Getting to Carbon-Free

Carbon-free.  That is the goal.  Companies, countries are setting a goal of becoming carbon-free.  Some are aiming at 2030.  Others 2040.  And others still 2050.  But regardless of the date, the goal is the same.  To become carbon-free.  To not only reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere each year, but to get to zero.

But how we get to carbon-free is important, too.   And that is where it gets tricky.  The point is that carbon in the atmosphere doesn’t go away (or at least not very fast).  While getting to carbon-free is important to minimize the effects of climate change, how much carbon we put into the atmosphere while we are getting to carbon-free is important, too. 

Which brings me to two questions: Fracking and nuclear power.  Both of these are anathema to climate change activists.  They want to stop fracking, even for natural gas, because natural gas is a fossil fuel and we need stop using fossil fuels.  Nuclear power is no good because, while it doesn’t give off carbon, it is said to be non-sustainable.  In other words, we are told we need to stop fracking, shut down nuclear plants, and focus on renewable energy.  Now.

I understand that this may be where people want to wind up, but I’ve got a news alert: renewables aren’t going to produce all of our energy tomorrow or even next decade.  It’s going to take a while, probably a long while, before that happens.  And if the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere is what is important, then we need to minimize the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere while we get to zero.

So, how do we do that?  Why not we keep fracking for natural gas so we can get electricity from natural gas instead of oil or coal?  If we have to get some energy from fossil fuels as we move to renewables, should we go with lower carbon natural gas or higher carbon oil and coal?

And what about nuclear power?  After the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident/disaster, Germany moved to shut down its nuclear power plants before the end of their lifetimes.  However, since Germany won’t be able to generate all of its energy from renewables by the time the nuclear power plants shut down, it will still need energy from some other source.  To do this Germany will continue to use brown coal, the dirtiest kind of coal when it comes to carbon emissions.  In other words, instead of keeping their carbon-free nuclear power plants open until the end of their life span, Germany is shutting down those plants early and producing electricity from brown coal.  How is that helping the atmosphere?  It may make some people in Germany feel good about getting rid of nuclear power, but they are putting more carbon in the atmosphere while doing so.¹

Instead of banning fracking and shutting down nuclear power plants early, why not allow fracking and let the nuclear power plants operate while we scale up renewable energy?  As we work to get to zero carbon, are we not better off putting less carbon in the atmosphere in the interim?  Fracking and nuclear power may not be the long-term solution, but can’t they play a part in reducing emissions until we get there?

Maybe allowing fracking and nuclear power, while we get to carbon-free, doesn’t make for a nice, clear policy.  Maybe they don’t work with the slogans and protest signs.  But if the goal is to have less carbon in the atmosphere, wouldn’t half-way answers for the short run wind up in less carbon in the atmosphere in the long run?
---------
¹ According to a report in the Financial Times (“Berlin secures €40bn deal with regions to end use of coal by 2038,” January 17, 2020), Germany will be ending coal power by 2038.  Still, one wonders whether Germany could use less coal during the next eighteen years, and put less carbon into the atmosphere during that time period, by not shutting down nuclear power plants early.  (See here.)