text: This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.
  Join
  Home
  Posts
  Q&A
  Calendar
  News
  Members
  Experts
  Sponsors
  Post
  Trump's "America First Energy Plan": Is It Even a Plan?
  Ripudaman Malhotra 518
  Independent Consultant
  Member since 2018
  21 items added with 10,223 views
  Contact
  Follow
  Profile
  Like
  Comment (3)
  Mar 13, 2017Jul 7, 2018 10:12 pm GMT
  1150 views
  The official website of the White House features a tab on Issues, and the top item on the list is President Trump’s “America First Energy Plan (AFEP).” It’s hard to consider this one-page document as a plan. It does not spell out the energy needs of the country for the foreseeable future, nor does it describe what combination of energy sources will be used to meet those needs. What a contrast from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 of President Bush or the Climate Action Plan of President Obama!
  I visited this website hoping to learn what incentives or disincentives the new administration will use to favor the development of various energy sources—specifically, I was curious about its stance toward nuclear power. No luck! There was no mention of nuclear power or for that matter any other energy source except coal, oil, and gas. There’s a multi trillion-dollar global market need for CO2-free electricity, that is best addressed by nuclear energy and it would behoove the U.S. to gear up for it.
  AFEP recognizes the essential role of energy in our lives and global economy, and the need for “responsible stewardship of the environment.” Protecting clean air and clean water, conserving our natural habitats, and preserving our natural reserves and resources will remain a high priority.” So far so good; it is hard for anyone to disagree with these platitudes, although one of the first executive actions by Trump reversed a rule forbidding dumping of coal ash in waterways—how is that demonstrating environmental stewardship?
  AFEP blames burdensome regulations like the Climate Action Plan of the Obama administration for the plight of the US energy industry, specifically the coal industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), coal production in the U.S. has dropped by a third since 2008, from 1.1 billion tons to 740 million tons in 2016. President Trump has repeatedly asserted that removing restrictions imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will bring back the coal industry. I have previously written that the coal industry is hurting mainly because coal has lost its competitive edge to natural gas. The fleet of coal-fired plants in the U.S. is aging, and the demand for electricity in this country has been mostly flat—around 4,000 TWh/yr since 2006. As old coal plants are slowly phased out they are being replaced by those fired with natural gas. Advances in fracking have increased the availability of gas, and depressed its price such that producing power from gas is cheaper than from coal.
  To be sure, complying with the EPA emissions standards for oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, particulates, and other pollutants adds to the cost of coal-generated power, but we certainly do not want to revert to the days of widespread acid rain or smog choking our cities. That would not be “responsible stewardship of the environment.” Obama’s Climate Action Plan limits the emission rate of a new power plant to 400 grams of CO2 per kWh of electricity generated. The relatively high carbon intensity of coal-fired power plants (greater than 850 grams CO2/kWh) would essentially preclude building any coal-fired power plant except those that would capture and use or sequester the produced CO2. However, repealing the Climate Action Plan is not going to spur the building of coal-fired power plants. Fuel choice for a new power plant is largely an economic decision, and on this basis gas-fired plants will clearly be favored.
  AFEP lays out a vision of plentiful energy and jobs that will be unleashed by tapping into an “estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves.” I know that the U.S. has large reserves of oil and gas, but $50 trillion worth of reserves stretches credibility. The BP Statistical Review of World Energy lists U.S. oil reserves at 55 billion barrels and natural gas reserves at 369 trillion cubic feet. At $50 per barrel of oil and $2.6 per thousand cubic feet of natural gas, the listed reserves add up to just $3.7 trillion—a far cry from the $50 trillion!
  The term “reserves” has a special meaning; it refers to only those geologic accumulations that can be recovered using current technology at current prices. The U.S. has a significantly larger deposit of oil and gas resources, but they are not classified as reserves. At a high price of oil, say $120/barrel, many of these deposits could be considered reserves. But with the emphasis on domestic drilling for oil and gas and plentiful availability of these, the prospects of oil price rising to those levels is low. To be sure, there is a positive side to having abundant low cost energy. It makes the energy-intensive U.S. industries more competitive and spurs manufacturing of goods for export.
  The U.S. Geological Survey periodically estimates the oil and gas resources and these get reported through the U.S. Energy Information Agency. The latest estimates for the resource base of oil and gas are 24 billion barrels of shale oil and 750 trillion cubic feet of shale gas. Monetizing them would yield an additional $3.1 trillion for a total of $6.9 trillion—still nowhere near the $50 trillion number touted in the AFEP.
  Perhaps the administration is also including the oil shale resource, which is estimated to be 1,500 billion barrels, and could conceivably generate $50 trillion. But oil shale—not to be confused with shale oil or tight oil—is a rock that bears the precursors to oil called kerogen. The kerogen must be heated to produce the oil because the geology has not done the conversion. Fracking will not produce oil from this resource; it will require mining the rock and retorting it, or somehow heating it underground and collecting the oil. The process is very expensive and certainly not something that could be commercialized when oil sells for $50/barrel.
  I can forgive conflating reserves and resources, or oil shale and shale oil, in newspaper articles but not in a national energy plan. But then again, I am not surprised by the blatant exaggeration of the reserves and the emphasis on increasing fossil fuel production with total disregard to the rising CO2 levels in the air and concomitant ocean acidification. After all, the administration appointed as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Scott Pruitt who doubts that global warming is being caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and has on many occasions challenged the EPA in courts. The administration has indicated that it will cut funding for NOAA, the agency that monitors the state of the planet’s climate. It will no longer require natural gas companies to measure the amount of gas that leaks from their wells and pipelines. These decisions are cause for concern.
  In the AFEP there is no mention of sources of electric power like, hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear that have essentially no CO2 emissions. The new administration will likely reverse the requirement that car manufacturers increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets to 54 mpg by 2025. To meet this stretch target, car manufacturers will have to start building many more electric vehicles. Without the pressure to increase fuel efficiency, U.S. car manufacturers will abandon their electric vehicle programs and cede leadership of this emerging market to their European and Asian competitors. That’s not putting America First.
  As I mentioned above, global demand for electricity is on the rise and not by just in the developing nations. Even in the OECD countries the demand for electricity will rise as the transportation sector gets electrified and more of the service sector moves to cloud-based services. Server farms deployed by Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Amazon require around a gigawatt of steady uninterrupted power, the size of a nuclear reactor. Renewable sources like wind and solar cannot deliver this power as they require gas-fired power plants to back them up, and hence in practice they turn out to be not entirely carbon-free sources. Advanced nuclear technologies that are inherently safe and proliferation-proof can deliver this energy but market forces currently do not favor investments in them in the U.S. With government support, some of these designs are being developed in Korea, China, and India. There is an opportunity here for the Trump administration to support the necessary R&D on these new nuclear technologies in the U.S. and get them ready for commercial deployment both here and abroad. That would help the U.S. regain leadership in this vital area.
  Photo Credit: Daniel Huizinga via Flickr
  nuclear-generation
  Ripudaman Malhotra
  Discussions
  Sign in to Participate
  Darius Bentvels on Mar 14, 2017
  Server farms deployed by Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. are moving towards 100% renewable electricity as that is what the public, which decide from which competitor it buys it’s IT services, want!
  As the decisions of these high tech giants indicate, wind and solar can deliver the needed uninterrupted power at least as well as a Nuclear Power Plant (NPP).
  Especially since NPP’s have the habit to stop producing totally within a few seconds, at unexpected moments. Something which doesn’t occur with highly reliable predicted power production of distributed wind and solar.
  Also visible with the >10 times more reliable grid compared to USA that high renewable non-nuclear countries such as Denmark and Germany have thanks to their many thousands of distributed generators.
  Btw.
  – The variable production of wind & solar issue is solved using grid extension, batteries for short term and Power-to-Gas for long term lulls in production.
  – Agree that deleting the requirement to measure the amount of gas that leaks from wells and pipelines, is an issue of great concern. It’s another sign of the degradation of USA from front runner down towards the second league.
  Sign in or Register to post comments
  John Ward on Mar 20, 2017
  Your comment that “one of the first executive actions by Trump reversed a rule forbidding dumping of coal ash in waterways” is incorrect. The executive order you refer to reversed the “Stream Protection Rule” — a highly controversial regulation pertaining to coal mining that was enacted in the waning days of the Obama administration. It has nothing to do with coal ash disposal, which remains fully regulated under EPA’s 2014 Final Rule — a rule which no one is seeking to overturn.
  BTW – Just because the “Stream Protection Rule” was reversed does not mean coal mining impacts on streams are unregulated. Regulations are already on the books to protect streams without punitively targeting coal for elimination.
  Sign in or Register to post comments
  Bob Meinetz on Mar 20, 2017
  The Stream Protection Rule was complex and ambiguous, but to say “regulations are already on the books to protect streams” ignores hundreds of Appalachian streams destroyed by mountain-topping since the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.
  I imagine one of the first tasks undertaken by Trump was performing a Google search and targeting any law or agency with “protection” in its title. The Stream Protection Rule possibly became suspect when it exceeded Republicans’ ability to comprehend it, and experts with satisfactory (conforming) explanations were nowhere to be found. Killing it was easy, thanks to the Congressional Review Act.
  Coal was not targeted by Obama arbitrarily but because it’s a poisonous and unnecessary fuel, an artifact of medieval energy. Kind of like leeches/medicine.
  Sign in or Register to post comments
  Thank Ripudaman for the Post!
  Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
  Follow Profile Like this post
  More posts from this member
  Open Letter to Secretary John Kerry
  A New Life for Spent Nuclear Fuel
  Trump's "America First Energy Plan": Is It Even a Plan?
  The Presidential Debates Were a Lost Opportunity to Discuss Energy Policy
  Get Published - Build a Following
  The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.
  If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.
  Start a Post » Learn more about posting on Energy Central »
  Your access to Member Features is limited.
  Sign InApply for membership
  Start a Post
  Energy Central Jobs
  Featured Jobs
  Chief Executive Officer
  Southeastern Electric Cooperative
  Marion, South Dakota
  Regulatory Analyst IV
  Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
  Dover, Deleware
  T&D Engineer
  Missouri Public Utility Alliance
  Columbia, Missouri
  Project Lead - Renewable Energy
  Central Electric Power Cooperative Inc.
  Columbia, South Carolina
  Forecasting Advisor - Regulatory Affairs
  SoCalGas
  Los Angeles, California
  Energy and Environmental Advisor
  City of Rochester
  Rochester, Minnesota
  Civil Engineer - Substation Design
  Brazos Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Waco, Texas
  Engineer - Transmission System Planning
  Brazos Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Waco, Texas
  Electrical Design Engineer
  Brazos Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Waco, Texas
  Journeyman Meterman
  UniSource Energy Electric
  Kingman, Arizona
  Director of Power Supply Portfolio Management
  Long Island Power Authority
  Uniondale, New York
  Manager of Power Supply Operations
  Long Island Power Authority
  Uniondale, New York
  System Protection Control Director
  Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Hughesville, Maryland
  Power System Communications Director
  Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative, Inc.
  Hughesville, Maryland
  National Sustainable Power Sales
  American PowerNet
  Wyomissing, Pennsylvania
  Electrical Engineer (Substation) I, II, III or IV
  Arizona G&T Cooperatives
  Benson, Arizona
  Controls Engineer I, II, III or IV
  Arizona G&T Cooperatives
  Cochise, Arizona
  More Jobs
  Sponsors & Partners
  ×
  Our Mission
  Our mission at Energy Central is to help global power industry professionals work better. Our Power Industry Network™ platform is built to help our members connect with each other, share their knowledge & experience and advance their careers in the industry. Membership is open to professionals working at utilities and organizations supporting the industry.