The implementation of “clean energy” sources is an important component of the government’s plan to mitigate climate change, but what makes an energy source “clean” is a contentious topic. The Senate’s Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012 defines a clean energy source based on carbon emissions (with unclear thresholds) and focuses only on electricity generation. The EPA is more broad in its definition, and includes energy efficiency and combined heat and power, as well as renewable energy sources, as clean energy sources. In a recent presentation I attended by Jose Zayes, the Program Manager for Wind & Water Power Program (a part of the DOE), he said that “clean energy” is often stretched to include nuclear energy, fossil fuel combustion with carbon capture and sequestration, and natural gas, since these sources have lower carbon emissions than traditional fossil fuel energy sources.

If defined this broadly, what are the implications for energy policy? With the focus on clean energy in the face of climate change, rather than sustainable energy for the purpose of long-term energy security, it is easy to overlook the broader impacts of our energy sources. Nuclear energy is “clean” in terms of emissions, but what about the radioactive waste produced? Natural gas burns cleaner than coal at the plant, but methane leaks from pipelines and drilling operations can have a large impact on short-term global warming potential. Combustion with carbon capture and sequestration is not well developed and introduces the problem of finding somewhere underground to store the carbon, with the risk of the carbon making its way to the surface and atmosphere after ground-shifting.

Even renewable fuels can have large carbon footprints in the production stage, despite having low or no emissions during actual energy production. Energy efficiency, in some cases, has been shown to backfire as people use the technology more and negate the savings. For example, more efficient vehicles are cheaper to drive, so people are may begin to drive more and cancel out the savings. This phenomenon is termed the “Jevons Paradox”, and while it certainly does not hold true in all situations it is important to keep in mind when creating policy to encourage energy efficiency.
If we are to effectively address climate change in the near future, we need to be sure that we are judging energy sources based on the impact of the entire system. We also need to give priority to energy sources that are not only clean, but sustainable over the long term.

I just recently finished reading Elizabeth Kolbert’s book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Kolbert focuses the first half of the book on exploring the places, people, and creatures that climate change has already begun to affect, and the second half on the policy debates under the Bush administration, as well as the state of scientific research at the time. Originally published in 2006, the book is now eight years old, making it somewhat outdated. However, its age also makes Kolbert’s narrative about people suffering the consequences of a warming Earth even more intimidating. She writes about the receding and disappearing glaciers that we often hear about, but she also delves into the issue of permafrost thawing in Alaska and other northern areas, the migration of butterfly species northward in England as temperatures rise, and the risks to coastal communities of sea level rise. When Kolbert traveled to Alaska to research the book and meet with one of the leading experts on permafrost, she found homes and other structures that were beginning to collapse due to the thawing of the ground below. It can be easy living in a temperate climate to forget about the human impacts of climate change that are already being felt. It seems like here in the Northeast, climate change only becomes a part of our public discourse after a major storm event.

After finishing the book (which I highly recommend), I did a little research to see what the current state of climate change policy is under the Obama administration. A look at the administration’s climate change page shows that the administration has made a greater effort recently to work with the international community in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. However, it seems that most of the agreements and coalitions call for a general reduction in greenhouse gas emissions without hard numerical goals to meet. While the Obama administration has made an effort to begin the process of reducing carbon dioxide emissions here in the US through the limits set on coal plant emissions built in the future, it seems like too little, too late. As Kolbert explains, climate change is happening and it is affecting people now. Emissions globally continue to increase and the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 400 ppm (according to NOAA). Besides the other reasons of energy security, national security, and the environment, investing in sustainable and renewable energy sources and reducing our individual energy use are crucial for getting emissions under control, and even then there is no guarantee that we won’t feel the effects of climate change. The people in Alaska are clearly feeling it already and relatively small levels of sea level rise will be enough to inundate many coastal communities, besides the recent extreme and sporadic weather patterns that have been attributed to climate change in the media (though not in any scientific publication that I know of). Climate change and its policy are complicated issues, and I plan to delve into them further in my next few posts.

The Guardian reported Tuesday that Japan has released it’s draft energy policy, the first following the 2011 nuclear crisis at Fukushima. Somewhat surprisingly, the nation has not significantly changed its attitude toward nuclear power, despite the environmental and health consequences of its recent accident. The energy policy draft continues to focus on the importance of nuclear, in conjunction with renewable energy, in supplying Japan with its electricity. All 48 of its nuclear plants are currently non-operational pending their meeting new safety requirements. It is expected that Japan will be slightly less dependent on nuclear energy, with more focus on renewable sources, but all plants passing the new safety requirements are expected to come back on line.
In some ways, the continuation of Japan’s use of nuclear energy is surprising and in other ways it is not. This trend doesn’t follow that of the United States, which tends to back off of nuclear energy following each accident or near accident. In the United States, the Fukushima accident has prompted many environmental groups and politicians to call for the end of nuclear power here at home. A similar trend has been observed with previous accidents (such as Chernobyl) or even partial-accidents with few consequences (like Three Mile Island). So it can be hard for us to understand why, despite the clear health and environmental consequences of the Fukushima accident, the Japanese would choose to continue using nuclear power.
On the other hand, Japan does not have many options. According to the EIA, Japan follows only the US and China as a net oil importer and is the world’s largest liquefied natural gas importer due to limited domestic energy resources. Prior to the Fukushima accident, nuclear energy supplied about 26% of power generation and had to be replaced by significantly more expensive fossil fuel resources while the nuclear plants were shut down. Energy imports represented one third of Japan’s import costs in 2012. Nuclear power represents an essentially domestic source of energy, requiring only imports of uranium and plutonium. In addition, while the latest energy policy has focused on increasing the quantity of renewable energy, Japan currently uses little renewable energy. Hydroelectricity represents 16% of total power generation, but other renewables only represented about 3% of total electricity production in 2011.
So while it is difficult to imagine why Japan would be willing to take the risk on nuclear, they are not in much of a position to give up on that sector. It will be interesting to see if the cabinet approves the draft Basic Energy Plan in March, as expected, and if the public will be accepting of this continued push for nuclear.