What do the National Academies of Science and Engineering say about our energy future?

[kristopher]

Pegging current US consumption at 4,000TWH the NAS&E authors tell us that deploying existing energy efficiency technologies is our "nearest-term and lowest-cost option for moderating our nation’s demand for energy", and that accelerated "deployment of these technologies in the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors could reduce energy use by about 15 percent (15–17 quads, that is, quadrillions of British thermal units) in 2020, relative to the EIA’s “business as usual” reference case projection, and by about 30 percent (32–35 quads) in 2030 (U.S. energy consumption in 2007 was about 100 quads)."

They state that more aggressive policies and incentives would produce more results and that most of the "energy efficiency technologies are cost-effective now and are likely to continue to be competitive with any future energy-supply options; moreover, additional energy efficiency technologies continue to emerge."

The authors offer that renewable energy sources "could provide about an additional 500 TWh (500 trillion kilowatt-hours) of electricity per year by 2020 and about an additional 1100 TWh per year by 2035 through new deployments."

They are less optimistic about increased contributions from nuclear plants writing that they might provide an additional 160 TWh of electricity per year by 2020, and up to 850 TWh by 2035, by modifying current plants to increase their power output and by constructing new plants." However they are very specific with warnings that nuclear powers economics for Gen3 plants are significantly worse than predicted by the 2003 MIT nuclear study. They further opine that failure to prove the economic viability of at least 5 merchant plants by 2020 (it used to be 2010) would probably rule out nuclear as a viable option going forward.

Since the report was penned we have seen a complete collapse of the very idea that US merchant reactors are even possible and the likelihood is that few, if any, new plants will actually be built. If any ARE built it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate the economic viability that is called for in the Report. This means that if their caveat about proof of concept is accurate, new nuclear is unlikely to play any significant role in carbon reduction in the US.

And now we have Fukushima as a new barometer of costs to add to the benefit/cost ledger.



http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library /

You are invited to download the study.

Electricity from Renewable Sources Status, Prospects, and Impediments
This report from the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering explores the potential for and barriers to developing wind, solar, geothermal, and biopower technologies for electric power generation. It concludes that with an accelerated deployment effort, non-hydropower renewable sources could provide 10 percent or more of the nation’s electricity by 2020 and 20 percentor more by 2035. However, for these sources to supply more than 50 percent of America’s electricity, new scientific advances and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity are needed.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/library /


My 2 cents:
Proponents of nuclear power claim its contribution is central to our ability to respond to climate change. That simply isn't true. Nuclear is at the most a minor contributor, and at worst, it actually impedes the effort by diverting funds from more efficacious solutions.


Spread the Cure
1
V

[Newest Reality]

1. Those long-term predictions

about alternative energy are ridiculously low.

This indicate, to me, a will to support current profit-driven industries, not a sincere effort to make a complete transition. This transition is not optional, it is necessary, especially when we are rapidly reaching a plateau of Peak Everything.

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in a pamphlet for the U.S. Department of Energy on eight myths about solar energy, they made it clear that with 100 miles x 100 miles of solar panels in the Southwest, (or an accrued surface of that size) would provide all of our electricity needs.

"Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to
a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to
generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial
systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply
the United States with all of its electricity."

So, that may seem like a large amount of area, we have tackled large projects before, (look at the early railways and our current system of roadways). We should be getting started as of now. Instead, we see numbers that indicate no will to accomplish this. The fuel suppliers wouldn't like it.

Imagine cleaner air, far less impact on the environment and affordable electricity, (and all of its byproducts) for us. We could probably do it in five to ten years or so. Ah, but what about all those decommissioned power plants in the aftermath? Profits are at stake.

[kristopher]

2. I agree completely.

NAS papers are, by their nature, inclined to conservative estimates; and that's a good thing as it gives a benchmark for speculation about how we can move the boundaries they perceive.

As you say, solar is going to be a large part of the solution. To demonstrate how the NAS study may be understating the potential of solar just look to China. They started building manufacturing capacity for solar panels in 2007 and they already have the capacity to produce 35GW worth of panels per year.
That much capacity can installed each year can start delivering the equivalent electricity to about 7-8 nuclear plants/year.

We need a lot more globally, but that demonstrates what only 5 years of real focus can do. By 2020 if solar isn't the least cost option I'll be extremely surprised.

[RC]

3. All forms of Solar need some form of reasonable storage to be viable.

Why? because they are stuck where the sun don't shine more than half the time. That severely cuts into the overall efficiency.

[kristopher]

4. Do natural gas plants also require storage? They don't run all the time either, right?

Neither does coal, nuclear or hydro.

All forms of generation have a specific profile of characteristics that have their place within the larger entity where they operate - "THE GRID".

Your belief is probably based on envisioning solar as the exclusive contributor to the grid, which if true, would make your mental image also true.

However the reality is that just as solar has a slot within the matrix of technologies that enable delivery of electricity to your wall switches and outlets, so is storage.

The grid already has a huge amount of storage in place as that is what fossil fuels actually are - stored energy. So the problem isn't filling in the gaps you might envision when looking at solar alone; the problem is to eliminate wherever possible the places in the 24/7 delivery system where fossil fuels are the means of provision.

It's a bit simplistic but imagine for a moment we focused on installing exclusively solar - no storage at all. With that we could eventually reduce the fossil fuel contribution during daylight hours to zero, correct? That would be perhaps 60% of total generation right there, with no storage.

That leaves us with the task of reducing the fossil fuel contributions during offpeak hours. We have wind, biofueled fired generation, geothermal, wave/current/tidal and a couple of other technologies that can all play their role. - In this hypothetical we still haven't invested in storage and we have reduced the contribution of fossil fuels down to 10-15% of their original total.

Now we focus on building more wind and solar and storage to put it into for use in filling in the gaps.

The actual rollout will focus on wind and then solar, but by and large this is how the new system will shape up and develop over time.

BUT!!!

In fact there is a large scale storage medium just now entering market. The makers of batteries for EVs are also focusing on batteries for home use.

I mention that to show that the real driver of exactly what technology will fill which niche is going to be a function of the economics of the various technologies. If it turns out that a home solar system matched with lithium battery packs is a better economic fit than beefing up wind and geothermal, then that will be the route we follow.

The important point to realize is that storage is not the obstacle you believe it to be.

[RC]

8. Coal, nuclear or hydro can run 24/7 for years in necessary.

The real expense comes in when shutting down and restarting coal and nuclear. Hard on the equipment for one. It can take days for coal and weeks for nuclear. Both like heavy continuous loads. Natural gas can be shut down much quicker.

What does this have to do with Solar and Wind in my original post? Nothing. You are just changing the subject.

[kristopher]

10. Your original post was wrong

and I explained why.

Nicely.

[Nederland]

13. That is not true for existing fossil fuel plants

It's a bit simplistic but imagine for a moment we focused on installing exclusively solar - no storage at all. With that we could eventually reduce the fossil fuel contribution during daylight hours to zero, correct? That would be perhaps 60% of total generation right there, with no storage.

This is simply not true. Starting up a coal or natural gas plant is not like turning on a light switch. While a natural gas power plant takes only an hour to startup, a coal plant takes 7 hours to startup.

[CabalPowered]

5. Wrong

OTEC does not require any inline storage and will produce electricity at night. Secondly, when speaking of land-based PV, "severely cuts efficiency" is misleading. Energy consumption jumps as the sun rises.

[RC]

7. You are changing the subject. I was talking Solar.

Besides I am currently living in Kansas City. Before that, in North Dakota. Kinda far from any ocean. The lakes don't have much, if any tides. So your post does not apply.

"Energy consumption jumps as the sun rises." Of course it does. From Zero to some percentage way less than 100% until at least 10:00 AM. Then at 4 or 5 O'clock, when it starts to fall off again to zero at sunset.

Don't they teach science in school anymore?

[CabalPowered]

14. I'm confused then

You said ALL solar. The ocean is the largest solar energy collection array on the planet. How is that changing the subject? A couple dozen OTEC facilities in the right locations could provide enormous amounts of clean energy, day and night. Including enough for Kansas City and North Dakota, thanks to something called the power grid. I will admit, we don't have the tremendous OTEC potential that Japan has but we still have many sites that are appropriate for OTEC development.

[kristopher]

21. The "all solar" is red herring anyway.

The gamut of renewable energy sources offers as wide an array of generating characteristics as does the polluting ones that dominate today. You can take any one, new or old, and prove that it is an unworkable solution as a sole source of energy. For example, if we wanted to meet 100% of our energy needs with nuclear the cost of peaking power would be hundreds, if not thousands of times greater than it would be with solar.

With the range of renewable energy sources available to us we can build use them to power 100% of a grid that is completely sustainable, more dependable, safer and far cleaner than anything on the planet right now.

All we need to do is step on the glowing Kochroaches that keep getting in the way.

[caraher]

9. self-delete <nt>

[jwirr]

6. The answer to our energy future is going to include a number of renewable

forms both in large projects, local projects and individual projects. That also includes life style changes and conservation.

I was laughing about using pedal power one day to my family. They about died laughing when they thought of their young grandson pedaling away for hours to play one hour of one of his games. We object to the number of hours he wants to spend playing games. But you know that is not a totally ridiculous idea. If you want luxuries that take away from necessities then pedal away.

I of course am not suggesting that we consider pedal power as one of the big solutions. Just using it to suggest there will be many interesting form when we really need them.

[FBaggins]

11. And what they say about renewables.

...further expansion of renewable electricity is possible as advanced technologies are developed, and as existing technologies achieve lower costs and higher performance with the maturing of the technology and an increasing scale of deployment. Achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) penetration of intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electricity marketplace, however, will require technologies that are largely unavailable or not yet developed today, such as large-scale and distributed cost-effective energy storage and new methods for cost-effective, long-distance electricity transmission. Finally, there might be further consideration of an integrated hydrogen and electricity transmission system such as the “SuperGrid” first championed by Chauncey Starr, though this concept is still considered high-risk.


...snip...


Integration of the intermittent characteristics of wind and solar power into the electricity system is critical for large-scale deployment of renewable electricity. Advanced storage technologies will play an important role in supporting the widespread deployment of intermittent renewable electric power above approximately 20 percent of electricity generation, although electricity storage is not necessary below 20 percent.


...snip...

A significant increase in renewable sources of power in the electricity system would also require fast-responding backup generation and/or storage capacity, such as that provided by natural gas combustion turbines, hydropower, or storage technologies. Higher levels of penetration of intermittent renewables (above about 20 percent) would require batteries, compressed air energy storage, or other methods of storing energy such as conversion of excess generated electricity to chemical fuels.


...snip...

In turn, significant technological and scientific barriers must be surmounted if renewables are to provide upward of 50 percent or more of domestic electricity generation in a reliable, controllable system that also has a low-carbon-emissions footprint. The barriers include those related to transmission as well as system integration and flexibility, including storage and other enabling technologies. Specifically, large-scale and distributed electrical energy storage, and/or large capacities for rapidly controllable low-carbon-emission generation, would be required to reach such a goal.

[kristopher]

12. That is a far cry from claims that renewable must be augmented by nuclear, isn't it?

What that says is that we need to build a distributed smart grid. Because of EVs, gains in energy efficiency, and load shifting we are going to be doing that anyway.
The energy storage technologies that will eventually be part of the mix are not unknown technologies that have yet to be conceptualized; they are technologies that we are using now (such as heat pumps) that must be adapted to fit the different applications and scales that a smart grid will require.

In a comment about building more coal or nuclear plants John Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and person most responsible for grid reliability said, "No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States… renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands".

Listen to him yourself:
http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1/

[FBaggins]

15. Why would anyone say that renewables must be augmented by nuclear?

When the renewables are what "augment" everything else?

That's really the point of the 20% limit from existing technologies. Past about that point and you're relying on them as a primary source of generation (call it "base load" or whatever)... and they can't meet that need.

What that says is that we need to build a distributed smart grid.

How can you say that's what they're saying when they clearly said "this concept is still considered high-risk" ?

The energy storage technologies that will eventually be part of the mix are not unknown technologies that have yet to be conceptualized

So? They remain engineering challenges that have yet to be overcome. The fact that we know what a heat pump is doesn't mean that we can reliably and affordable construct grid-scale versions yet. It's been at least two years since you told us they were only a couple years away from those rock batteries... yet they're no closer today than they were then (they're still talking about designing their prototype that will take a couple years to build).

Hint... it isn't designing a heat pump that's stumping them.

[kristopher]

16. There is no 20% limit on existing technologies except in nuclear mythology

Renewable energy sources can meet all of modern culture's energy needs with existing technology.

[FBaggins]

17. I didn't realize that your source produced "nuclear mythology"

Higher levels of penetration of intermittent renewables (above about 20 percent) would require batteries, compressed air energy storage, or other methods of storing energy

It's your cited source Kris... you're kinda stuck with it.

And it isn't the first time.

Renewable energy sources can meet all of modern culture's energy needs with existing technology.

But nobody says that who isn't the green equivelent of a climate denier and creationist.

[kristopher]

18. That doesn't support your nuclear myth.

Energy storage technologies exist and can be deployed when they are required. The 20% figure is an indicator of a point where the economic niche for storage begins to expand - it is not a "limit" of any sort on the ability to build a 100% renewable energy infrastructure.

Stop spreading false information, please.

[FBaggins]

19. Nothing, in your mind, would do that.

But it does directly refute your nonsense.

Energy storage technologies exist and can be deployed when they are required.

Oh bull. You can't pretend that they're sitting in a garage somewhere and just aren't needed yet.

[kristopher]

20. False realities are the domain of nuclear proponents.

We've been using heat pumps for how long?
Energy storage via biofuels has been used for how long?
Two large CAES (compressed air energy storage) facilities have been in operation since the 70s.

That is point one: a variety of viable storage technologies exist and can be deployed when their economic niche opens.

Point two: it isn't "my study", it is a study that PamW made false claims about - just as you are attempting to do now.

In my estimation the study is already dated. For example, when it was written the expectation was that US and EU would be the drivers for solar development and deployment. in fact, since the study waas written China's embrace of solar and lithium battery manufacturing has completely altered the rate of potential deployment. Instead of having perhaps 5-8GW of global PV manufacturing capacity this year, thanks to the 35GW of manufacturing China has built we are nearer to 45GW total.

All studies like the NAS study have dramatically underestimated actual performance in the renewable sector over the past 12-15 years.

The only real purpose for the study at this time is to show the lies of the nuclear industry for what they are.