Some countries produce a large percentage of their electricity with hydropower. As mentioned, Brazil gets 85 percent of its power from hydro, one of the main reasons it accounts for about 50 percent of industrial production in Latin America. The Itaipu dam on the Parana River, on the border between Brazil and Paraguay, is the world’s second largest dam at 14,000 megawatts. This one dam provides 26 percent of all Brazil’s electricity and 78 percent of Paraguay’s.
Canada produces more than 60 percent of its electricity from hydropower, mainly in Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and Ontario. When you add the 15 percent coming from nuclear generation, Canada can boast that 75 percent of its electricity is non-fossil fuel, among the highest such percentage in the world. Sweden produces 45 percent of its electricity from hydropower, 48 percent from nuclear energy, and 6 percent from biomass (wood). Therefore it has one of the least fossil-fuel dependent electrical systems in the world. Switzerland is also nearly fossil fuel free with 54 percent of its electricity coming from hydropower and 41 percent from nuclear energy. And France is also almost fossil fuel free, with 79 percent nuclear, 11 percent hydroelectric, and 10 percent from other renewables and natural gas.[24] That is the main reason why Switzerland, Sweden, and France have the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in Western Europe—approximately 6 tonnes (6.6 tons) per person per year. This is less than one-third of U.S. emissions of about 19 tonnes (21 tons) on a per person basis.
In Eastern Europe it is interesting to compare Latvia with Poland, countries with similar per capita incomes but widely different electric energy profiles. Latvia produces 60 percent of its electricity with hydropower, while Poland depends on fossil fuels, mainly coal, for 98 percent of its electricity. As a result, Poland emits about 4.5 tonnes (5.0 tons) of CO2 per person per year, more than double Latvia’s per capita CO2 emissions of 2.2 tonnes (2.4 tons) per year.
The above examples that show lower per capita CO2 emissions from countries that produce more of their electricity from hydro and nuclear power, and therefore less from fossil fuels, may seem obvious, but this is seldom reported in the media. This is due to the fact that there is often a built-in bias against both nuclear and hydro in the activist community and among journalists who specialize in environmental reporting.
Consider the major energy sectors: electricity, transportation, buildings, and industrial production. Only electricity production has such a varied mix of technologies among different countries. Transportation is nearly all driven by fossil fuel, with minor exceptions such as electric trains powered by nuclear and hydroelectric energy, and ships using nuclear propulsion. Most buildings are heated with fossil fuels, and industry is largely fueled by coal and natural gas. Therefore it is primarily the mix of electricity-producing technologies—fossil fuels versus renewables and nuclear energy—that differentiates per capita CO2 emissions in countries with comparable economies.
Of course there is an even stronger determining factor; the relative wealth of countries as commonly measured in gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. China uses fossil fuels to produce most of its electricity, but because it has a relatively low GDP per capita of US$6000 per year, China’s per capita CO2 emissions are also relatively low at about four tonnes (4.4 tons) per year. Sweden, with a very high GDP of US$37,300 per year, has per capita CO2 emissions of about six tones (6.6 tons), a low figure for a highly industrialized country but one that is 50 percent higher than China’s. Yet Sweden’s CO2 emissions are only one-third of Australia’s, even though Sweden has a per capita GDP about equal to Australia (World Bank figures).[25] Australia produces about 70 percent of its electricity from coal.
These two variables, relative wealth and differing mixes of electricity-generating technology, are at the bottom of much of the inequality in CO2 emissions among countries. This leads to great difficulty in reaching a binding international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. Two questions make this clear. Why should Sweden be required to reduce its emissions when they are only one-third of Australia’s emissions, largely because Sweden does not use fossil fuels for electricity production? And why should China, even though it uses a lot of fossil fuel to produce electricity, be required to reduce its emissions when they are only one-fifth that of the U.S.? In the chapter on the science and politics of climate change, we will explore this and other aspects of the global debate on climate in greater detail.
Geothermal (Ground Source) Heat Pumps
Ground source heat pumps—also known as geothermal heat pumps, or simply geo—are one of the most important renewable energy technologies for the future. They are probably the third most important renewable resource after biomass and hydroelectric energy. They are more important for the future than wind and solar energy combined. Yet they are not well known and most people who have heard about them do not know how they work. Part of the reason for this is that they are not visible: the heat pump is in a dark room in the basement and the pipes bringing the earth’s heat to it are buried in the ground or submerged in a water body. But the technology itself is also difficult to comprehend. The earth beneath your house is not hot, not even room temperature unless you are in the tropics. How can a heat pump turn “cool into warm”? Thankfully one does not need to discuss the physics in detail to explain how this works. If you would like to read an explanation of the physics, see the reference below.[26]
Most people are also mystified by how their refrigerator, freezer, and air conditioner work. That’s because they are also “heat pumps,” using the same technology as a geothermal heat pump. The concept is relatively simple: a heat pump pumps heat from one place to another. In the case of your refrigerator, the heat is being pumped from inside the fridge into your kitchen. Note that when the fridge is running heat comes out the back. I used to assume the heat came from the motor or the compressor, but, no, it is the heat from inside the fridge. That’s why it’s cold in there! A freezer is exactly the same; only more heat is pumped out to make it even colder. An air conditioner treats your whole house as if it is a fridge, pumping the heat out of your house into the outdoors.
Geothermal heat pumps are made possible because the earth, including lakes and oceans, absorbs nearly 50 percent of the sun’s energy in the form of heat. That heat can be tapped by putting pipes in the ground or a body of water and circulating water through them where the water picks up some of the stored solar energy in the earth or water. The slightly heated water then goes to a heat pump, where the heat is extracted and concentrated and put into your home. Even though the earth beneath your home may be at 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit), the heat pump makes it possible to concentrate that heat to 55 degrees Celsius (130 degrees Fahrenheit), which is hot enough to make your domestic hot water and more than hot enough to heat your home to a comfortable 22 degrees Celsius (72 degrees Fahrenheit).[27]
In summer the heat pump can be reversed and operated as an air conditioner, pumping heat out of your house into the ground. In this mode, it is more efficient than a conventional air conditioner. It is an amazing device, which can replace the gas, oil, or propane furnace, the gas, propane, or electric hot water tank and the conventional air conditioner with a single unit that is about the size of a gas furnace.
Geothermal heat pumps can be used in any building, anywhere on earth. It is possible to extract heat from permafrost in the High Arctic, and it is possible to cool a building with heat pumps in the tropics more efficiently than with a conventional air conditioner. The most cost-effective applications are where there are both a high heating requirement and a high cooling requirement, such as in the cases of the continental climates of middle and eastern North America and central and northern Europe and Asia. Geothermal heat pumps are also the most effective way to reduce fossil fuel consumption in buildings.
The most advanced applications of geothermal heat pumps use tanks of hot or cold water to store energy. In this way the heat pump can operate at night when there is surplus power on the grid, producing and storing hot o
r cold water to be used for heating and cooling the following day. An in-home computer can tie into the weather forecast and determine whether to store hot water or cold water and what the expected demand for heating or cooling will be over the next few days. This fits in nicely with smart meters that charge for electricity according to the time of day it is being used.
The geothermal heat pump is as close to a perfect technology as one can imagine. It is based on stored solar energy, so it is renewable. There is enough stored solar heat under every city lot to supply more than 10 houses, so it is virtually inexhaustible. Heat pumps are a distributed rather than a centralized energy generator, a quality often cited as superior by environmentalists. Geothermal energy is a baseload, or on-demand technology because the energy is available 100 percent of the time. It has virtually no environmental footprint because the heat pump is in the building and the piping, or “loop,” is in the ground. Unlike electricity, it is easy to store large amounts of energy by simply using water tanks. So geothermal is not only on-demand; it can also be stored at times of low electricity demand and then used during times of high electricity demand. And it is cost effective and pays for itself over a relatively short time.
A geothermal heat pump system installed in a new home will cost nearly twice as much as a conventional gas furnace, gas hot water heater, and air conditioner. But the increase in the monthly mortgage due to the increase in capital cost for the home will be less than the monthly saving on the energy bill. In other words, a geothermal heat pump installed in a new home pays for itself from day one. A geothermal system retrofit into an existing home can’t usually be included in the mortgage, so it will result in a higher cost until the unit is paid for, after which there will be a net saving. This is all without any subsidy or government incentive.
But there are a number of barriers to the rapid adoption of geothermal heat pumps:
• Geothermal systems cost more to install than conventional furnaces, water heaters, and air conditioners. This increased capital cost is a barrier even though geothermal heat pumps typically result in a 50 percent reduction in operating costs for these services. Builders tend to be more concerned with competing for lower construction cost, as they will generally not be paying for the operating costs over the 50-year life of a building. Home buyers are often more interested in features like granite counters and a three-car garage than they are in adding to the cost of heating and cooling equipment that is concealed in the basement. Most people tend to avoid higher initial cost even when there is a reasonable payback due to lower ongoing costs. For example, many people avoid paying four dollars for a compact fluorescent lightbulb when they can buy an incandescent bulb for one dollar. The four-dollar bulb, which uses one-quarter of the energy and lasts two to four times as long as the one-dollar bulb, is clearly the best choice. Yet for some reason it seems we have to rely on environmental conscience rather than economic logic to rationalize paying more up front.
• Most homebuilders and homeowners do not realize that geothermal is the superior technology from an environmental and economic perspective. This is beginning to change in some countries, but it is difficult to break old habits as everyone knows what a gas furnace is, but very few people really understand what a geothermal heat pump is.
• There are not enough trained professionals to install or service geothermal equipment. Geothermal heat pumps are quite different from conventional technology. They are not more difficult to install or service, but they require specialized training. A number of organizations and associations now provide training for geothermal technicians, including the Canadian GeoExchange Coalition[28] and the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association in the U.S.[29]
Many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, have adopted incentives in the form of grants, rebates, and tax exemptions for the installation of heat pumps in new and existing residential and commercial buildings. This can cover as much as 30 percent of the total cost, making geothermal competitive with all other technologies.
A number of European countries have succeeded in overcoming the barriers to geothermal installation in new buildings. As a result of public awareness campaigns and a common sense approach to energy, geothermal now has a 90 percent penetration into new residential construction in Sweden. Switzerland can boast nearly 75 percent geothermal in new housing units. Norway, Finland, and Austria are all close to 25 percent followed by France and Germany at around 5 percent. In the U.S. and Canada only about 2.5 percent of new homes are equipped with these heat pumps. Clearly North America, and some European countries, have a long way to go to catch up with Sweden and the other leading European countries.
It is not as if your home uses less energy when you install a geothermal heat pump, even though your utility bill will be reduced by at least one-third. It still takes the same amount of energy to heat and cool the home, but now about 50 percent of the energy for heating and cooling is coming from the earth, free except for the cost of pumping it in and out of the ground. Now if you improve the home’s insulation and install better windows, you can really save money in the long run.
When you install a geothermal heat pump, you virtually eliminate the use of fossil fuel for heating and cooling in your home. If the source of electricity that runs the heat pump, other appliances, and lights is either renewable or nuclear, your entire home is now nearly fossil-fuel free. This makes a very big difference to your overall emissions of pollutants and CO2.
When it comes right down to it, our houses and cars are the greatest consumers of energy and materials we own. Here is a formula for drastically reducing your material and energy consumption as well as your overall footprint on the planet:
The next time you buy a car, buy a modest one with really good fuel economy. Don’t worry about the image your car gives you, just focus on practicality and common sense. Guys usually want a big fancy car with 350 horsepower just to get to work and back. Sure, you can have a stereo with seven speakers and heated seats, but buy a small hybrid or conventional car that gets good mileage. This will give you big savings; a luxury car with a big motor won’t offer such savings. And a small car will use fewer resources and create much less air pollution. Then take the money you save on your car and put a heat pump in your house. The heat pump will probably be in a dark little room in your basement. Lighten up that basement room, paint your heat pump a bright color, put racing stripes on it, and take your friends and family down there and brag about what you have done for the environment. Forget the gas-guzzler as your pride and joy. Celebrate the 50 percent reduction in your personal use of fossil fuels!
Hot Geothermal Energy
As mentioned in the introduction, there are two distinct technologies that use the term geothermal. One of these is based on the fact that the earth’s inner heat comes close to the surface in certain locations where the earth’s crust is thin. In some locations it is possible to tap into steam generated from these hot spots and to generate electricity with turbines on the surface. Today 24 countries generate about 0.3 percent of the world’s electricity by this method and scientists believe this could be increased substantially. Five countries—El Salvador, Kenya, the Philippines, Iceland, and Costa Rica—generate more than 15 percent of their electricity from geothermal sources.
Deep geothermal energy may have great potential and is definitely worth investing in as a renewable and sustainable energy resource. Difficulties include the high cost of drilling deep boreholes, uncertainty about the sustainability of the resource, the fact that every site has unique geology and therefore unpredictable circumstances, and the geographically limited nature of locations where it is hot enough to produce steam close to the surface.
In areas where it is not hot enough to produce steam, it is often possible to tap geothermal heat directly for district heating in towns and cities. In 1892 Boise, Idaho, became the first city in the U.S. to develop a district heating system with direct geothermal heating.
Nuclear Energy
; Nuclear energy supplies about 16 percent of the world’s electricity, a percentage similar to hydroelectric power. Among the 30 countries with nuclear power plants, 21 countries obtain 15 percent or more of their electricity from nuclear energy, ranging from Canada at 15 percent to France at nearly 80 percent. In the U.S. about 20 percent of electricity is produced by 104 nuclear plants, nearly one-quarter of all the world’s nuclear power. The 439 nuclear plants that operate in 31 countries today are producing clean, reliable, reasonably priced electricity for hundreds of million of people.[30] And yet nuclear energy remains the most controversial form of power, so much so that some countries and regions have passed laws against it, either pledging to phase it out altogether or placing bans on further development.
However, there is a powerful sea change under way, which is bringing nuclear energy back into favor and targeting coal as the villain in the piece. This evolution in public opinion and government policy has come about very rapidly. It is due to the convergence of a number of factors, primarily the concerns over global climate change, energy security, and air pollution from fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy came by its controversial reputation honestly. Two atomic bombs killed nearly a quarter of a million people on August 6 and August 9, 1945, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was our first experience with nuclear technology on a grand scale. A deep fear was indelibly impressed into the human consciousness. Now we could annihilate whole civilizations in seconds. Now genocide had become suicide. The course of evolution had been altered and the nature of culture and politics were changed forever.
We will never answer the question, “Was it worth it to avoid prolonging the war?” Many historians believe there would have been far more casualties on both sides if the U.S. had invaded Japan. But we cannot know the outcome of refraining from using the atom bomb. Some say the only reason it has not been used since is because it was used then. Others contend that the existence of nuclear weapons provides a deterrent to mutually assured destruction. Still others believe nuclear weapons are evil, an atrocity waiting to happen, and the sooner we can rid the world of these weapons of mass destruction, the better. This debate will likely outlive us all. But that should not stop us from working to reduce the number and the threat of nuclear weapons.
Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist Page 31