Here is what I did:
1. I started with the projections from the EIA to 2035 available here in XLS.
2. I then calculated the share of clean energy in 2011, assuming that natural gas gets a 50% credit for being clean. That share is just under 44% (Nukes 21%, Renewable 13%, Gas 10%).
3. I then calculated how that share could be increased to 80% by 2035.
Here is what I found:
1. Coal pretty much has to go away. Specifically, about 90% or more of coal energy would have to be replaced.
2. I first looked at replacing all the coal with gas, all else equal. That gets the share of clean energy up to about 68%, a ways off of the target.
3. I then fiddled with the numbers to arrive at 80%. One way to get there would be to increase the share of nukes to 43%, gas to 31% and renewables to 22% (Note that the EIA reference scenario -- BAU -- to 2035 has these shares at 17%, 21% and 17% respectively, for a share of 45% just about like today.)
What would this actually mean?
Increasing nuclear power in the EIA reference scenario from a 17% to 43% share of electricity implies, in round numbers, about 300 new nuclear power plants by 2035.*** If you do not like nuclear you can substitute wind turbines or solar thermal plants (or even reductions in electricity consumption) according to the data provided in The Climate Fix, Table 4.4. The magnitude of the task is the same size, just expressed differently.
One nuclear plant worth of carbon-free energy every 30 days between now and 2035. This does not even consider electrification of some fraction of the vehicle fleet -- another of President Obama's goals -- which presumably would add a not-insignificant amount to electricity demand.
Thus, I'd suggest that the President's clean energy goal is much more of the aspirational variety than a actual policy target expected to be hit precisely.
***[Math: (43/17)*898 (billion kilowatthours in 2035)/815 (bkWh in 2011) *109 (nuclear plants in 2011) = 304.16]
15 comments:
I don't want to suggest that the task is anything but Herculean, but it might be a bit easier than your figures suggest.
The continued spread of combined heat and power (CHP), the use of either gas or biomass as feedstock for CHP, the slow march of ground source heat pumps and geothermal power generation, uprating of hydropower plants and construction of more mini-hydro could combine to help matters. And these are all energy decisions that are being made by individuals and companies outside the umbrella of policy incentives, sometimes having to overcome regulatory resistance to do so.
The other side of the coin is reducing demand, which is not outside the realm of possibility. Again, it would not be easy, but we have done this in the past (including periods when the economy has grown at trend rate), so we do know it is possible.
But none of it is a silver bullet.
Here's a link to a recent Australian study comparing different options that covers similar territory.
To me the problem is the 22% renewables - what are they, cost, do they require gas fired back up?
President Obama defines natural gas as 100% "clean" energy: "In his address, Obama also included controversial energy technologies such as natural gas, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage under the 'clean' umbrella."
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/01/28/Obama-promotes-clean-energy/UPI-94571296242647/
The President does not appear to believe that CO2 is a pollutant; thus, natural gas and biomass are both "clean." Coal is dirty because it isn't as clean-burning as natural gas. Petroleum is dirty because it comes from anti-Israel and anti-U.S. (e.g., Venezuela) nations.
It's the President's goal -- he gets to define the posts.
PS: And if there's any doubt about what's "clean" and what isn't to the Obama administration, Secretary Chu's comment should dispel it:
"And Energy Secretary Steven Chu, speaking from an online town hall meeting, said that nuclear, nuclear, hydropower, natural gas and renewable energy now accounts for about 40 percent of the nation's electricity -- about halfway toward Obama's goal of 80 percent."
This isn't complicated, folks. Meeting the President's 80% goal requires nothing more than continuing the trend of the last 20 years. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with climate or carbon, neither of which were mentioned during his State of the Union.
But . . "If you do not like nuclear you can substitute wind turbines or solar thermal plants" since these are totally unreliable sources of electricity production, would you back them up with additional nuke plants?
You always must double+ your costs when you go green for those many days when Mother Nature doesn't want to make electricity but us ordinary folks still want our fridge to work and our lights to go on when we flick the switch.
I don't want to disagree with your math Roger but...
300 nuclear plants over 25 years = 12 plants per year. Assuming a 1GW plant.
Our current natural gas fleet is running at 25% capacity, if we bump that to 45% natural gas makes up 40% of our electricity, counting gas as 'half clean' uses up our allowed 20% 'dirty'.
100 nuclear plants makes up 20% now.
Hydro and renewable's makes up 10% now.
So our current nuclear,gas,hydro and renewable generating capacity can get us to 70% of current consumption.
That leaves us needing another 30%.
100 nuclear plants currently makes 20% so we need another 150 1GW nuclear plants equivalents.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
Assuming consumption stays flat.
-6-Harrywr2
Thanks, typo fixed ...
The example does not keep consumption flat, but uses the EIA AEO Reference Scenario, but you how energy forecasts do.
That difference, your use of gas at 40% rather than the 31% I use and the fact that I use 750MW plants probably reconciles our numbers.
Thanks!
Roger,
Thanks.
Gen 3 nuke plants are all over 1GW, Areva and GE/Hitachi have 1.6GW.
Just some numbers
1GW * 8760 hours in a year * 92% capacity factor = 8 TWh/year.
2010 consumption ended up being about 4,000 Twh.
2035 is projected to be 4,800 Twh.
2009 net summer capacity coal = 304 GW
2009 net summer capacity NG = 359GW
2009 net sumer capacity nuclear = 100GW.
Running at 92% capacity we have 2,400 TWh of coal, 2,800 TWh of NG and 800 TWh of nuclear, renewables contributes another 400 TWh but nature controls the capacity factors. So we currently have 6,400 TWh of generating capacity.
So we need 60% more generating capacity then we use to accommodate 'peak loads'.
2035 is projected to be 4,800 Twh.
48 * 1.6 = 7680TWh total annual capacity.
Natural gas net new builds has been averaging 12GW/year for 20 years. 12 * 8 = 96TwH.
If the 20 year trend continues we will have 5,200 TWh of NG Generating capacity in 2035.
5200Twh = 108% of projected consumption
5200/7680 = 67% of the required 160% of projected consumption.
The real challenge is what do we do for the other 1/3 of generating capacity needed. 2480 TWh/year = 310 GW/hour.
Out existing nuclear fleet will, coal fleet and windmills will be either retired or close to it by 2035.
* Net summer capacity is the most restrictive method of calculating capacity. Many jurisdictions have limits as to how many BTU's can be discharged into rivers in the summer.
Which reminds Eli that China and India are opening one new coal power plant per week. So what is so hard about opening 300 nuclear plants in 30 years?
Harry makes a good point about peak capacity. Nuclear plants are best run flat out for baseload, solar and wind are there when needed for peak demand
"solar and wind are there when needed for peak demand"
That's the funniest thing I've read in days.
Eli,
"So what is so hard about opening 300 nuclear plants in 30 years?"
Everyone that made nuclear core forgings except the Russians and Japan Steel Works went out of business. In 2008 Japan Steel only had the production capacity to make 4 nuclear core forgings per year. They should have capacity for up to 12 forgings per year by 2012.
Those 12 forgings per year have already been spoken for out to 2020.
As far as windmills, we have 2 GW worth in Washington State. The wind blows mostly in the spring and fall when we have little need for peak capacity. There is some value to conserving our hydro resources. Even with that, Bonneville power occasionally has to issue 'do not generate' orders to the windmills as the hydro dams have to spill either to keep from overflowing or keep the fish alive.
Most the time we can palm off our excess wind generation to the Californians who are more then happy to pay for the transmission losses.
At least their Government Officials are, not sure about their citizens.
Actual wind generation statistics for the Pacific Northwest. Depressing at best. 3.3GW of windmill producing almost nothing for the past week.
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
In the winter it is overcast from November to May. So solar doesn't help much for the peaks in the winter. Which leaves solar making a potential difference in June, July and August.
Solar and Wind might be good options where you live. They aren't particularly good options where I live. Of course your tax dollars paid 1/3 the cost of the windmills where I live.(and the solar panels)
Will Eli please clarify what he means about solar and wind when it is needed?
Don't forget that there is a well organized "green" drive to stop natural gas drilling within the U.S.
I suppose we could import LNG...
Received by email from WF:
"The myriad of multiple federal and state permitting processes required for design, siting and construction of nukes, wind, solar tidal, hydro, and geothermal plants, coupled with interference from NYMBYs, environmentalists, and the rest of the usual objectors creates nearly insurmountable inertia. It is absurd to believe that 80% of our energy can be produced without fossil sources in 24 years. It simply can't happen.
The discussion of what may be feasible technologically is wishful thinking of the worst sort.
Welcome to the reality of our land use regulatory schemes that took decades to develop and refine into the monstrosity it has become."
It's exactly these sorts of conversations that need to happen!
Governments seem to think that emissions taxes are some kind of magic wand into a future utopia where windmills and unicorns are dotted happily across the rolling green hills.
Australia is the worst for this, they wont even consider nuclear power, the solar arrays haven't really worked on a large scale so far and wind power really wont cut it. And yet somehow they think that just taxing every citizen $1000's of dollars for energy use will change the world.
Post a Comment