Costa Rica: 'clean power superstar'?

In the past year or so, a number of media reports have appeared which usually look something like this:

[link]

[link]

[link]

[link]

Indeed, there appears to be somewhat of a media consensus that this small Central American country is (as described in the EcoWatch article) a 'clean power superstar'. There is indeed justification for this praise. Costa Rica does undoubtedly generate the vast majority of its electricity from renewable sources (Nandwani, 2006). Moreover, the country's per capita emissions of carbon dioxide are just 1.6 metric tonnes, well below those of other Latin American countries at comparable levels of development (UNDP, 2015) such as Mexico (3.9 tonnes) and Cuba (3.5 tonnes) (World Bank, 2016). Accordingly, Costa Rica is one of only five countries credited by the Climate Action Tracker as taking 'sufficient' measures to fulfil its contribution to keeping global temperature increase below 2 degrees C. This classification is supported by the Costa Rican government's undoubted will to take action regarding GHG emissions, having published a National Climate Change Strategy in 2008 which aims for carbon neutrality by 2021 (though Costa Rica's more recent Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] in 2015, was far less ambitious, postponing the goal of carbon neutrality until 2085).

It would initially appear, therefore, that Costa Rica is indeed a 'superstar' in terms of renewable energy production and limiting GHG emissions. This provokes the idea that Costa Rica's approach to energy production could potentially represent an example for other countries to follow to meet their own emissions reduction targets. However, we should be cautious before prescribing global solutions based on what appears successful in one instance alone. When it comes to producing electricity from renewable sources, Costa Rica has some significant geographical advantages. Due to its tropical latitude, the country has extremely high summer rainfall, allowing large-scale hydro-power production. Volcanoes are also relatively abundant within Costa Rica's territory, making large-scale geothermal power possible (Nandwani, 2006). A further caveat is that Costa Rica simply requires less energy than many other countries, with a small population (under 5 million) and no large-scale industry to power (Fendt, 2016). Moreover, despite very low GHG emissions from electricity production, growing ownership of private cars constitutes a significant challenge for Costa Rica in terms of achieving carbon neutrality - emissions from the transport sector already account for nearly 70% of the country's total GHG emissions (Pratt, 2010). For all the country's successes with regard to the renewable production of electricity, huge changes must be made within Costa Rica's transport sector if emissions targets are to be met. Costa Rica must demonstrate how an effective, low-emissions transport network can be developed before it can truly be called a 'clean power superstar'.

It is doubtful that many other countries can use the example set by Costa Rica to guide them in reducing their own GHG emissions. Most other countries do not have the geographical advantages enjoyed by Costa Rica, and often require far higher generating capacity to sustain larger populations and more developed industry. Yet the country's overall attitude towards an active focus on renewable energy, and seriously ambitious emissions targets, should provide an example to other countries. With a focus on appropriate methods of low-carbon energy production, even countries with very high energy use can achieve impressive results. In the 3rd quarter of 2016, the UK generated over 50% of its electricity from low-emissions sources, of which nearly half (46%) was generated from nuclear power or renewables, which produce zero GHG emissions (Watts, 2016). France, meanwhile, currently generates around 78% of its electricity from emissions-free nuclear power. In summary, it is beyond doubt that the means exist for any country to effect dramatic reductions in GHG emissions while maintaining sufficient generating capacity. However, significant challenges remain in other sectors of energy production, not least that of transport.

US elections - what does President Trump mean for energy in the United States?

"Some country is going to be the clean energy superpower of the 21st century". That was the prediction of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in her first debate standoff with Republican Donald Trump back in September.

Fast-forward to the results of the 2016 election, and it looks unlikely that that country will be the United States. President-elect Trump has repeatedly dismissed anthropogenic climate change as an 'expensive hoax', 'nonsense' and 'bulls**t', and has made explicitly clear that he plans to reverse the Obama administration's commitments to investing in renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions, which Trump regards as a pointless and destructive influence on the American economy and jobs. So just how dramatic an impact is Trump's imminent presidency likely to have on energy production and climate change policy in the United States?

First, some context. The total energy consumption of the United States in 2015 was 1763.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), representing a remarkable 30.87% of total global energy consumption (5712.89 Mtoe) (BP, 2016). Of this total consumption, 33% was generated by coal power, 33% by natural gas, 20% by nuclear power, 6% by hydroelectric power, 7% by other renewable energy sources and 1% by petroleum (USEIA, 2016). In 2013 (the most recent year for which data is available), the United States was responsible for CO2 emissions totalling 1414.28 million metric tonnes of carbon (MtC), representing 14.47% of total global emissions (~9776 MtC) (CDIAC, 2013). The huge proportion of total global energy consumption, and of CO2 emissions, for which the United States is responsible, means that changes in energy policy in the United States are likely to have profound global impacts.

Under present plans, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that its Clean Power Plan (CPP), which requires states to reduce CO2 emissions from electricity production, will result in a 32% reduction from 2005 levels in CO2 emissions by 2030. (Jones and Martin, 2016). Mr. Trump, however, has firmly indicated that he will seek to abandon President Obama's Climate Action Plan, of which the Clean Air Act (which contains the CPP) is a key component. Without the CPP, the EPA estimates that by 2030, US CO2 emissions from the power sector will total around 1,900 million metric tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) (Jones and Martin, 2016) (note that in contrast to the CDIAC figures which are given in million metric tonnes of carbon, projections from the EPA are given in million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, resulting in a higher figure). The 2030 emissions estimate without CPP represents only a 20.83% reduction from 2005 levels in CO2 emissions - President-elect Trump's aim of scrapping the CPP would therefore result in the United States producing significantly higher CO2 emissions during the next decades.

However, the impending about-face in federal climate policy under Mr. Trump will not mean a total abandonment of the pursuit of emissions reductions in the United States. Energy policy in the US is largely dictated at the level of individual states - as of 2016, 34 states (along with the District of Columbia) have enacted climate action plans, with 20 states (and D.C.) introducing GHG emissions reduction targets and 29 states, D.C. and two US territories implementing Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which specify that a certain proportion of energy must be generated through renewable means by a given date (CSS, 2016).

It is possible, therefore, that the domestic impact on climate policy of a Trump administration will be limited. However, the international impact may be more significant. Mr. Trump has explicitly pledged to revoke the United States' commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (21st Conference of Parties; COP21). The Paris agreement mandates not only that parties take measures to reduce domestic GHG emissions (i.e. the CPP), but also that:

'Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist Developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation... developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilising climate finance'.

- from Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, 2015

This commitment from wealthier countries to provide financial support to less developed countries in developing emissions mitigation strategies was instrumental in persuading poorer countries to sign up to the agreement, including huge emitters such as India (Le Page, 2016). Without US financial support, it is possible that some less developed countries will renege on their recent climate commitments, and likely that many will be unwilling to implement the intensified future mitigation strategies required if global warming is to be limited to below 1.5 degrees C (the target agreed at COP21).

In summary, during Trump's presidency, any action on climate change and GHG emissions at the federal level can be expected to be cancelled or reversed, including international agreements - due to the high contribution of the US to global emissions, and the importance of the US in terms of funding GHG mitigation measured internationally, this is likely to have a significant impact on global emissions over the coming years. However, domestically at least, Mr. Trump's power to enact changes is relatively limited and so impacts may be less severe - but a lack of federal legislation and impetus towards emissions reductions may cause some states to soften their own approaches towards action on climate change, causing further increases in future GHG emissions.

References:
BP (2016), Energy Charting Tool (http://tools.bp.com/energy-charting-tool.aspx#/st/primary_energy/dt/consumption/unit/MTOE/country/CA/MX/US/view/map/; 09/11/2016)
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) (2013), Global fossil fuel CO2 emissions (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.tot; 09/11/2016)
Center for Sustainable Systems (CSS), University of Michigan (2016), Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation Factsheet, Ann Arbor: CSS (link: http://css.snre.umich.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Change_Policy_and_Mitigation_Factsheet_CSS05-20.pdf)
21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) (2015), Paris Agreement (http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_english_.pdf; 09/11/2016)
Jones and Martin (2016), Effects of the Clean Power Plan, Washington D.C.: United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (link: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_issues.cfm#cpp)
Le Page (2016), 'President Trump means we can't escape a dangerously warmer world', New Scientist No. 3099
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (2016), What is US electricity generation by energy source (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3; 09/11/2016)

Book review - Greener Energy Systems: Energy Production Technologies with Minimum Environmental Impact

In my first post to this blog, I discussed the rapidly increasing global demand for energy, a result of increasing global population and increasing energy use per capita in industrialising and newly-industrialised regions. I also sought to illustrate the impacts of this increase in energy consumption on global GHG emissions and corresponding changes in global climate. This emphasises the need for new methods of energy production, which do not contribute to emissions of GHGs and which provide sufficient generating capacity to meet increasing demand through the coming century.

A compelling analysis (which I first read soon after publication) of the variety of possible means of future energy production is provided by Eric Jeffs (2012) in his book Greener Energy Systems: Energy Production Technologies with Minimum Environmental Impact. It should be mentioned that throughout the book Jeffs repeatedly reveals that he is somewhat sceptical of anthropogenic climate change, and so although he does concede that it is at least possible that man-made climate change is a reality, his motivations in favouring various means of energy production should be sternly questioned. Nevertheless, his expertise in the field of energy production, and his absolute mastery of the technical detail with respect to the competing merits of different methods of energy production, cannot be contested.

In his analysis of the best options for sustainable future energy production, Jeffs is direct and unequivocal in his firm belief that nuclear power provides the best means to reliably increase generating capacity while reducing (and eventually eliminating) emissions of GHGs. Jeffs repeatedly emphasises that nuclear fission is, at present, the only available means of energy production capable of delivering generating capacity comparable to present fossil-fuel based methods without contributing to GHG emissions. He is cynical with regard to many renewable energy sources (chapter 9 of the book is entitled 'The fallacy of renewables', but is particularly scornful of wind power, citing both the 'enormous amount of materials required even for one 3.7 MW wind generator offshore, and the energy cost of installation of assembly, as compared with a nuclear plant of 1100 MW' and the 'susceptibility [of wind power stations] to a wide range of wind speeds' (p.213). He is particularly scathing of the environmentalist movement, or 'green anti-nuclear fanatics' (p.122), and their role in continually frustrating the development of nuclear power in the industrialised world. In his final analysis, Jeffs concludes that nuclear energy should be complemented by hydroelectricity, combined-cycle natural gas and what he terms the three 'predictable' renewables (solar, tidal and biomass) to provide sustainable energy production in the future. He also argues that the potential applications of nuclear energy go beyond simply producing electricity, arguing that emissions from global shipping could be eliminated through the use of nuclear-powered merchant ships, pointing to nuclear-powered warships presently in service with the navies of several countries, which are valued for their speed, reliability and ability to spend long durations at sea with no need to refuel.

Overall Jeffs presents a persuasive (if one-sided) argument in favour of nuclear power. His reasoning that nuclear energy (complemented by other reliable, low-emissions energy sources) is the only realistic means of reducing GHG emissions, while increasing energy supply, is pragmatic and constructive. However, his deep scepticism of wind power should be called into question. Jeffs argues that the materials required to build wind farms on a commercial scale is prohibitive:

"When the first phase of the London Array [wind farm] is complete... it would produce 1931.8 GWh/year. The nuclear plant further up the coast at Sizewell... contains less steel and copper than is required to build one of the London Array wind generators, and... would produce 8897 GWh/year... the biggest problem with wind is the enormous quantities of materials required for a relatively small output." (p.211)

While it is true that wind energy requires a relatively high volume of materials per unit of output, this does not prevent it from being an economical energy source. The average cost of wind energy across several onshore projects is now approaching that of conventional fossil-fuel based methods, or around €50 per MW/h, compared to €49 for coal and €41 for natural gas (Busby, 2012). Moreover, it is estimated that, for power stations coming online in 2020, the total life-cycle cost of energy from wind power will in fact be less (at USD $73.60 per MWh) than that for nuclear power ($95.20 per MWh) (USEAI, 2015). Finally, it has also been demonstrated that wind power can provide a formidable proportion of total energy supply - in Germany, for instance, as of 2011 the states of Saxony-Anhalt, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern derived from wind power 48.11%, 47.65%, 46.46% and 46.09% of their total energy consumption respectively (Molly, 2012).

In summary the argument that nuclear power must constitute a significant component of future energy production is compelling. Indeed, the UK government has enthusiastically endorsed new nuclear generating capacity as a means of meeting the country's commitments on emissions reductions:

"...we must completely de-carbonise the power sector and we need nuclear to do that. Why? Because nuclear is the only proven technology that can be deployed on a sufficiently large scale to provide continuous low-carbon power... our own analysis tells us that decarbonisation of the power sector can be achieved most cheaply, securely and reliably if nuclear remains a core part of the UK's energy system"

- speech by HM Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Rt. Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP, to the 8th Nuclear New Build Forum, April 2016 (Source: GOV.UK, 2016).

However, even if nuclear power should be wholeheartedly embraced over the coming decades, it is widely recommended that it constitutes only one part of a diverse energy mix, working in tandem with other sustainable or renewable energy sources in order to maximise zero-emissions output and achieve energy security (ANSTO, 2009).

References

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) (2009), The nuclear option as part of a diverse energy mix, Sydney: ANSTO
(link: http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/45169/energy_diverse_mix_June09.pdf)
Busby (2012), Wind Power: The Industry Grows Up, Tulsa: Penwell
GOV.UK (2016), Realising the vision for a new fleet of nuclear power stations (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/realising-the-vision-for-a-new-fleet-of-nuclear-power-stations; 03/11/2016)
Jeffs (2012), Greener Energy Systems: Options for Sustainable Future Energy Production, Boca Raton: CRC
Molly (2012), Status der Windenergienutzung in Deutschland, Wilhelmshaven: DEWI GmbH
(link: https://www.wind-energie.de/sites/default/files/attachments/press-release/2012/jahresbilanz-windenergie-2011-deutscher-markt-waechst-wieder/statistik-jahresbilanz-2011.pdf)
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA) (2015), Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, Washington, D.C.: USEIA
(link: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_generation_2015.pdf)