The Case For Electrification In 2022

The geopolitical events of the last month have shown how foolish it has been for the free nations of the world to allow themselves to be hoodwinked into economic dependence on the regimes of tyrants.  In particular, we see how Russia has tried to use Western dependence on its fossil fuel resources as a means of dictating the internal affairs of the nations of Europe.  This has been one of the cornerstones of Russian imperialist strategy under Vladimir Putin.  It makes sense therefore when dealing with thieving little thugs like Putin to cut one's reliance on those thugs to zero.

So we come to the question of how the West can eliminate its reliance on Russian oil and gas in the quickest and most advantageous manner.  And in this regard, my mind was provoked recently by hearing of a few design and construction projects in the northern U.S. which are replacing natural gas-fired space conditioning equipment with all-electric, variable refrigerant flow heat pump HVAC systems at a number of government facilities.  Many of the facilities in question already have existing rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, which can be used to offset the energy cost of the new HVAC systems. 

These projects are an example of a larger trend in the architecture/construction industry and among facility managers to shift from buildings which use fossil fuels for space conditioning to buildings which use electricity only.  There are encouraging reports and studies which indicate that, given the current trends in the development of renewable energy sources and advances in HVAC systems, a shift to all-electric buildings can be significantly cheaper in the long run than maintaining buildings that continue to use fossil fuels.  I don't have time today for a detailed analysis of the literature on this subject, but I do intend to write a few posts that go into this subject in more detail as soon as I have time for more intense research.  However, for those who want to beat me to the punch (please do!), the following sources are a good place to start:

• A Case for Electrifying Heat In End-Use Residential Sector Towards Carbon-Free Buildings, Tolu O. Sodeinde, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2019
• "Efficient Electrification Newsletter," Electric Power Research Institute, January/February 2020
• "Edison International Sustainability Report 2019", Edison International
• "NBI BETR Webinar, 2-22-2021", New Buildings Institute
• And, for something slightly more cautionary, "Increased Electrification of Heating and Weather Risk In the Nordic Power System," Trotter, et al, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, December 2021.

Of course, any large-scale transition to an all-electric society must rest on a foundation of cheap, widely available electricity from renewable resources.  Here we have research that shows a very optimistic picture, as stated in an April 2019 report from the German Energy Watch Group in partnership with the Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology (aka LUT University) in Finland.  The title of the report is Global Energy System Based on 100% Renewable Energy: Power, Heat, Transport and Desalination Sectors.  A key paragraph from that study is the following:

"A transition to a global 100% renewable energy system is no longer a matter of technical feasibility or economic viability, but one of political will. Not only do we need ambitious

targets, but also stable, long-term, and reliable policy frameworks, adapted to regional conditions and environments. We call on the global community to urgently pursue a forward-looking pathway towards net zero GHG emissions by launching a rapid change of the way we use natural resources and provide electricity, heat and transport." - Hans-Josef Fell.

One of the findings of the study is that regional energy independence can be achieved by the development of regional renewable energy resources, as described in the paragraph titled, "Electrification and Decentralisation Lead To More Efficiency."  This would eliminate or at least drastically reduce the need for import of energy by one region from other regions.

Clearly these topics deserve deep and urgent consideration!

The Gross Polluter of the North

Jalopy car in Joshua Tree National Park

Image by Jarek Tuszynski

Posted to Wikimedia Commons on 28 December 2008 under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license

"Jalopy": an old car in a dilapidated condition.  Definition by Oxford Languages.  Synonyms: "rust bucket", carcancha.  Rust buckets are often "gross polluters" - that is, cars that can't pass smog or DEQ tests no matter how much money you throw at them.  I know this, because many years ago, when I was still living in Southern California and I was a dirt-poor undergraduate college student, I drove one.

As we look at what are hopefully the last gasps of the Trump presidency, I think it is helpful to explore the role that the Russian government played in Trump's initial rise to power, as well as the motivations which the Russians had for playing that role.  Trump showed himself to be every bit a "blast-from-the-past" racist, bigot, big-shot Republican, friend of the rich, and anti-environmentalist.  In this, he was a mirror of the regime and mindset of Vladimir Putin.  I have previously traced on this blog the motivations for the racism and revanchism ("Let's Make Ourselves Great Again!") of both these men.  (See this, this, and this, for instance.  Also see this by Olga Doroshenko.)  Trump's friendliness toward the rich has obvious motives.  But why did the Russians see fit to help the rise of such a rabid anti-environmentalist?

As I have considered this question over the last few weeks, I have come to the conclusion that the anti-environmental motives of Trump and Putin have less to do with deep psychological causes than with a certain perverted pragmatism.  Let's look at that pragmatism from a Russian perspective, and we'll start with the current state of the Russian economy.  According to Investopedia, Russia's economy in March 2020 was smaller than any of the top ten national economies in the world.  (It is interesting to note that each of the economies of India and Brazil is larger than that of Russia.)  And according to a 2018 Forbes article, Russia's economy is smaller than that of the U.S. state of Texas.  However, the Russian economy is still very heavily dependent on the export of minerals, whereas the economy of Texas is more diversified.  (Don't let that make you complacent if you live in Texas - the U.S. economy also has certain weaknesses, which I will continue to explore in future posts.)  The Russian economy has not been able to transition to reliance on export of high-value manufactured goods, despite recent dubious Russian claims of having invented a coronavirus vaccine.  

To see how dependent Russia is on exports of raw materials, consider the top ten Russian exports according to this source:

1. Mineral fuels including oil (52.2 percent of total exports)
2. Iron, steel (4.3 percent)
3. Gems, precious metals (3.6 percent)
4. Machinery including computers (2.1 percent)
5. Wood (2 percent)
6. Fertilizers (2 percent)
7. Cereals (1.9 percent)
8. Aluminum (1.4 percent)
9. Electrical machinery & equipment (1.3 percent)
10. Copper (1.2 percent)

As can be seen, the export of finished high-value manufactured goods comprises only 3.4 percent of the total value of Russian exports.  The bulk of the export revenue earned by Russia consists of sales of mineral fuels including oil.

But there's a problem.  While it is certainly true that the global peak of production of conventional oil has certainly passed, it is also true that advances in renewable energy technology have made this peak far less relevant and far less disruptive to industrial societies overall than many of the "peakists" were predicting from 2007 onward.  In fact, the German Energy Watch Group, which correctly tracked the peaking of global conventional oil production, also correctly tracked the rise in use of renewables, particularly solar photovoltaic power production.  This rise in use is being driven by continued advances in solar PV cell manufacturing and battery storage which are driving down the cost of solar PV systems and making them affordable to ever-wider markets.

This presents a big problem for countries whose wealth is predicated so heavily on a foundation of exporting mineral fuels.  I would like to suggest the possibility that the power base of Russian elites relies heavily on the foundation of the extraction and sale of raw materials including oil, gas, and other mineral fuels, and that developments which threaten global markets for these resources or which drive down the price of these resources are a serious threat to the survival of the members of these Russian elites.  It is therefore interesting to note the connection between climate science denialism and the positions of many (but certainly not all) of the most prominent members of the Global Far Right.

Thus it is that in Russia, according to a June 2020 Moscow Times article, renewables (excluding hydropower) account for only 0.16 percent of electric energy production.  Investment in renewable energy installation is almost completely nonexistent.  On the other hand, China is one of the world's leading investors in wind and solar energy, and is a major manufacturer of solar and wind energy conversion equipment.  China is also poised to take the lead in innovative renewable energy technologies.  Thus, the future looks bright for Chinese plans to transition to a non-polluting future, according to this August 2020 Forbes article.  And China is by no means the only nation investing in renewable energy technology.  

Therefore technological advances, serious investments, and the emergence of global climate preservation movements have threatened a key source of Russian export revenue.  Let's consider one potential implication of a successful "Green New Deal": a reversal of Arctic sea ice loss that is potentially great enough to deny Russian access to hypothetical mineral deposits as far north as the North Pole.  Putin showed his own belief in climate change by laying claim to these mineral deposits as far back as 2001 - a claim which the Russian government renewed in 2015.  If the Arctic sea ice returns to anything like its normal non-climate-altered extent, that spells the end for cheap and easy Russian access to additional mineral resources.

Let's close with a snapshot of pollution in Russia, which has recently been "enjoying" record high levels of air pollution (including a city which routinely has the dirtiest air on the planet) and coastal waters that are sickening surfers and killing thousands of animals.  A small price to pay in order to keep certain elites in power, eh?  And now you can understand the helpfulness of the Trump administration toward those Russian elites in the rolling back U.S. vehicle fuel economy standards this year.