is there any comprehensive energy study for the country -

[rurallib]

that analyzes our country's needs in 10 years & 25 years and then looks at the best source(s) for reaching those goals?
Does this analysis take into account the long term effects of various sources of power such as wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, water, geothermal, biomass?
Does the the analysis also take into account the full cost of use each of these sources from acquisition to effects of residues and clean up of residues and pollutants?

It seems to me that if we could lay the cost & benefits out side by side it would help in determining a policy.

This may seem a bit of a simplistic post, but I am wondering if such analysis has ever been done?
Part of the reason I ask is that the new darling of industry, nuclear power, seems to have some really scary, high cost consequences.

[Statistical]

1. The Dept of Energy does an AEO (Annual Energy Outlook) each year.

It use to only look out 20 years now Obama administration has it looking out 25 years (so 2035 for this year's version).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

The full version won't be available until end of month (2 days if they release it on time) but early-release has been up for a while now.

It attempts to project demand, capacity requirements, growth rates, fuel costs, etc of not just electricity but total energy sector (transportation, industrial heating, electricity).

[texastoast]

2. Listening to a congressional hearing the other day

And there is a study going on out of Colorado doing the projections for renewable requirements based population projections. I don't remember what the guy said about the agency/group doing it.

[kristopher]

3. The AEO is garbage as it is built around a business as usual model

The answer to your question is yes and no. The topic you've identified is huge so the total picture must be gleaned from a large number of sources.

A very good study looking at the non-economic side of the problem is available at the link below. Naturally the nuclear, clean coal and ethanol proponents think the study is a bad one, but in fact it is an outstanding an comprehensive analysis of all the potential issues associated with the various energy technologies.

You asked, "Does this analysis take into account the long term effects of various sources of power such as wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, water, geothermal, biomass?"
Yes.

You also asked, "Does the the analysis also take into account the full cost of use each of these sources from acquisition to effects of residues and clean up of residues and pollutants?"

For that there are a lot of studies that use many different assumptions about cost. The best overview I've found is by Cooper. And the best detailing of the costs of nuclear are by Severance. Again, the nuclear proponents want to dismiss these studies and attempt to have people believe that they are just a product of "nuclear haters". They aren't.

There are also other issues involved such as grid upgrades (which are going to be part of the picture no matter what technology is involved) and storage of nuclear wastes or the costs of nonproliferation efforts.



Cooper
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

Severance
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Lovins
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

Cooper bandwagon


Cooper A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives


Cooper collected comparisons

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[rurallib]

4. Thanks a bunch. I will save this because it will obviously take

some time to digest.
Had some unexpected company so had to go. Sorry it took so long to respond.