One hundred percent renewable energy won't come as easily as he thinks.
Friday, July 18, 2008
By Kevin Bullis
Yesterday, Al Gore said that the
United States
should produce all of its electricity from carbon-free, renewable energy within
10 years. Although he didn't lay out specifics, he seems to want to do it with
wind, solar, and geothermal, although it's not clear from his speech whether
nuclear would be acceptable. Can it be done? It isn't likely.
To get a sense of the scale of the problem, consider: last
year, wind, solar, and geothermal power accounted for an
impressive-sounding 48 million megawatt-hours of electricity. (I rounded up. If
I had rounded down, it would have obliterated the contribution from solar, since
it is such a small part of the total.)
But in 2006, the most recent year with complete
figures, four billion megawatt-hours of electricity were produced in the United States.
Eventually, wind, solar, and geothermal power could cover this. But right now,
they account for a little more than 1 percent of the total. Going from 1 to 100
percent will require not only building the wind turbines and solar panels and
steam turbines for harvesting geothermal energy: it will also require massive
new transmission infrastructure for distributing this power, from the deserts
or windy plains, where much of this energy can be found, to the coasts, where
people actually live. And it will require massive amounts of energy storage,
since solar power doesn't work well at night, and wind power is erratic.
In light of this scale, even some truly ambitious schemes
seem like a drop in the bucket. Over the past couple of weeks, T. Boone
Pickens, an oil tycoon, has been using some of his billions to run television
ads supporting his personal energy plan for the United States. Part of that plan is
his project to build what seems to be the biggest wind farm in the country. It
would nearly double the amount of wind produced in the state of Texas, the state with by far the most wind power.
But that project will only produce 4,000 megawatts of power. (Total
electricity generating capacity in the United States is about 1 million
megawatts.) And it won't be cheap. To cover transmission-line costs alone for
that and other proposed wind projects, the state of Texas plans
to spend about $5 billion.
Al Gore is right, of course, that the country needs to turn
to renewable energy. And it's frustrating how slowly the change is coming. But
as we've recently seen with biofuels and food prices,
scaling up a new source of energy can bring unanticipated consequences. Careful
planning is required. We need some realistic plans for making the switch to
renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals.
Comments
surfgrrl54 on 07/19/2008 at 12:44 PM
1
Have we forgotten that each journey begins with a single step? Are we so busy justifying our old thinking/behavior patterns we cannot envision a viable solution anymore?
To suggest that new renewable electricity generation will require huge infrastructure to transport the power from a remote location is simplistic and incorrect.
Population centers are growing in the sunbelt. Sunbelt = available solar. Vast expanses of commercial rooftops are available already ON transmission lines, within populated areas. SCE is already beginning a project of scale in this area.
To assume solar will not be a player in the future is shortsighted, to say the least.
To avoid needing huge transmission-line improvements, local, small-scale power-generation instead of centralized, large-scale generation is the solution. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.
Geothermal resources are located all over the Western States- part of the rapidly growing area-Geothermal generation plants are non-polluting and could be located very near population centers if the resource were present without creating a health hazard to residents. They also produce power 24/7.
To assume that a coal-fired plant would be located in a populated area, or a Nuclear plant, is unlikely. They, too, will be located in areas that are not likely served by transmission lines due to the health hazards associated with them. Additionally, these plants historically take many years to come online.
The idea that we shouldn't set high goals because we cannot achieve ALL of them is like suggesting we lower the standards for educational tests so all students will pass. (Oh- I think we already did that...Hmmmm. )
javs on 07/22/2008 at 12:04 AM
52
For more comments on EWPC on M.I.T. TR, please hit my 'javs' hyperlink.
RichMLM on 07/22/2008 at 1:56 AM
1
Solar is coming on strong because of advances in solar panel manufacturing technology. Nanosolar has established a factory with huge capacity in CA (1 Gwatt/year). Last I read, their production is sold out for the next 18 months. The cost for electricity generated will be competitive with coal! Regarding the 10 year time issue, other companies are HOT on their trail trying to grab THEIR share of the market.
An obvious challenge with solar-generated electricity is that the sun is not always shining. A company called Eestor in TX is coming out with a super capacitor which should help to resolve that problem. Their product has much greater storage density and a cheaper cost than traditional batteries. Eestor already has two significant contracts for their product - one with a Canadian company which produces small cars and the other for military applications.
With what's described above we have an answer for affordable solar-generated electricity and a way to save it up for gradual release.
I expect that people reading this blog are very competent to be able to search for news about Nanosolar and Eestor. I like to use the powerful Google News Alert service to keep up to date.
It's significant to me that a number of people around the World are pursuing a similar approach to creating totally clean energy, and it appears that the "state of the art" is getting close to "proof of concept". A consequence is that I expect that within 5 years we will see a totally clean energy production device that is being produced in large quantities and is scalable. That will spell the end of expensive oil. I have NO financial interest in this area, so I can be quite objective. Here's a link to one example of recent news in this type of innovation:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2898
A big challenge with this type of device is that it appears to violate the law of the conservation of energy, and that understandably causes great upset for most physicists. I suspect how that difficulty will ultimately be resolved is when the _source_ of that "extra" energy is finally understood.
As an analogy, think about the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Think about how tiny that range is, compared to the whole electromagnetic spectrum that we now understand exists. It took mankind a LONG time to understand just how much more there was beyond what we can see with our eyes. It was always there. Mankind just didn't understand it yet. THAT is how I think of the mysterious "extra energy" that appears to exist in the device described in the link above.
One beautiful thing about both energy production innovations described above is that they allow for energy independence at the home or building level. Presently, when an area electrical grid goes down hundreds of thousands of people can be impacted, sometimes for many days. If/when each house has its own electrical power generation capability that will eliminate such mass disruptions. It also makes the availability of electric power more SECURE.
What I see as a big challenge to the good news described above is mankind's reluctance to seek to understand and embrace new paradigms.
Rich Putman in MN
PS: I should note that my 1963 college major in physics is very dated. My other majors were math, Spanish, and Russian.
chadwickmeyer on 07/26/2008 at 3:50 AM
3
We would all like free energy, but the problem that people have with these claims, is not that they violate existing laws of physics (although that should be a cause for pause), it's that they are never demonstrated. There are thousands of people claiming to have produced over-unity devices, but nobody can reproduce the experiment. If it's not a hoax, it should be easy to reproduce. Until then, people are right to be skeptical. If the laws of physics need to be revised, so be it, but there must be adequate reason to do so.
Shubnell on 07/23/2008 at 8:55 AM
1
He conveniently neglects the time between now and ten years from now. Gas is over four dollars a gallon and rising. How do we get from here to there is missing in all of his comments. he just rehashes other folks ideas with no plan, just a vision, and that vision is not even his own. He is part of the Washington crowd that already produces enough hot air and wind to supply our whole country for the next hundred years.
A national or regional energy grid is a single point of failure in times of upheaval. We have all seen the deleterious effects of brownouts and blackouts on whole cities and towns. Energy at the source is the only correct independent future for any country.
True energy independence must be attacked at multiple levels.
First, usage must be moderated by manufacturers of lighting, energy miserly appliances including TVs and computers, alternative types and modes of transportation, elimination of natural gas piped to individual homes, etc. Devices should be zero usage when switched off.
Second, energy must be captured by many sources, such as fision, fusion, solar, wind, wave, coal, oil (USA produced), geothermal, etc. One size does not fit all and regional variations do matter.
Third, power must be generated at the source, such as houses and community power generation. It can be shared back, but must be capable of originating at the source.
Fourth, battery power or alternative energy storage devices must be enhanced at least tenfold to capably store energy more efficiently.
Fifth, eliminate the counterproductive governmental controls, laws, and regulations that prevent independent thinking, promote the status quo, and stifle competition. Washington has always done better for the people by offering incentives rather than taxing and legislating.
Sixth and most difficult, we must learn to conserve at all levels and think of personal alternates at home, school, and work.
Bottom line, Gore makes for a great discussion starter, but so did George Carlin
ChuckInReno on 07/23/2008 at 6:44 PM
14
I stopped reading after your second sentence gave you away.
chadwickmeyer on 07/26/2008 at 4:18 AM
3
We must do something now, with the technology we have, while we still have a strong economy (yes our economy is strong, compared to what it will be when we start running out of resources and prices triple). If we go in debt trillions of dollars to become energy independent, it will be a boon for our economy, and in the long term it will save us money, e.g. since 2001 we've spent 860 Billion on the Iraq & Afghanistan wars alone (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80), not to mention the losses this has contributed to in our economy, and more importantly the thousands of American lives it has cost, as well as upward of 100,000 Iraqi lives. We have the money to do this, and we have the technology to do it, we only lack the motivation. That's why we need good leaders, to challenge us, educate us, and mobilize us into action, for our own good.
professorrafiqulislam on 07/27/2008 at 8:42 AM
1
When someone comments: “Wind, Solar, and Geothermal all are economic and effective in small-scale applications, as well as large-scale.”
I find no word for comments.
Kelvin Bullis rightly said:"We need some realistic plans for making the switch to renewable electricity, not empty rhetoric with unachievable goals."
Everybody should know that the most eminent challenge today is that expected demand for electricity would require during the coming two decades the installation of as much power generation capacity as was installed in the entire 20th century.
Because of its abundance in the most energy-consuming countries such as China, the USA, parts of Europe & India, and Australia, coal is likely to be increasingly the main basic fuel for these plants, and its use would increasingly have to be accompanied by CO2 separation and sequestration. Despite the unresolved problems of waste storage, and to some extent safety, nuclear power plants are likely to be constructed for special needs, such as countries that have better access to uranium than to fossil fuels. The amount of uranium in the world is insufficient for massive long-term deployment of nuclear power generation, which can only change if breeder reactors are used, but that technology is not safe and mature enough and is not likely to be in the next couple of decades.
Wind power progress is remarkably successful,with a capacity increase of about 15 GW electricity in 2006, forecasted to rise to an increase of 29 GW/year by the year 2014. “Wind Force 12” is a plan to globally reach by the year 2020: 12% of global electricity demand.
Wind power generation will be deployed massively, but will be limited to regions where wind is economically available.
PV power generation will continue increasing in efficiency and decreasing in price, but being still several times more expensive than other power generation methods and for other technical reasons, it may not reach priority in the coming decade.
Under ground coal gasification may be a suitable environ-mental friendly technology for obtaining valuable products from coal. Future progress of mankind will be impossible without a substantial and continuing energy supply ‘‘Energy is essential for mankind and always will be.’’
Our preliminary research work shows capture of CO2 from various emission points like power plants and its ultimate conversion to essential chemicals may be the most important way in future for CO2 reduction and its management.
Professor Dr-Ing.Rafiqul Islam
Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences
professorrafiqulislam@yahoo.co.uk
holoman on 07/20/2008 at 12:11 PM
11
hellofu on 07/20/2008 at 3:03 PM
3
power requirments can be meet if we make every new electronic more efficient with power consumption.
aaabez on 07/21/2008 at 2:37 AM
1
Come to think of it. Did not the US meet such a challenge to upgrade and equip its armed forces during the Second World War and come out a victor?
The effect on national pride and the material damage inflicted at Pearl harbour is miniscule compared to the damage that delaying such a massive program into renewables would inflict on the US. The US has done much more for less. Many in the rest of the free world still look at the US to take the lead. There is still some truth that US policy is driven by the interests of a few - probably like in other countries. I find the US efforts in R&D for renewables is pathetic to say the least. Its attempts at implementing a renewable energy infrastructure AND find ways to reduce energy consumption (cheaper than energy production) does not correspond to one of the highest per capita demand for energy. Look towards Europe: Spain, Germany and Denmark and realize how far back the US has fallen.
retzkorn on 07/29/2008 at 10:09 PM
1
"Fortune Favors The Bold" - Aristotle
mehdi.taileb on 07/21/2008 at 4:02 AM
4
Your arguments (I'm sorry...) are quite poor and discutable:
- I don't want to over-simplify things and make quick analogies but, going from 1% of RE to 100% must be possible when you make the step "never been to the moon" -> "walked on the moon" ;
- As for the new transmission infrastructure, Al Gore DID mention the need to reengineer it, and said that anyways big parts of it needed renovation. Investment for investment let's switch to the grid of the future (a mix of HVDC grids and inter-connections of AC grids, high-voltage electricity storage, hydraulic/hydrogen production storage, smart-grid technology... all of which exist as solutions between advanced research prototypes to full-deployment).
It is true that Al Gore didn't provide specifics as to how the USA will eventually reach that target in ten years, but in the same time did JFK provide the details about how to get - technically - a man to the moon? You cannot explain large scale complex problems without disappoiting a non-specialist audience. Which is different from "empty rhetoric"...
Something else: there is no one word in this blog about the main reason behind Al Gore's challenge, which concerns us all: the climate change issue. Are you guys not convinced by its reality?
Kevin Bullis on 07/21/2008 at 9:43 AM
Nanotechnology and Materials Science Editor
39
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/
AR2008030802595.html
As for global warming, it's likely the biggest reason we need to shift to renewable electricity and do it as fast as we can.
But we should realize that reckless schemes can actually make things worse, not better.
Tim Miles on 07/21/2008 at 7:14 AM
1
Tim Miles
Bowie, MD
phoenix on 07/21/2008 at 8:52 AM
100
mkogrady on 07/21/2008 at 12:52 PM
93
Dmeadows on 07/26/2008 at 12:47 PM
1
mkogrady on 07/21/2008 at 12:47 PM
93
We all know the cost of a gallon of gas isn't what you pay at the pump - it's a lot higher. Sending our troops in to defend freedom, fight atrocities and bad deeds of mankind is a hell of a lot more noble than dying for a barrel of oil.
chadwickmeyer on 07/26/2008 at 4:50 AM
3
Yes there are real obstacles, such as: technology, cost, public support, etc. But these can be overcome if we are committed to the cause. The solution may be jury-rigged at first, it may not be the most efficient, due to inferior technology that has not reached maturity yet, but if we can get to the goal we can continue to refine our approach.
I think it's important to also consider the economic boon this will bring to our nation to accomplish a project so bold. I don't know what the costs would be, but if you compare the costs of other large undertakings, you can see that we can do it, and it can actually bring positive benefits to society.
A recent Associated Press article reports that the US has spent about $860 Billion on war since 2001:
Yet the Iraq war has consumed less of the nation's gross domestic product than other pricey conflicts. The Iraq war's costs represented 1 percent of GDP in the peak year of the war. World War II, with a $4.1 trillion price tag in 2008 dollars, was nearly 36 percent of GDP and the Vietnam War was 2.3 percent of GDP in that wars' peak years."
—http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80
It's hard to imagine that we would have to spend more than we spent on World War II, and even if we did, the boom after the war was tremendous. Also, we have to remember that much of this money is already being spent. It would not require additional debt, it's money we already invest in energy, but now we would be funneling it into domestic solutions, rather than foreign coffers. Much of the development would pay for itself, and in fact most of this development would be commercially profitable, and not require long term subsidization from the government.
robert.hargraves on 07/21/2008 at 7:32 AM
6
A single nuclear power plant can cut 2.3% of oil imports and reduce CO2 emissions equivalent to taking 3 million cars of the road. The 2011 Chevy Volt can go 40 miles on a single electric charge of 8 KWH costing $1.20. In a 24 hour day a single 1 GW nuclear power plant can charge 3 million of these electric cars. At 20 mpg conventional cars would consume 6 million gallons of gasoline per day, requiring 325,000 barrels of oil – about 5.1% of US OPEC imports.
NorthernPiker on 07/21/2008 at 10:34 AM
2
mehdi.taileb on 07/22/2008 at 4:46 AM
4
By replacing fossil energy by the nuclear one, we would just displace the problem, not solve it.
Renewable energies like wind and solar and geothermal ARE clean and thus constitute SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS.
jschantz on 07/21/2008 at 8:55 AM
1
Al Gore's appearance on MTP the the most coherent, accessible, and lucid vision for a different energy future I've seen since 9/11.
He stated the problem very clearly:
This is not a technological or financial problem, it is one of political will.
What Al Gore is doing is injecting leadership where there has only previously been feckless droning on about the obstacles. Overcoming obstacles requires leadership, not whining.
Continuing to spout the party line on how it can't be done is total BS. We should start the "Energy Moon Shot" today, tomorrow is too late. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, but quit yer complainin'!
raquinlan on 07/21/2008 at 10:11 AM
1
sethmasia on 07/21/2008 at 10:32 AM
1
Well, do the math. The US currently gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear plants and about 7% from hydro sources (granted, we buy some of that from Canada). In 2007 about 2.5% of our power came from “other” renewables — wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. To get to that level, wind and solar have been growing at about 40% annually for the past five years, so that they’ve become the new magnet for progressive investors, from the Kleiner Perkins group to T. Boone Pickens. Pickens wants to replace ALL oil imports, soon, and is putting up $100 billion for the purpose. The Google guys — we all know how naive they are — say they can make renewables cheaper than coal.
Ed Mazria at Architecture 2030 estimates we can cut about a third of our electricity requirements over the next decade with improved building codes, such as California has just adopted.
Assume for a moment that Mr. Pickens and his peers can keep renewable energy growing at 40% annually for the next decade. Why shouldn’t they? At that rate, it doubles every two years. In 2010, renewables make up 5% of our electricity mix; in 2012, 10%; in 2014, 20%; in 2016, 40%. Assume that growth of renewables slows at this point but that Mazria's efficiency improvements are valid and that we still have nukes and dams. We’re over the top in ten years.
Just stay the course, and we can shut all the coal plants down, and all the natural gas powerplants, too.
javs on 07/23/2008 at 6:14 PM
52
mehdi.taileb on 07/22/2008 at 4:56 AM
4
I don't know where you get your informations from, but if you knew the seriousness and value of a Nobel Prize, and the value of the work of the IPCC, which is Al Gore's scientific source, you wouldn't make those comments.
By the way Al Gore AND the IPCC won not just a Nobel Prize, but the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Think about it.
I will not make any comment on your statement about Al Gore's "most inefficient home in the US"...