In 2015, Mark Z. Jacobson released a report claiming via modeling that 100% of the energy – not just the electricity – needed by the U.S. could be reliably provided at a reasonably low cost by a mixture of wind, water and solar energy. Jacobson’s paper, Low-Cost Solution to the Grid Reliability Problem with 100% Penetration of Intermittent Wind, Water, and Solar for All Purposes, was recently challenged when the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a paper titled Evaluation of A Proposal for Reliable Low-Cost Grid Power with 100% Wind, Water, and Solar. The new paper, developed by Christopher Clack and a team of 20 co-authors, discovered “errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions” in the modeling and findings of the Jacobson paper, contradicting the conclusions of the “100% renewables” paper.
One example of the implausible assumptions from Jacobson’s model is the claim that their hypothetical system does not require any new reservoir or dam construction for hydropower. Clack and his co-authors found that there are times in which Jacobson’s modeled system shows a total hydroelectric contribution of 1,300 GW. According to the Energy Information Administration, the total hydroelectric capacity in the U.S. is 80 GW.
Jacobson’s proposal also opposes any contributions by nuclear energy, even that which is already being cleanly produced by existing facilities. Nuclear energy remains the only emission free power source that has proven it can power a country and other energy-intensive, off-grid loads. Clack confirmed that it would not be “theoretically possible” to build a reliable energy system without nuclear energy.
Though Jacobson’s work has received numerous challenges, he has defended his findings, pointing to the fact that his work was published in a “peer-reviewed journal” while that of many challengers has not always been subjected to that process. Without a formal, peer-reviewed challenge from a source with equivalent credentials, Jacobson’s work has been allowed to stand as a reasonably valid alternative approach to addressing future energy supply needs. That is why it is newsworthy to note that there is now a difficult-to-dismiss evaluation of Jacobson’s work showing that his “100% renewables” solution isn’t credible. It cannot be claimed as an achievable goal, no matter how much “will” there is to accomplish it.
The debate for or against 100% renewables needs to end. Regardless of whether it is possible to power the US (or another country) with 100% renewable power, which it will be eventually if we chose to due to technological advances, it is a pointless discussion. We are solving for the wrong problem. The goal shouldn’t be a specific suite of technologies, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the impacts of climate change. Period. If the answer to that is renewables, great. If it is nuclear power, fantastic. If it is CCUS on gas and coal plants, that is just fine with me. But if we exclude any available option in the fight against climate change we are just hampering ourselves. This would be like trying to climb Mount Everest with one arm tied behind your back. Yeah, you might be able to do it, but I’d sure want that other arm to arrest a fall. In closing, we need to focus on the real issue, which is how do we solve climate change, and get to 0 emissions as soon as possible.
@Greg Gershuny
Sounds like you come down firmly on the side of not eliminating options.
That is the point of those who have taken the time to dig into Jacobson’s modeling exercise to point out the numerous “implausible” assumptions it relies upon to justify his conclusion that a mixture of “wind, water and solar” is all we need.
I agree that arguing about such an obvious fact is distracting, but Jacobson and his co-authors have been far too influential among those who are less interested in the final destination of “decarbonization” than in choosing a technological path that eliminates competitors.
All these papers proposing “solutions” are fantasy land exercises. In the real world, we do not have a “renewable energy czar” who can order corporations, states and consumers to match their behavior to a model based on heroic assumptions. And the dismal history of central planning, from the New Deal (NRA) to communist countries, suggests such an effort would be impossible to implement.
However, the “best is the enemy of the good.” One of my frustrations working with many environmental groups is they are focused on the perfect solution, and propose BANANA policies. Though this stance may be fruitful in terms of fund raising, environmental groups consistently lose the political battles. They support these sort of studies because as idealists, they want an environmental utopia, and a paper that suggests 100% renewables are feasible and will not impose serious costs (if they’re so cheap, how come green companies are constantly begging for more subsidies?) supports that vision.
The real question is what short-term and long-term measures, which are politically and economically feasible, should be implemented. The truth is we’re going to “muddle through,” the same way all complex policy issues are addressed, with sub-optimal (from a theoretical standpoint) measures and less than desired results. And this requires compromise, deciding which tradeoffs one is willing to accept to keep moving forward.
The point is that the naive socialist thinking embodied in global solution papers distracts from analyzing concrete measures that can lead to improvements today and tomorrow (like supporting more research and development, with the emphasis on research). Fracking, gas pipelines and LNG export facilities are not desirable solutions, but if they reserve the worldwide growth in coal burning capacity, they are a short-term improvement over the status quo. How do you balance that with long-term reduction in fossil fuel consumption? If you can’t achieve every goal, shouldn’t you prioritize among goals, energy efficiency first, eliminating coal fired generation second, promoting renewables third. And if command and control isn’t politically feasible, can a fiscal deal be negotiated with carbon taxes financing corporate tax cuts? How can we achieve the most carbon reduction at the least cost without generating the kind of political backlash that is currently hindering progress?
It’s far more enjoyable to fantasize about the perfect future than to do the hard and dirty work to bring about actual progress. Visionaries may point the way, but good policy studies should focus on real world solutions that can be implemented. So the question isn’t whether some model is inherently self-consistent, but whether it has any correspondence with the real world.
@Steve Isser
My question is similar to yours, if renewable energy sources are so capable, why do their advocates spend so much time emphasizing the importance of energy efficiency and conservation?
Why are there so many people who assume that energy is so precious that it must be conserved to the point of avoiding useful or fun activities?
Why do you think that those who favor the idea of carbon taxes would automatically be in favor of spending the revenue on reducing corporate taxes instead of using it as a way to compensate atmosphere owners for the use of their property as a place to dispose of combustion waste products?
If you want to focus on solutions that can be implemented and have proven that they can eliminate major portions of fossil fuel consumption and CO2 production, look toward the countries or regions with the lowest per capita production of CO2 (France, Sweden, Norway, Ontario) and copy the actions they took to achieve their outstanding results.
Don’t confuse efficiency with conservation. Efficiency simply means generating the same outputs with less inputs, LEDs are a good example, not only do they produce light with less energy per lumen, but as the technology improves, they are capable of producing “better” (more flexible) light. Cars have become more efficient while providing a higher level of safety, handling and acceleration. Appliance standards have improved energy consumption while shifting competition from marketing to technology, benefiting consumers. However, there are some limits to energy efficiency embodied in thermodynamics.
The reason to use some funds from a carbon tax to reduce corporate taxes is both political, building a strong coalition, and economic, taxing an externality to reduce a distortion. The bulk of funds from a carbon tax could be used to fund efficiency and R&D, similar to what is being done with RGGI.
Low per capita CO2 may be due to policies, but it’s also due to historical circumstance, countries with large hydroelectric resources (but there’s an environmental price to be paid, see China) can reduce carbon, while countries with large geographical footprints will struggle due to the difficulty of reducing energy consumption in transportation (mass transit requires high population densities to be cost effective). One size can’t fit all.
And path dependence present barriers to rapid change, modern industrial societies have been shaped by culture, technology and geography for two centuries, they are not going to “turn on a dime” and rebuild their entire housing, manufacturing, transportation and services infrastructure overnight.
Which is why I write from the perspective of economic history, if you don’t know how we got to where we are today, you’re unlikely to have a good sense of how to get to where you want to be tomorrow.
Renewable energy and technology are constantly changing. The application of renewables needs to be integrated with current utility infrastructure. We are slowly ramping up this integration and one day will be able to provide all energy through renewables. Policy makers need to keep in mind the end goal and create a structure to achieve that. The various reports and perspectives can be biased. Shifting through that data is their job. Setting a policy with a long term goal allows for the market, technology, and industry to reach the targets. In short set a goal and work towards it. #100%renewables
Mike:
How do you define “renewables?” Why is your goal “100% renewables” instead of 100% clean energy that is abundant, reliable and affordable?
Sure, technology changes and improves. The rate at which that happens in systems that are primarily large physical collectors made of well developed materials and technologies is quite a bit slower than the rate at which electronics or software can evolve.
No matter how perfect a collection system is, it cannot provide electricity if the weather-dependent driving force is missing. Until humans control the weather – IOW never – wind, solar and water power will always be uncontrollable.
A system that limits its options to those three power sources will only occasionally pass through the desired condition of producing just the right amount of power. At all other times, it will be producing either too much or too little from an infrastructure that is grossly oversized to meet the normal variations in power demand.
Well, the most useful comment was that the current battle in the science journals is “solving for the wrong problem.” And for policy makers, on an almost pointless time scale. Clack, for example, published an important peer reviewed paper showing how, by 2030, the lowest cost US electricity mix would reduce carbon emissions by 80%, rely on renewables for 63% of our power, gas for 21% and nuclear for 16%. That is a far more ambitious scale-up of nuclear than any American state has committed to. Clack and Jacobson disagree about what can happen between 2030 and 2055 — which is good for science as a debate, but irrelevant for public policy which doesn’t need to know those answers yet. There are two real policy relevant differences between Clack and Jacobson. One, Clack would keep existing nuclear plant operating, Jacobson wouldn’t. And I assume Clack would favor far heavier investment in dramatically new nuclear technologies than Jacobson. Jacobson’s objection to keeping existing plants going is safety — that needs to be resolved, and plants not operated past their “pull” date — this will have climate implications, but shouldn’t be decided on the basis of those implications. And Jacobson believes (as do I) that it is unlikely that new nuclear fuel cycles, when developed, will be able to compete economically with what will be further advances and much cheaper wind, solar and storage — so we’re not counting on thorium or other advanced fuel cycles. But I, at least, would still favor enhanced federal investment in all new energy pathways — unlike the Trump Administration. And those who are arguing that Jacobson is trying to push wind and solar past their actual potential should be dramatically outraged at the recent efforts by the Department of Energy to force utilities to purchase more expensive coal power instead of renewables on the bogus, it turns out, basis that they will destabilize the grid — an argument most elegantly disposed of not by Jacobson himself but by Clack in his paper! The two sides of this argument are really, in practical terms, on the same side — with the opposition being Trump and, in his new avatar, Energy Secretary Perry.
Economies are much more like swimming or track meets than football or soccer games. There are far more than two sides, there are a variety of different events in progress at the same time, and there are various measuring systems (stopwatches, tape measures, etc.) being used to determine the winners who are in first place, second place and even 43rd place.
I do not agree with either Jacobson or Clack. They are both scientists who develop mathematically based computer models whose outputs are solely dependent on the validity of the assumptions and predictions used as input and the algorithms that they have developed to simulate various system responses.
The main reason that I applaud Clack et al’s recent paper is that they took the time to dig through Jacobson’s model to identify that it contained numerous “errors, inappropriate methods, and implausible assumptions.”
As just one of many specific examples, the balancing function of Jacobson’s model often required U.S. hydroelectric power production to reach and maintain a level of 1300 GWs for as many as 14 hours at a time. The US EIA says that the total hydro capacity in the U.S. is 80 GW. Jacobson claimed that his future system did not require the construction of any new dams or reservoirs.
When this inconsistency was identified to Professor Jacobson, he defended his model by claiming that he assumed that additional turbines could be added to existing hydro facilities to increase their power capacity. He ignored the effect on the downstream side of dams by increasing water flow by a factor of more than 13, the modifications that would be required to route water to the turbines, the other functions that hydro dams perform, and the seasonal nature of the water cycle that refills the reservoirs.
Another specific example is that Clack et al discovered that Jacobson’s model assumes away the need for a system to move electricity from one place to another by simulating that all power was generated at a single point and that all demand was also concentrated at that point. Using the English language that I was taught in school, that assumption isn’t “implausible” it is impossible. (Clack et al were being gentle in their criticism.)
Jacobson’s model is also offensive to me as a nuclear energy professional because he gives wind, solar, water and energy storage great credit for their ability to improve and adapt, but he assumes that nuclear innovators are bound up by the choices made by their grandfathers.
He apparently doesn’t know Jose Reyes, Jacob DeWitt, David LeBlanc, Chris Uhlick, Kirk Sorenson, Rachel Slaybaugh, Per Peterson, Kam Ghaffarian and hundreds of other very smart and dedicated people who are working to develop new right sized reactors for many different energy applications in electricity, industrial process heat, district heat and transportation.
That should have been “scale of of renewables” not “scale up of nuclear.” Now sure how to edit it even as the author.
Carl:
In partial answer to your question, I see a “click to edit” link right next to a “delete” link at the bottom of each post that I have submitted.
Even your correction may not be exactly what you wanted to say. My guess is that “scale up of renewables” is correct, not “scale of of renewables.” 🙂
I agree with Greg Gershuny. Our most important goal is to limit the releases of GHG, preferably at a cost most people can afford. I would add a few more thoughts (1) Whatever scenario one prefers should include an estimate of the cost to implement this scenario. After a number of such preferred scenarios have been analyzed, I believe it would become clear that that carbon taxes would be a good first step, but quite insufficient. How much money can one extract from the fossil fuel industry before it went bankrupt? Or, more likely, does the carbon taxes the fossil fuel industry would have to pay just get passed on to the consumer anyway, like a gasoline tax? Is using the fossil fueled industry to collect carbon taxes the orderly, optimum way to pay for a clean energy future? How do we plan to pay for our clean future, especially since we haven’t really priced it out. (2) Perhaps the payment method, as difficult as it is, is of secondary importance. Since the economic and ecological damage of climate change is almost immeasurably large, perhaps a restatement of Mr. Gershuny’s goal should be “What combination of energy actions and systems reduces the release of GHG most rapidly? After all, once you have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it will remain there for a very log time period. This revised goal immediately brings into question the limited usefulness of cost comparisons between different energy systems, like renewable vs. nuclear. If renewable is called system A and nuclear system B, then A+B reduces GHG more rapidly than A or B alone. There are physical, financial, and industrial limits as to how rapidly A or B can be installed. Since both A and B have different manufacturing and installation processes, A+B should reduce GHG more rapidly than A or B alone. (3) We have been taken in by extreme future studies like all A or all B. With the visible effects of climate change already upon us, the A versus B arguments is a “Fist fight in front of a forest fire”. Studies that I have conducted show that there are a number of symbiotic benefits to A+B arrangements. Further, these A+B arrangements yield benefits that neither A nor B can achieve alone. Renewable energy can be enhanced by nuclear energy and vice-versa. Centralized sources of electricity can enhance the use of decentralized energy and vice-versa. Nuclear energy can enhance the use of renewable energy, and vice- versa. A+B is truly the ” Road not taken” and we are paying for it, with too much GHG being released, with “duck curve” situations in California, with a dysfunctional market system that leads to premature shutdown of carbon -free nuclear plants, etc. Again: ” A fist fight in front of a forest fire”.
I agree that the real question is how do we eliminate fossil fuel emissions ASAP, not how do we move to 100% renewables.
But showing that we can move to 100% renewables is a useful exercise because it shows we do not need to keep building new fossil fuel infrastructure and keep exploring for new fossil fuel reserves that we cannot possibly burn.
And, of course, we could move to a 100% renewable future is we wanted or needed to. The base “requirement” that we do so at the same or lower “cost” as fossil fuels is not valid. Fossil fuels are the most expensive form of energy when all costs (direct and external) are included, yet we continue to use fossil fuels! So, if we needed to match battery storage with every solar panel and wind turbine, we could do it, though it would raise the price of energy. Of course, we don’t need to match storage with every kWh of renewable energy so even if Jacobson is wrong about some of his assumptions, the cost of renewables with some extra storage added would still be far less than the direct plus external costs of fossil fuels.
The best way to get the ball rolling on reducing emissions is to put a rising fee/tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels and distributing all the money collected to every legal resident on an equal basis (plus put a border duty on products coming from countries without their own carbon fee). A carbon tax on its own is regressive in that it takes a bigger bite out of lower incomes than higher income. Using a carbon tax to offset corporate taxes is the most regressive policy imaginable. But giving the collected fees back to every legal resident is anti-regressive and also allows the fee to eventually rise high enough ($100+/ton-CO2) to really make a dent in emissions.
Our delay in addressing the problem of fossil fuel emissions has already committed us to meters of sea level rise and many other very expensive impacts. Since CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for a very long time and there is already too much of it there, time is of the essence in implementing strong policies to eliminate fossil fuel emissions.
Dan:
I’m a strong supporter of the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and its carbon fee and dividend approach. It is essentially the same concept as one that Dr. Jame Hansen began writing about 7-8 years ago and still pushes for today.
It is a system that recognizes the value of all ways to reduce CO2 emissions while not choking off valuable economic activity that is currently only possible because of our incredibly rich stored energy resource in the form of hydrocarbons. It gives everyone from individuals to large corporations an incentive to pay attention to the fact that waste disposal is a cost of doing business; treating our common atmosphere as a free reservoir skews decision making.
My goal in reducing our abject dependence on fossil fuels is not to enter a period of energy austerity or to build up the sales of a limited selection of politically popular and heavily marketed “renewables.” It is to continue providing for a vibrant economy that gives people freedom of movement, abundant living spaces, minimal effects on the environment and other people, and a sustainable source of power for our descendants to live as well or better than we do.
I’m quite certain that nuclear energy has been the victim of a purposeful smear and fear campaign for the past 7 decades and that a major portion of that campaign has been aimed at keeping fossil fuels on top by hamstringing the only competitor for energy market share that has higher reliability, higher energy density, higher resource availability and less waste production.
Rod: Fee and Dividend is not only supported by CCL and Jim Hansen, but recently Republican statesmen like Howard Baker and companies like Exxon(!) have also gotten on board (though they call the policy a Carbon Dividends Plan… but it is the same structure).
Giving all the money back to the public means we can get a high carbon fee ($100+/ton) and that’s important. If the policy provides for a credit for sequestering CO2 in a certified manner (as it should), then many companies would figure out how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere for less than $100/ton and carbon removal will become once of the biggest industries on Earth. And we need it to be!
While “cheap” fossil fuels has driven our economy forward, it turns out it was more like we were spending money on a credit card and the bill is coming due (our children will be paying off most of it).
While I agree that nuclear has a bad reputation, I’m not sure it as a purposeful smear campaign. The fact that The China Syndrome came out right before Three Mile Island and then there was Chernobyl and then Fukushima, means the public (with the help of the media) would be scared of nuclear.
Dan:
Thank you for the additional information about support for carbon fee and dividend.
Perhaps using fossil fuels has been a bit like spending money on a credit card, but take a few moments to think about the counterfactual world where humans never learned how to put heat energy from fossil fuel combustion to work for them.
Ted Turner once said something like “I knew I was wealthy when I owed my first billion.” Building value by going into debt is not such a bad idea. I personally helped to create a rather successful little family by being willing to spend money I had not yet earned while we were raising children.
With regard to the exquisite timing of having a well-produced and lavishly funded movie about risks involved in nuclear energy released just weeks before a real event that mimicked one of the sequences in the movie, let’s just say I am skeptical of coincidences. Here is a link to a post I wrote as part of a series on TMI.
https://atomicinsights.com/sabotage-started-tmi-part-2/
That post includes links to the rest of the articles in the series if you are interested. The comment threads are interesting as well. Feel free to dismiss me as a mere “conspiracy theorist,” but also recognize the enormous financial motives associated with demonizing nuclear to maintain hydrocarbon dominance.
Rod: Perhaps a credit card is not the right analogy. The use of fossil fuels may well lead to the collapse of civilization in the coming century, so while fossil fuels certainly led to a 20th century boom in economic growth, industrialization, population growth, etc., in hindsight, the love affair with fossil fuels was probably not a good idea.
I think your counterfactual world would be quite a nice place. There would be a far lower population and a far-lower human impact on the natural world. It would be a different and slower way of life, but it still could be a quite satisfying and fulfilling life. As an analogy, while many people cannot imagine living without a smartphone today, we did quite fine without them just 10 years ago. In this counterfactual world, nuclear energy and renewables would eventually be discovered and we would be excited about technological advances like we are today.
Dan – (This is actually to you, but it looks like there is a limit on the depth of replies tracked by OurEnergyPolicy.org system.)
You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the importance and value of humans on Earth. I’ll admit to a Christian upbringing that instilled a biases point of view about the main purpose of Earth and the natural world. Humans are not just a part of nature, they are the reason that nature exists.
Evolutionarily speaking, we are the only species that has evolved enough to plan, philosophize and communicate complex ideas widely.
A world without fossil fuels certainly had fewer people, but it also had far more famine related starvation, a generally well-accepted (by the elites) system of serfdom or outright slavery, and an even greater imbalance of wealth distribution than we have today.
Kings lived like kings, but all others lived a pretty mean and short-lived existence. Perhaps I am a bit more aware of this history that some others who live in the elite world of prosperous North America. Not only have I traveled and occasionally lived “off the grid” on sailboats and on hiking trips, but I also had parents who were children during the Depression in families who lived in residences with no electricity or running water.
They might have been toughened by the lack of technology, but I am certain that I and my children have lives that are more fulfilling and abundant.
Sure, we did fine without smartphones, big flat screen TVs, and cars with GPS navigation and accident avoidance features.
That doesn’t mean I have any desire to give up those advances. I love being able to look up local history, find backroads, and locate restaurants that are local favorites. Go back to the wilderness or Walden Pond if you like, but please do not force others to join you.
Rod: We certainly may have a different opinion on human’s place in the world, but that is not relevant to our discussion. You proffered a counterfactual world. There is no reason that we could not have advanced in a different way if fossil fuels were not discovered. After all, the first automobiles were electric vehicles! We could have developed more wind power (that’s 1000 year old technology) as well as hydro, etc.
In a more up-to-date counterfactual world, we could have implemented a price on carbon in the late 1980’s when it was first widely reported that fossil fuels were going to cause big problems (this was first publicly discussed in the 1950’s). If so, we would have a strong economy today and great technology, but without a looming climate crisis.
Just a comment on your statement that “A world without fossil fuels certainly had fewer people, but it also had far more famine related starvation…”
According to the UN, there were 795 million people living in hunger in 2014. That’s more than the entire population of the world in 1700, so I don’t think there was more famine in the world before fossil fuels. And on the climate path were are quickly heading, due in large part to our exponential growth in population, there will be significantly more famine in the future.
@Dan Miller
You are correct; on the basis of the total number of people suffering from hunger to the point of dying from it, there are more in the modern world than in the pre-fossil fuel world.
It was the portion of the population that I was referring to. Though politics and corruption get in the way, there is no physical reason for widespread starvation today. We have no overall shortage of food and no seasonal variations that occasionally empty storage facilities. We can efficiently move food in vast quantities and we can preserve it along the way.
Your mention of automobiles powered by batteries starts a little late in technology development history. Without coal, there was no steel industry. Before fossil fuels, metals were weak and somewhat precious. Glass was also rare and required burning a lot of wood. Wind technology certainly existed and was well refined in certain applications (like Clipper ships), but it was just as unreliable as a motive force as it is today.
Rod: We can’t change the past but we can impact the future. Since we agree that famine and injustice are bad things that should be avoided, then it is clear that we should be rapidly phasing out fossil fuels… no matter what role they played in getting us to where we are today.
It is clear that business as usual will lead us to a +2ºC world around mid-century and a +4ºC world later this century and more after that. While few people like to talk about — let alone think about — what these temperatures mean, here is a summary from the book Six Degrees by Mark Lynas (I’m skipping to +4ºC and higher):
On a quite related topic, James Hansen, et al, has published a paper titled Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions
Summary: http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2017/20170718_BurdenCommunication.pdf
Paper: https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf
The bottom line is that without dramatic emissions reductions starting now (actually, 2013), we will need negative emissions (i.e., direct air capture of atmospheric CO2) to maintain a livable climate for our children and the cost of those negative emissions will fall on our children.
Research on energy policy is plagued by deficiencies in the design and management of the studies leading to creation at great expense of models that leave a regulatory agency without the information that is required for it to regulate the physical system that this agency claims to be able to regulate. Cases in point are: a) Earth’s climate system and the Environmental Protection Agency b) flawed, safety-critical structural systems and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In neither case can the regulatory agency regulate the physical system that it claims to regulate because the model of this system provides the agency with no information. The government is doing a completely inept job of overseeing the design and management of the policy research in these two areas and possibly others.
Getting back to the topic of the original post, I’d just like to mention that an excellent paper that examined a host of 100% renewables scenarios is available here.
A number of commenters both here and elsewhere often refer to “storage” as if utility-scale storage actually exists as an option. Aside from the very limited cases where pumped storage is possible (albeit rarely economical), such storage isn’t an option. And in contemplating “more batteries” one might rhetorically ask just how many batteries it would take to run an aluminum smelter. It seems that those contemplating battery-supplied storage of any meaningful size have very little concept of just how much energy is required to power modern civilizations.
Most of the all-renewables scenarios assume a world that uses less energy. Given the billions who live in relative energy poverty today, such an assumption flies in the face of anything even remotely resembling social justice. Developing countries want to develop, as the nomenclature suggests (“Third world” being politically incorrect for some time now, I think “developing countries” may be a way to pretend that many poverty-stricken countries are moving ahead when the facts would seem to prove otherwise.). Electricity consumption and standard of living track virtually identically, so if energy egalitarianism is a worthwhile goal we can expect a vast increase in near-future electricity demand. Not only will electrified transportation require far more juice, but desalinating water for a couple billion more people (and moving it to where it’s needed) will require a tremendous amount of energy.
There will be very little social justice in a +4ºC world. There is no reason that developing countries could not progress using distributed renewables just like they progressed with cell phones instead of land lines. Renewables are cheaper too. Developing countries need electricity, they don’t need fossil fuels.
Why would an aluminum plant need batteries? Size the plant a bit bigger and scale production depending on the price of power (which would always be available, but would cost more at certain times).
Unfortunately, the status quo of continuing the use of fossil fuels while enjoying a stable climate is not one of the options available to us anymore.
Tom Blees’s comment is excellent. A few insights about energy storage. I agree that there are very few opportunities to use pumped storage. Compressed air, if it is limited to using large underground caverns that won’t leak, also seems to be limited. Perhaps other forms of compressed air energy storage may become economical, but I am unaware of such storage devices. This generally leaves batteries and thermal energy storage. Batteries are superior to thermal energy storage because their energy density is higher ( kw-hrs/cubic liter). Therefore batteries are the better choice for electric cars than thermal energy storage because one can not put a very bulky storage system on a vehicle. Batteries are also the better choice than thermal energy storage where rapid response times are needed, such as in grid voltage control. However, thermal energy storage has a much lower cost ($/kw-hr) than batteries, perhaps by a factor of 10 or more. This make thermal energy storage the better choice for the large electrical loads of stationary applications like electrified space heating, air conditioning using ice, and storing hot water where price, not space, is the most important characteristic. Even small stationary loads may be uneconomical for batteries as suggested by TESLA’s withdrawal of the PowrWall from the market. We will need both batteries and thermal energy storage to achieve a low carbon future.
I predict that over time combinations of renewable energy and energy storage will favor thermal energy storage.
@Hershel Specter
I’m a former cost accountant. I become highly skeptical when anyone begins discussing costs of systems that do not exist on anything like the scale under discussion.
I’m also skeptical of any discussion of “thermal energy storage” as a way to meaningfully contribute to matching electricity supply to electricity demand. Thermodynamics shows the close relationship between temperature of the heat supply and the efficiency of a heat engine that converts thermal energy into motion. initial temperature of the heat source. If there is no continuing source of heat and the reservoir is dependent on stored thermal energy, the reservoir temperature will begin falling as soon as stored energy begins to be removed.
That means the efficiency of the system will continuously fall during the “discharge” period. As efficiency falls, costs per unit output increase. When a steam system is involved, many other detrimental system effects begin to occur as system temperatures fall.
There are ways to directly convert heat into electricity but even the best ones demonstrated at a laboratory scale have conversion efficiencies in the 20-30% range. Most of the reliable, well-tested systems that have been deployed at at reasonable scale have conversion efficiencies in the sub-10% range.
Rod Adams asks how should lawmakers consider the results of each of the studies when setting future energy policy and determining what approach to take to renewable energy polices.
The Jacobson et al paper argues there is great potential for renewable energy to cost-effectively supply all US electric power and overall energy requirements, and the Clack et al paper points out the deficiencies/inaccuracies in the Jacobson model and argues for a more realistic approach incorporating a portfolio of energy sources. The Clack et al critique of the Jacobson model is likely correct, but there is no denying that it is important to use renewable energy as much as possible to replace existing fossil fuel sources to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I believe the most effective next step for policymakers is to first focus on the electric power sector and determine the best approach to replace existing coal-fired power plants (the largest source of CO2 emissions) and to consider next-generation nuclear power to replace aging nuclear power plants.
As I’ve discussed previously on OurEnergyPolicy.org, the best approach would be for the federal government to first mandate that the electric power industry do a study, possibly managed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), to examine the feasibility and costs of replacing all coal-fired power plants with renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) supplemented with storage technologies and natural gas as necessary because of the intermittent nature of solar/wind power. Such a study would clearly show the costs for the nation to phase out coal-fired power plants and achieve a clean, reliable electric power infrastructure that would be acceptable to the electric utilities. The study should include the consideration of the deployment of a national, high-capacity smart grid to effectively manage distributed and centralized solar/wind power sources, optimize electric power consumption by end users, and enable integration with electric vehicles for electricity storage.
I believe the best way to proceed on evaluating whether to proceed with new nuclear power plants in the United States is to establish a major pilot project with standardized new technology that is fully assessed by a panel of objective, trusted experts. Otherwise nuclear industry proponents and public policymakers will continue to argue back and forth about the issues without making any progress, and the general public will continue to be mistrusting and fearful of new nuclear plants being built. The nuclear industry should decide on the best reactor technology it proposes to standardize in the United States and test in the pilot project. The panel should carefully assess the capital costs of building the nuclear power plant, the operating costs of the plant, the total cost to consumers per kWh of electricity delivered, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the life cycle of the plant, the nuclear waste storage requirements, and the general safety of the plant. The results and comparison to alternative sources of electric power should be clearly communicated to policymakers and the general public.
Properly understanding how to replace coal-fired power plants with renewable energy and the viability of next-generation nuclear power are key steps to moving the US to a clean-energy future. The U.S. federal government should be focused on moving in this direction, but unfortunately the Trump administration is denying the importance of addressing the global warming problem so they are not going to be the ones to take such necessary initiatives.