Alliance for Climate Protection ramps up calls for renewable-energy plan 17

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 3:00 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Transportation still spottyThere seems to be some hand-waving when it comes to transportation, which is critical because part of the appeal of the ads (which keep getting better, imho) is that we can decrease use of oil, not import oil, not have to use increasingly expensive oil, etc.   So the whole weight falls to seemingly all-electric cars.
   I can see the advantage of this because it's simple, which is a plus.  However, they don't deal with trucks or planes, which use about 20% of our oil -- and which can only be dealt with, it seems to me, by replacing freight-by-trucks with freight-by-(electrified)-rail, and replacing planes with high-speed rail.  Not only is there absolutely no mention of rail, there's not even a mention of transit, the one mostly electrified part of the transportation system.

   Permalink

2. 

   ahmednewenergy Posted 3:19 am
   07 Nov 2008

   GREENTECH JUST GOT A HUGE BOOSTIf readers really want to find out more, go to
   http://www.greentechmedia.com/
   where you can see how renewable energy investments are shaping up to chenge the face of the world.  There is a lot of green to be made in greentech!
   $150 billion to be invested by Obama in the next ten years!  Finally the sleeping giant is awake, and ready to show the world what we a re good at --- MEETING INNOVATION with CAPITAL!

   Permalink

3. 

   jimbeyer Posted 4:53 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Why doesn't anyone say how ridiculous this is?All from renewables in 10 years???
   Let's do some rough figuring here....
   America uses about 100 Quads of energy per year.
   
   (1 Quad = 1 Quadrillion BTUs, or about 2.93x10^8 MegaWatt hours.)
   Let's assume the existing nuclear power plants stay. They, along with the existing hydro, produce about 10 Quads, so that leaves 90.  Let's assume we have more than 20% improvement in efficiency overall, reducing the additional need to only 70.  70 Quads.
   Or 2.05x10^10 MegaWatt hours.
   Let's assume the a wind turbine is 20% utile, so a 5 Megawatt turbine would produce 1 Megawatt, or 8760 Megawatt hours per year.  So how many of these turbines would be needed?  Hmm, about 2.3 Million of them.  These would cost about $5 million each, so the total cost would be over $11 TRILLION dollars, spent in just 10 years.
   This coarse analysis does not include the issues with producing just intermittent electricity and how that would integrate with out extant oil, gas and coal infrastructure.  Changing that over would cost trillions more.
   This is a RIDICULOUS premise!  The emperor has no clothes!  Stop drinking the kool-aid and THINK for a change!
   This is what happens with Hollywood people and liberal arts majors try to do engineering.....
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

4. 

   johnmcc793 Posted 5:27 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Liberal Arts to the rescuejimbeyer, you had my attention until you threw in your own Liberal Arts zinger:
   [Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed]
   Back that up with some data, please.
   John McCormick
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   jimbeyer Posted 5:49 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Some of my best friends are liberal arts majors...John,
   I meant no offense.  It just seems that such a broad sweeping initiative ought to have a few hard numbers associated with it, which do not seem to be immediately forthcoming, even with a perusal of their website.
   This could lead one to think it might be an initiative more qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, derived.
   Even amongst engineering students, and even professors in the Hard Sciences, getting a grasp of the SCOPE of our energy use is mind boggling.
   I continue to struggle with it, and don't really "get it" yet.
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

6. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 6:02 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Jim --First off, they're talking electricity, not energy.  We currently use about 4,000 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year.
   so just for ease of computation, if each $5 million wind turbine generated 10,000 kwh/year, you'd need 400,000, not 2.3 million, or "only" 2 trillion, which is on a par with what Gar Lipow has used as a rough calculation (I can't find it right now).  That's not so bad, considering you're trying to save the biosphere.
   As for transportation, if you need to generate 3 trillion passenger-miles plus all of the trucking miles and air miles so that people don't have to change anything that they're doing, then you definitely have a problem as I indicated in a comment above.  But it's a separate issue from replacing the current electrical system, as hard as that would be.

   Permalink

7. 

   jimbeyer Posted 6:50 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Jon - thanks for clarifying....I should have read the title more clearly.
   So if they are concentrating on electricity generation, they are ignoring transportation as well as residential heating and industrial heating (cement, blast furnaces, etc.)
   My thinking is that on a marginal benefit basis, some of these other areas could reduce GHG at lower cost.  For example, insulating homes.  Or perhaps PHEVs (which would improve both GHG emissions as well as oil use/security).
   Virtually no oil is used in electricity generation, so this whole plan would do nothing to address peak oil and oil security.
   I don't think you can just pick a portion of our energy usage (electricity generation) and simply fix that.  It is too intertwined with the other sectors.
   Again, this strikes me as been very naive.  Why don't they harvest the low hanging fruit first?  They seem to be more about making a statement than doing something that is practical and cost-effective.  Again, crazy.
   Frankly, I feel kind of strange even giving this plan the time-of-day, but it has widespread publicity and even Al Gore signed on to it.  Very disappointing.  It's almost drifting to the realm of magical thinking....
   
   Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 7:44 am
   07 Nov 2008

   In their defense --(and I've been critical in the past) -- "carbon-free electricity in 10 years" is a nice easy thing to say, which I think is important.  It's one step (I talked about next steps here).  And yes, heating takes up a lot of natural gas.  It seems that coal is "easier" to tackle initially, to be blunt.

   Permalink

9. 

   EcoConnoisseur Posted 9:32 am
   07 Nov 2008

   Obama Needs To Let The Big 3 Crash and Burn!!I believe he (Obama) needs to display "wisdom" and focus on the big 3. One may have to go down and the rise of a green player to replace the fallen may need to be his biggest move! If I was an advisor to President Obama, I would encourage him to not bailout anyone-else (excluding the middle class) and focus on transitioning from the traditional economic giants to investing in the new green giants! One of my own favorite quotes is:
   "I happen to deeply agree with the wisdom of Tom Friedman (that we cannot consume of way out of this mess and "Have you ever been to a revolution where nobody gets hurt?"). The fact is that the current economic conditions will cause a lot of companies to close their doors (websites too), and they will die off altogether due to lack of understanding the competitive (innovative) landscape. Just look at Detroit and the Big 3 for example! Those that will fight to stay alive will need to figure out -- What's Next?
   I believe that the New Green Economy will include the Rise of Green Real Estate Markets paired with the continued success of Cleantech, Clean Energy Markets, and large scale shifts toward Clean Transportation, and the Greening of the IT Industries (plus a fourth quarter of record investment!!), which will lead to a boom in "American Made" Green Collar Jobs and the creation of new wealth. The trick is: "who will get it right??" Execution makes all the difference for most of these opportunities and green investors need to pay more attention to the items that management claim they can achieve." - Yeves Perez, Founder of EcoInvestmentClub.com - Nov 2008
   See more on talk on Fast Company:
   
   http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/glenn-croston/starting-an ...

   Permalink

10. 

    Jonas Posted 4:12 am
    08 Nov 2008

    The problem with "repower" campaignThe problem with this campaign is that it doesn't really seem to get a grip on the basic science of renewable energy. They are focusing on impractical and extremely expensive technologies (like solar power).
    Why don't they look at the world's leading countries in renewables, to take some lessons? Take Sweden - the country with the largest share of renewables in its portfolio in the world (by far: 50%, more than double that of the second greenest economy) - and what do you see?
    Sweden started with building green baseloads, which now provide more than 90% of its green energy. That is, it invested massively in biomass and hydropower (biomass not even mentioned by "Repower America" - can you imagine?). Then it started adding other renewables, like wind (now 3%) and solar (now 0.1%).  That's the way to go.
    How can you even begin to be taken serious when your focus is on super-expensive non-baseload sources? It simply doesn't make sense. You want to invest in technologies that are up to 20 times more expensive than baseload technologies, and then add a smart grid?
    Who's going to pay for this?
    And will this energy -- being 20 to 30 times more expensive than current energy -- be sold at socially corrected rates to the poor?

    Permalink

11. 

    Angelsnecropolis Posted 5:33 am
    08 Nov 2008

    Can't see the horizonI agree that that 100% renewable electricity in 10 years is a pipe dream at this day and age. It would be great and those that can see past the horizon know it is what is needed.
    The problem is that the general public and Washington can't see past their front lawns let alone "the horizon". They don't understand the crucial need to make a transition asap and therefore won't put out the money. Politics will muck everything up in the end. Yeah I'm a bit pessimistic. Since Obama was elected I've crossed my fingers and raised an eyebrow but I haven't completely bought that the American people can change enough to ensure a better tomorrow for future generations. But... we'll see how things turn out in the next 4 years.
    
    

    Permalink

12. 

    Michael Hoexter Posted 8:46 am
    09 Nov 2008

    Sweden and US have different renewable resourcesJonas,
    
    For some reason I disagree with almost every comment you make here, in this case because you seem to treat renewable energy as independent from both its own supply and demand for energy.  
    Sweden is more sparsely populated than the US, and happens to have, relative to its rather small population and power demand a HUGE hydropower resource, especially if you include with that cross border energy trade with Norway's even bigger hydro resource.  Hydropower happens to be the most mature renewable technology out there and one of the most grid-friendly with adequate reservoir space.  
    Re: biomass.  Sweden also has historically had no water shortages so all of its territory is productive of biomass while in the US, large portions of the West are water constrained, so biomass is not as uniformly available.
    Finally Sweden has a recent and not so recent history of public investment in infrastructure that far exceeds that of the US.  
    The US, on the other hand, has relative to energy demand here, a much smaller hydropower resource and furthermore there is much controversy here about tapping into those remaining un-dammed rivers with adequate head to generate power.  We, on the other hand, have relative to Sweden, a spectacular solar resource that with solar thermal power plants with storage could supply a vast majority of the baseload power we need.  At current prices this would cost somewhere around $.15/kWh, which is more expensive than coal and existing hydro but we can afford it.  This price will go down with economies of scale and is by no stretch of the imagination "super-expensive".  
    So, I am mystified by your bad-mouthing solar, especially CSP/solar thermal.  Perhaps out of ignorance?

    Permalink

13. 

    solarwind Posted 7:20 am
    11 Nov 2008

    thnx michaelYou said it well.  I'd like to add a couple quick thoughts:
    *CSP with TES can provide firm dispatchable baseload power.  Andasol 1 just came online in Spain, 50MW with 8 hrs. storage.  Andasol 2 and 3 are in construction.  And central receiver designs have more potential for storage, even 24hr+.  There's now doubting CSP's current and future potential for significant power gen.
    *the current antiquated grid can support 25% PV penetration before mass storage.  So as thin-film and c-Si continue to fall and money from the Iraq war is redirected towards healthy incentives to bring PV to grid-parity, it will be a good DG supplement to the utility-scale CSP, wind and geothermal.
    *There's something near 140,000 times the US electrical consumption of potential resource for enhanced geothermal, which is another baseload generator.
    These are not technological, nor are they overly economical; all technologies mentioned are nearly competitive with current generation portfolios prices, and are much cheaper than new infrastructure, particulary peaking plants to meet excess peak (which is growing faster than baseload demand, btw).
    And finally, it's important to remind ourselves of why we want to do this at such an ambitious pace:  curb GHG emissions.  Remember?  What did Al Gore say in one of his recent speeches...something about a 75% probability that w/in 5 years there will be no summer arctic ice (i think the source he mentioned was Lawrence-Berkeley Labs)?  Everything is accelerating, things will surely get worse, and FAST.  This is the reason why we must stop debating trivial minor economic differences.  Internalize the costs on the damage carbon from coal and other hydrocarbons cause and there's no doubting the "business model" of RE.
    If there weren't climate change motivations, no one would be pushing this so hard.  All other related issues such as peak oil and national security (domestic production) are ancillary problems, and this should be recognized.  We need to stop eCO2 emissions ASAP.

    Permalink

14. 

    Tom Blees Posted 7:53 am
    11 Nov 2008

    Sweden's energy mixFunny thing about the commenters' discussion about Sweden here: The word "nuclear" is never uttered. You'd hardly know that nuclear supplies as much energy in Sweden as hydropower. As for touting their renewable mix, 3% wind and 0.1% solar is hardly something to get excited about, and biomass must provide a very small fraction since hydro and nuclear provide about 95% between them.
    
    
    
    Tom Blees, author of
    
    Prescription for the Planet.
    
    
    
    
    
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

    Permalink

15. 

    Tom Blees Posted 8:02 am
    11 Nov 2008

    Putting eggs in the geothermal basketGeothermal is a lot trickier than many of its proponents make it out to be. There are precious few areas where it's been practical to tap up to now. It sounds great, but the many technical difficulties of tapping it for major amounts of our power generation have yet to be figured out. So banking on getting those problems solved is irresponsible in the face of galloping climate change. We have to figure out feasible plans utilizing technologies that we KNOW for a fact will work. If others like geothermal end up having major breakthroughs, all the better. But just saying that we have to produce all our energy from renewables (and in ten years, no less) is folly. Even if you include nuclear power as a renewable (which could justifiably be done if you consider Gen IV nuclear), the ten year target is still a pipe dream.
    
    Tom Blees, author of
    
    Prescription for the Planet.
    
    
    
    
    
    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

    Permalink

16. 

    Bruceslog Posted 10:27 am
    16 Nov 2008

    It is not ridiculusThis plan is not ridiculous, it is needed, and it is a lot cheaper than 'That' war.
    
    If you feel you are smart enough to figure out how hard it will be, then use your smarts to help figure out how to Get It Done.
    
    " All we have to decide is what we are going to do with the time we are given ".- Gandalf the Grey

    Permalink

17. 

    daniellerch Posted 12:03 pm
    19 Nov 2008

    the Post Carbon proposalIn response to Al Gore's initial call in July for 100% renewable electricity in 10 years, Post Carbon Institute issued a supportive 10 Step conceptual plan for achieving 100% renewable energy in 10 years.  
    The Post Carbon plan considers the challenges of both climate change and peak oil, and recognizes the need to fundamentally change not only our infrastructure investments but also our consumption patterns and oil-dependent provisioning system.
    Response: http://postcarbon.org/response-gores-call
    10 Step plan: http://postcarbon.org/10-steps-to-renewable-power

    Permalink