Energy Transition & the Sneaky Risk of Severe Environmental Issues
Many believe that the low carbon energy transition does not pose a serious risk of severe environmental issues.
But is that true? Is the risk for severe environmental issues low?
Here, I will use lessons from historical data and basic energy facts to discuss the environmental risk from the low carbon transition.
Learnings From Historical Data
Past data has taught us that the true environmental impact of a technology is not obvious at low levels of use. The true impact is only clear after the technology use reaches a minimum level. This minimum level of use is required to obtain robust evidence of the true impact.
Let us look at some examples.
Example 1: CFCs
Chlorofluorocarbon or CFC technology was developed in the 1920s for the refrigerant industry. The CFC technology solved the serious health and safety issues related to the technology it replaced¹. Media hailed CFCs as a miracle technology back then².
The CFC technology was used across the globe for a long time before its true environmental impact was identified. It’s true impact, i.e., loss of ozone in the stratosphere and the consequent impact on our biosphere, was only recognized after several decades³. It took five decades for the CFC technology use to reach the minimum level required to obtain robust evidence about its impact⁴. A global agreement was finalized in the year 1987 to phase out CFC technology⁵.
Example 2: Plastics
The modern plastics technology was invented in the early 1900s. The annual use of plastics increased from two million tons in the 1950s to over four hundred million tons in recent years⁶. The severe impact of plastics on the environment only became clear in the recent decades after a massive rise in its use.
Most plastics are disposed in landfills, dumps or in the environment after their use⁷. The massive disposal of used plastics has caused severe impacts. Examples of the type of impacts are⁸:
a) Blockage of waterways and harmful impact to the ocean ecosystem,
b) Clogging of sewers,
c) Blocking of airways and stomachs of hundreds of species,
d) Transfer of toxic materials from plastics to humans via the food chain, and
e) Release of harmful gases during disposal of plastic waste.
Several regions are now taking substantial steps to address the plastics problem⁹. As in the previous example, the side-effects of plastics were not recognized until a minimum level of use was reached.
Example 3: Palm oil as an energy source
In the early 2000s, the European Parliament encouraged the use of vegetable oils such as palm oil to decrease the use of fossil fuels¹⁰. This resulted in a large increase in the demand for palm oil. Producing countries such as Indonesia increased their palm oil crop in response. The impact of this action became clear only after a decade of accelerated use of palm oil, i.e., after the minimum level of use was reached.
The impact was identified to be deforestation, biodiversity loss, and a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions¹¹. The European Parliament took corrective actions based on these findings in 2017¹².
Example 4: Evolution of our understanding about the impact of fossil fuels
The most severe environmental impact of fossil fuels is climate change. But this impact was recognized only after a super massive use of fossil fuels. Use of fossil fuels began in the 1750s. It took a long time to establish the link between fossil fuels and severe climate impact.
Arrhenius in the early 1900s and Callendar a few decades later were the first to link fossil fuels to the warming of earth. Interestingly, both believed that the warming would be beneficial in the long term¹³𝄒¹⁴.
Yes, you read it right!
The pioneers who first connected fossil fuels to global warming, believed that this would have a positive impact. Clearly, the scientific society did not have concerns about the climate impact of fossil fuels back then¹⁵𝄒¹⁶.
A significant concern about the climate impact of fossil fuels emerged only in the early 1970s after the minimum level of use was reached.
Why was the potential for a serious climate impact not recognized earlier? Because the required data to recognize the true impact was not available at low levels of fossil fuels use.
Implications
From historical data, we know that the true environmental impact can only be recognized when the technology use reaches a minimum level.
This has important implications for the low carbon energy transition. Many low carbon technologies are used at very low levels currently. For example, solar and wind power provide only about 5% of the global energy¹⁷. Electric cars have a share of less than 5% of the total global cars¹⁸.
Solar and wind power are crucial components of the low carbon transition. The current level of solar and wind power use is very low. Specifically, it is several times lower than the level of use at which a significant concern emerged for fossil fuels¹⁹.
How low is the current use of solar and wind power relative to the historical use of fossil fuels?
It is even lower than the use of fossil fuels when their climate impact was believed to be beneficial²⁰𝄒²¹𝄒²².
Recall, Arrhenius and Callendar, first proposed that the use of fossil fuels would warm earth. They both believed that the warming impact of fossil fuels would be beneficial in the long term. Callendar discussed his beliefs about the beneficial impact in the late 1930s. At that time, the global fossil fuel use was already substantial. In fact, fossil fuels produced more energy in 1930s, than that produced by solar and wind power combined today.
This is very revealing. The warming impact of fossil fuels was speculated to be beneficial at a level of use that was higher than the current use of solar and wind power. This tells us that the current use of solar and wind power is far below the minimum level at which their true impact can be recognized.
Currently, solar and wind power provide about 4000 TWh of electricity²³. This needs to increase by almost a factor of fifteen according to the International Energy Agency and other net zero proposals²⁴𝄒²⁵.
This leads us to an important question. Will solar and wind power have a severe environmental impact when there is a massive increase in their use? Basic facts tell us that the answer is a very likely yes.
Basic Facts
Fossil fuel power, solar power and wind power have the same primary source, i.e., solar energy. Solar energy has two major challenges from the viewpoint of meeting our round-the-clock energy demand. It is dilute and intermittent. Nature has eliminated the diluteness and intermittency challenge in case of fossil fuels. Over millions of years, nature has transformed the solar energy captured by organisms to fossil fuels which have high energy density and are available 24X7 for energy production.
Meeting our 24X7 electricity demand is much easier for fossil fuel power because of the massive help from nature. Solar and wind power do not receive such help from nature. They must deal with both the diluteness and intermittency challenge of the energy source. The task is consequently far more difficult for solar and wind power.
The implications are obvious. This means that solar and wind power have a far higher resource intensity²⁶. I have discussed the details in an earlier article.
The risk of environmental impact depends on the resource intensity of the technology²⁷𝄒²⁸𝄒²⁹. Resource intensity tells us about the total level of resources that will be required. Examples of resources are critical minerals, steel, cement, other materials, land, energy, and water. The use of any of these resources has a certain level of impact on the environment. For example, consider the impact of mining or clearing land on the environment.
Hence, a high resource intensity equals to a high risk for environmental impact.
The resource intensity of solar and wind power is high. This indicates a high possibility for a severe environmental impact³⁰. The shift to low carbon power will require an extraordinary increase in solar and wind power. It will require a gigantic increase in energy storage technologies and vast electrical networks.
Solar and wind power have a much higher resource intensity than fossil fuels to produce 24X7 electricity. So, low carbon power when used at levels comparable to fossil fuel power will have markedly higher resource intensity.
The above is true for most low carbon energy options. Low carbon energy options require several times more critical minerals and bulk materials compared to conventional options (Figure 1)³¹𝄒³². The data for power plants is provided in terms of materials required per unit of electricity produced over the life of the power plant. Note, this data does not include the resources that will be required to address the intermittency challenge posed by solar and wind power. The need for massive energy storage and other supporting technologies will markedly increase the requirements for critical minerals, bulk materials, land, etc.
Overall, a shift to low carbon energy will require a gigantic increase in the use of critical minerals, land, cement, steel, and other materials³³𝄒³⁴𝄒³⁵. This suggests a high risk for a severe environmental impact.
I will discuss critical minerals as an example. Critical minerals are much more difficult to extract, and process compared to common metals. A high level of difficulty to extract and process means a high risk of impact on the environment. The known impacts related to the extraction and processing of critical minerals are soil erosion, soil contamination, biodiversity loss, contamination of water bodies by chemicals, reduced surface water storage capacity, hazardous waste, and air pollution from fine particles³⁶𝄒³⁷𝄒³⁸𝄒³⁹.
Practical issues are likely to make it worse. A rapid energy transition will create an intense pressure to speed up the production of critical minerals. Health, safety, and the environment are likely to be compromised to decrease the cost and increase the speed of the output at many locations. This will markedly increase the risk of severe environmental impacts.
I used critical minerals as one example. The other resources required for low carbon energy technologies also have an environmental impact. The severity of the impact, or true impact, will only be recognized when the low carbon energy technologies reach a minimum level of use.
Final Comments
Nature has provided a massive helping hand to fossil fuels to provide 24X7 energy. The popular low carbon energy options do not have this benefit. Consequently, the resource intensity for the low carbon options is markedly higher than that for fossil fuels.
A high resource intensity indicates a high level of resource requirements per unit of energy. When low carbon options are used in comparable amounts to fossil fuels, they will require enormous amounts of resources. This is an indicator of a high risk for severe environmental impact. I will discuss a path to lower this risk in a future article.
References & Notes
[1] American Chemical Society, Chlorofluorocarbons, and ozone depletion. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html
[2] The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1988/04/10/cfcs-rise-and-fall-of-chemical-miracle/9dc7f67b-8ba9-4e11-b247-a36337d5a87b/
[3] US Department of State. https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-environmental-quality-and-transboundary-issues/the-montreal-protocol-on-substances-that-deplete-the-ozone-layer/
[4] UN Environment program. https://ozone.unep.org/ozone-timeline
[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Energy, https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/international-actions-montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer
[6] Our World in Data. Plastic Pollution. https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution
[7] UN Environment Program. Global Chemicals Outlook II, From Legacies to Innovative solutions (2019). https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/27651/GCOII_synth.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[8] UN Environment program. The state of plastics. World Environment Day outlook (2018). https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25513/state_plastics_WED.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[9] UN Environment. The state of plastics. World Environment Day outlook (2018). https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25513/state_plastics_WED.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[10] Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament on the promotion of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1586459020405&uri=CELEX:32003L0030
[11] Technical report for EU commission. Study on the environmental impact of palm oil consumption. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/89c7f3d8-2bf3-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1
[12] European Parliament resolution of 4 April 2017 on palm oil and deforestation of rainforests. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2017-0098_EN.html?redirect
[13] J. R. Fleming, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 79, 405 (1998). https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/98EO00310
[14] E. Hawkins, P.D. Jones, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 139, 1961 (2013). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231528_On_increasing_global_temperatures_75_years_after_Callendarhttps://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32981/1/hawkins_jones_2013.pdf
[15] United Nations: From Stockholm to Kyoto- A brief history of climate change. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/stockholm-kyoto-brief-history-climate-change#
[16] American Institute of Physics. A history of global warming. https://history.aip.org/climate/summary.htmhttps://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
[17] Our World in data. Global primary energy consumption by source using the substitution method.
[18] IEA Global EV outlook 2023. Trends in electric light-duty vehicles. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2023/trends-in-electric-light-duty-vehicles
[19] A significant concern about the climate impacts from fossil fuels only emerged in the 1970s. https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
[20] Our World in Data. Global direct energy consumption. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy?country=~OWID_WRL
[21] The data can be obtained from following two references. “Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center”. T. Boden, D. Andres, Oakridge National Laboratory. https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2014.ems and BP Statistical review of World energy 2021. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf
[22] E. Hawkins, P.D. Jones, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 139, 1961 (2013). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231528_On_increasing_global_temperatures_75_years_after_Callendarhttps://centaur.reading.ac.uk/32981/1/hawkins_jones_2013.pdf
[23] EMBER. Electricity data.
[24] International Energy Agency Report, 2021. Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for the energy sector. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
[25] International Renewable Energy Agency. World Energy transitions outlook: 1.5oC pathway. https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/World-Energy-Transitions-Outlook
[26] Help from nature reduces the challenge of the task and thereby lowers the resource intensity. For example, less effort is required to swim against the water current as opposed to with the water current.
[27] OECD Report. Material resources, productivity and the environment. https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/MATERIAL%20RESOURCES,%20PRODUCTIVITY%20AND%20THE%20ENVIRONMENT_key%20findings.pdf
[28] European Environment Agency. Resource use and materials. https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/resource-use-and-materials
[29] German Environment Agency (Umwelt Bundesamt). Resource use and its consequences. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/topics/waste-resources/resource-use-its-consequences#
[30] There are different types of resources. Solar and wind power require more critical minerals and land. While fossil fuel power plants require very large amount of fossil fuels. The disparate resources cannot be mathematically added. My approach, discussed in the text, allows the comparison of the overall level of resources required.
[31] IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2023. https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2023#
[32] IEA provides data based on capacity (per MW). But the capacity factor or availability of wind and solar power to generate electricity is lower than natural gas and coal power. Also, the life of solar and wind power is lower than natural gas and coal power. So, a solar or wind power plant with the same capacity as a fossil fuel power plant produces much lower electricity over the life. A more relevant approach is to compare the materials required per unit electricity produced by the power plants over the lifetime. I have converted the IEA data from materials required per capacity to materials required per unit electricity generated over the lifetime. I have used average data from IEA reports for the capacity factors and lifetimes. I have used the average of natural gas and coal power to represent fossil fuel power. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-capacity-factors-by-technology-2018https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2023
[33] IEA Report, revised March 2022. The role of critical minerals on clean energy transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
[34] World Nuclear Association. Mineral requirement for electricity generation. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/mineral-requirements-for-electricity-generation.aspx
[35] Oakridge National Laboratory Report. Environmental quality and U.S. power sector. Air quality, water quality, land use and environmental justice. https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/Environment%20Baseline%20Vol.%202--Environmental%20Quality%20and%20the%20U.S.%20Power%20Sector--Air%20Quality%2C%20Water%20Quality%2C%20Land%20Use%2C%20and%20Environmental%20Justice.pdf
[36] IEA Report, revised March 2022. The role of critical minerals on clean energy transitions. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
[37] MIT Climate portal. Will mining the resources needed for clean energy cause problems for the environment? https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/will-mining-resources-needed-clean-energy-cause-problems-environment
[38] Materialstoday Proceedings. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles. A review. Volume 49. Page 217. Year 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221478532100763X
[39] Science of the total environment. A review of the life cycle assessment of electric vehicles. Volume 814. Page 152870. Year 2022. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721079493
