Don’t forget carbon cost of conversion

IT TOOK us decades to get into this position. If you wait until electrical means are available to manufacture renewables, it will take far too long to transition our energy. Massively increasing CO2 production to accelerate renewable generation has a point at which you do more harm to the atmosphere than delaying part of that deployment while reducing consumption.

As an engineer, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., (Journal, July 30) is familiar with minimization problems in calculus. Based on U.S. EPA figures, replacing all fossil energy in the United States with electrical energy would increase the electrical draw to roughly six times the current yearly production. This would require a massive deployment of solar and wind as well as huge changes in the U.S. grid that must be manufactured with carbon-generating energy. Also using EPA sources, the energy and CO2 cost of manufacturing the additional electrical systems needed for renewable sources would be roughly another six years of our current total electrical energy output (equivalent) and its cost in CO2 pollution. Buying renewable generating systems offshore does not decrease the CO2 footprint. Incentivizing a shift to electrical consumption instead of fossil fuels while renewables are still being deployed may increase near-term demand well beyond capacity. Replacing fossil fuel consumption too fast can generate more CO2 in the atmosphere and result in massive energy shortages as well. Working on conservation efforts helps both demand and decreases CO2 production.

The up-front cost of Heinrich’s water heater example is a few hundred dollars plus the CO2 generated to manufacture the heat pump. Careful prior analysis to minimize net CO2 in the atmosphere should precede tax incentives. Drinking from a firehouse does not necessarily quench your thirst faster.