Renewable timetable is a long shot

[GliderGuider]

Renewable timetable is a long shot

Al Gore's well-intentioned challenge that we produce "100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years" represents a widely held delusion that we can't afford to harbor.

One of the most frequently ignored energy issues is the time required to bring forth a major new fuel to the world's energy supply. Until the mid-19th century, burning wood powered the world. Then coal gradually surpassed wood into the first part of the 20th century. Oil was discovered in the 1860s, but it was a century before it surpassed coal as our largest energy fuel.

Trillions of dollars are now invested in the world's infrastructure to mine, process and deliver coal, oil and natural gas. As distinguished professor Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba recently put it, "It is delusional to think that the United States can install in a decade wind and solar generating capacity equivalent to that of thermal power plants that took nearly 60 years to construct."

Texas has three times the name plate wind capacity of any other state — 8,000-plus megawatts. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas manages the Texas electric grids. ERCOT reports that its unpredictable wind farms actually supply just a little more than 700 MW during summer power demand, and provide just 1 percent of Texas' power needs of about 72,000 MW.

ERCOT's 2015 forecast still has wind at just more than 1 percent despite plans for many more turbines.

For the United States, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting wind and solar together will supply less than 3 percent of our electric energy in 2020.

On biofuels, the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is calling for 15 billion gallons of ethanol from corn by 2022. This will require nearly 40 million prime crop acres dedicated to corn for ethanol to supply just 7 percent of our gasoline consumption.

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. One wonders how the Spanish have been so successful…

http://www.ree.es/ingles/sala_prensa/web/notas_detalle.aspx?id_nota=118

…

Demand coverage for November

Demand coverage for January to November 2009

…

[tinrobot]

2. If the motivation is there, we could easily do it in 10 years.

Sadly, it seems as though we like the status quo.

[joshcryer]

5. Combined cycle in that image is natural gas, it turns out.

There's no argument (not even from kristopher) that natural gas rollout is increasingly necessary.

[kristopher]

3. Not really.

A "challenge" is a "challenge" and that is what Gore laid out.

There is ample reason for concluding that since the technologies are ready now, and that similar scale manufacturing efforts are part of the historical record, that the only real question is timing; and that is a matter of political will. It is that political will that Gore is trying to develop. No one says that a transition will happen in 10 years, only that it COULD - a valid point that needs to be made often to be made loudly since naysayers like the Doomers continually LIE about the technical capabilities that exist and the scale of the challenge itself.

Westgard is proposing some ideas that are *controversial* as they go against the product of the best conclusions that rigorous analysis can produce. As such an outlying opinion it is incumbent upon him to support his claims and assertions of the lack of validity that he alleges.

Yet this piece has at it's heart only a couple of chat room level "facts" that seem intended to convey nothing more substantial than the impression that there is actual research behind the 1 page, off the cuff, rambling opinion. Unfortunately, what his selection actually does show is that the gent has selected data that *itself* has no validity.

For example, I and many others who work in this field have long noticed that no matter than the pace of wind growth had ranged between 25-50% per annum, the EIA continued to forecast a growth rate of 2-3% every year. The fact that Westgard doesn't know this isn't a personal failing on his part and it is a small thing, however it is a dead giveaway that he isn't at all as familiar with the topic as those he presumes to criticize.

I don't know what his real problem is with the aggressive goal that Manitoba has set for wind, in fact it really isn't clear what he is arguing for or against at all as he really seems to have no concrete policy direction at all that I can discern. Apparently he's just imitating the Republicans an their strategy of "just say no".

His mischaracterization of Gore's goals speaks for itself.

That makes this a great read for me:

EIA projects wind at 5% of U.S. electricity in 2012, all renewables at 14%, thanks to Obama stimulus! Now can we get a stronger renewable standard?
May 18, 2009

The renewables safe sources of energy that never run out are coming! And if it was braggin’ time for wind when wind power hit 1.25% of U.S. electricity generation in 2008, what’ll it be in 2012, when it hits 5%, as projected by the Energy Information Administration? Well, it’s probably time for a tougher renewable energy standard than the Senate is considering.

Significantly, the EIA, which is the DOE’s independent analytical arm, is no fan of safe sources of energy that never run out. When I was at the DOE in the mid-1990s, we uncovered a key reason there was so little wind in EIA’s modeling of federal climate action: Their original forecast had in fact shown a huge upsurge, so the EIA analysts tweaked the model to artificially suppress wind. And today, the EIA is run by my old friend, Howard Gruenspecht, who was a Bush Sr. holdover at DOE’s office of policy when I started there in 1992 and a Bush, Jr. appointee at EIA. He ain’t progressive. Obama should replace him. But I digress.

So it is all the more shocking that EIA’s remarkable, if little noted, report from last month, Updated Annual Energy Outlook 2009 Reference Case Reflecting Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Recent Changes in the Economic Outlook projected this response to the Obama stimulus package...

More at http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/18/eia-stimulus-wind-power-renewable-energy/

[TxRider]

7. His Texas data is wrong as well

He quotes 1% wind power, that was passed years ago.

We went from 2% wind energy in 2007 up to 3.6% wind energy in 2008, haven't seen figures for '09 yet.

We also generate about 50% electricity from natural gas, though about 70% of our generating capacity is natural gas. Most i believe privately owned nat gas cogen station built out by refineries and chemical plants as a strategy to ensure more stable costs for themselves.

Unfortunately wind seems to be replacing Nat gas and not coal generation in Texas energy generation, instead of replacing coal fired plant generation.

[joshcryer]

4. Having trouble finding reliable renewable projections, they're all over the board.

Interests on all sides are screwing it up. I find it astonishing that Texas' 8GW produces 700MW, though, trying to find the report for that in particular.

[TxRider]

6. Texas is finding it harder than we thought

As we slammed up huge windmills as fast as possible, we outran the grid capacity and are having issues keeping the grid up with the power capacity, and we aren't getting the reliability of wind and capability to transport we thought we would.

In other words, this will take longer than we thought.

The biggest issue seems to be building grid capacity out to rural and remote geographically spread areas.

You have issues from rights of way, to funding, to construction, to qualified work force demands to deal with.

The following page is a little old, but applicable.

"The greatest challenge facing the wind industry is that wind farms can be built more quickly than transmission lines. It can take a year to build a wind farm, but five to build the transmission lines needed to send power to cities."

"In October 2006, Texas Governor Rick Perry announced commitments of $10 billion from private companies to increase wind generating capacity in the state by 7,000 megawatts, contingent on the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) approving construction of additional transmission capacity to windy areas of the state. In July 2007, the PUC announced its approval for additional transmission lines that could deliver 10,000 more megawatts of renewable power by 2012. New transmission infrastructure will allow all Texans to access the the state's vast wind resources."

http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/re_wind-transmission.htm

[Terry in Austin]

8. It COULD happen!

The theoretical capability is there, true enough.

Of course, the only interesting thing about it is to what extent it will be put into practice. The prediction business is all about probablities, and I agree that the odds are long -- it seems extremely unlikely that we'll ever generate current levels of electricity using solar and wind (even adding nuclear to the mix, for that matter).

A project on that scale and in that time frame, though not quite delusional, would certainly be profoundly radical.

Now, the technofans and hooray-sayers point to existing technical capability and take it to mean we'll actually have such an infrastructure in the future. It can be done, and therefore it will be done, the reasoning goes -- it's "just" a matter of political will.

Whoa! I'd say that if it's dependent on political will, the odds just went ballistic -- for a project that radical, you might as well say "ain't gonna happen!"

[TxRider]

9. I believe it'll happen

But in 10 years?

Not possible in my opinion.

The issues to overcome are too large.

We can generate enough solar for the whole country just from Nevada alone. Getting it from Nevada to the whole country is another matter.

We can generate enough wind in certain locales as well, again getting it to where it needs to go is the issue.

And the topper is, there will be days when neither will supply the required power due to weather conditions, and we need yet other alternatives with enough capability to take up the slack in those times. Hydro and geothermal etc. might not be up to the task for several reasons.

It's a project the scope and scale of building out the interstate highway system. The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which was completed in 1992, 36 years later. Estimated originally to cost 25 billion over 12 years, but costing 114 billion over 36 years by completion by most estimates.