An analysis has been made to determine if there would be enough electricity in the US by 2050 to support a carbon-free future to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Assuming that carbon capture and sequestration is not practical, a mix of nuclear and renewable energy power plants was examined.
Existing fossil power plants and nuclear plants represent 86% of the electricity that was produced in 2012. By 2050, to be carbon-free, all of these fossil plants would have to be phased out, while all present nuclear plants would have reached the end of their operating licenses. According to the analysis, if we just replaced present fossil and nuclear power plants on a one-for-one basis, over three new power plants would have to be brought on line every month for the next 432 months. The cost for replacing present capacity and allowing for a 40% increase in demand by 2050, could be as high as $5.4 trillion dollars. Besides this huge price tag there are significant infrastructure problems that will limit the rate at which new capacity can be brought on line. Infrastructure issues may end up being more constraining than financial ones.
For example, several years ago the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) calculated that it would take 100,000 large wind turbines to meet 20% of the nation’s electricity needs by 2030. The National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) has calculated that about 15,000 miles of new, extra high voltage power lines at a cost of $80 billion dollars would be necessary to connect these 100,000 wind turbines to the existing grid.
To support a carbon-free future by 2050, America needs a comprehensive, multi-step approach that ultimately achieves the following goals:
- Reduce the demand for electricity through more efficient end use devices,
- Extract more electricity from existing power plants,
- Multiply the usefulness of electricity,
- Lower the costs for new power plants, and
- Have a diverse supply of electricity.
Can a carbon-free portfolio provide all the electricity America needs? What are the biggest barriers to a carbon-free future for America?
Yes, we have many options, to meet our electricity needs. I hand out to my GWU students 29 studies which, in aggregate, show we can meet most or all of… Read more »
Dr. Sklar seems to be in full agreement with many of the points that I have made in “Will there be sufficient electricity?”, especially my three top bullets dealing with… Read more »
Two points: 1) the assumption that carbon capture will not be available is false. One of our portfolio companies has a new type of carbon capture system up and running… Read more »
In reply to Dan Miller: My exact words were “…unless a practical and timely carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) can be developed”. My article did not assume that carbon capture… Read more »
Dan: Any thoughts about the leakage issues raised in my last response? Further, do you have any figures on the percent of a plant’s energy output is consumed by the… Read more »
Herschel: Leakage rates of 1%/year are unacceptable. To qualify as sequestration, you need to demonstrate sequestration for 100 years, so there are economic incentives to find methods to sequester the… Read more »
Herschel: The opening paragraph of your post contains “Assuming that carbon capture and sequestration is not practical, a mix of nuclear and renewable energy power plants was examined.” You’re correct… Read more »
Herschel, Thank you for the report, I have not yet studied it, but a cursory review reveals some rational conclusions. Given some time I would like to offer comments. The… Read more »
There are many “energy religions” and the different advocates attack each other. Anyone can point to overstatements in the other “religious” camp from ” Too cheap to meter” to “Sufficient… Read more »
At the risk of becoming a “Johnnie One Note” … the biggest issue I have with those who question our ability to beat our fossil addiction is that a vision… Read more »
Dear Jane, Thank you for the links to other references. I look forward to reading them. California does present a good example of what can be accomplished through energy conservation.… Read more »
Hershel, I just went to the OEP library for the CA study … done in 2011 by the way … I don’t think we are on the same page. Have… Read more »
No argument with your 9/13 posting. What is clear to me is that our group of “Experts” are about dismantling the system (i. e. the grid and it’s power supply)… Read more »
Jack: Some of us are advocating for making fossil fuels pay for their external costs. Our current system of letting fossil fuels pollute for free has led to what Sir… Read more »
Dan: Let’s explore the fee and dividend concept a bit further. Based on EIA data, for 2013 the contribution of electric power, in terms of millions of metric tons of… Read more »
Herschel: The 80/20 rule probably applies to CO2, i.e., 80% of the CO2 is generated by 20% of the population. Even if it is not that skewed, it’s something like… Read more »
Dear Dan, Here are some further thoughts about the fee and dividend process you have discussed. I accept that it may be possible to redistribute the dividends more or less… Read more »
Herschel: While you are correct that the economic benefits of implementing Fee and Dividend (F&D) may lead to some increased energy use within certain populations, the overall impact will be… Read more »
Dan, I suppose there are many of us who would rely on government to manage a program as lucrative as the tax on carbon, as you seem to favor. The… Read more »
Jack: With Fee and Dividend, all the money collected (every penny) is returned to every legal resident on an equal basis, so you and Bill Gates get the same dividend… Read more »
Dan, A good response, but not very convincing. I don’t believe it would actually happen that way, no matter how the legislation is crafted. Human nature is what it is.… Read more »
Jack: So your criticism of my proposal is that a simple, transparent policy won’t actually be implemented the way it is supposed to be? Hmmm… that seems more like a… Read more »
Dear all, i draw your attention to an article in the July 16, 2014 issue of the Economist ” The benefits of low and no carbon electricity technologies” by Dr.… Read more »
The feasibility of zero net carbon electricity depends a whole lot on technology, both for cost and scalability. Latest OECD/IEA estimate are 21,000 terawatt hours generation every year worldwide, which… Read more »
Dear Paul, I don’t know what the availability of water is in Lubbock, Texas which is far from the Gulf of Mexico. However, some cautions are in order for large… Read more »
Herschel, Ivanpah has a dry cooling system for the steam turbine condensers. No reason to think it will not work as well as many others that have been in service… Read more »
Availability of water in Lubbock is not necessary to the various serious but risky possibilities for large solar farms generating electricity at 6 cents per kwh or so. Water is… Read more »
Paul, See my previous note to Herschel; conventional rankine cycle steam plants can, and do when necessary, operate reliably without use of water for a heat sink. They can use… Read more »
Hershel, Here is a webinar for you … Don’t take my word for the value to our energy economy of Distributed Resources …”Planning the Grid to Optimize Distributed Resources” https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/430089302… Read more »
Dear Jane, I look forward to reading the material you referenced. As to the article in the Economist, it may be rather challenging to some of its reviewers to accept… Read more »
Hershel, Here is the meat of Dr. Lovins critique of Dr. Franks’s article … with the opposite conclusions and why. http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_08_07_sowing_confusion_about_renewable_energy “My colleague Titiaan Palazzi reconstructed Dr. Frank’s spreadsheets, reproduced… Read more »
Herschel, Thank you for the analysis referenced with your 9/11 posting regarding the future availability of electricity (Will there be enough?). My answer is… That’s a Hellova good question. I… Read more »
Dear Jack, Re: your comment 4.5: Here is a partial response to your thoughtful addition to this important ongoing discussion. If you google OECD – “Economics of nuclear power” you… Read more »