By ROBERT SEITZ
I am responding to various reactions to the Governor’s Alaska Sustainability Conference. Some have wondered why there was so much focus on oil and gas at this time, and so little discussion about greenhouse gas emissions and other concerns of the green energy coalition. The answer lies in economics and jobs. Natural gas and crude oil can be exported relatively easily.
For some time now, I’ve been aware that we face problems with vocabulary and definitions during this “climate crisis.” We need a reality check: Can we actually create wealth from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar?
I’ve been particularly disturbed by the green definition of sustainability, which seems more about forcing a transition to energy sources for which we are not yet ready. Sustainability isn’t truly achieved if the energy source isn’t continuous, or if no long-duration energy source is available. The profitability of fossil fuels is far more attractive compared to wind and solar, which are not easily exported and provide only low energy-density power.
Sustainability principles, such as ESG (environmental, social, and governance — or sometimes interpreted as environmental, social, and economic), were largely absent from the conference.
Sustainability for energy in Alaska must mean ensuring that there is enough of the right kinds of energy for Alaskans — enough to support thriving businesses and industries, to allow citizens to survive and prosper, and to enjoy the bounty of our land. Energy sources must be location-appropriate, leveraging the unique resources available in each region (i.e., hydro, wind, solar). However, the broad sustainability principles used to justify the green energy movement are not currently applicable in Alaska. Prolonged cold and darkness for much of the year demand a continuous fuel supply and readily available backup fuel.
A continuous flow of high energy-density natural gas is one way to achieve sustainability. Long-duration energy storage, such as pumped hydro, is another solid option. In remote communities where wind and solar have successfully displaced some diesel use, these communities will still need to rely on diesel fuel and internal combustion generators as backup and long-term storage.
Since 1980, I’ve believed that hydrogen produced by solar-powered electrolysis of water could help provide long-duration energy storage in remote areas. Today, the focus seems to be on large hydrogen energy hubs rather than small hydrogen generation plants. I’m not sure we’ll ever see hydrogen widely used in villages. I’ve also considered converting gaseous hydrogen to methanol, which allows easier storage and enables the use of engines similar to those running on diesel.
Once construction is complete, the jobs it creates are gone. That’s true of all construction projects. However, most result in some permanent positions for operation and maintenance. Construction also sparks the birth of new businesses that arise to meet emerging needs. The major long-term benefit of a project like AKLNG will be the royalties to the State of Alaska from LNG sales worldwide, boosting the state treasury and supporting projects and services throughout Alaska.
The Trump Administration has promoted streamlining the permitting process to make beneficial projects viable in a shorter timeframe. At the conference, there was discussion about the burdensome nature of the current permitting process and proposed reforms that would reduce the influence of factors not directly related to the project.
Reducing unnecessary regulations does not mean oil, gas, or mining projects will damage the land, but it does allow for a predictable timeline and profitability, which ultimately benefits Alaskans. Alaska still intends to “do it better than anyone else.”
Then there are those who claim combustion engines are outdated or obsolete. But there is nothing outdated about combustion-based energy generation. These systems have proven reliable over time and are far more adaptable to varied circumstances than wind and solar. Fossil fuels offer the most condensed energy form, requiring less space. By contrast, wind and solar projects often consume large swaths of land.
There’s also concern about dismantling equipment and infrastructure once oil and gas projects end. But we should have similar concerns for wind and solar projects when they reach the end of their useful lives. Ideally, we have learned from past mistakes and now incorporate end-of-life planning into our project designs.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated, “Energy. It’s about people and math.” Some critics feel he emphasized profit over people. But if there’s no profit, there’s no payroll. Under capitalism, people benefit where there is profit. Profit allows for expansion, creating more projects and more jobs. Alaskans want energy, jobs, and a functioning economy. Profitability is necessary. This isn’t about building monuments, but about building energy and power systems that serve real needs.
There is understandable concern that the AKLNG project won’t benefit remote communities. But in fact, all Alaskans benefit from a stable energy supply in the Railbelt. If business collapses in Anchorage and Fairbanks due to energy shortages, support services that benefit rural communities will also vanish. That would increase pressure on subsistence lifestyles and require more time and effort just to survive.
Much is said about solar being cheaper than natural gas. But when I look at other states with significant wind and solar development, I see higher electricity prices. So maybe the panels themselves are cheap, but grid integration is expensive. Rooftop solar remains popular for residential and commercial properties and is growing in Alaska. However, utility-scale solar installations require far more equipment and infrastructure to interface with the grid, which drives up actual costs.
Planning for the future of Alaska’s energy systems becomes much easier when we honestly assess our weather and climate and understand the impacts on the land and sea. We must build systems that are adaptable to our changing environment — changes we can both predict and plan for.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and lifelong concerned Alaskan.
Absent from this analysis is nuclear energy.
The most energy dense, sustainable , efficient, lowest cost per kw, ultra clean power available. There is not a close second comparable energy source to the overall affective efficiency of nuclear energy.
I was, for awhile, hoping NASA was going to show us how to scale it down and possibly network nuclear power so that we could safely have it in an earthquake zone. But I haven’t kept up on it lately. I know they’re working on a larger project in the interior. I prefer not having another Fukushima here in Alaska.
Thank you, Robert Seitz. I have relatives who use some solar, some geothermal and ye olde forms of power and when I asked what was the best, ye olde forms of power won in his opinion. I imagine geothermal is like buying a rare foreign vehicle when it comes to finding parts and people for maintenance, but I admit I haven’t looked into it lately. I know the University of Alaska in Fairbanks has done a lot in this regard.
The citizenry of Alaska will celebrate when Dunleavy and his choices in government are gone. Then we may have a better economy and development in all ways and means.
Not as long as the left have control in Juneau.
Daryl I didn’t mention nuclear because it will take quite some time before we have units that will be ready for use in Alaska. Natural gas is here now and we already know how to use it. We have had a nuclear navy for a long time, so we will have reactors safe and suitable for various locations around Alaska.
Obviously you are negative on everything. Who ever follows Gov. Dunleavy will have some advantage to build upon from the work that Gov. Dunleavy and his staff have done during his term of office
This individual spoon-fed a well-orchestrated, formatted, and textbook-crafted (burying the lead) placement of the core issue in Alaska.
He is an engineer, not an economist. I always find it laughable when careerists with a certain skill set overreach into an area that depletes their platform of credibility. Perhaps without this statement, his argument may have held water, at least among those within the lane he clearly should have stayed in.
How exactly are rural communities dependent on the profitability or volatility of the energy supply for Anchorage and Fairbanks? Rural communities are not a part of an energy grid. Alaska exports raw energy to other US destinations such as Louisiana, Texas, and California, which refines Alaska’s resources, thanks to an exemption in Alaska State Law. Louisiana, Texas, and California produce raw oil and gas, but they also refine it before exporting.
How does he think that Anchorage and Fairbanks businesses pay for remote Alaska “support services”? Or that Remote Alaska is dependent on Anchorage and Fairbanks?
Anchorage and Fairbanks are significant, but expanding ports along the Northwest Passage will inevitably impact the global economy and global attention that will tip the geographic power in Alaska.
“There is understandable concern that the AKLNG project won’t benefit remote communities. But in fact, all Alaskans benefit from a stable energy supply in the Railbelt. If business collapses in Anchorage and Fairbanks due to energy shortages, support services that benefit rural communities will also vanish. That would increase pressure on subsistence lifestyles and require more time and effort just to survive.”
Trudy,
Try to imagine how anything would get to remote communities if Anchorage and Fairbanks suddenly ceased to exist. How will any of the goods that people in remote communities rely upon find their ways to these remote communities? I’m not fan of either city, but they serve a purpose that all residents of this state benefit from.
The fact that people from remote communities do fly into Anchorage and Fairbanks, and that their freght generally comes through these port and they order stuff to be flown out from the cities is how it know the rural communities are dependent upon Anchorage and Fairbanks. We were dependent when we lived on a gold mine near Eagle in the mid 1940’s. It is the way it is.
You do realize that economics is a significant part of the engineering curriculum and even more so in engineering application. You can’t/shouldn’t build it if it doesn’t make economic sense.
Unless you’re an idealogue or a politician. Then economics don’t matter.
Wow – you quote Seitz to make your point? Your last paragraph absolutely makes Seitz’s point. I can guarantee you that even if the Northwest Passage becomes viable those large cargo ships will breeze right on by Alaska on their way to Asia!
All the renewable, sustainable, global warming, climate change, b.s. is over.
Big Tech left the climatard tent.
For AI they need 200% to 300% more energy for the grid.
Solar panels, windmills, and fairy dust cannot do that.
Coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear – that is our future.
It will be done somewhere – hopefully Alaska will be part of it
My point is that remote Alaska communities do not benefit from pipelines without the development of in-state refineries. I don’t believe that the author went far enough in an economic analysis.
The thing with analyzing a project already in its funding stages, is that it becomes a persuasive editorial supporting something.
If rural areas are to truly start driving down the cost of living, it starts with access to energy for rural survival. And why do rural Areas still feel a need to “defend survival” instead of “develop a thriving community”?
I don’t care what the LNG pipeline does to benefit foreign countries lining up to invest. why aren’t rural areas and Native Corporations investing in Tributary Alaska Pipelines to their hub communities and beyond? Between Tribal, Cities, and For-Profit regional and village corporations, there should be domestic thinking and investing in Alaska mega projects that benefit people at home.
It’s shortsighted, and that’s what annoys me constantly.