The journey toward a clean energy economy is complex and filled with technical, economic, and social challenges. Electricity models are key tools for driving this transformation, providing precision and insight into the potential outcomes of energy policies and technological shifts. At the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), we are working to make these tools more accessible through the U.S. Model Intercomparison Project (MIP), which brings together leading developers of open-source planning models to help steer the nation toward a sustainable energy future. Read More
Market Forces
The Power of Electricity Modeling in the U.S. Clean Energy Transition
How Economists Can Leverage MethaneSAT Data for Climate Action
This blog was co-authored by Maureen Lackner (Senior Manager of Economics and Policy Analysis, Environmental Defense Fund) and Lauren Beatty (High Meadows Postdoctoral Economics Fellow, Environmental Defense Fund).
Climate change is a pressing issue, partly fueled by methane: a greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of today’s global warming. Reducing methane emissions will slow down the rate of near-term warming and help avert the worst climate damages. To tackle this problem, Environmental Defense Fund launched MethaneSAT, the world’s first satellite developed by an environmental non-profit. MethaneSAT aims to quantify regional emissions of methane across more than 80% of oil and gas production in the world, while disaggregating diffuse area emissions and high-emitting point sources.
MethaneSAT will generate publicly available data allowing stakeholders to track emissions and hold polluters accountable. This data will empower various actors – governments, companies, and investors – to make informed decisions about emission reduction strategies. It will be an invaluable resource for economists and public policy researchers aiming to analyze and design effective climate policies. Read More
What policy instrument options are available to address methane emissions from the oil and gas sector?
This blog was coauthored by Maureen Lackner, Huong Nguyen and Aaron Wolfe.
New EDF Economics Discussion Paper describes the instrument options available to policy makers in both oil and gas producing as well as importing countries.
Policy makers around the world are increasingly recognizing the need to drastically reduce methane emissions in parallel with carbon dioxide emissions. More than a hundred countries have signed the Global Methane Pledge and made a collective commitment to reduce global methane emissions by 30% by 2030 from 2020 levels.
Reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector is considered particularly promising, not only because of estimated low or even negative net abatement costs for many of these emission sources, but also because most of these solutions involve mature existing technologies and work practices.
What public policy instruments can help reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector? We address this question in our recent EDF Economics Discussion Paper Policy Instrument Options for Addressing Methane Emissions from the Oil and Gas Sector from the perspectives of oil and gas producing as well as importing countries. Read More
Decarbonizing industry is difficult but possible
Industry is the backbone of the U.S. economy: it provides and transforms raw materials, goods and chemicals needed for civilization, including the energy transition. Yet, it is also responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 30% of U.S. GHG emissions .
Industrial GHGs include direct (combustion of fossil fuels, leaks and byproducts) and indirect emissions (the purchase of electricity and heat). Even if we reduce indirect emissions through electrification and clean energy, uncontrolled direct emissions from industry would still be responsible for at least 20% of GHG emissions both globally and in the US. Heavy industry, which creates products like cement, iron and steel, chemicals and plastics is particularly carbon intensive, which is why we should invest in ways to mitigate its large direct emissions of CO2.
Why decarbonizing heavy industry is a challenge
Decarbonizing heavy industry is difficult, because its direct emissions are the byproducts of chemical reactions or related to processes that require very high heat or fossil fuels as feedstocks. And because industry uses fossil fuels like coal as feedstock, manufacturing processes often rely on them for heat as well, making it more challenging to reduce industrial fossil fuel consumption. Moreover, there are other obstacles to rapid decarbonization, such as the long lifetimes of industrial facilities (possibly 30+ years) and their high capital intensity. This makes it difficult—but also necessary—to retire or retrofit them on a timeline consistent with limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less.
Another constraint: industrial products must often meet precise quality criteria to comply with safety regulations. In other words, lowering the carbon content of steel or cement manufacturing could impact the quality of the material outputs. Hence, if the characteristics of carbon-intensive industrial products change, the specifications associated with building codes and standards may need to change as well, especially if changes imply a modification of the physical properties of common building materials. Finally, geographical limitations like the local availability of renewable energy, key energy feedstocks and infrastructure as well as carbon storage capability may dictate the possibility of decarbonizing heavy industry or not.
That’s why we need to move forward with developing technology and processes that can decarbonize direct emissions from heavy industry. Luckily, several options are available.
Reducing CO2 emissions from high temperature industrial processes
For industrial heat, there are temperature, quality and flow rate constraints on viable options that stand in contrast to electricity and residential heat (the temperatures required in heavy industry varies from 200°C to 2,000°C). The Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy identified hydrogen (blue, from natural gas or green, from renewable feedstocks), biomass and biofuels, electricity (resistance and microwave), nuclear (conventional and advanced), concentrated solar energy, and carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) as options for tackling decarbonization of industrial heat. Each has technical and economical tradeoffs:
- Biodiesel and hydrogen have the highest heat potential, while conventional nuclear the lowest.
- Nuclear is the least expensive option, while Green Hydrogen the costliest. They estimate CCUS adding up to 50% cost to the fossil fuel.
- Green Hydrogen and nuclear have the lowest carbon footprint, while blue hydrogen the highest.
- Biofuels and Hydrogen are the most feasible, while Nuclear is the most challenging to implement or build.
- Considering indirect costs and quality of heat needed, these options could increase wholesale costs of production between 10 to 200 percent depending on the sector and specific application.
- Many options are not cost competitive with retrofitting existing fossil fuels plants with CCUS, and low carbon hydrogen seems the most viable option in the future due to both costs and feasibility.
Cutting process CO2 emissions
The other major source of direct emissions, process emissions, represent an even greater challenge. This is where the rest of direct emissions fits: leaks, fossil fuels as feedstock for chemical reactions and GHG emissions as byproducts of chemical reactions. Rissman et al. (2020) identified the following options:
- On the producer side: CCUS, use of new materials, energy efficiency, new chemical reactions, leak repairs.
- On the consumer side: circular economy; 3D printing; reduced material use: longevity, intensity and material efficiency; alternate materials.
The role for policy
Incentivizing industry decarbonization will require collaborating with industry and engaging policy makers. There are several ways policy can mobilize development and deployment of new processes and technologies in heavy industry, including:
- Carbon pricing, which increases the costs of using fossil fuels in industrial processes. To ensure domestic producers are not put at a disadvantage in the global market and that there is no emissions “leakage” overseas, the carbon price should include a border adjustment on imported products and materials from heavy industry in other countries.
- Energy efficiency and/or emission standards to drive deployment of low-carbon technologies.
- Federally funded research, development, and deployment (RD&D) as well as robust financial incentives to spur private RD&D.
- Procurement standards and government-sponsored pilot projects to help address the financial risks facing entrepreneurs and early movers.
New initiatives show promise
IEA has noted that in order to get to net zero emissions by 2050, it is important to avoid locked-in emissions from investment in the industry sector, especially considering investment cycles beginning around 2030 will endure for 25 years. By boosting spending on research and development, low carbon technology for the Industry sector might be mature enough to be marketable by the time new investments are done.
While there is still a long way to go, some companies are already exploring ways to deploy decarbonizing technology. The Hybrit initiative, backed by Swedish and Finnish state owned companies LKAB, SSAB and Vattenfall, is preparing the construction of a demonstration plant to produce low carbon steel with hydrogen by 2035. Canadian Carbon Cure is already mixing recycled CO2 into cement reducing the carbon footprint of their production process. Massachusetts-based Boston Metal is already producing steel with molten oxide electrolysis, a process that removes the need to use coal as feedstock and therefore has no CO2 emissions. Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) has deployed a commercial scale Carbon Capture and Storage ethanol refinery plant in Illinois.
These examples highlight some of the strategies and tools that can be used to allow heavy industry to continue to provide the goods and materials we rely on – and the emerging technologies necessary for a clean economy – while decarbonizing. But it will take robust policy support and a significant increase in RD&D funding to reduce direct and indirect industrial emissions at the speed and scale science demands.
Accelerating clean energy innovation is key to solving the climate crisis
This post originally appeared on Climate 411 and was co-authored by Elgie Holstein
Our nation has a history of tackling big challenges and leveraging the ingenuity of American entrepreneurs to develop solutions that have changed the world – from curing diseases to exploring space to launching the internet. Today, climate change is one of our most urgent global challenges, for which there is little time left to prevent the most destructive impacts. To combat it, we must bring every bit of our nation’s entrepreneurial creativity and scientific excellence to bear. That means accelerating the deployment of existing low-carbon technologies as well as investing in new and emerging innovations that can transform our economy to 100% clean energy. And we have to do it quickly.
Fortunately, there are recent indications that a clean energy innovation agenda can attract bipartisan support in Congress, even as the debate over broader climate policy remains gridlocked. Recently, in the Republican-controlled Senate, the Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing focused on a bipartisan bill that would invest in research on cutting- edge approaches such as direct air capture (DAC), a “negative emissions technology” (NET) that might someday be able to suck carbon pollution directly out of the air and store it or recycle it into fuel, fertilizer, and concrete.
A complement to conventional approaches to climate mitigation that reduce emissions, NETs remove carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere. They range from technological options like DAC to natural sequestration techniques such as replanting and vitalizing forests and adopting sustainable farming practices that put more carbon into the soil. The Committee also looked at the state of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which can capture carbon pollution from industrial smokestacks, including at power plants, and store it underground.
In the House, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing highlighting the contributions of one of America’s most successful energy research and development organizations, ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy. Its special mission is to move high-impact energy technologies from the research workbench to the market. Its successes have earned the agency support from a wide array of groups on both sides of the aisle, even as President Trump has proposed ending this popular bipartisan initiative.
Together, these hearings illustrate a growing understanding that investing in emerging technologies that slash carbon pollution is good for the environment and the economy, as well as for maintaining America’s competitive edge in the global clean energy revolution.
Unlocking innovation
In order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the world must reach net-zero emissions – taking as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we put into it – by mid-century. In its recent report on limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes that cutting carbon pollution at the pace and scale required to avoid the worst effects of climate change will require rapid development and deployment of an expanded portfolio of low- and zero-carbon options.
In the U.S., we must take advantage of every cost-effective opportunity to cut climate pollution now, while investing in the innovations that will put us on course for net-zero emissions as soon as possible. Doing so will position us to lead the world in new clean-energy technologies, creating millions of new jobs for Americans.
Potential breakthrough technologies are on the horizon, from utility-scale energy storage, which can enable us to use lots more renewable power, to new means of capturing and storing carbon. But innovation and adoption are not happening fast enough, and many of the technologies that can make a difference are not currently cost-effective.
Accordingly, we must put in place the policies and incentives that will drive massive expansion and deployment of existing clean energy technologies such as solar and wind, backed by enforceable declining limits and a price on carbon pollution. At the same time, we must multiply investment in nascent, or even not-yet-dreamed-of, technologies, so that a new supply of clean solutions can be made market-ready, in order to close the emissions gap ahead.
Moreover, we need the pairing of policy frameworks — such as imposing carbon emissions limits and requiring companies to pay when they pollute — with investment in innovative solutions, such as NETs. That will produce a multiplier effect, allowing for greater ambition in curbing greenhouse gas pollution on a faster timeline. Requiring companies to face the true costs of their pollution will lead them to seek out cleaner sources of energy, not just as customers for new technologies, but as production and process innovators. Meanwhile, government investment in critical research will spark the development of new solutions that will be ready for deployment when the market demands them, lowering compliance costs and driving transformative change across the economy.
The case for Congress
While it is encouraging to see Congress engaging in conversations on innovation as a means of addressing climate change, much more work is needed.
Policymakers from both sides of the aisle must commit to investing in the development of clean energy solutions while creating the market conditions necessary to make significant cuts in climate pollution, starting now. They must articulate and act on a vision of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas pollution by mid-century.
Investing in innovation is a key piece of the puzzle. So, too, are policies that protect American families and communities while boosting our economy and cleaning our air.
The challenge is significant. Fortunately, America has shown that it is up to the job.
What Night-time Lights Tell us about the World and its Inhabitants
Most people are familiar with the iconic image of North Korea at night—Pyongyang stands as a beacon of light amid of what looks almost like a large body of water—but what is, in fact, land draped in complete darkness. That imagery revealed details about what was previously unknowable due to the country’s cloak of secrecy—its meager electricity use and level of poverty. My colleagues Daniel Zavala-Araiza, Gernot Wagner and I took an even deeper look at how well night-time lights can account for other measures of socio-economic activity in a new article published today in the journal PLOS ONE.
I got interested in what these images could tell us back in 2012 when I started attending the Geo for Good conference, an annual event hosted by Google where nonprofits and researchers learn how to use geospatial tools such as Earth Engine. Gernot, Daniel and I started wondering what interesting applications we could explore with night-time lights data, and see what we could learn by examining the entire 21-year record of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) at the country level. We took that dataset and compared it to a much wider scope of other datasets. By using a distributed, parallelized platform such as Earth Engine, the scope of this research and our analysis is able to be larger than prior studies.
The prevalence and magnitude of night-time light is an alternative, standardized, and relatively unbiased way to gather information about important socio-economic indicators like CO2 emissions, GDP, and other measures that would in some cases be unknowable. For example, these data helped estimate the size of the informal economy of Mexico in a 2009 study by Ghosh et al.
We’re hoping that by combining all of these methods, data sets, and tools, researchers can develop an even better understanding of how we relate to the environment, so we can ultimately become better stewards of it. Google Earth Engine, Hadoop and Spark are powerful examples of such tools —our hope is that our fellow researchers will ask and pursue new questions, so we can advance the conversation even further.