This week I read the editorial Net-Zero Emissions Policy Bankrupts Britain from the Wall Street Journal. It takes a closer look at the climate policy and practices Britain has enacted, and the effects the policy has had on its people and prices.
I found the article compelling in how it mirrored what was going on in Britain and the U.S. in terms of the energy crisis. Both countries have made or have passed new climate goals within the last year, which the author argues is one of the main causes for the steep rise in prices today. In setting such high goals and prohibiting certain energy practices, like shale-fracking (which is a process that is used to extract shale gas by drilling deep holes into shale rock, then drilling more holes horizontally to gain access to more of the gas), it puts a strain on alternative energy sources, like nuclear and solar, and the people’s pocket.
There’s no debate that prices in everything from energy to groceries have gone up exorbitantly. Many today, regardless of their financial situation, are feeling the tight pinch of those rising prices. What the author of this editorial stated was true, the lower class will feel the rising prices the most. The author compares the average annual energy bill in Britain, which was roughly $4,200, to the and the average annual income of $31,461.23. People are worried that after a 54% increase in energy expenses from the spring alone, the prices are far from coming down any time soon.
I can’t argue that the climate crisis is a major issue that we’ve been hurtling towards for quite some time now. To me, the energy crisis feels like a student starting a major project the night before it was due, and realizing they’ve run out of scotch tape, markers, and poster board. I do believe that we need new laws and practices established to provide energy and help deter our carbon footprint, but we also must be mindful and think ahead with what we are doing. At the beginning of this article, I kept thinking about alternative energy types, like solar and wind power, as it often comes to my mind when talking about the energy crisis. What this article highlights, and what I had not realized before, is that electricity must still be generated from an alternative source when wind turbines aren’t moving and when the sky is overcast, and that fluctuating shift between alternative energy and electricity can hurt the people’s pocket and strain the electrical grid.
This editorial feels like an ominous warning for the course of the climate crisis and our current practices within the United States, as the article mentions that some states and the Biden administration have enacted or are in the process of enacting similar regulations and practices. I’ll anxiously wait to see if we as a country can fare any better in establishing new climate policies and practices than our friends across the pond.
While we mentioned in class that the “wind won’t blow, sun won’t shine” argument has reached the point of being a dreaded talking point, renewables do have inherent variability in their output that has to be addressed. Because of how our electricity infrastructure works, more demand during peak times like when people come home from work means more electricity needs to be supplied at those times. Lots of really smart people have developed systems for managing this, but adding inconsistent sources of power complicates the management process.
Another issue is that solar power particularly could lead to a situation where there is more energy being supplied to the grid than is actively needed, particularly during the day when people are at work and their homes are using less power. This causes a surplus in energy that will be problematic if not used for something.
Engineers have been working on the problem of grid stability with variable power sources like wind and solar for a long time now. While some more outlandish ideas like using electric vehicles as grid storage have been proposed, some of the more robust solutions proposed are really interesting to me. For instance, pumping water or other liquids to a higher elevation using excess power during the day gives it potential gravitational energy, effectively creating a gravitational battery that could provide power during peak times and collect energy when there’s a surplus. There’s some efficiency loss during the pumping, but its negligible compared to the risks and losses that arise when nothing is done with the energy.
Good post! I’m glad to see other people talking about climate and hope that we can collectively introduce each other to new aspects of the global conversation being had right now.