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.

The
Canadian province of Alberta, home of the tar sands, has a long
history of pipeline explosions
and spills.
In the case of the Keystone XL, a spill could jeopardize a number of
rivers and the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water and
irrigates agriculture in parts of eight states. In 2013 alone,
TransCanada, the company charged with building the Keystone XL, had
14
U.S. spills in a single year.

Pipelines
are not only dangerous for the environment, they also kill and injure
people. Since 1986, according to a
ProPublica investigation,
U.S. pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured
over 4,000, and cost nearly $50 billion in property damages.

The
State Department report claims that Canada’s tar sands will be
exploited whether or not the pipeline is built. However, this is
refuted by a Sierra article
which states that the Royal Bank of Canada believes blocking Keystone
XL would significantly inhibit Canada’s tar sands development.

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.

5.
Reliable and resilient energy system: Wind and solar are less prone
to large-scale failure than fossil fuel powered systems because they
are distributed and modular. To illustrate the point, a Renewable
Energy World article
cites a study which showed how Hurricane Sandy damaged and disrupted
fossil fuel powered electricity generation and distribution in New
York and New Jersey, while renewable energy projects in the Northeast
weathered the storm with minimal damage or disruption. This is of
great importance as we expect to experience more extreme weather due
to climate change. Unlike fossil fuel or nuclear power, wind and
solar do not require water to generate electricity which makes them
better able to deal with issues of water scarcity.

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.

Source: Global Warming is Real

The public comment period runs from February 5 – March 7. Comments can be made at regulations.gov or mailed directly to:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Energy Resources, Room 4843
Attn: Keystone XL Public Comments
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520