Liz Barratt-Brown's Blog
New fuel economy savings marred by tar sands
February 5, 2008
Posted by Liz Barratt-Brown in Curbing Pollution , Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming
There has been a great deal of discussion about whether the trend towards greener energy will hold or fade away. As the price of oil goes up and stays up, greener energy – such as renewable, wind and solar energies – should flourish and efficiency should dramatically improve. But it is also true that renewable and efficiency spending, while up significantly, is in a race with so-called “unconventional fuels” – synthetic fuels like Canadian tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale – for our energy future (The New York Times). Huge investments are being made to scrape the bottom of the barrel for oil. Instead of moving forwards to develop energies for our future, the large oil companies are putting their money into developing the dirty, polluting fuels of our past.
A stark example of this is the 1.2 million barrels a day production of tar sands oil that is expected to quadruple within the next decade. With its high carbon footprint and profligate use of water and energy to make that oil (three times as much carbon dioxide/barrel is emitted compared to extraction of conventional oil), it is not about to receive any environmental awards from Al Gore. Putting aside the significant impacts in Canada, we wanted to know how much this expansion might undercut the hard fought for emissions savings gains made in the recently passed energy bill.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) among other features, includes the first increase in CAFE standards – fuel economy standards – in over thirty years. The law requires new cars and light trucks to meet a 35 mile per gallon fleetwide average by 2020 and for medium and heavy duty vehicles to make “maximum feasible” and “cost effective” improvements in mileage. NRDC heralded the passage of the new law, saying that it represents real progress in achieving cleaner cars and fuels.
To do our analysis, we took a look at the fuel economy savings under EISA and calculated that together, the improvements to CAFE and to medium and heavy duty vehicles (M&HDV) yield a savings of 184 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the year 2020 or a cumulative savings of 700 million metric tons between 2011, when the fuel economy requirements start taking effect, and 2020, the year when they are in full effect.
What we found is that, at its projected rate of expansion, tar sands oil production will take away between 19 and 27% of the annual greenhouse gas reductions of the new CAFE and M&HDV in the year 2020. The range reflects optimistic to pessimistic assumptions about greenhouse gas intensity of tar sands oil production. As tar sands are ramping up, the ding is even greater, taking away between 38-51% of these requirements. After 2020, it is likely that we will see additional carbon saving benefits as new vehicles phase into the market. However, once the phase in is complete and tar sands continues to grow, savings could be eroded further.
How did we do our analysis? We started by looking at when the additional benefits of EISA would come into play. The EISA CAFE requirements gradually ramp up between 2011 and 2020 to achieve a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon. We also looked at the impact on medium and heavy duty vehicles (HDV) using ACEEE assumptions about what savings the law’s “maximum feasible” and “cost effective” language might yield. Then we looked at the incremental tar sands emissions in 2011 onward– the year that the Energy Bill savings start occurring.
Using projections from the Pembina Institute of Alberta, we compared those projected emissions to full life cycle greenhouse gas reductions per gallon of gasoline equivalent avoided. We made sure we looked only at the additional emissions from tar sands production as compared with conventional oil production. We also made sure that we looked only at those increased tar sands emissions from 2011 forward.
The Pembina data for tar sands production is derived from data using forecasted annual greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands projects that have been approved, planned or announced to date – a production level of 4.8 million barrels per day in 2020. The production capacity added between 2011 and 2020 would produce an increase in annual emissions of 34 and 49 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over conventional oil.
What was most surprising about this analysis is how big a role tar sands oil production will play in making it more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases associated with our consumption in the United States. Roughly 75% of tar sands oil is exported to the U.S. and turned into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Thus, a huge part of the tar sands emissions are associated with U.S. consumption. But, depending on how these emissions will be treated under future global warming measures, Canada will also be responsible for a huge chunk of these emissions. Those of us following this issue know that Canada is already having serious trouble meeting its Kyoto Protocol requirements, or its international treaty obligations, to reduce its greenhouse gases because of the tar sands, where growth of emissions is occurring faster than any other sector . Taken together, it is clear that tar sands emissions will make it considerably more difficult for us – as North America – to meet our goals.
The other surprising take-away from our anlaysis is the contrast between the decades long struggle by the U.S. environmental movement to strengthen the CAFE standards – one of the most noteworthy battles in environmental rule-making – and fuel efficiency in our country and North America more generally, and the relative obscurity of the tar sands. How can Canadian tar sands oil production – production that most Americans south of the border know nothing about – potentially take such a big bite out of our new CAFE standards? At a minimum, it requires our two countries to take a hard look at the role of dirty fuels in our collective energy future.
At 1.2 million barrels per day, the tar sands is already supplying 5% of our ravenous consumption of 21 million barrels of oil a day . But other dirty fuels – liquid coal and oil shale – are not far behind. What is clear is that we have a long road ahead to really secure the CAFE gains made by the passage of the historic Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and to make the deeper cuts that are required of us as North Americans if we are to get serious about stemming the devastating implications of global warming.
Can we dare to imagine a world where the money currently being invested in the tar sands, some $100 billion over the next decade, is invested instead in technologies to reduce emissions, in public transportation and in truly greener fuels?
Can we dare not to?
[1] Elliot, Langer and Nadel, “Reducing Oil Use through Energy Efficiency: Opportunities Beyond Cars and Trucks,” ACEEE Report EO61, January 2006.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Liz Barratt-Brown
- Senior Attorney
- Washington, DC
- I came to NRDC in 1981 and have worked with NRDC’s International Program for the...
- more→
Comments
Linus Hollis — Feb 5 2008 04:44 PM
Liquid Coal is a red herring: the major coal fields in the US are in highly insolated areas, the rockies and the southwest. By using all that sunshine to convert coal into methane, kerosenes (jet fuel), and ethers (particulate-free diesel fuels) one has fertilizer and mercury as side products. The fuels still are gwp, but actually reduce the CO2 levels of just burning coal, no matter how scrubbed. Solar Pre-Scrubbed Coal Fuels? Methane especially is useful, as it has a built in infrastructure of pipelines and produces half the CO2 of gasoline, kerosene and diesel. Oh yeah, it's 128 octane. Honda and GM are finally producing cars that use methane, but Ford, who made my 1998 Econoline, has stopped, concentrating on ethanol bifueled vehicles, which doesn't reduce CO2 at all. Methane is being captured from biowaste more and more, fortunately. Biofuel does not pollute any less, generally, but its production during its growing season can reduce pollution and gwp slightly. Stopping the pollution of the atmosphere by preventing methane release from agriculture, even if it is burned for energy, is actually enough to stop climate change. Methane is 28 times more damaging than CO2, but has twice as much water to its combustion products than most other fuels. It's just less dirty and renewable if we reclaim it from all its sources. Linus Hollis, ScD
Jim Bullis — Feb 7 2008 03:29 PM
We certainly have a long road ahead if we keep trying to run SUV,s pretending they are light trucks, thus enabling industry to trick their way into compliance. Well, some progress seems to be in place on that. However, 35 MPG is not good enough.
Though not without some merit, I think that focusing on fuels is not choosing a road that will get where we need to go. Everything seems to take us to a point where we only have expensive or environmentally unacceptable options. It is possible to make high efficiency cars that offer much better options.
Laws are necessary to enable corporations to make moral choices. Thinking that corporate officers will violate their financial responsibility to shareholders in order to please NRDC, is a mistake. But if the law requires proper behavior, this dilemma is solved. Thus, progress was made with the Energy Bill.
Imposing a requirement for improved fuel economy is a reasonable thing for our country to do, where it applies to our own actions. It seems less reasonable to expect our wishes to be implemented in Canadian law. But it should be noted, Canada did not renege on Kyoto. We should also be aware that Canada, like many countries that signed the Kyoto agreement, has tried to adhere to it, but has had real problems when it came to real implementation.
Emission regulation is difficult. To avoid a lengthy discussion of that problem, perhaps we could agree that a very effective way to curtail emissions from the oil sands projects, would be to greatly reduce the demand for oil. There is a great amount of heat required to extract the oil from the sand and this is produced by burning natural gas. This cost adds about $25 to the cost of a barrel of oil. When oil is priced at $30 to $35 per barrel, this $25 added cost is enough to make the oil sands not a viable business. A significant reduction in the demand for oil, such that the market price is lowered as discussed, could quickly shut down oil sands operations, or at least end the expansion of such. Oil priced below $25 per barrel will very quickly shut down production. Obviously, the cut off point will vary with natural gas prices as well as other economic factors.
The Energy Bill requirement of 35 miles per gallon will probably not sufficiently reduce demand to get this job done.
Success is possible based on a plan that would enable American life styles to continue with very little modification and with very modest cost. It would require rethinking of how we ride in cars and how we expect them to look. This plan is described at the Miastrada Corp. website, at http://www.miastrada.com. The main ingredient in the recipe is the high efficiency vehicle that is described there, though other high efficiency configurations are possible. 200 MPG cars would get the job done.
The appearance of this vehicle is more shocking to people than I had anticipated. I am relying on people getting over their horror when they realize it is either that or riding public transportation such as a bus. However, I realize that most will take a long time before they get to that decision point. NRDC and the government could be helpful in making that decision time come soon enough.
If we could get scared into action like we were in World War II, our economy would be stimulated by a revitalized industry, climate change would begin to come under control, and oil problems would end. Of course, the oil sands developments would be ended. Our country could actually take a real leadership position in the world.
No goods or services are offered at www.miastrada.com, though I do have an interest in Miastrada Corporation.
Best regards, Jim Bullis