5.

1 Energy from
Fossil Fuels
Instructor:
Viet Dao
Summary of this lecture and chapter
How is energy generated? From what sources (primary or secondary) do we generate
electricity, and use electricity? What forms of fossil fuels do we use?
How efficient is energy production? What are the differences between electrical power,
energy, and the sources they came from? How is electricity generated from fossil fuels?
How is energy demand related to brownouts, blackouts?
How efficient is electricity transmission? How is heat related to this?
What are the major energy sources primarily used for? How much is converted and used,
and how much is wasted?
How were fossil fuels made? What even are fossil fuels and why are they called such?
How do reserves and recovery relate to them?
What are the differences between oil, coal, natural gas?
How are energy dependence, production, and consumption related to crisis and wars? What
were some of the international crises that occurred?
What are some other fossil fuel sources? What are major controversial processes involved
with them? What makes them controversial?
Why is coal particularly bad? Why is it such an issue in the USA? How much is it used?
How do we reduce emissions and fossil fuel usage? Could we ever eliminate emissions or
usage? How does supply and demand economics interact with this?
Intro, oil and BP
So we spent a great deal of the last module talking about the carbon balance of the planet,
and how it interacts with the energy balance, and how we interact in all of it too. Let’s now
focus on the energy sector and the dependence we have on fossil fuels, since it’s such a
huge (and perhaps the penultimate) driver of our effects on global climate
Let’s start with oil and gas
300 million years ago, the sinking sea floor created the Gulf of Mexico
Plant and organic matter in sediments were buried and under immense pressure and
temperatures, they’ve converted to oil and gas
Gulf oil and gas provide 30% of U.S. yield deriving from 15,000 wells, up to 10,000 feet
below the surface and a further 13,000 feet below the sea floor
Because of the increasing distance, just like in the hunt for rhino horns when supply gets
low, demand pushes harvesters/oil companies to push further and further to get what is
remaining. So, the industry must drill even deeper with even more expensive rigs on
floating platforms
One of these was the Deepwater Horizon that had a crew of 126 and was located just 41
miles off the coast of Louisiana
Intro, oil and BP
BP moved a cement barrier onto the Deepwater Horizon well in 2010 before temporarily
abandoning the well
The barrier must withstand high pressures of the oil and gas—but this one didn’t
It failed, sending a 240-foot geyser into the air
The slushy mud, oil, and gas ignited, exploded, and killed 11 workers, injured many others
After burning for 36 hours, the rig sank
Oil gushed out of the well for 87 days
The 5 million barrels released made an awful mess
625 miles of oil slick, many of which on beaches and in wetlands
Countless sea turtles, birds, fish, plants, and other life killed
An economic disaster for fishing and tourism, especially here in Louisiana
An intense cleanup effort began
Oil was burned, pumped, siphoned; but most evaporated or was broken down by
bacteria
President Obama forced BP to create a $20 billion trust fund to cover cleanup and
economic losses
Intro, oil and BP
The fire and explosion on the Deepwater Horizon killed 11 workers and injured
many others
Although there was the $20 billionfund created for cleanup, how much do you
think was successfullydone to restore the damagedLouisiana ecosystems and
wildlife?
Do you think our ecosystems stillwrestle with recovery, 10+ years later?
Even in 2020 and beyond, howmuch do you think we’ve learnedand applied
toward making our oiland gas extraction more safe?
Energy - Sources, uses
We use energy every day to move and do work
Almost all of this energy ultimately comes from the Sun
Plants make their own chemical energy, while humans and other animals get it from our food
(which also ultimately came from plants, which got their energy from the sun)
Humans also use energy to power machinery, heat homes, communicate, grow crops, travel, etc.
These energy sources include fossil fuels and renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.) and are more
chemical forms of energy, that were ultimately derived from either geological processes, or
biological processes put through geological processes
Our energy sources have a profound impact on our lives, society, and the environment
Remember that energy can change forms as it flows through a system, and that some is always lost
along the way with every single transformation
Primary energy sources: describe forms of energy found in nature (e.g. sun, geothermal, coal,
wood, nuclear)
Secondary energy sources: describe transformations made from primary energy
The biggest one is electricity—electricity doesn’t exist normally in nature (unless we can
directly harvest lightning or something), we have to generate electricity from other energy
sources
These secondary energy sources are energy holding systems
Differences in efficiency and cost drive decisions about what sources of energy we use
Energy - Efficiency, costs
In the context of energy generation and conversions, one part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states
that in every energy transformation, usable energy is lost as heat, which escapes to space
Using primary energy to make secondary energy loses more energy than using the primary energy
directly
E.g. burning coal to generate electricity, transporting them, and using them is all inefficient, and loses
energy at each step
District heating: describes infrastructure in which a large central plant generating the heat, and then
transporting it to several homes and businesses efficiently
Occasionally as part of it, it employs Combined heat and power (CHP) which is a kind of technology
that generates electricity, but simultaneously also captures the heat (which would otherwise be lost)
So this generation of electricity and heat is a cogeneration
Ultimately, the costs you pay for your utilities include direct financial and energy costs, including extraction,
refinement, transportation, and use
But these don’t include environmental costs associated to them
E.g. the mountain that was blown up and mined, and the nearby valleys and rivers that were
destroyed to just get the coal that generated the electricity—none of these were included in the bill
you paid
There’s a calculation called the Energy Returned to Energy Invested (EROI) which describes the ratio of
energy put in to get the resource, versus energy obtained
Some fossil fuels are easily obtained—so we became dependent on them
The costs of their extraction and supply affect prices
But the costs still neglect externalities such as the pollution (in all forms of air, water, and land)
Energy - History
Advancing technological civilization depends on energy—we need energy to grow and
develop
Before machines and fossil fuel use, human and animal muscle provided early energy, e.g.:
Slaves, servants, minimally paid workers
Domestic animals for agriculture and transportation
Water, wind, and the Sun also provided simple power through watermills and windmills
The Industrial Revolution (in the late 1700s) gave us a steady, portable power source
The steam engine provided power for ships, shovels, tractors, trains, sawmills, textile
mills, and so on
Steam engines all ultimately worked on the same principle as previous methods of
work, but just use a different source for the energy
E.g. for watermills, the water provided the force needed to physically turn the
grinders in a mill. But in steam engines, coal is burnt to heat water into steam,
and the steam physically turns the grinders in the mill, or turns the wheels on a
train/tractor
Energy - History, coal and steam
Coal was substituted for scarce firewood
It was used for steam engines, heating, cooking, and industrial processes
By 1920, coal provided 80% (!) of all U.S. energy
But, there were some very visible and straight up dangerous drawbacks of coal…
Smoke and fumes polluted cities
It was very hazardous to mine and was dirty to handle
The ash must be removed and put somewhere
Steam engines are bulky and hard to operate
Tractors like this 1915 Case marked the start of the industrialization of
agriculture
Energy - History, oil
Relatively soon after coal was first started in use, in the late 1800s, oil provided an
alternative to steam power from coal
The use of oil was possible due to the internal combustion engine, drilling, and
refinement of oil into liquid (not solid) fuels
Using oil instead of coal improved air quality
Plus, a gasoline engine is much lighter than a steam engine and its boiler
Oil is now the major energy source for the world
But, coal still dominates in eastern Europe and China
The world consumed 12,730 million tons of oil equivalent in 2013—87% of energy in
general comes from fossil fuels
It’s been over 100 years since we started using coal, why do you think we are still using it?
The answer is because it’s so dang cheap!!!
Money! Bottom lines! The highest bangfor buck is what drives energy supply!
Energy - Natural gas
Aside from coal and oil as the first and second fossil fuel, natural gas is the third fossil fuel, and is often
found with oil or when drilling for oil
Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4)
It produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and water when correctlyand completely burned, but can still produce
gasses like carbon monoxide (CO) in oxygen-starved burning
Natural gas for sure burns more cleanly than coal or oil
This is mostly because natural gas is a more consistentmixture of hydrocarbons, rather than the
jungle juicethat is oil and gasoline
Pipelines now allow it to be transported, instead of straight up venting it to the atmosphere
Because of its easy transportability, natural gasis used for heating, cooking, and industry
It is clean(er), convenient, and inexpensive
Gas provides 30% of USA energy, and 24% of global energy
This is a graph of energy consumption in the USA
The three fossil fuels provide 86% of U.S. energy and 87% of world energy consumption and have let
us become a global community
Energy - Power
Now, all of these sources and fossil fuels are used to generate electricity
Electrical power: describes the amount of work done by an electric current
over a given time
Most fossil fuel energy is used to generate electricity
Electricity is an energy carrier: meaning that it transfers energy from a primary
energy source (coal, water, etc.) to its point of use
In other words, electricity is a secondary energy source that is made from the
primary energy source of fossil fuels/water/solar/geothermal
Electricity enables modern technological society
E.g. appliances, computers, lights, the Internet
32% of fossil fuel production is used to generate electricity in the United States
Power - Generators
In 1831, Michael Faraday invented generators: which are a coil of wire that rotates in a magnetic field, or can
be a stationary wire within a rotating magnetic field
It converts mechanical energy into electrical energy
Energy is lost in this conversion of mechanical to electrical energy through resistance and heat
Energy is also lost in transmission of electricity through wires
Three units of primary energy make one unit of electricity
This means that to just power a single lightbulb, we must actually burn 3 lightbulb’s worth of energy in
the form of coal or whatever primary source we choose to use
This 3:1 ratio of input energy : output energy is super inefficient, but indisputably, electricity is
extremely useful and indispensable, so we push on with it anyway
All steam-based generators generate electricity using a primary energy source (coal, oil, nuclear energy,
some solar or geothermal) to boil water to produce high-pressure steam
The steam drives a turbine (eloquently described by your book as a sophisticated paddle wheel) that is
coupled to a generator
A Turbogenerator: describes the turbine and generator together
Other generators are also used to drive turbines
In gas turbogenerators, the gas drives the turbine
A hydroturbogenerator uses water from a dam or pipe
Wind turbines are also coming into use, which uses the wind (which comes from energy from the sun
heating the land and air) to physically push the paddle wheel turbine to generate electricity
Power - Generators
Most electricity is produced by driving generators with (a) steam, (b) gas, and (c)
water turbines
In this hydroelectric plant (d), each generator is attached to a turbine propelled by
water.
Turning a generator is real inefficient,How do you think we can generate
electricity more directly from fuels and other sources?
Power - Demand
The demand for electricity fluctuates, most utility companies are linked into pools tied
together with transmission lines (as part of the overall power grid)
Utilities balance electricity supply and demand
A power pool must meet demand and accommodate daily, weekly, seasonal fluctuations
These fluctuations in electrical demand make up the typical daily and weekly patterns of
the demand cycle
The Baseload: describes the constant supply of power provided by large coal-burning,
nuclear power plants
As demand rises during the day, a utility uses additional power plants
These are intermediate and peak-load power sources that can be turned on and off
Power sources are frequently gas, diesel, and hydroelectric
When demand exceeds supply, there can be brownouts and blackouts
Brownouts: result from a deficiency in available power and cause a reduction in
voltage
Blackouts: refer to a total loss of power
Power - Demand
A variety of generators are used to meet base, intermediate, and peak electrical
demand; here’s what the demandpattern looks like each day
Notice that our daily demandsnearly reach 100% capacity forour energy supply
What would this look like if wehad more electric cars on the road?
What would it mean for our fuelsand electricity generation?
Power - Demand
So with all the people in this country and around the world, a question comes up: Can we keep up
with electricity demand?
Summer heat waves are the greatest cause of sudden increased demand
Utilities are being pushed to the edge of their ability to satisfy this electricity demand
This is going to become even more serious as the climate gets warmer
Another serious problem: antiquated systems
They control the power transmission grid connecting power sources to users
Brownouts and blackouts are serious threats to the economy
Not to mention old technology needing replacement, poor safety standards, and risk to
ecosystems (e.g. Californian wildfires started specifically by power lines)
The largest blackout in U.S. history was in 2003
50 million people in 8 states and Canada lost power
It cost the economies of the two countries $30 billion
It started when power lines brushed against trees
A self-healing smart grid with new technologies can prevent major blackouts and brownouts
It monitors problems, reacts to trouble, and isolates troubled areas to prevent cascading failures
Smart meters and smart sensors give instant information and response to problems in the grid
Power - Electric power
Beyond the demand, there are a number of other problems and issues that arise regarding
energy. First question we can ask is, is electric power a clean energy source?
Using electricity arguably creates no pollution
But generating it does!
E.g. all the smoke stacks dumping out coal smoke, hot steam, greenhouse gasses and
emissions
Electricity is an expensive way to heat homes
Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the main energy sources of electricity in the United
States
Coal-burning plants provide most U.S. electricity
But these have been directly related to acid deposition and climate change
Nuclear power is distrusted
E.g. potential for accidents, disposal of waste, and mining of uranium ore
So is electric power a clean energy source? I dunno, there are certainly a lot of downsides
to old methods, but some methods of generation are far, far better than others
Energy from fossil fuels just transfers pollution from one source to another
Only renewable sources are nonpolluting
Power - Electric power, transfers and heat
Another problem is that electricity from fossil fuels is only 30–35% efficient
Hence the 3:1 ratio of input versus output energy
Conversion losses: describe these unavoidable losses of energy, e.g.
Heat energy goes up the firebox and out the chimney so it has no chance of turning the turbine
at all
Heat energy remains in the spent steam and is entirely lost and not used to turn the turbine
High temperature differences between incoming steam and the receiving turbine mean energy is
spent heating the turbine rather than turning it
Transmission of electricity through wires results in further energy loss
So because heat energy cannot be recycled in the turbine; How can we deal with heat energy?
Condensers in cooling towers in coal-burning and nuclear plants turn turbine exhaust steam to
water
But the energy in that heat is entirely lost to the atmosphere
Is there an alternative to cooling towers?
Transferring waste heat into water (river, lake, or ocean) kills plankton and impacts the
ecosystem
And there’s an issue with Thermal pollution: describing excess heat energy disrupting a
natural system
In this context, it describes hot water being discharged into natural waterways
Power - Electric power, heat
Cooling towers dissipate heat from the spent steam after it has passed through the
turbines
The heat just goes directly to warming the airso this energy is completely wasted
Alternatively, heated water could be discharged into waterbodies once it’s passed
through the generators, but, what happens when we do this?
The aquatic life in them are not used to all of a sudden swimming into 43C
(114F) water, and indeed there’s a federal law that requires used water to not be
too hot when discharged.
Thermal stress is a very real thing in waters that are sometimes already 90F in
temperature, so bumping it up even more with the hot water can easily cause
stress and death if there’s no acclimation or transition
Power - Matching sources
Beyond these problems of pollution and large inefficiencies, we must consider
the energy sources that can meet current and future energy supplies
Some forms of energy are better for some uses
Transportation (cars, trucks, planes, trains, ships) depends on liquid oil as
gasoline
Nuclear and coal will not reduce the demand for oil
Natural gas and oil are more versatile sources than nuclear, coal, or water
to power things like cars
Finding ways to optimize energy delivery for intended functions will help save
energy
So we don’t end up having to burn 3 lightbulbs worth of coal to power just 1
lightbulb
Saving energy is equivalent to increasing energy supplies—only much
cheaper
In other words, saving the energy by simply not using it as much, or
using it more efficiently will increase our ultimate energy supply
Power - Energy flow
This is a diagram of pathways of energy from sources to uses in the USA
All of that light grey is wastedas heat
Which energy sources are wasted the most?
Note that transportationwastes nearly 80% of all input energy!!!
Which sources waste the least?
Which sources do you thinkwe should use more of?
Which paths could we get rid of to reduce the amount of wasted energy as heat?
Here’s a quick stopping point!
These are long lectures (a 5 week course is expected to take 2 hours every day, 5
days a week)
Take a quick 5-minute break, stretch your legs, walk around the house real quick
Think on the material you just read, and come on back
Sooo much research shows that distractions after learning, such as using your
phone, make for one of the easiest ways to forget what you just learned!
Don’t reach for your phone!!! Leave it stowed away in a drawer or another
room!
Take a quick 5-minute break
Think on what you read, and come on back
Fossil Fuels
We’ll say it over and over again, fossil fuels are the main source of electricity in the USA, and
this has huge problems in so many ways that we’ll talk about. Before we get to the problems
though, let’s lay the foundations and talk about how all these fossil fuels are formed.
These formation processes will inform why these fossil fuels are called non-renewable
resources, and should emphasize need to efficiently use the limited supply we have
The United States has abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power
But we must import 50% of our crude oil
The nitty gritty details, as pointed out by previous students who’ve posted about this
topic on the discussion forums, is based in different kinds of oils that are used for
different things. E.g. sweet vs sour crude, refinement to different specialties e.g.
gasoline for cars versus busses versus airplanes; all of these require international trade,
transport, and processing on many different levels, and thus leads us to be importing a
lot of what we actually need and use
Overall though, a dependence on imported oil directly leads to trade imbalances, military
actions, economic disruptions, and reckless oil extraction and use that leads to oil spills
Fossil fuels (e.g. crude oil, coal, natural gas) were formed 100–500 million years ago
In swamps and shallow seas, where anaerobic/oxygen-free conditions slowed
decomposition
Pressure and heat converted vegetation to fossil fuels (since they were life, they’re now
preserved in these fuels we use, hence fossil, fuels)
Natural gas is produced deeper down than oil
Fossil Fuels - Formation
Coal, oil, and natural gas come from biomass that
was produced many millions of years ago that
accumulated and became buried. Through heat and
high pressure applied over millions of years, the
biomass changed into the fossil fuels we extract
Because it took literally millions of years for
the fossil fuels to form, but only hundreds of
years for us to be burning it, this is what
makes fossil fuels non renewable. They
cannot be regenerated in the same time or at
the same speed at which we’re using it
So, deposits are finite and limited!!
This is probably the most important concept in this
entire lecture
Do you think fossil fuels are being regenerated right
now? Where might new fossil fuels be made?
Oil
One form that these fossil fuels occur in is oil
Crude oil extracted from the ground is a mix of hydrocarbons and contaminants
(primarily sulfur, nitrogen)
It must be refined to separate the hydrocarbons from the contaminants
Refining distills (and heats) crude oil so it vaporizes
The different components form separate fractions that are used to make
different things…
Lighter, thinner fractions: kerosene, gasoline
Heavier, thicker fractions: diesel
Heaviest, thickest fractions: wax, asphalt
Oil - Reserves, production
Supplies of fossil fuels, and oil in particular, are discussed in contexts of Oil resources: which are
the total amount of oil remaining
Undiscovered resources: are educated guesses on where and how much oil or natural gas there
is
Drilling determines if they exist, and it will show the extent and depth of the oil field,
where the oil actually exists and can be extracted
Proved reserves: are accurate estimates of how much oil can be economically obtained from a
field; and are often measured in terms of barrels, where 1 barrel = 42 gallons
Production: describes the withdrawal of oil/gas from the field
The term is perhaps a bit misleading because we don’t ‘produce’ oil, since the Earth produced it
over millions of years. It’s more like an extraction (or sometimes termed recovery) of the oil
from Earth
Semantics aside, this production does not proceed at a steady rate; because at first, pressurized
oil may gush from a well
The extraction involves a few stages of recovery:
Primary recovery (conventional pumping) removes only 25% of the oil
Secondary recovery can remove up to 50% of oil by injecting steam or brine into the wells
Enhanced recovery injects carbon dioxide to break up oil, allowing even more oil to be
obtained
Oil - Exploitation
Economics determines exploitation
The price of a barrel of oil determines the extent to which reserves are
exploited
At $13/barrel (late 1990s) it was economical to extract only 25–35% of oil
And the remaining oil was just left there
What an incredulous idea this is in retrospect, that you’d just leave it
there because it was harder to extract, but this is motivation by the
bottom line/profits!
Higher prices make more reserves available
Higher prices (e.g. in the 1970s, 1980s) justified reopening old fields in Texas
and Louisiana
In 2008, oil peaked at $145/barrel but then declined
Demand dropped due to the global economic crisis
After rising in 2011, prices dropped again in 2014
This time due to increased oil production and switching to natural gas
Oil - Decline
Unsurprisingly, over time, U.S. reserves are declining.
Up to 1970, the United States was oil independent
Then production decreased but consumption grew
The Hubbert peak: describes a phenomena in which M. King Hubbert predicted
that oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970
Half of available oil would have been withdrawn
Production would then decline
This has happened to a degree, albeit with a bit of a delay
To fill the energy gap, the United States, Europe, and Japan increased imports
from the Middle East
Oil - Dependence
U.S. oil consumption has continued to increasewhile
production has decreased, until very recently
We are Very dependent on other countries for oil
It certainly depends on the level of refinement and
quality of the oil. But overall, the USA is deeply
entrenched and rooted in the global market for oil,
and we absolutely depend on other countries to get
the oil we actually use
What happens if they decided to raise costs?
When in history has this already happened?
What happens if they decide to raise prices now?
How much would it cost for you to drive to LSU?
Even more broadly, should the US become energy
independent so we aren’t as affected by these costs?
What would it look like?
Oil - Crisis
So what happens when prices of oil rise? What if there’s market manipulation?
Well. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the 1970’s consisted mostly of
Arab countries
This organization (termed a cartel because of how much money it has sought to manipulate) has
lowered production to increase prices
It also initiated an embargo to those who supported Israel
These intentional shortages caused panic and long lines at gas stations
The United States willingly paid four times the previous price for the literal same oil, because
it fell victim to these price manipulations due to its crippling dependence on others’ oil
High energy costs caused inflation, unemployment, and recessions
Foreign oil increases the US balance-of-trade deficit, where we import more than we export
In response to this instance of price manipulation and artificial shortages, the US:
Increased domestic production, built the Alaskan pipeline, and re-opened old fields
Congress increased fuel efficiency standards (27.5 mpg) and lowered speed limits (to 55 mph)
This further promoted efficiencies in appliance and buildings, and development of alternative
energy
Created a strategic oil reserve in Louisiana to store 696m barrels of oil (equating to ~37 days of oil)
Encouraged oil production in non-OPEC nations
US consumption declined, production increased as major discoveries were found elsewhere
Oil - Crisis, other countries
US consumption declined, production increased as major discoveries were found
Discoveries in Mexico, Africa, and the North Sea reduced OPEC’s influence
More production than consumption caused an oil glut, and world oil prices
crashed
Exploration declined and older fields were closed
Conservation efforts and incentives were stopped
Tax incentives and subsidies for alternate energy were stopped
So overall, there have been huge price swings in this artificial shortage, with a
scrambling response by the USA and other countries to adapt to the suppliers
The scramble encouraged oil production to find alternatives to OPEC oil
When these alternatives came online, prices of oil worldwide crashed, and had
massive ripple effects to hinder those newly discovered fields and stifle
pushes for efficiency and energy saving
U.S. oil production is down but consumption is up
Because of the widespread cheap oil and gas again, large, fuel-inefficient cars
became popular and frequently driven (e.g. SUVs)
Oil - USA consumption, production, imports
After the 1970s oil crisis, the United States became less reliant on oil imports
Since the mid-1980s, overall imports rose (but have recently fallen)
And continuing this graphfurther into 2020+, theUSA has barely become a net
exporter of oil
The USA is at ~330million people right now
What would this graphlook like in 2050?
What would this graphlook like when the US reaches a population of 500 million
people?
Oil - USA into the future
Oil prices started rising in 1998
Concerned about low prices, OPEC cut production, just as East Asia came out
of a recession
Because of this, demand exceeded supply
Prices rose to over $147/barrel in 2008, and gasoline hit $4 a gallon
People reduced driving and bought hybrid cars (you may be too young to
remember, but hybrid cars like the Prius were massively popular)
Oil companies had record profits
Food prices soared, causing global hunger (because it became more expensive
to transport food--remember 4.2 Food Production and Distribution? Cheap
fuel and transport allows for food to be cheap too!!!)
Because of these insane prices, Congress called for increased renewable fuels
and efficiency standards
Oil - USA into the future
This graph shows the cost of fossil fuel imports for oil in dollars per barrel (blue), and the amount
imported PER DAY (red)
What does this graph look like in 2020 and beyond?
What would it look like in 2100?
What would this graph look like if we had another OPEC-like incident today?
In 2020 amid the COVID19 pandemic, OPEC sought to cut production to elevate demand relative to its
supply, so prices could go back up.
This lecture was revised in July 2020 so the effects are still yet to be seen but the underlying concepts
are still applicable here too.
Globalization and global dependency on oil and fossil fuels makes nations vulnerable to price gouges
and market instability.
I for one do not want to pay $4 dollars per gallon for gas, so reaching less fossil fuel dependency and
market independence would help to stabilize prices and alleviate anxieties for price increases.
Oil - USA into the future, gas
This graph shows the cost of fossil fuel imports for gasoline per single gallon
The 1970’s OPEC pricehike was adjusted tomodern dollar amounts
How pricey would gasbecome if there wereanother drop in oil andgasoline
production?
USA - Recession
Beyond price manipulations, recessions can have huge effects too
In the fall of 2008, the U.S. housing and stock market collapsed due to overpriced
housing, mortgage excesses, and uncontrolled stock market speculation
A global economic meltdown caused job losses
Major financial institutions failed
Credit became unavailable
Countries fell into the worst recession in 75 years
Oil supply exceeded demand and prices plummeted
OPEC cut production to stabilize prices
By mid-2011, oil was once again more than $100/barrel
Prices have since dropped
USA - Dependence and consequence
US dependency on foreign oil has three problems:
The costs of buying oil
Risk of supply disruptions due to political instability in the Middle East
Ultimate resource limitations
The costs of buying oil are high
In 2000, the United States paid $329 billion in oil imports
This accounted for 2/3 of our total trade deficit that year
High oil prices increase the deficit
By 2014, the oil trade deficit had been decreasing
Paying for foreign oil has significant consequences for our economy
We as consumers ultimately pay the same whether we get the oil from home or abroad
Oil produced at home keeps money at home, provides jobs, produces goods and services
But, there are also environmental costs
E.g. the Deepwater Horizon, pipeline spills/ruptures, and other accidents
E.g. pollution from drilling, refining, consuming oil
USA - Dependence, wars
Depending on foreign oil risks our security
The Middle East in particular is a politically unstable region, yet supplies a huge chunk of the
world’s oil
The Arab boycott caused the 1973 oil crisis
The Carter Doctrine: proclaimed that the United States would use military force to ensure access
to Persian Gulf oil
Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded Kuwait (1990)
The US-led Persian Gulf War threw Hussein out
U.S. military presence angered the radical Islamic group Al Qaeda
And the presence/occupation of the USA has contributed to the September 11, 2001 attacks,
and ongoing tensions in Afghanistan and Iraq
US and British forces invaded Afghanistan (2001) to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy Al Qaeda
training camps, and overthrow the ruling Taliban
This war resulted from US presence in the region
The war ended in 2014, but the Taliban still operates
In 2003, British and U.S. troops invaded Iraq to overthrow Hussein and eliminate suspected
weapons of mass destruction
The United States spent billions to restore Iraq’s oil industry
Through our military, the United States subsidizes and continues to facilitate oil use
USA - Dependence, wars
This is a picture of a U.S. soldier standing guard at an Iraqi oil refinery
There is much more involved with ‘going to fight to defend this country’ than just killing terrorists.
This involvement has morphed into maintaining stability in affected, oil producing regions, because
the USA and world is so dependent on that oil.
Heck, the Humvee the person is mounted in is probably fueled by oil that came from the
country they’re stationed in to protect
Our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels has gotten us into wars
Wars and international conflicts are far more complex than just ‘fighting terrorism’.There are
HUGE economic undertones
With this recent trade war with China, nested within accusations of technology stealing, pandemic
response, and escalations through the closure of embassies,
What do these events suggest for future USA interactions with other countries?
What does it suggest about our ongoing dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels?
USA - Imports
The United States is has historically been importing oil from other nations
Western hemisphere sources provided 52% of our oil imports
Canada, Mexico, Colombia are politically stable and near
We also buy from Russia and several African nations
But domestic production has been more variable
OPEC and Persian Gulf oil are still vital to the United States
There is dim hope for major new oil finds in the United States
North America is the most explored landmass
The last major find: Alaskan oil field (1968)
“New oil” comes from small pockets in old fields
Offshore U.S. oil account for 30% of domestic production
Drilling for deep Gulf oil and undiscovered reserves below the Arctic Ocean happen
only with high prices
How much oil is still available?
The world has used 1,050 billion barrels (BBs)
World use = 92 million barrels/day
USA - How much do we have?
What does Hubbert’s Peak tell us? Recent estimates of proved reserves = 850
BBs
The oil industry claims 1,383 BBs
Peak oil production has already occurred
The oil industry’s numbers delay the peak 10 years
We have 43 years of proved reserves left
New discoveries provide only a fraction of our use
Assuming 850 to 1383 BB’s of oil available, and using 92 million barrels a day,
it will take us 25.3 to 41.2 years to run out of oil
This isn’t even taking into account how much we’ve already used
Sorry to be dire, but we may run out of oil within our lifetimes
What will this mean for us? For our cars? Family vacations? Food
prices?
To reduce dependency on foreign oil, we can:
Increase efficiency, develop alternatives, use other fossil fuels
More on all this later
USA - How much do we have?
This graph shows Hubbert curves of oil production over time
Note that oil and gas production has already peaked
So, production has peaked, butconsumption will continue torise as the human
populationinevitably grows further
How do we remedy this?
Do we remedy it by increasingproduction?
Do we remedy it by cutting back on consumption?
Here’s a quick stopping point!
These are long lectures (a 5 week course is expected to take 2 hours every day, 5
days a week)
Take a quick 5-minute break, stretch your legs, walk around the house real quick
Think on the material you just read, and come on back
Sooo much research shows that distractions after learning, such as using your
phone, make for one of the easiest ways to forget what you just learned!
Don’t reach for your phone!!! Leave it stowed away in a drawer or another
room!
Take a quick 5-minute break
Think on what you read, and come on back
Oil sands
One of the suggestions is to go for other forms of fossil fuels instead of just coal,
oil, and natural gas…
Oil sands (aka tar sands) are a non-conventional oil source, and they are
sedimentary material containing bitumen
Heating melts bitumen, which can be refined as oil
Northern Alberta, Canada, yields 1.6 million barrels/day at a cost competitive
with oil
The United States wants it, and it equates to about 10% of our imported oil
Extraction has huge costs not just economically but environmentally too
These oil sands have such little usable oil in them that have to be separated
It’s extremely economically expensive just to extract and refine that oil
Further, 110,000 acres of boreal forest and wetlands have been destroyed to
get these oil sands
And, extraction generates huge amounts of greenhouse gases
Oil sands - USA transfer
For these oil sands, one of the problems that arise with it is with transportation.
How will the United States get Canadian oil sand?
The Keystone pipelines already take it to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma
The Keystone XL pipeline was an extension that would transport the sands 1,700 miles to refineries
on the coast of Texas
Proponents for the Keystone XL cite:
Construction jobs, increased property taxes, and energy security
Objections to the Keystone XL pipeline include:
Leaks, crossing sensitive lands and recharge zones for the Ogalalla aquifer
Canada will not guarantee oil sales to the United States
As of 2019 or so, the Keystone XL pipeline was going ahead, with different routes to get around
resistance
As of 2020, construction of parts of the Keystone XL pipeline has been delayed again
And this ruling from the courts came in the context of the Atlantic Coast pipeline being
cancelled, and the Dakota Access pipeline being delayed for further environmental review
As of 2022, the energy company heading the pipeline (TC Energy) dropped construction entirely,
but still owns rights to all the lands it would have cut through
Oil sands - Keystone XL pipeline
The Keystone pipeline and proposed
Keystone XL pipeline can carry oil sands to
U.S. refineries
Should we really be transporting all this oil
by pipeline? Why not transport it by truck?
What would economic benefits of truck
transport be, compared to by pipeline?
Truckers have jobs too
What are possible environmental impacts of
the pipeline, its construction, and function?
While we balance those problems, even
worse than oil sands is oil shale
Oil shale
Oil shale: refers to fine sedimentary rock containing kerogen
The United States has large deposits in Colorado, Utah, Texas, Wyoming
Heating shale releases an oil-like substance
Which can be refined into gasoline, etc.
A ton of oil shale yields ½ a barrel of oil
It would be nigh impossible to provide a million barrels a day (which would even then only
be 5% of U.S. use)
And further impossible considering how much mining, transportation, and waste
disposal would be needed
Oil shale is definitely not yet feasible, but it is being considered
There are an estimated 800 BBs of oil, but rising import costs make it more of interest
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) finalized regulation rules for oil-shale leases
Oil companies can consider developing oil shale, but development must have an
environmental impact statement and local and state approval
Oil shale will remain undeveloped until oil prices rise
But, shale has recently begun yielding natural gas
Natural Gas
Natural gas is another kind of fossil fuel, but is much more renewable than oil or coal
This is because gas can be produced by the earth’s geological processes at rates that are
more close to the rate at which we use it (but it’s still not a fully renewable resource)
Gas burns cleaner than coal or oil and releases ½ as much CO2 and many fewer pollutants
Gas is used in industry, residential, commercial use, and electrical power generation
Louisiana generates the majority of its electricity using natural gas
Costs fluctuate with supply and demand and season
U.S. proved reserves = 12 years supply (predicted with the rate of use in 2014)
Until recently, natural gas was mined from fields associated with oil and coal
Production was declining, and use exceeded reserves, but this changed with technology
Until recently, natural gas was originally accessed via vertical drilling (shown). Since then,
fracking has opened up huge new reserves
Fracking
Natural gas trapped in shale can now be accessed
These new methods mean the US has 100 years of gas reserves (based on
2014 rates of use)
The huge Marcellus shale basin extends from New York to Tennessee
Fracking: is a process that fractures shale to release trapped gas
A vertical well is drilled into shale
Horizontal wells up to a mile in length are drilled
Hydraulic fluids with sand are pumped into the pipes
The shale is fractured, letting gas and fluid flow up the well
Gas production rose 20% and costs have declined because of this method
Fracking - Process
The fracking process starts by injecting a fluid mixture of water, sand, and
chemicals into shale (a). These fracking wells and storage pools are in Colorado
(b).
Fracking - Concerns
Of course, there are major concerns with fracking
Over 1 million gallons of hydraulic fluids are pumped into just 1 well at a
single stage; the well can go through several stages; what happens with these
hydraulic fluids once they’re done and used?
Chemicals are added to hydraulic fluids
Surface holding ponds can leak into groundwater
Injected water can contaminate drinking water
Fracking causes air and water pollution
Fracking causes increased earthquakes
With fracking, it has greatly increased natural gas supply and availability, so
natural gas is replacing a lot of coal used in power plants and oil used in heating,
but ultimately, this is still just a temporary fix
Just like all other fossil fuels, there’s a limited supply of natural gas, coal,
oil
Once they run out, we have to go to something else. So, how much natural
gas do we have?
Natural Gas - Reserves
Global reserves of natural gas are four times as much as oil
But much is inaccessible
Gas must be transported through pipes or liquified (LNG refers to liquified
natural gas) and shipped in tankers
The United States has eight LNG terminals
13 have been approved (but not built), and may not be needed, due to
abundant domestic supplies
Natural Gas - Cars
Cars can run on natural gas with installation of a gas tank and some engine
modifications
Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel that releases carbon dioxide and water in
principle
And unlike gasoline and oil, does not release hydrocarbons or sulfur oxides
Natural gas is already used in buses and car fleets in the United States
But there are a limited number of service stations
Detroit automakers no longer sell these cars, but they are abundant in Latin
America and Asia-Pacific
The United States needs stronger public-policy support to better develop the use
of natural gas in cars, compared to using petroleum
Remember on slide 22 the picture of how much energy is generated and
wasted? Transportation wastes a smidge below 80% of all the energy input
into it. Natural gas can be a huge supplement to greatly improve efficiency
over petroleum and gasoline use in cars
Natural Gas - Synthetic oil
Natural gas can also be used to turn into synthetic oil
The Fischer-Tropsch process turns natural gas into synthetic oil
It is only 10% more expensive than oil
Oil companies are spending billions on refineries to turn gas to liquid diesel and
home-heating fuels
Researchers are looking for a catalyst to convert natural gas (methane) to
methanol (another kind of alcohol)
Abundant but “stranded” deposits of these would become very valuable
Ultimately again though, natural gas is not sustainable―it is still a fossil fuel
Coal
Separately from oil and natural gas is coal. Let’s now talk about coal since it is
the world’s most abundant fossil fuel
China is the world’s leading coal producer
45% of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired power plants
The United States has a few hundreds of years of reserves (based on 2013
rates)
The United States exports 6% of coal production/year
Mining coal is hazardous in almost literally every way possible
Fatalities are not uncommon
And if one doesn’t die on the job in some kind of accident, there are chronic
health conditions associated with mining
Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (CWP), black lung disease, and fatalities
and hospitalizations have all been rising
Coal - Mining
Beyond effects on humans involved, underground mines cause land subsidence and fires
Centralia, Pennsylvania had a coal mine that had a fire that started 60 years ago in 1962 still
burns to this day (even in 2022)
It could burn another 100-250+ years
The federal government bought the town because no one can live there, but there are
still some residents that are living out their days there today, whereupon their deaths,
property rights will be transferred through eminent domain
In these mines is natural gas (which remember has no odorants or indications that it’s there)
that becomes freed with more and more activity. A single spark can ignite the gas and very
rapidly spread in the enclosed space of the cave
Worldwide, fires release as much carbon dioxide as all cars and trucks in the United States
We talked about wildfires back in module 4 with the Amazonian, Indonesian, and
Californian wildfires--there’s A LOT of CO2 input into the air from these
Aside from fires, cave-ins, collapses, and subsidence is also a huge concern
At least 50% of the coal must be left in mines to support the roof of the mine
Mines can collapse, and where they collapse, the land above may collapse with it
Obviously if miners are still in the mine when it collapses, one could bet money that
they’ll either die in the collapse, or be trapped within
Coal - Surface mining
Instead of underground, surface mining extracts coal from the surface; and uses dynamite to break
up overlying areas
Giant power shovels remove overlying rocks and coal
Mountaintop removal (abbreviated MTR) mining in the Appalachians is one type of surface mining
500+ mountains in West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee have been, or will be,
greatly disturbed
700 miles of streams have been buried and 800 miles have been degraded by waste products
Lawsuits in the 1990s slowed dumping into streams
The Bush administration reclassified “wastes” as “fill”―letting companies dump the rock,
termed overburden, into streams
Powerful and arguably money-corrupt politicians and coal industrialists argue that dumping
coal wastes is legal, generates jobs, and provides cheap energy
Note and remember, it’s cheap because you and I don’t pay for the externalities associated
with the contaminated streams, blown up mountains, or destroyed forests!
Grassroots organizations are combating mountaintop removal mining
Mining companies had not provided monitoring reports yet have clearly violated the Clean
Water Act
The EPA recently strengthened and clarified the permitting process and gave greater protection
to waterways
Coal - Mountaintop removal
This West Virginian
mining operation clearly
shows how mountain tops
are stripped away and
dumped in valleys
What do you think are the
impacts of this massive
operation on the local
ecosystems?
How about the streams?
Thefish in them? The water
quality?
Would local residents be
affected?
Coal - Mountaintop removal
On question with that last one, if local residents are affected, well…
Dr. Michael Hendryx did a TED Talk on this (the same kind of talk that Dr. Sam ‘Ohu Gon III did about
Hawai‘i’s history of sustainability, and the decline of its environment), and here are the highlights from his
talk:
MTR mining produces just 3% of US electricity demand
At the base of valley fills, where the rocks and trees are dumped, the waters are highly contaminated,
and remain contaminated for decades.
Over 1500 tons of explosives are used in WV alone, every day
Trees are clear cut and either dumped into adjacent valleys or burned (they aren’t even used for forestry
or wood production!)
People who live where MTR takes place have higher levels of cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and
chronic lung disease like COPD
Death rates from cancer are significantly elevated, especially for lung cancer
There are higher rates of birth defects and for babies born at low birth weight.
There are about 1,200 excess deaths every year in MTR areas
Violations of public drinking-water standards are seven times more common in MTR areas
Particulate matter is elevated in mining communities, especially in the ultrafine range
Dust from mining communities contains a complex mixture but includes high levels of silica (a known
lung carcinogen) and potentially harmful organic compounds
Dust induced dysfunction in cardiovascular systems in rats. The dust also promoted the development of
lung cancer in human in vitro lung cells
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_hendryx_the_shocking_danger_of_mountaintop_removal_and_why_it_must
_end
Check out the TED Talk. It’s also posted in the Google Drive.
Coal - Mountaintop removal, policy?
One major environmental effect of MTR is related to the rock overburden that is generated
during MTR mining. This is huge amounts of rock that has to go somewhere.
The Obama administration enacted the Stream Protection Rule that mandated the clean up
and protection of streams that have been blocked off and used as part of the valley fills that
receive this rock overburden
The Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress came in and repealed it
within 1 month of it being enacted
They whined that the rule would kill the coal industry and thousands of jobs
The regulatory impact assessment (RIA), conducted by the Congressional Research Service
identifies the effects of implementing some government policy
It found that the Stream Protection Rule would have actually created more jobs, while
only decreasing coal production by 0.8% and increasing costs to consumers by 20 cents
per month (here it is: https://www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm/docs/sprFactSheet.pdf)
Stream protection would have been hugely beneficial for local ecosystems and the
aquifers that depend on the streams and rivers
This report is a cost-benefit analysis, but it was arguably completely ignored during the
repeal process as the administration and lobbyists continued to cite an industry-conducted
study that clearly overemphasized among other things, how many jobs would be impacted
Coal - Mountaintop removal, policy, corruption?
Something to note and remember is that, this is all about MTR, which only supplies 3% of total US
energy—this is a very small amount for such a large footprint and environmental cost
Related to workers, in West Virginia, MTR mining once employed 130,000 workers, now employs about
20,000 because of technological improvements that require less actual miners to be there
This 20,000 in WV is marginal and greatly pales in comparison to the 10.3 million jobs in oil and natural
gas (the 20,000 workers equates to less than 0.2% of workers)
Further, this 3% is marginal and greatly pales in comparison to the amount of energy supplied by the oil and
natural gas industry more broadly
Not to mention, the oil and natural gas is far cleaner and less destructive than the coal derived from
extremely environmentally destructive MTR mining (if you don’t see what I mean, just flip back three
slides and guesstimate how much Appalachian forest and mountain have been destroyed by MTR
mining)
Even separately from all this, the senators who voted against the Stream Protection Rule almost exclusively
cited the industry-conducted study, and all but one of those senators have received campaign donations from
the coal industry since 2012 totaling over $3.3 million.
The senators voting against the Stream Protection Rule also completely ignored the Congressional
Research Service’s report (which was an apolitical assessment report made by a government entity)
So, these senators consciously chose to trust industry’s overblown and greatly exaggerated assessment,
over their own apolitical government service.
It’s like trusting cigarette companies when they produce assessments that smoking only causes 1
cancer death a year, despite the government entity’s assessment finding it causes thousands/millions.
It’s even worse when the senators get donations from cigarette companies too
Coal - Costs of burning
Moving beyond the extraction of the coal, let’s talk about the use and burning of coal, and the problems with
that
Most U.S. coal produces electricity—at a high cost
A large (1,000 MW) power plant burns 8,000 tons/day
This releases 20,000 tons of CO2, 800 tons of SO2, and 1,600 tons of ash PER DAY
Coal-burning power plants kill 13,200 people/year and further cost over $100 billion/year in health care
Older plants lack pollution controls entirely and are exempt from Clean Air Act legislation because
retrofitting them would be “too expensive”
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions must be dramatically reduced because they directly contribute to
acid rainCoal itself is a very complex mixture of carbohydrates and inorganic molecules that are burned
It is impossible to burn it and produce solely CO2 and water
To show you what I mean, what happens when we burn tires/rubber? Do they generate colorless
and odorless CO2 and water? Complex mixtures burn into complex products.
“Clean Coal” has been touted, but what does it even mean? Does it mean capturing the CO 2 released
during burning? Does it mean scrubbing the coal to remove impurities?
Frankly, such a thing as ‘clean coal’ is not physically, scientifically, or engineering-ly possible
Technologies can only make an attempt to capture the emissions, but these are still being developed,
aren’t even applied to coal-using power plants anyway, and would never be 100% effective to
completely eliminate emissions. There will always be CO 2 emissions, and as long as the coal remains
that dirty mixture of carbohydrates and inorganics, it’ll always output undesirable chemicals.
Coal - Costs of burning
Coal combustion is the world’s single largest source of CO2
But new plants do not control CO2 emissions
There are ways to use coal and lower emissions
But the technology is still being developed and emissions will never be a net zero
There will always be emissions generated
The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program was sponsored by government and industry
and seeks to:
Remove pollutants from coal before or after burning
Achieve higher efficiencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
In a way, to combat some of the pollution and emission problems with coal, Integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is a technology in which power plants heat coal, water,
and oxygen to produce syngas, which is a fuel gas mixture burned in some machines to
produce electricity
Pollutants are in principle removed, and the CO2 can be injected into oil wells to enhance
recovery
Coal is almost indisputably the single dirtiest form of electrical generation we use, and we’ve
been burning coal for electricity since the 1880’s, nearly 150 years ago
Why are we still using such an archaic and dirty form of electricity production?
Here’s a quick stopping point!
These are long lectures (a 5 week course is expected to take 2 hours every day, 5
days a week)
Take a quick 5-minute break, stretch your legs, walk around the house real quick
Think on the material you just read, and come on back
Sooo much research shows that distractions after learning, such as using your
phone, make for one of the easiest ways to forget what you just learned!
Don’t reach for your phone!!! Leave it stowed away in a drawer or another
room!
Take a quick 5-minute break
Think on what you read, and come on back
Energy issues - Policy
To achieve actual reductions in CO 2 emissions, not just from coal but all fossil fuels in general, public
policies can be used
And further improve other issues such as energy security, production, and independence
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan is designed to:
Lower greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030
Have climate and health benefits: $55–$93 billion
Prevent 2,700–6,600 deaths, and 140,000 – 150,000 asthma attacks in children
A push for greater efficiencies have also been very successful
In 1973 to 1995: there was 18% less growth in energy demand, with $150 billion in savings from energy
expenditures
Both supply-side and demand-side policy options are available for energy security and independence that
utilize supply and demand ideology
Supply-side policies: usually feature business-as-usual solutions that do not actually reduce a country’s
vulnerability to price disruptions, terrorism, or global climate change
Demand-side policies: by comparison actually reduce energy needs so we can move to a renewable
energy future
It also shifts demand from different sources to lower vulnerability to disruptions and terrorism
And because it reduces energy needs, it saves money, reduces pollution, and extends the lifetime of
these nonrenewable resources
Ultimately, we want to reduce and eventually eliminate our usage of coal to become clean and energy
independent
Policy - Supply-side
On the supply side, these methods seek to ensure the US isn’t heavily hit by huge fluctuations in
supply of fossil fuels so the end costs and production do not falter
These goals ultimately seek to reduce reliance on other countries/regions for fuels
We can explore and develop domestic oil and gas resources
E.g. with approved tar sand pipelines; drilling exploratory wells in the Arctic Ocean;
approving Keystone XL
We could increase use of our vast coal reserves
E.g. with ‘‘‘‘‘clean coal’’’’’ technologies or opening up new lands to mining
We could continue subsidizing the oil and nuclear industries
E.g. with billions in tax incentives and loans, or funding billion dollar job-creation packages
Aside from their obvious downsides, environmentally, economically, and simple irrationalities…
Did you know the USA spent $649 billion on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which
exceeds the entire defence budget at $617 billion, and is 10x more than federal spending on
education at $59 billion?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-
subsidies-than-education/
All of these methods simply increase our usage of current fossil fuels, and do not move us
toward energy independence, or cleaner or renewable energy
These methods just make fossil fuels more available and stable to us; it does not encourage
less use or less dependence on fossil fuels at all!
Policy - Demand-side
To actually reduce usage, we can look on the demand side
Lowering demand needs both efficient technologies and changes in behavior
One approach is the “carrot and stick” approach: which describes a phenomena in which with lower
demand, supply should decrease too
We can also make environmentally-damaging activities reflect their true cost, to directly decrease use
and demand, and hopefully decrease supply and extraction
E.g. making MTR mining companies pay for all the forests, hills, valleys, rivers, streams, aquifers,
and literal mountains that they destroy will surely decrease MTR mining
Aside from these, some policies that can decrease demand of energy and fossil fuels include:
Increasing mileage standards of vehicles
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE): standards set fuel economy goals for cars, including 38
mpg (cars) and 28 mpg (light trucks) by 2016
This has been very successful at directly reducing fuel consumption
Consumers can also get tax credits for hybrids and other advanced-technology vehicles
Increasing efficiency of lighting, appliances, buildings, e.g. with:
Tax breaks for manufacturers of efficient appliances
Continuing programs that encourage consumer spending on efficient technologies
E.g. with the EPA’s Energy Star Program which certifies products as being energy efficient
New efficiency standards on appliances, buildings, industry
Use of combined heat and power (CHP) technologies to cogenerate electricity and heat for buildings
Use of combined-cycle natural gas unit: which are second turbines that run on excess heat from a gas
turbine
Policy - Demand-side
One of the easiest ways is to replace standard incandescent lightbulbs with
fluorescent bulbs that can cut energy demand by 80%
LED bulbs are extremelypopular and are much less hot (because they’re farmore
efficient at convertingelectricity to light)
How much money couldyou save if you used LED bulbs instead of filament,
incandescent, or especiallyhalogen bulbs?
Policy - Demand-side
Overall, we need to promote more non-fossil-fuel energy sources, e.g.:
Stimulate nuclear energy
$4.5 billion to support renewable energy and efficiency
Establishing a renewable fuel standard
Greater use of biofuels
$90 billion to clean energy, electric cars,
Better use of technology like smart electric meters
We’re moving toward more renewable energy sources like solar panels
These have massively increased in efficiency over the last few years
Additionally, we have usage of wind farms and nuclear energy too
We’ll cover all of these in future lectures
They all have huge pros and cons, but without a doubt, they’re much
more environmentally friendly than coal and other fossil fuels
Reduction - Conservation
We need to stop thinking of increasing fossil fuels or fossil fuel use, not just
because they’re environmentally destructive as all heck (all in extraction,
processing, transport, and use), but also because use and dependence on other
countries for them is not stable or sustainable, and they’re very limited in supply
So, how can we satisfy our needs using minimal energy and with the least
environmental impact? There are a few ways:
We can encourage a conservation reserve: which aims to save energy through
efficiency, which will mean less exploitation and use of yet untapped reserves
In other words, using less now will save more to be used for the future
We can paying more for gasoline by raising taxes and/or including
externalities of production and consumption
These elevated prices will lead people to use less
We can implement a carbon tax, which would be a charge/tax based on the
CO2 emitted during extraction, transportation, and consumption
So more extraction/transportation/consumption/use means more taxes
Reduction - Government
Some of these policies can manifest through a national government or international body setting a cap on
pollution emitted
In this cap, different groups/places/regions are allotted amounts they can emit
They can buy and sell (trade, hence cap and trade) those rights
Efficient technologies reduce emissions, so leftover emissions on permits can be traded and sold to
others
Periodic reductions of allotments would force permit holders to become more efficient
The United States uses this approach in reducing sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions, and it was massively
successful to reduce environmental impacts of them
E.g. as acid rain
But arguably, this type of cap and trade system doesn’t work very well to reduce ultimate pollution,
because entities will emit all the way up to their permit, and if they can buy others’ permits, emit up to
those limits too
Cap and trade policies do not directly encourage any reductions in emissions, or investments in
efficient technologies
States can also enact laws that impact energy
Initiatives and guidances like the Renewable Energy Portfolio: tells how a state will save/use energy
E.g. California requires 33% of state energy supplies to be renewable by 2030
E.g. New York banned fracking in 2014
Further, countries can cooperate internationally in energy policy
Final thoughts
Ultimately, the world and especially the USA has a deep dependence on fossil fuel usage
Different sources of fossil fuels are used to meet different forms of demand, and each has their pros and
cons
The dependence brings up problems with supply and demand, not just in getting the fossil fuels, but with
ensuring there is a steady supply of fuel and energy not impeded/complicated by wars, price
manipulations, or freak natural disasters
Coal is by far the most environmentally harmful kind of fossil fuel, and there will never be any way for
technology to make coal, or fossil fuels in general, truly clean energy
Emissions can only be moderately reduced, but never eliminated
Additionally, reducing fossil fuel use does not eliminate that use
E.g. cap and trade policies still allow huge amounts of emissions, and does not actually stop future
emissions
E.g. climate change and nuclear treaties are made to reduce fossil fuel usage and emissions, but these
still will not eliminate the usage or emissions generated
We must go further than just stopping future emissions; we need to remove the emissions we ejected to
the atmosphere, and scrub the atmosphere of CO 2 to reduce their effects on global climate change
Two pathways can develop a low-carbon future
Nuclear power: which shows great potential, but needs technological solutions and public acceptance
Renewable energy: which also shows great potential, but needs stronger pressure and more government
support
Words from students
Module 5 post by Karen G., “BP Oil Spill Today”
Although there was the $20 billion fund created for cleanup, how much do you think was
successfully done to restore the damaged Louisiana ecosystems and wildlife?
By being born and raised in New Orleans, you would think that I know more about the oil
spill. But I was only 10 when it happened. The most I remember were pictures and videos of
animals being covered in oil and then later cleaned. Not knowing much about it originally and
then now learning about it. I decided to answer the question on how well the restoration
process went. Ten years later, how is the ecosystem and wildlife in Louisiana?
The answer is not recovered. Out of the 21 species that call the Gulf of Mexico home,
many are still harboring damages from the BP Oil Spill. Those that have been hit the
hardest are dolphins, turtles, corals, and birds. Not to mention the unknown affects that it has
had on whales and the deepest depths of the sea. Based on this article, I've read
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2020/04/how-is-wildlife-doing-now--ten-years-after-the-deepwater-horizon
/
Restorations have a long way to go. Populations and birth rates have decreased. Ecosystem
equilibrium has decreased. Fertility has decreased. And so much more.
More words from students!
Module 5 response by Grayson V. to “BP Oil Spill Today”
I used to work at a law firm. The main case we worked on was a class action
against BP, and I helped people with their claims that BP left these brave people
who risked their health with serious chronic illnesses for the rest of their lives. This
was truly an eye opening experience for me. These people have experienced lung
deterioration at a rate of 91 percent, and this is 7 years after their exposure.
Truly a sad and tragic even to happen to people who just wanted to make a
little extra money and help the environment. BP took advantage of these poor
workers.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5932154/#:~:text=The%20long%2Dterm%20effects%20of,exposure%2
0to%20the%20oil%20spill
.
Even more words from students!!
Module 5 post by Max E., “We need oil to make plastic”
I have come across the issue of reducing then eliminating fossil fuel consumption. One big thing that many
may not consider, is that PLASTIC is made from oil. Our computers, phones, tupper ware, carpet, water bottles,
vehicle parts, bicycle seats, food wrappings, are all made from oil. Before there is a mass push to remove our
consumption of oil, there needs to be a way for these plastic things to be replaced. We live in a consumeristic
society. Replace is cheaper then fixing. I do not forsee the WW2 and before method of constructing items out
of metal and wood to be returning. Lightweight, strong, and cheap is, well, the word of the century. We can
remove gas cars and trucks from the roads all we want, but you will still pick up that plastic phone, sit on
your plastic chair, drink out of your plastic SOLO cup, and snack on pretzels from that plastic bag, all
while toting that "Oil is bad."
Module 5 response by Viet D. to “We need oil to make plastic”
You hit it right on the head. It’s hypocritical to say oil is bad, yet indulge ourselves in our lifestyles
that are fundamentally extremely plastic-dependent. One of the things I want to emphasize in the lectures
on fossil fuels is that the more fossil fuels we use for gas, the less we have overall for everything else. We
should be cutting back on fossil fuels for a variety of reasons that are all important and related to each other in
different ways: energy independence, national security, economic stability, cheap food and food transportation,
pollution and mining, emissions, and global climate change; as well as simple point that we use oil and
petroleum for our plastic products. When we run out of fossil fuels, not only do we run out of fuel for vehicles
and cheap delivery of food, we will also run out of material with which to make plastic items. Our world in
~300 years when fossil fuels run out will have to scramble to find a plastic alternative.
Summary of this lecture and chapter
How is energy generated? From what sources (primary or secondary) do we generate
electricity, and use electricity? What forms of fossil fuels do we use?
How efficient is energy production? What are the differences between electrical power,
energy, and the sources they came from? How is electricity generated from fossil fuels?
How is energy demand related to brownouts, blackouts?
How efficient is electricity transmission? How is heat related to this?
What are the major energy sources primarily used for? How much is converted and used,
and how much is wasted?
How were fossil fuels made? What even are fossil fuels and why are they called such?
How do reserves and recovery relate to them?
What are the differences between oil, coal, natural gas?
How are energy dependence, production, and consumption related to crisis and wars? What
were some of the international crises that occurred?
What are some other fossil fuel sources? What are major controversial processes involved
with them? What makes them controversial?
Why is coal particularly bad? Why is it such an issue in the USA? How much is it used?
How do we reduce emissions and fossil fuel usage? Could we ever eliminate emissions or
usage? How does supply and demand economics interact with this?