Comments on the Inflation Reduction Act
To understand the attempts to mitigate the problems of global heating and pollution by CO2, Methane, and Nitric Oxide in the atmosphere, let me show major obstacles, through the following diagram. (Note that the unit of measure of electricity is Quads. The percentages are based on 97.3 Quads, which equals 100%.) The emphasis on energy is but a part of the physical, existential crises of humans. It is useful in describing only energy issues directly. It is not useful to describe the sources and uses of other earthly materials that are transformed by energy.
I am pleased that some major environmental problems have finally been addressed in the Inflation Reduction Act signed by President Biden. However, the major underlying problems of how humans can continue to live sustainably on the Earth and at the same time consume increasing amounts of energy and material nature is not addressed. The workings of the ecology of the Earth are ignored. The bill relies on more technology to solve many of the problems that technology has created, largely without considerations of the ecological implication of that technology. Primarily, the IRA assumes that with more efficient uses of energy and the substitution of renewable energy for fossil fuel energy, the climate crises will be solved or mitigated and the physical base of modern society will continue to prosper. It has, in part, been sold as a way to create jobs, ‘grow’ the economy, and continue the good life.
Basic problems exist in converting the U.S. economy to one based on renewable energy. The energy economy of the United States may be viewed in terms of energy efficiency, energy sources, and energy uses. Through subsidies and shifting elements in the economy, the IRA attempts to eliminate the toxic atmospheric gases that are by-product of the consumption of fossil fuel energy.
The act also attempts to make some energy uses more efficient. In the diagram, note that the area in black, labeled Energy Services (33%), represents the energy used to produce the desired products and services in the economy. The area in gray, labeled Rejected Energy (67%), represents the energy that is wasted in the economy. As you can see, the major sources of “rejected energy” are in the production of electricity (24.2%), transportation (22.3%), and industrial (13.5 %). In terms of energy, the economy is only 33% efficient.
Problems of changing energy production and consumption.
In 2021 the production of electric energy counted for about 38% (36.6 Quads) of all sources of energy; residential use for 12%; commercial use for 9%; industrial use for 27%, and transportation for 28%.
If renewable energy is to simply replace fossil fuel energy in the production of electricity, the technology to do so is formidable. In 2021 renewable energy provided 37% of all electricity generation. (Of the 37% of U.S total energy, nuclear provided 8.13%; wind 2.32%; hydro 2.27%; solar 1 %; natural gas 11.7%; coal 10.2% ) Thus with current levels of consumption of electric energy, renewable energy must substitute for the 63 % now generated by fossil fuels.
Electricity supplies 50% of commercial uses, 43% of residential uses, 12% of industrial uses, and less than 1% of transportation uses. To power only 50% of each of the four categories by electricity generated by renewable sources would require 32% more renewable energy sources than at present. Adding that 32%, to the 63% of electric energy now generated by fossil fuels, means that electricity from renewable sources would have to increase by 96% over present production.
To accomplish this goal by 2050 (let alone by the much more rigorous 2030 goal of the IPCC or the even the shorter goal of Job One for Humanity) will require the building of completely new facilities and the replacement of older, less efficient fossil fuel facilities until the new sources of renewable energy come on line. (And even then, fossil fuel or nuclear facilities will be needed because renewable energy is not a perpetual motion, self contained process.) Not only more electric cars, heat pumps, solar panels, and storage and distribution systems must be manufactured, but also new technologies, such as carbon sequestration will have to be created and developed rapidly to make the energy transformation possible. Considering the political and social goals of our society, this is an impossibility.
The likelihood of “solving the problem of climate heating” is almost nil because tipping points of irreversible accumulation of CO2 and methane gases in the atmosphere have arrived already or soon will arrive before the necessary effects of IRA can take place. Furthermore, IRA does not address the underlying ecological problems that are created by economies that demand growth.
Almost all forms of growth are based on consumption of energy, renewable or non-renewable, and by Earth materials most of which are non-renewable and only some of which may be recycled. (Look at building debris and garbage disposal of all sorts.) Just as higher-grade fossil fuels will be exhausted by continued consumption, so will be good soils, pastures, forests, water supplies, and life forms. Even if, renewable sources come to dominate production and consumption of energy and slow climate heating, their use in the production and consumption of material goods and services will continue to pollute the land, seas, and organic life of the Earth. It should go without saying that the production of dangerous atmospheric gases will not eliminate the ecological disruptions caused by the Earth’s nearly eight billion people and their demands for a good material life.