A critical review of Robert Bryce’s “Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.”

INTRODUCTION

Robert Bryce, in his book “Power Hungry,” argues that natural gas and nuclear energy are the next consecutive logical energy transitions from coal and oil for the U.S. to not only make strides towards national energy autonomy, and satisfy the demands of the “Four Imperatives¹ – energy density, power density, cost, and scale – ,” but also to achieve megatrends such as decarbonization, increasing use and availability of gaseous fuels, concerns about peak oil and peak coal, increasing urbanization of global population, and reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions¹. His energy solution, referred to as N2N (natural gas to nuclear), is definitely supported by meeting his “Four Imperatives” criteria for a sustainable, economic, environmental-friendly, and viable long-term option. However, to adopt a national or global long-term energy solution, the criteria not only has to be fully objective but also has to take into account the pros and cons of each proposed option in relation to geography, politics, resources and needs.

Bryce presents his solution as a panacea for the energy problem in the U.S. and that is deeply flawed because fundamentally, even the US states are vastly different from one another. Therefore, the energy solution for one state is not a guaranteed solution for another state. Even within states, different geographical and resource outlays can still dictate different energy source needs. Bryce’s use of data and facts is commendable because on a basic level the numerical results have no biases or emotions, however the manner in which he juxtaposes varying data for different energy sources seems biased as most of the graphs support his opinions with little or no disagreements to his opinions. A good mathematical/data model is one that tells the whole story both positive and negative.

THOUGHTS ON SOME SOLID POINTS

Bryce makes a couple of solid points in his book. One of them that resurfaces multiple times in the book is the idea of ignorance, fear and guilt of American citizens when supporting the idea of “green energy” – predominantly renewable energy sources. He attributes the ignorance of American citizens to a deadly combination of lack of knowledge, scientific illiteracy and innumeracy¹. According to an Associated Press-National Opinion Research Center (AP-NORC) 2016 survey from the University of Chicago on a nationally representative sample of 1096 Americans, although 66% of Americans opposed fracking, only 20% of Americans correctly answered that fracking produces two-thirds of U.S. natural gas². The huge disparity in the energy education/knowledge of the average person and the actual energy reality is an underlying issue in gross misconceptions about energy sources. Even Lovins recognizes the obstacle that lack of knowledge presents to energy transitions³. For one to make a sound decision on an important matter, one has to understand the matter on which one is to decide upon. This is a fundamental truth in most industries universally. However, the everyday American citizen isn’t necessarily making daily energy decisions that affect the national economy or political landscape, but the collective energy behavior of American citizens can have significant national energy implications such as carbon emissions, indirect energy transitions, energy savings, energy consumptions, etc.

Another good point he covers is the intermittency and variability of the renewable energy alternatives – wind and solar –, and their pitfalls. Wind and solar power are considered intermittent, and most often non-dispatchable energy sources because they are variable in nature⁴, with wind power depending primarily on wind speed, and turbine height⁵, and solar power depending on cloud cover and sunlight availability (daytime) among other factors. This intermittency issue coupled with high costs and low capacity factors in comparison to conventional power generation requires that another power source augments either one of these renewables when in large scale residential or industrial use. The problem in coupling natural gas or coal with wind power lies in the inefficiency of frequent switching on-and-off of the coal or natural gas plant because coal and natural-gas plants are made to run on a continuous basis¹. Furthermore, the inability of wind and solar to serve as solo power sources lead to additional financial investments that make them less competitive to stand-alone fossil fuel power plants.

The dependency of wind turbines and photovoltaic (PV) cells on rare earth elements that are scarce in the US but are abundant in China poses a huge challenge to the viability of these renewables in the US. China is home to about 25% of the global rare earth reserves and accounts for roughly 90% global supply of these rare earth elements⁶, therefore the complicated geopolitical relations between China and USA makes both nations direct global competitors and as such gives China the upper hand as a major supplier of a key component for these renewables. This presents challenges to the feasibility of a long-term renewables adoption in the US.

Bryce also mentions the fact that increasing global use of natural gas and nuclear energy aligns with decarbonization as a megatrend. Natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned⁷, and the use of natural gas as a substitute for gasoline as automotive fuel in a flex-fuel engine vehicle reduces CO (carbon monoxide) and CO₂ emissions of by 75% and 33% respectively⁸. Clearly, natural gas is “cleaner” than coal based on its lower carbon content and this supports the environmental-friendly benefit of natural gas over coal and other fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants do not emit CO₂ because they are a carbon-free source, and as such as environmentally viable in terms of reducing CO₂ emissions. However, nuclear energy still poses environmental issues in terms of radiation exposure, and nuclear reaction explosion. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in the past two decades, the shale gas boom has taken off. This has led to the dramatic increase in gas production in numerous shale plays in the USA. Marcellus shale has seen about a thirteen-fold increase in natural gas production from 2007 to 2014⁹ which coincides with the discovery of fracking and drilling as stated before. In terms of scale, nuclear power is most poised, according to Bryce, to replace coal in US electricity generation due to its super-high power density, relatively low solid waste volume, and zero CO₂ emissions operability.

CRITIQUES ON N2N SOLUTION

Bryce’s N2N magic bullet solution to the energy issues facing the US is flawed for a number of reasons. First, the idea of “switch-and-compare” tactics – replacing one power source with another – in energy study is not as simple as he makes it to be. Yes, the CO₂ emissions of natural gas are lower compared to coal per unit electricity generation, but the direct substitution of one with the other does not happen smoothly or reliably due to political and economic factors¹⁰. Some factors that drive energy use and emissions include electricity consumption per capita, urbanization percentage (% of population living in urban areas), working age percentage, GDP (gross domestic product) per capita, and geographic differences and fluctuations in international prices of fuels. Statistical regression models accounting for regional and national differences have been used to estimate the effects of electricity sources and have shown that not only does expanding natural gas not directly an effective means of mitigating emissions, but also CO₂ emissions from natural gas sources do not displace CO₂ emissions from coal¹⁰. Furthermore, the increasing production and, subsequently, use of natural gas as a result of national market growth and expansion is likely to stunt environmental progress as environmental protection policies could be made to incentivize natural gas production and future coal reduction regulations could motivate inadvertent short-term coal production to maximize profits. The scaling of natural gas replacing coal nationally directly suggests that the emissions could still pose a problem for natural gas adoption long-term.

Second, the idea of N2N as a panacea to the US energy dilemma is a major oversimplification which disregards: the regional, geographical, political, economic and natural resource differences across state lines; and the power of the synergy between renewable and non-renewable energy sources. Although nuclear energy and natural gas scale nationally in comparison to oil and coal in terms of energy production, not every state or region in America has the resources to implement natural gas and/or nuclear power. Texas is the largest natural gas producer in America while Washington (bordered by Pacific Ocean) is the largest hydroelectric power. About 77%¹¹ of Washington’s net electricity generation is from hydroelectric power and about 60%¹² of Texas net electricity generation is from natural gas-fired plants. This reflects the differences between Texas and Washington and how it affects their energy power decisions. Natural gas is cheaper than oil but not coal and so power can be transmitted from natural gas producing states to non-natural gas states to help augment energy consumption. Also, the same can be done for hydroelectric power as seen in the Grand Coulee Dam situated in the Colorado River of Washington that powers 11 western states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona) and Canada¹³.

CONCLUSION

Robert Bryce’s N2N solution recognizes natural gas and nuclear energy as the fuels for the US energy future due to their alignments with megatrends such as decarbonization, increasing energy use, increasing urbanization, coal and oil energy concerns, and reducing CO₂ emissions. In terms of scalability and direct replacement with coal and oil, N2N provides a viable, and reliable alternative option in comparison to others because it solves the intermittency issue of wind and solar, and the high carbon emissions of coal to some extent. However, according to Bryce, “…N2N offers the most viable way to hedge our bets with regard to peak oil and peak coal,” and that is what it is, an oversimplified bet on a very complicated energy issue with significant economic and political impacts on the US. N2N is not a panacea to the whole US, instead adoption of various combinations of energy sources (renewable and non-renewable) in different regions/states of America is more likely to provide a more economical and viable energy economy regionally that will positively impact the race of the US to attaining energy independence.

REFERENCES

  1. Bryce, Robert. Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future. Public Affairs, 2010.

  2. Desjardins, Jeff. What Americans Actually Think About Energy and the Climate. AP-NORC and Energy Policy Institute, 2016.

  3. Lovins, Amory. Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2011.

  4. “Non-dispatchable Source of Electricity.” Energy Education. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Non-dispatchable_source_of_electricity.

  5. “Intermittent Electricity.” Calgary University, April 2020. https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Intermittent_electricity.

  6. Ritter, K. S. “A Whole New World for Rare Earths.” Chemical & Engineering News, August 28, 2017. https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i34/whole-new-world-rare-earths.html.

  7. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Produced When Different Fuels Are Burned?” June 17, 2020. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11.

  8. Zarante, P. H. B., et al. “Evaluating Carbon Emissions Reduction by Use of Natural Gas as Engine Fuel.” Journal of Natural Gas and Engineering, vol. 1, no. 6, 2016, pp. 216-220.

  9. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Marcellus Region to Provide 18% of Total U.S. Natural Gas Production This Month.” December 9, 2013. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14091.

  10. Greinier, P. T., et al. “Snakes in the Greenhouse: Does Increased Natural Gas Use Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal Consumption?” Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 28, April 2018, pp. 53-57.

  11. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Washington - State Energy Profile Overview.” June 17, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WA.

  12. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Texas - State Energy Profile Overview.” June 17, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-4.

  13. U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. “Grand Coulee Dam Statistics and Facts.” https://www.usbr.gov/pn/grandcoulee/pubs/factsheet.pdf.