Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy

In the coming months the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline will be decided. Ultimately the President will have to decide the fate of the pipeline, however the public is invited to influence the process by providing comments on the State Department’s most recent Keystone report.

Here is an article that examines the State Department’s report and
provides an assessment of the Keystone XL’s environmental impacts. When
considering the fate of the Keystone it is important to factor the
available energy alternatives. With this in mind this summary also
reviews the benefits of renewable energy.

____________________

A head-to-head
comparison demonstrates the superiority of renewable
energy over the Keystone XL. If approved, the northern leg of the
Keystone XL pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per
day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas. In addition to risks
from spills and potential water impacts, the pipeline will facilitate
the mass extraction of Canada’s global warming causing tar sands.

The Earth is getting
warmer and we know that this will have calamitous costs, we also know
that fossil fuels are the principle source of greenhouse gases
(GHGs). Increased levels of GHGs have significant harmful impacts on
our health, our environment, and our climate.

We are currently on
track for catastrophic global warming if we continue with business as
usual. If we want to have a shot at keeping global temperature
increases under the internationally agreed upon upper threshold of 2
degrees Celsius, we must radically reduce our consumption of fossil
fuels. 
 

We cannot afford to
add more than 310 gigatons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere,
if we are to keep warming within two degrees C. We have already
emitted 530 gigatons of carbon, and according to the IPCC’s latest
report we can only add a total of 840 gigatons of carbon, that leaves
us with a carbon budget of 310 gigatons. We will not be able to stay
within our carbon budget and move forward if we move ahead with the
Keystone XL.

To keep global
temperatures below this threshold we will need to abandon much of the
world’s fossil fuel reserves. This is particularly true of tar sands
oil which has a far higher emissions profile than traditional oil.

If we are to meet
growing energy needs, we will need to ramp up our use of renewables.
While this entails considerable investment, it is far less than the
combined costs of a significantly warmer world. 

Emissions from
the tar sands 

If approved the
Keystone XL pipeline will be a game changing contributer to climate
change causing emissions. According to the NRDC report,
tar sands oil emits 81 percent more emissions than conventional oil.
If the Keystone XL goes forward a Sierra report
claims it will generate 181 million metric tons of carbon, an
emission load which is the yearly equivalent of building 51 new
coal-fired power plants or putting 37 million additional cars on the
road. 

The State
Department report

The
State Department’s latest report on the Keystone XL does a very poor
job of detailing the pipeline’s emissions, oil spill risks, and
threats to water resources. The NRDC showed how the pipeline would
increase U.S. carbon emissions by between 935 million and 1.2 billion
metric tons over the project’s 50-year timeline. This is far more
than indicated in the State Department’s report.

Overview of
the benefits of renewable energy


Renewable energy
provides substantial environmental and economic benefits, according
to the Union
of Concerned Scientists
this includes:


1. Little or no
greenhouse gas emissions: According to data aggregated by the
International
Panel on Climate Change,
life-cycle global warming emissions associated with renewable energy
which includes manufacturing, installation, operation and
maintenance, and dismantling and decommissioning are minimal. A study
by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) explored the feasibility and environmental impacts
associated with generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity
from renewable sources by 2050 and they found that global warming
emissions from electricity production could be reduced by
approximately 81 percent.


2. Improved public
health: Implementing renewable energy and transitioning away from
fossil fuels will significantly reduce air and water pollution from
fossil fuels which lead to breathing problems, neurological
damage, heart attacks, and cancer. There is evidence
to show that replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy can
increase worker productivity, decrease premature mortality and
significantly reduce overall healthcare costs.


3. Vast inexhaustible
supply of energy: The 2012, NREL study found that renewable energy
can supply 482,247 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually
which amounts to 118 times the nation’s annual electricity
consumption. 
 

4. Stable energy
prices: Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy is providing affordable
electricity across the country right now, and can help stabilize
energy prices in the future. While renewable facilities require
upfront investments to build, once built they operate at very low
cost and, for most technologies, the fuel is free. As a result,
renewable energy prices are relatively stable over time. Prices will
also benefit from the increased competition that is afforded by
scaling renewables. Further, renewable would decrease costs to
utility companies that currently spend millions of dollars on
financial instruments to hedge themselves against fossil fuel price
volatility. 
 

Pros and Cons
of Renewable Energy


While there are many
very serious problems associated with the Keystone XL pipeline and
the dirty bitumen it will carry, a balanced assessment of renewables
make a strong case for clean energy. As summarized in an EEP
article,
renewable energy offers a slew of useful benefits. 
 

Wind


Pros: U.S. onshore
wind resources have the potential to generate almost 10,500
GW of electricity,
175 times more than the current installed capacity of 60 GW. Based on
the average U.S. electricity fuel mix, a one MW wind turbine can
displace 1,800 tons of CO2 emissions per year. With a wind power
capacity of 300 GW, 825 million metric tons of CO2 emissions could be
avoided annually. Most importantly, wind turbines generate very
little emissions. Wind emits only 0.02
to 0.04
pounds of CO2E/kWh.


Cons: They generate
noise pollution and can prove deadly to bats and birds. 
 

Solar 
 

Pros: Solar
photovoltaic (PV) modules covering 0.6 percent of U.S. land
area could
meet national electricity demand. While solar PV modules produce no
emissions during operation. Solar emits only 0.07
to 0.2
pounds of CO2E/kWh.


Cons: Solar PV modules
require toxic substances (e.g., cadmium
and selenium)
in their manufacturing.


Biomass


Pros: Biomass has low
net C02 emissions in comparison to fossil fuels. At combustion,
it releases only the CO2 it previously removed from the
atmosphere.


Cons: Additional
emissions are associated with processing. Land use is another
problem as it requires 124 acres of land to generate one GWh of
energy per year and using crop land to grow fuel can adversely impact
global food production.


Geothermal


Pros: U.S. geothermal
power offsets the emission of 22 million metric tons of CO2, 200,000
tons of nitrogen oxides, and 110,000 tons of particulate matter from
coal-powered plants each year. Geothermal emits only
0.1 to 0.2
pounds of CO2E/kWh.


Cons: Some geothermal
facilities produce solid waste such as salts and minerals that must
be disposed of in approved sites, but some byproducts can be
recovered and recycled.


Hydropower

Pros:
Electricity generated from hydropower is virtually emission
free. Hydroelectric power emits between 0.1
and 0.5
pounds of CO2E/kWh.

Cons: significant
levels of methane and CO2 may be emitted through the decomposition of
vegetation that is flooded by the dam. Other environmental concerns
include fish injury and mortality, habitat degradation, and water
quality impairment. However there are technologies that can help to
minimize some of the adverse consequences including “fish-friendly”
turbines and smaller dams.


Overall the pros of
renewable energy far outweigh the costs. 
 

Declining cost 
 

The cost of renewable
energy has been steadily declining and as we scale renewables this
price will continue to decline. The more we produce the lower the
cost. As it stands now wind power is currently competitive with
fossil fuels and solar has achieved grid parity with coal. Long-term
wind contracts are now more than 40
percent
cheaper than they were just three years ago and the average price of
a solar panel has dropped almost 60
percent
since 2011. 

The cost of generating electricity from wind dropped more
than 20 percent between 2010 and 2012 and more than 80 percent since
1980. The cost of renewable energy will decline even further as
markets mature and companies increasingly take advantage of economies
of scale. These costs could be further reduced with the help of
standards. A 25 percent renewable electricity standard would lead to
7.6
percent
lower electricity prices by 2030.


Renewable energy
currently provides only a tiny fraction of its potential electricity
output in the U.S. But a plethora of studies have demonstrated that
renewable energy can be rapidly deployed to provide a significant
share of future electricity needs.


Rather than supporting
Canada’s exploitation of the tar sands, the U.S. should be resisting
their northern neighbor’s reckless obsession with hydrocarbons. In
addition to scaling renewable energy, the most important single thing
that the U.S. can do is to deny Canada a market for its dirty fuel.

While
the rampant exploitation of Canada’s tar sands oil means “game
over” for efforts to combat climate change, renewable energy
offers a secure, clean, and healthy solution to America’s energy
needs. 

Related Articles
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
The Fate of the Keystone XL: The Ball is in Your Court Mr President
Refuting the Rationale for Approving the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Video – Two Million Comments Rejecting the Keystone XL Pipeline
Video – Obama’s Top Aids and Democratic Donors Oppose the Keystone XL
Keystone XL will Fly or Fail Depending on Who you Talk to
The Keystone XL Pipeline: Debunking Four Cardinal Lies
Moving Bitumen by Rail Rather than Pipe will Lessen Tar Sands Expansion
Ten Reasons Why Nurses Oppose the Keystone XL

Video – A New Approach to Protest Against the KXL
Video – Farcical Comedy on Keystone XL Jobs
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
Protests Greet the Keystone XL South as it Makes its First Deliveries of Oil
Video – This is What a Corroded Underwater Tar Sands Pipeline Looks Like
Keystone XL on the Ropes: Conflict of Interest Revealed in the State’s EIS
Obama Says the Number of Keystone XL Jobs are “Negligible
Obama Rebuffs the Keystone XL’s Economic and Jobs Benefits
New Tar Sands Pipeline Goes East to Follow the Path of Least Resistance
The Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama’s Georgetown University Speech
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD’s Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
Bill McKibben on Obama’s Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Indigenous People and Students Protest Obama’s Reversal on Keystone XL
GOP’s Keystone XL Proposal Fails in Senate
Anti-Keystone XL Ad Campaign
The Keystone XL and Rising Fuel Prices
Video: Keystone XL will Raise Gas Prices
Republicans Refuse to Let the Keystone XL Die
Keystone XL Protest Message Campaign a Success
Resistance to Republican Efforts to Resurrect the Keystone XL Pipeline
Obama Cancels the Keystone XL Pipeline Project
President Obama Stops Keystone XL Pipeline
Republicans Use Blackmail to Gain Support for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Tar Sands Day of Action in Washington
President Obama and the Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline
NRDC November 6 Protest Against the Keystone XL in Washington DC
Nebraska’s Special Session to Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills from the Keystone XL Pipeline
Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Rejected by Environmentalists in Nebraska

State Department Hearings for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Protest
Keystone XL Protest Ends in Washington
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
Religious Leaders Join the Protest Against Keystone XL Pipeline
Video – Van Jones Attacks the Keystone XL Pipeline
US Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Video: NASA’s Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington