Everyone is talking about Gore's proposal to decarbonize electricity over the course of 10 years.
Without considering transmission and storage losses, Gore's estimate of $1.5 to 3 trillion would require capital costs of under 37 to 74 cents per annual kWh. Taking those losses into consideration, cost would have to be more in the 28 to 56 cents per kWh range. (Note again these are not cost per watt of capacity. These are costs per annual kWh. They are levelized costs translated into capital numbers.) Jon Rynn and I have a worksheet in process on costs to 95 percent decarbonize economy, rather than 100 percent decarbonizing the grid. But it does include 99 percent decarbonizing the Grid, including a 30 percent redundancy to handle annual variations. The bottom price with the most aggressive improvements we looked at came to 66 cents per annual kWh. That comes out to $3.54 trillion, about $540 billion more than Gore budgets. But because biomass has proven so devastating ecologically, and so disastrous to the poor we assume very little use of biomass. Also we phase out nuclear as well as fossil fuels, something I'm pretty sure Gore does not. More nuclear and biomass not only reduce the amount electricity that needs to be generated, but it also reduces the need for storage losses. So Gore's plan does pencil out at the high end with 100 percent fossil-fuel free electricity at under $3 trillion.
If you follow our plan you would probably see the grid more like 90 percent decarbonized in first 10 years. But you would also see 85 percent of truck freight shifted to mostly electrified trains, construction of light rail, and massive reductions of emissions in residences, commercial buildings, and industrial use. So we reduce emissions by more than Gore's proposal, and reduce oil use significantly too, something Gore's plan would not do. So not only is Gore's plan feasible over a 10 year period, much greater reductions are feasible than Gore calls for over a 10 year period. Gore remains, as he as always has been, a mainstream centrist. That so much of the environmental community and netroots chooses to back away from it as "almost feasible" or "a moonshot," that is, as too radical, says something about their timidity.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments
View as Flat
AndyFrankGO Posted 12:28 am
22 Jul 2008
Annual Electricity Costs
Gar, nice post. I agree that this goal is feasible if we have enough political will, and it is more than a little disappointing that many mainstream environmentalists are naysaying.
I'm wondering what your 66 cents per kwh would translate to assuming the capital costs can be amortized into billing rates (as they currently are for fossil fuels).
If capital costs can be spread for 30 years, it seems like that would make the new clean energy pretty cheap, but want to make sure I'm not missing anything, thanks.
Permalink
sindark Posted 12:50 am
22 Jul 2008
Capital stock turnover
What about the people who stumped up the capital for all the coal, oil, and gas plants that will need to be scrapped before the planned time?
I agree that shifting to renewable power is essential, but there are two reasons for which imposing financial distress on these investors could be problematic. In the first place, they may simply use their influece to block the policy. In the second, their losses might make it harder to raise capital for renewable projects.
The political and economic costs of scrapping existing plants must be taken into account.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:13 am
22 Jul 2008
Sindark -- an idea from Taiwan
When the Kuomintang party abandoned China to the Communists in the late 1940s, they expropriated the land from the landlords on Taiwan, which the Kuomintang took over, and gave them industrial bonds in return. So the landlords went from oppressing peasants to investing in Taiwan's industrial future, a rousing success. You could conceivably do something similar, give the coal plant owners "solar/wind" bonds to invest in.
Permalink
PJD Posted 2:17 am
22 Jul 2008
Annual kWh?
Could you explain what an annual kWh is. They were not yet teaching this concept when I got my electrical engineering degree. It seems an odd unit of measure since it involves squaring time.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:06 am
22 Jul 2008
What are the sources of power?
Gar
If it is decarbonized, and you exclude nuclear, what are your power sources. Clearly wind and solar, but also clearly a lot of other electric power sources. Can you elaborate.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:25 am
22 Jul 2008
Look at the spreasheet
Electricity is almost entirely wind and concentrating solar thermal, with a tiny mount of geothermal and hydro and 1% natural gas. 99% decarbonized. The last little bit of natural gas can be phased out in a variety of ways - but 99% carbon free is good enough for the next 20 or 30 years.
Permalink
zencarver Posted 1:46 am
23 Jul 2008
Thank You
Exactly, and thank you.
There is more to the economic story than you've addressed in this post, as well. I would love to see an analysis of the knock-on effects of such a transformation in our energy sector. With fossil fuel extraction becoming increasingly low in job-intensity, and so many manufacturing and installation/maintenance jobs being created, and with an increasing amount of our natural gas being imported, this seems a slam dunk, economically. Unless, of course, you're tied to fossil fuel interests.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:44 am
23 Jul 2008
I would say 99% is good enough
forever. If the US can achieve that, the one percent just doesn't matter.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink