Earth Protect Blog

 

By Sue McMillin Columnist for The Denver Post

Climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is now rapidly driving energy policy — and finally, investment in renewable energy sources. ¶ According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, worldwide investment in renewable power rose from less than $50 billion a year in 2004 to about $300 billion a year in recent years, finally surpassing what’s spent on new fossil fuel power.

In December, I wrote about solar power and how transitioning to homes and cars that run on electricity is a way that individuals can cut their carbon footprint. It was based on Colorado meeting its goals of generating most of its electricity from renewable sources and shuttering coal and gasfired plants over the coming decade.

I got a lot of thoughtful feedback from readers, including questions about where nuclear power fits in the energy equation and how to measure the pros and cons of various energy sources.

That led me to consider whether our energy policies are holistic enough to lead us to an equitable, resilient and sustainable energy future. What I learned leaves me doubtful, mostly because of what has shaped our energy policies — or lack thereof — and where research and development money goes.

The availability of cheap energy has shaped our communities. We built roads instead of subways because everyone had a car; gas lines are given in most new developments because most homes have gas furnaces; we cranked up the heat instead of ensuring that homes were adequately insulated. The list goes on.

In the broadest context, the world has been in a perpetual energy transition since the first human attempts to stay warm or cool or to cook food.

Things speeded up dramatically with the industrial revolution and the need for massive amounts of energy to fuel manufacturing and transportation. We loved every new thing that provided jobs and made our lives more comfortable, whether it was coal, fuel oil, hydroelectricity, natural gas, or petroleum. Fossil fuels were primarily favored as the engine for a modern world, and they were profitable.

Conflict, too, played a huge role in energy development — gasoline for military equipment in World War II and development of atomic weapons — and continues to influence energy policies today.

Consider that from 1948 to 2018, nearly 48% of U.S. Department of Energy research and development money was spent on nuclear power. Compared to 12.8% on renewable energy during those 71 years.

Even in the most recent 10 years of data available, nuclear power got the lion’s share of R&D money: 28.6% from 2009 to 2018. That’s compared with 19.5% for renewable energy; 17.1% for energy efficiency; 20.8% for fossil energy, and 14% for electric systems.

The renewables category generally includes solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower and sometimes hydrogen.

It surprised me to learn that 20% of electricity generation in the United States comes from nuclear power plants. The 94 reactors are within 56 power plants spread across 28 states, mostly east of the Mississippi River.

There currently are no nuclear power plants in Colorado, and although Pueblo County commissioners last summer began considering a nuclear plant to replace the Comanche coal-fired power plant, it recently backed away from that idea, according to Colorado Public Radio.

We’ve had a love/fear relationship with nuclear power from the start. There was considerable backlash against it in 1979 after the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which caused a small radiation leak and the evacuation of 150,000 people.

While proponents said the accident showed the safety systems worked, the “what if” crowd was louder and construction of new plants slowed.

Ironically, the world’s worst nuclear power disaster, the 1986 explosion and fire at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, recently brought new fears as the Russian military took over the shutdown but still toxic plant. It also bombed an active nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine and reportedly took control of it.

Nuclear power has benefits – it doesn’t rely on sun or wind and a relatively small physical footprint among them. But it, like most clean or renewable energy sources, also has drawbacks.

Meanwhile, about 20% of the nation’s electricity comes from renewable sources.

Now, imagine what that ratio might be if we’d spent more money on research and developing renewable power sources.

We’ve had a few starts and stops already.

The Arab oil embargo in 1973 brought energy reality home to Americans who suddenly found themselves lining up for gas and questioning U.S. reliance on foreign oil. We’ve heard that refrain repeatedly in the ensuing nearly 50 years.

That 1970s’ energy crisis coincided with the rising environmental movement and ideas about clean energy appeared – or reappeared. (The first electric cars were produced in the mid-1800s.) Many promising things happened, including much reorganization of the Department of Energy and the establishment in 1977 of the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, which in 1991 was elevated to national laboratory status as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Yet, we missed the opportunity to shift more meaningfully toward renewable energy.

A massive review of energy policy by the Ford Foundation published in 1974 says, “This misdirection has taken place because of the absence of a coherent national energy policy. Within the resulting policy vacuum, energy R&D efforts are dictated by narrow economic interests in the private sector, by established vested interests in government (of which the Atomic Energy Commission has been the outstanding example), or by a confluence of these narrow corporate and governmental interests.”

The final 530-page report, A Time to Choose, provides many insights.

We did, in 2005, finally develop a national energy policy, and now we have the Biden administration’s climate agenda, which is funneling money toward transformative technology. But we know what can happen with an administrative agenda.

Still, the federal spending bill signed March 15 by President Joe Biden includes a $339 million increase for the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division, which is the primary funder of NREL research. EERE’s total budget is $3.2 billion.

In FY 2020, NREL’s share of the division’s budget was $464.3 million, with $122.4 million going to solar energy research. Other areas received: wind, $30 million; bioenergy, $56.3 million; hydrogen and fuel cells, $17.6 million; geothermal, $1.8 million, and hydro power, $15.8 million.

At the global level, a 2018 report entitled Renewable Energy Policies in a Time of Transition, lays out key barriers and options that could boost the use of renewable energy. It was prepared by the International Renewable Energy Agency, the International Energy Agency and the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century.

Among its key findings: “Achieving the energy transition requires holistic policies that consider factors beyond the energy sector itself.”

Its researchers found that a more holistic approach was needed because of the all-encompassing nature of an energy transition on the economy and society.

In Colorado, we have our Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap. The first implementation report, released in December, shows progress, mostly in planning, strategy development and making rules.

The state’s roadmap sets goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions but leaves details of how to get there largely to utilities, who have now filed commitments to reduce emissions by 80% by 2030.

We also have an electric vehicle plan and an Energy Office where you can find all the plans, reports and programs the state offers to help individuals and businesses make changes.

It appears Colorado is doing its part to move the state toward a sustainable energy future. The plans emphasize equity, resiliency, sustainability. They talk about quality of life.

Is the approach holistic enough? Time – and we don’t have much to do this right – will tell.

Sue McMillin is a longtime Colorado reporter and editor who worked for The Gazette and Durango Herald. Now a regular columnist for The Denver Post and a freelance writer, she lives in Cañon City. Email her at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .