Resiliency and Transformation of the Energy System

      Thirst for Power by Michael Webber was on the summer reading list for the MENV program and was a great introduction to the “energy water nexus.” Webber’s main thesis throughout the book when it comes to water and energy is that we need to view the two through a more “holistic thinking that recognizes these resources as interconnected, and a systems-level approach that acknowledges how one change in one state to a water system could impact an energy system five states away” (Webber, 6).

       One point that I want to make about this nexus is that it is a flaw in the general resilience of our energy system. An aspect of addressing the general resiliency of our energy system includes looking at the diversity of the energy system and how we generate electricity. According to the EIA, in 2015 87% of our electricity was generated by nuclear or fossil fuels leaving only 13% of our energy system is capable of operating without water. Increased renewables would allow for additional energy diversity and less reliance on water for energy. When Brian Walker discusses the diversity aspect of general resiliency in Resilience in Practice he asks the question “Where in the system is there only one way of carrying out a vital function?” (Walker, 64). If we ask that question of our energy system, we realize it is currently a one-trick-pony. We have built in water to carry out a vital function of generating electricity that leaves the entire system susceptible to the availability of water.

     Considering that the energy system permeates through economic, ecological, and social systems we stand to lose a considerable amount if we cannot transform the system away from using both water and carbon. Looking at the aspects considered most important to transformability in Walker’s Resilience in Practice, the system needs; “to get beyond the state of denial, to create options for change, and have the capacity for change” (Walker, 82). Depending on who you ask, we are still in a state of denial as a whole about transforming our energy system; otherwise, we would see our government acknowledging climate change.

      Much like admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery, controlling the denial of the climate change issue is impeding our ability to move further into the process of transformation by not allowing us to focus on creating additional options or capacity for changing the energy system. Unfortunately for the deniers, we have never had more options in terms of emerging technologies to move towards low-carbon energy and suppressing our desire to move towards renewable has only increased our tenaciousness and capacity to engage. In turn, climate change deniers are carrying out a vital function of their system in only one way and we must exploit that weakness with science!

Question: Should we focus on developing our options and capacity to change the energy system if we cannot control the denial of the problem?

Comments

[Cody Janousek]

Good blog post.

[Sam Krasnobrod]

Interesting! As much as I am a scientist, and however strong my belief in education, there is no denying the need for coercion in the face of stubbornness. The example of microgrids, and allowing for the energy company to maintain some control over household appliances during peak energy, is the easiest way that I can explain my thoughts on coercion... not everyone wants the energy co. to take control of their energy use, or electronics, especially when it comes to turning on/off the A/C in the summer. I say we fine them until they comply... or just ignore them completely. We must fix the problem using facts and logic; if they don't understand logic or believe facts... well. I guess we can turn off their A/C first.

[Mallika]

Another one of my comments didn't post! I don't know what I am doing wrong! Here's a pre-spring break comment, reposted:

I found your post really insightful. It points out the ways in which the energy system is not only pushing the atmospheric thresholds, but also the water thresholds, of our environment. This seems like it would be especially true for Western states like Colorado.

To address your question, I think we should absolutely frame the argument to transform to a low-carbon (or renewable energy powered) energy system from the perspective of the non-climate related benefits it provides. I think states like Texas demonstrate that renewable energy can be a popular option, even if people aren’t primarily motivated by wanting to address climate change. Luckily for those of us studying renewable, other factors such as increasing cost-effectiveness and ability to address concerns like price volatility, energy security, and a diverse generation mix can be effective motivators for people who live in states where climate change is not part of the discourse.

That being said, I’m hesitant to ignore the climate denial completely. I certainly think renewable energy advocates can continue to tout the environmental benefits of renewable energy. This just may not be the primary focus, depending on the audience. My hope is that climate denial will become less mainstream over time. There was an interesting article in the NY times yesterday about climate attitudes in the US, which I though was an interesting complement to your post. It found that the majority of American’s think climate change is real and support carbon emissions regulations. They are just skeptical of whether it will impact them, personally.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-think-about-climate-change-in-six-maps.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1