By ROBERT SEITZ
I was going to continue writing on the topic of climate by responding to an article from Yereth Rosen on the cost of permafrost related damage, and the response from Rep. Kevin McCabe, but I attended the Commonwealth North Forum on Cook Inlet gas recently and attended another meeting about annual net metering for grid-tied renewable energy. I spent much of one afternoon thinking on both these meetings and the context of Alaska Energy, so changed my immediate plans.
I consider the attitude of Alaskans, and the population nationwide on whether greenhouse gas is the primary cause of warming of our planet or if we have just recovered (or are recovering) from the Little Ice Age, to be most important to developing a proper energy plan.
Those who read my columns know I think that greenhouse gas is not a significant problem and that IPCC and various complicit organizations around the world that manipulate the climate data to enhance the argument of human caused warming through emission of greenhouse gases are misleading the masses. This premise will lead to a totally wrong energy solution as our bulk power generation needs to be based on high energy density fuels.
I have stated in many of my articles that wind and solar are appropriate for locations that do not have high energy density fuels readily available, or where they are prohibitively expensive. I also promote residential and commercial solar projects which are connected behind the meter, or on the load side of the meter.
Utility scale wind and solar projects installed in Alaska must be thoroughly thought out and properly engineered on both the Utility side and the Solar/Inverter side to be truly beneficial to Alaska. There are complexities of Inverter Based Resources (IBR), which are generally using variable sources of energy (wind and solar). Problems in states with high IBR penetration and the recent power outage in Spain and Portugal should give pause to consideration of increased use of utility scale IBR without providing inertia and long term energy storage (i.e. not batteries) with the design of new installations. Geothermal, tidal and nuclear power are three alternate sources we can look forward to that will provide less variable power that would more sustainable and resilient than wind or solar power.
Now back to Alaska energy and how to move forward.
We learned at the Commonwealth North “Energy on the Edge: Future of Cook Inlet Gas” that to provide confidence to utilities that we have enough gas on hand, we need to drill more wells.
But drilling more wells just to have in reserve does not pay for those wells if they don’t flow gas. We need a financial mechanism that provides financial resources to the producer to cover the expense of drilling new wells. Legacy financial institutions have been influenced by ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) policies and are less likely to finance any hydrocarbon fuel projects in the recent past. That influence is still present.
So let’s try something different. A few years ago I thought that venture capital could be set up in Alaska so that individual citizens of Alaska could invest in a venture capital fund so they could earn from Alaska projects. Each Permanent Fund dividend recipient could be allowed to designate a portion of their annual dividend to a venture capital fund that could provide financing to particular Alaska projects.
This Cook Inlet gas drilling effort could be one of those qualified projects. Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority could manage the fund and provide financing to gas producers in Cook Inlet to encourage drilling enough holes to provide more certainty of gas reserves to provide the confidence needed. So we are on our way to secure our future with Cook Inlet gas.
Next, the Alaska LNG project can help with our Railbelt energy issues by accelerating the North Slope-to-Fairbanks gas pipeline to get gas into Fairbanks and the rest of the interior sooner than later. With natural gas in Fairbanks, a new natural gas fueled power plant could be built, which would provide less dependence on power from the south and reduce the demand on Cook Inlet gas for energy for the Interior.
I still recommend large long duration energy storage to enhance the ability to save summer solar for use in the winter or other times of need. Pumped hydro seemed to be an ideal means to store renewable energy at the time of generation, and to store the potential energy for a long time, (i.e. many months). No one seems to be very excited about pump hydro, but we’ll leave that tool on the table for use eventually.
The non-hydro energy storage means are all still fairly short duration. Batteries are not long duration and cannot discharge at significant rates for any significant length of time, so we should not build very many battery energy storage systems (BESS). We just need to install sufficient BESS to provide system stability for the utility without much consideration for the variable energy sources to be installed. We need to focus on non-hydro long duration energy storage to be installed through-out the Railbelt to have an energy source available for whatever part of the system is islanded from the Railbelt grid and these energy storage devices can drive rotating machines to ensure there is inertia in that part of the system that will allow existing and normal controls and protection means to function properly.
As I have mentioned before, the island of Kauai can use BESS with their solar because the sun will be there every day, for about the same amount of time every day and it will not be freezing. Here in Alaska, I continue to advocate for storage of the solar energy for those cold stormy days. If the utility scale wind and solar can directly feed storage and then have the energy released through a high inertia rotating machine we can definitely improve our sustainability and resilience.
Of immediate importance is that Alaskans in leadership positions must look at the available data to determine how realistic the climate crisis concerns are. My findings show that while the average annual temperature may be increasing slightly, the high temperature is not increasing over historical norms. The high annual average gets higher when less cold temperatures in the winter while summer temperatures remain in their historical normal range. We need people looking at the impact of the Little Ice Age and make a determination of whether or not our present condition is just a recovery from that era. I have been following the jet stream movements the last three or four years and it sure looks like the unusual weather across the country and the world is driven by the changes in the jet stream. If that is the cause of the “climate problems,” then our focus needs to be on adapting and preparing for the impact of high rainfall, high winds, or lack of rainfall.
Planning for the future of our energy and power systems is simplified if we truly understand our weather and our climate.
Robert Seitz is a professionally licensed electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.
Wasting more money on corporate welfare for well drilling in the Cook Inlet isn’t a long term solution. Getting Susitna Hydro built, is. Build Susitna and then homeowners can invest in their own geothermal heating systems and we are set. The Nordic nations such as Finland, Sweden and Norway have installed tens of thousands of geothermal systems as the technology gets better with each passing year. With cheaper electricity from Susitna, this is one of the most cost effective ways to keep Alaskans warm, with no pollution.
Global CO2 levels, today, are 430 PPM. In 1900, the CO2 level was only 295 PPM. We know using empirical evidence and data collection the influence CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has on heat retention. Venus has an atmosphere comprised about 96% of CO2, and the runaway greenhouse impact on that planet is well understood. 867 F is the average temp on Venus. Prudent people should follow the science and err on the side of caution. It will take first world nations with intelligence to lead. Uncivilized nations like China will never provide the critical leadership required to solve our most pressing problems.
Last, building a boondoggle gas pipeline has enormous debt and equity returns that would bankrupt railbelt consumers. You may be an engineer, but you are not an economist.
And Venus is a whole lot closer to the sun than is the earth. I would expect to be warmer even with a different atmosphere. The advantage of the gas pipeline is that we can sell the LNG to bring in money. With Susitna Dam where is the economy. We can install lots of geothermal heating system and put no money in the State treasury. i’m not an economist but can see when there is nothing going into the credit column
Robert, by the logic you employ, Mercury should be the hottest planet because it is closet to our Sun. But its not, Venus is hotter. And Venus is hotter because of the greenhouse heating that planet experiences from its high CO2 levels. Venus is about the same size as Earth, and its not that much closer to the Sun- only about 26 million miles. The Sun is 67 million miles from Venus- and 93 million miles from Earth.
I get selling LNG. No question. Much more economic to take the LNG from the North Slope via ice breaking tankers. The Russians move their LNG from Yamal with ice breaking tankers- and have been doing so for over ten years. No expensive, 800 mile long pipeline needed.
The best source of power for Alaska is hydro. The Bradley Lake hydro project provides enormous returns, low cost, reliable power. Susitna can do the same, with no pollution.
The raging left shot down Susitna hydro not 1 time but 2 times. Now THEY want to build it. Ha ha. At 1 time 15 years ago it would have been affordable at $5 billion now it’s probably $15 billion. Never get the permits forget it. Anti Dams, Anti oil and gas, we will be back driving mule carts here shortly.
Doug, the so caller green groups opposed to Susitna weren’t. They were made up front groups doing the dirty work for Usibelli. That coal isn’t worth anything if we have hydro.
We obtained many of the permits from FERC when Palin was governor. We ran out of money to do cool projects when we had SB-21 forced on us.
Susitna has never been the panacea that proponents claim. For starters the advertised generation total is twice the expected output. Due to what happens annually with freezing temperatures the energy supply needed to spin the turbines is frozen for about half the year. The proposed reservoir behind the dam isn’t large enough to hold the quantity of water required to provide the advertised generation total while there is no liquid replenishment to the reservoir, which means that when power usage is highest the energy supply potential will be at its lowest. If a person with a little knowledge spends a few minutes reading the Susitna Hydro website it’s all laid out in very clear terms. Susitna is and always has been an engineering feed trough that provides high paying jobs for people who know it will never produce a single kW.
Steve, nope. You don’t know what you are talking about. Susitna is a 700 foot tall dam that would run year round. The ice on top of the river will be hundreds and hundreds of feet from the turbines.
We would not have spent hundreds of millions on engineering and permits if the dam would only operate half the year. SB-21 killed our revenue stream, so we lost Susitna.
See, we can’t have nice things when we give away our oil.
Interesting observations. The embedded proposal to facilitate investment by individual Alaskans in energy development projects had my attention right up to point it called for investment coordination by the Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority.
Yeah, right.
The outfit that built a massively stupid seafood processing plant in Anchorage and other noteworthy follies.
Maybe we should just let market based investment guide development instead of fooling around with politically driven projects administered by political hacks unable to get a job in the often-discussed but infrequently reached private sector.
The seafood plant was a long time ago. How is AIDEA doing now. Their loans are being repaid. Time for positive thinking. The primary objective is to come up with a way to incentivize gas producers to drill gas producing wells for which the gas may not get to market for a long while. The secondary objective is to provide the comfort and confidence to the Utilities that there is sufficient gas supply in reserve, ready to go.
AIDEA has had plenty of successful investments Joe. Private banks have lost a lot more money on projects. Quit knocking AIDEA.
Doug Glenn: Got data to support your contention that AIDEA is successfully investing public funds?
Converting coal-fired power plants to natural gas is a significant trend in the energy sector, driven by a combination of factors including environmental concerns, economic considerations, and policy initiatives…..yet ZERO talk about UAFs plant. The Army canot even figure out Brooks Act acquisitions…not that the clueless customer” doesnt get in the way all the time. How is the Anchorage port??
I dont think my kid should be unintelligent nor work a mine. Or understand the purgatory isnt legal. Great morals taught in Alaska. Does Alaska fund education for anything else?? How many more industries MUST be control by the State of Alaska? Less than 1m people & the State can’t balance a budget or follow its Constitution…its steal intellectual property from those unwilling to play “rule of law”.
Until there is gas in Fairbanks it is not possible to convert any of the coal plants in the interior to natural gas. My proposal is to get gas to Fairbanks, quickly. The objective here is that the State is in a position to enable private sector businesses to move on from burning wood. Once we get some income increasing in the treasury from the sale of increased oil production and exporting LNG we can get a balanced budget, at least as long as we control our spending.
Balanced view. Refreshing.