CO2 hysteria and options for energy

There have been several opinion pieces in The Press recently about carbon dioxide, or CO2, emissions and the need to control them to “save the planet.” Therefore it may surprise many of you that the level of CO2 emissions in the U.S. has been steady over the past decade and has fallen sharply since 2008.

About 40 percent of “greenhouse gas” emissions are from electrical generation. In 2012, natural gas and coal each fuel about a third of the total electrical generation market; natural gas is increasing rapidly to replace coal as the primary fuel due to greatly increased supplies of natural gas and drop in price of over 300 percent. Gas is much cleaner burning, thus the sharp drop in emissions. During the first quarter of 2012, CO2 emissions from electrical generation are down 10 percent from 2011, and in line to match mid-1990s levels for the entire year.

Natural gas has become much more abundant recently due to an energy revolution taking place in this country. Geoscientists and engineers are now able to recover natural gas and oil from shale formations formerly not producible. They have combined new drilling, logging and completion techniques to allow access to trapped gas and oil in huge areas which have not been produced previously.

You may have heard of the Bakken Formation oil boom in North Dakota. That is just the first of many plays that are currently being developed. This new technology can be used to produce oil and gas reserves that will free the U.S. from dependence on the Middle East or other unfriendly producers. The total extent of this new play is far from completely known, but based on present results, the U.S. has access to oil and gas reserves to carry us through this century and beyond, and they are available here and now. All we need is the will to produce them.

Energy consumption in this country is still dominated by fossil fuels, despite the hype about renewable energy alternatives. In the latest statistics from the U.S. Energy Information Administration summary for 2011, energy consumption in the U.S. breaks down into 82 percent fossil fuels, 9 percent nuclear and 9 percent renewable (including 1.5 percent wind power and 0.2 percent solar).

The truth of the matter is that this country will be using fossil fuels for a very long time. A sensible energy strategy would seem to include development of this new bonanza of fossil fuels, which will continue to bring down the cost for consumers. Natural gas prices have already fallen by 300-400 percent over the past few years due to rapidly increasing supplies. Alternate fuels such as solar and wind need to be developed, but in the context of what makes sense, and not in the way the current administration is pushing technology that does not work and/or is too expensive.

The Obama administration has administered a “green energy” loan program through the Department of Energy. That program has funded over $35 billion in guaranteed loans and grants to favored companies for development of alternate power sources. Solyndra is the most famous failure of a company receiving guaranteed loans from this program; they blew through $535 million before bankruptcy. However, the entire program has funded at least 17 other companies that have gone bankrupt or are in the process. The total commitment of government funds to these dead or dying companies is over $10 billion, and likely all is unrecoverable to the taxpayer. Companies that have gone under include solar panel makers, solar power generators, wind power plants, electric car makers, a geothermal power producer, and one power storage company. In addition a company (National Renewable Energy Lab) has received $500 million to train workers for new green jobs; they have missed their training and jobs targets by 90 percent.

European countries have been looked to by this administration as a model for alternate energy development. Although the Europeans have spent hundreds of billions of euros, their efforts have made little overall progress. While the current economic crisis in Europe has caused individual countries to cut back all green energy programs, the programs were struggling before the recent budget restrictions. European emissions have increased, while those in the U.S. have dropped. Financing green programs added to the financial problems of countries like Spain, which lost two existing jobs for each green job created.

Each green job created cost 500,000 euros (1 million euros for each wind job). Italy has been a leader in wind and solar development. There, almost all green jobs were temporary, during the installation phase, with few permanent jobs created. Energy prices throughout Europe have risen dramatically while energy costs in the U.S. are falling. Even Germany, with the most robust economy in Europe, has dramatically curtailed its green program, with their minister of economics calling the spiraling cost of solar subsidies “a threat to the economy.” Germany invested heavily in solar plants with the result that Germans currently pay the second highest electrical rates in the developed world (second to Denmark, a wind-powered economy). Germans pay three times more than Americans on average for power.

Our president seems to envy Europe in many ways; perhaps we need to look closer to home for real answers to our energy problems.

Edward Russell is a retired geologist. He’s a Coeur d'Alene native and currently lives in Hayden.