could be further reduced with the help of
standards. A 25 percent renewable electricity standard would lead to7.6 percent lower electricity prices by 2030.
Renewable energy
currently provides only a tiny fraction of its potential electricity output in
the U.S. But a plethora of studies have demonstrated that renewable energy can
be rapidly deployed to provide a significant share of future electricity needs.
Rather than
supporting Canada’s exploitation of the tar sands, the U.S. should be resisting
their northern neighbor’s reckless obsession with hydrocarbons. In addition to
scaling renewable energy, the most important single thing that the U.S. can do
is to deny Canada a market for its dirty fuel.
While the
rampant exploitation of Canada’s tar sands oil means “game over” for efforts to
combat climate change, renewable energy offers a secure, clean,
and healthy solution to America’s energy needs.
——————–
Richard Matthews is a consultant, eco-entrepreneur, green investor and author of numerous articles on sustainable positioning, eco-economics and enviro-politics. He is the owner of The Green Market Oracle, a leading sustainable business site and one of the Web’s most comprehensive resources on the business of the environment. Find The Green Market on Facebook and follow The Green Market’s twitter feed.
Richard Matthews is a consultant, eco-entrepreneur, green investor and author of numerous articles on sustainable positioning, eco-economics and enviro-politics. He is the owner of The Green Market Oracle, a leading sustainable business site and one of the Web’s most comprehensive resources on the business of the environment. Find The Green Market on Facebook and follow The Green Market’s twitter feed.
Image
credit: lamoix, Howl Arts
Collective, courtesy flickr
