The US-Canadian electrical grid is one of the main sources of carbon emissions on the planet. Decarbonizing it will be a major undertaking, although the goal of cutting emissions 80% by the year 2050 is feasible.
The Center for Global Affairs at New York University’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies and the Consulate General of Canada hosted a panel discussion on March 22 that shed some light on the difficulties in making the necessary changes as well as offering a framework for understanding the consequences.
Leading the discussion was Chris Gadomski, who is lead analyst for nuclear power at Bloomberg New Energy Finance as well as an adjunct assistant professor at the center. He laid out a method of analyzing the process of decarbonizing the grid: STEEP, which stands for social, technological, environmental, economic and political factors.
He used the example of possibly closing the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant and replacing the energy with electricity generated with hydropower from Quebec. Environmentally, there is no argument against it. Politically, hydro is much easier to sell than nuclear (how things change in a single month). Technologically, hydro is easier, and when judged from an economic perspective, it is cost-effective. Socially, though, hundreds of high-paying jobs would leave Vermont for Quebec, and there is nothing on the horizon to replace them. This doesn’t mean that we should or shouldn’t do it, but these are the considerations we need to look at in making that change.
To this STEEP model, he has recently added a W, water. Energy production is water intensive, and there are places where some types of power production make all sorts of sense but consume too much water to be viable. As an example, solar thermal uses huge amounts of water, and in places like Arizona (an otherwise solar paradise), water issues may render a proposal improbable.
Joining Professor Gadomski on the panel were John Stewart, director of policy and research of the Canadian Nuclear Association, and Ian Nathan, senior research analyst at Energy Intelligence Research.
The panel quickly addressed the 800-pound-gorilla in the room, the Fukushima disaster. Messrs. Stewart and Nathan both agreed that the current price of natural gas of $4 per million BTUs will keep nuclear off the table for some time to come. Moreover, it makes renewables like solar and wind less economically attractive, although whether this is a lethal situation for those technologies is unclear.
Mr. Nathan, whose specialty is natural gas, also noted that coal may be supplanted by natural gas when it comes time to replace aging coal-fired plants. At the same time, there is no reason to believe that a continent as rich in coal as North America will give it up entirely.
Mr. Stewart also remarked that the reliance on natural gas has inhibited the development of a smart grid. The construction of gas pipelines has taken the place of transmission wires, and this will make it harder to move power around the continent.