The attached Excel spreadsheet (PDF alternative) takes specific technologies, the known cost of implementing them, and various scenarios for responses to such implementation and technical improvements (including no technical improvement!) and calculates costs and benefits. This is intended to be an open source model. The comment section will be used to revise the spreadsheet with links to the old versions added to the bottom of this post as revisions are made (for the sake of transparency.) There is also a Word document (PDF alternative) with a narration of assumptions.
The conclusion in this 1.0 version: Unsurprisingly, the key to eliminating emissions profitably is large efficiency increases. With maximum efficiency improvements even a scenario with (completely unrealistic) zero technical progress in efficiency or renewables would make our economy as a whole richer than if we stuck to fossil fuels. If we combine aggressive efficiency improvements with aggressive (but reasonable) improvements in technology we would end up richer by more than a trillion dollars a year. Aggressive efficiency spending which yields small reductions, unsurprisingly has poor financial payback.
Warning: There is an easy misinterpretation the data does not support -- that we can do nothing. The fact that eliminating most fossil fuel use is more profitable than continuing to use fossil fuels to society as a whole does not mean that elimination will happen without policy changes. Nor does it mean that is currently profitable to those who could make the technical changes. For example, transforming commercial office space into a green building raises worker productivity by a minimum of 4 percent. If a landlord makes that transformation, and somehow gets hold of the confidential data needed to document that productivity gain, how much can she increase rents based on those productivity improvements? If you guessed zero, you are right and win the no-prize. Incidentally, even if the building is 100 percent owner occupied, what do you think the odds are they will invest in improved lighting and ventilation for the sake of productivity improvements?
Also, I'm documenting paybacks compared to what we are doing now, not compared to not caring about global warming. For example, those productivity gains I mentioned in green buildings: You can gain almost all of them with inexpensive changes that will only save about 20 percent of energy consumption compared to a normal building. But I consider them as part of payback for improvements that will save 70 percent of energy compared to a normal building. Now that is valid: It still saves money compared to what we are doing now. But it is also something that is not going to happen except specifically as part of a policy to fight global warming. You are not going double the size of your energy saving investment for a 10 percent higher return except for a social goal. And since most buildings use exactly zero oil, you sure are not going to do it in the name of energy independence.
That also leads to another point: in demonstrating payback, I'm following Amory Lovins' credo of counting all the costs and all the benefits. That is I'm taking into consideration things like productivity gains, health benefits, and also what we spend not only on fuel but on total energy including capital and O&M.
Methodology: I'm looking at savings compared to current consumption to get to the point where only 5 percent of emissions come from fossil fuel -- (almost all natural gas), plus 3 quads of biomass as industrial feedstock. This projection remains valid environmentally even if the economy grows aggressively, because even modest efficiency improvements keep consumption well under 100 quads, and thus fossil fuel (mostly in the form of natural gas) consumption under 5 quads.
Applying this to world projections for energy growth yields about 10 percent of today's emissions from fossil fuels, and one-half to one-third the consumption of biomass (~36 quads of fossil fuel, mostly as natural gas, and 22 quad of biomass world wide.). Even the poorest nations have plenty of sun and wind, and most of the big energy consumers in the global south produce less GDP per unit of energy than we do -- giving them even more efficiency potential than we have. And I'm assuming that all efficiency improvements worldwide are directed into increased GDP compared to BAU scenario. If any improved efficiency results in slower than project increases in energy consumption, worldwide use of fossil fuel drops even further.
Note that both solar and wind potential are (separately) many times both current and projected future consumption. Either efficiency improvements are required to pay for these more expensive renewables or technical breakthroughs are required to lower their price. While either efficiency or technical breakthroughs are sufficient to make renewables cost effective, they are better together.
Again, this post is barely an introduction. The meat is in the Excel workbook.
I will edit the sheet in response to constructive criticism, link the old sheet(s) below and change the main links in this post to point to the modified sheet -- through as many versions as seem productive.
[Update] Minor changes have been made, mainly to improve formatting and clarity.
[Update] Revisions made to correct errors, show higher potential for smart grid, and additional paybacks from reduced accident rates. This last gain is small (compared to overall transition costs) in a modest rail deployment, but would be major if rail could displace a high percent of auto traffic.
[Update] Jon Rynn added to worksheet as co-author. The same will happen for anyone else making substantial contributions(unless they prefer otherwise).
Previous Revisions
Excel 3rd revision
Excel 2nd revision
Excel 1st revision
original sheet.
Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?
To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 5:18 am
14 Jul 2008
In a nutshell it is an estimate of what it will take to reduce emissions given what we know to today.
Many unexpected things are going to happen that have not been reflected in your spreadsheet, which is good because that means your numbers will eventually prove very conservative. All very hopeful.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:57 am
14 Jul 2008
Don't know what the equivalent would be on the efficiency side. Cheap Aeroglass?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:43 am
14 Jul 2008
The stress of missing your train/bus comes because the train/bus doesn't come often enough. Transit advocates assume that a "real" transit alternative involves 5 minute waits, at the very most 10 minute, or else people want to use cars. So the solution there is simply to buy more trains/buses. That also would help take care of the "packed" problem, although part of that is jobs not being very flexible about when to come in to work either.
This is more of a long-term suggestion, but a big part of the transportation problem is putting buildings much closer together -- to try to figure out how to de-sprawl the US is nothing we should be doing on a zero-budget, though
The good thing about larger buses or rail cars is that you can have a professional driver, as opposed to the maniacs, I mean average drivers, on our streets. So, an ultralight rail has to be automated, or else you have huge driver costs. Which means, we have to experiment with them for a while -- I believe BART put in conductors even though it was designed to be automated because people didn't trust them. But in terms of technology that is here now, I hate to sound like a conservative engineer, but light rail/subways/brt are here now, ultralight rail is not. So, work on ultralight, definitely, but I think we need to plan for good, that is, reliablly frequent, light rail, etc.
I didn't see any stats on the health care cost reductions you would see with fewer cars, onaccounta less death and destruction. I think that that would be a powerful argument for social benefits.
That's all for now! I assume you will keep checking back over the next few days, great work!
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 8:19 am
14 Jul 2008
It depends on where you're going. Driving from NH to Boston is hugely stressful, compared to sitting on a bus looking down at all the single occupant cars mired in traffic.
I had to go in this week, spend 1/2 hour on the 1/2 mile Zakin bridge alone. STRESSSSED!! And this was against rush traffic.
Glad I don't have to commute. Crawling 3 ft and waiting a minute is my idea of stress. Good thing Boston did the Big Dig for $14 Billion dollars.
Can't figure out why people prefer to drive under those conditions.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 8:32 am
14 Jul 2008
..but in terms of technology that is here now, I hate to sound like a conservative engineer, but light rail/subways/brt are here now, ultralight rail is not. So, work on ultralight, definitely, but I think we need to plan for good, that is, reliablly frequent, light rail, etc.
This is exactly why my budget contains nothing for CyberTran, and 500 billion that just says "Rail and Electric Buses". I'm leaving the specifics to communities. I hope that given aid that size that some community would choose to test CyberTran and some other experimental technologies as well, and these develop in time to be where much of the budget is spent. But that is not assumed.
Transit advocates assume that a "real" transit alternative involves 5 minute waits, at the very most 10 minute, or else people want to use cars.
This is practical on heavy routes during peak hours. After hours it greatly raises your overall cost per transit mile, because you are paying for operations with a lot of empty seats. You have to do some of this: the flaw in the idea of peak only rail is obvious. But a train every ten minutes during times of light usage - lots of wasted labor, lots of wasted energy. Russia does this, but they have cheap oil, and cheap labor.
I didn't see any stats on the health care cost reductions you would see with fewer cars, onaccounta less death and destruction. I think that that would be a powerful argument for social benefits.
Yeah, that is because the way we run rail im the U.S. today there are not any. Being a passenger on rail or on a bus is safer than being a passenger in a car. But being a pedestrian or bicylist near rail or buses is more dangerous. So overall death and injury rates are about the same. Now this in not true in Europe or even the comparatively transit hostile UK. So I could have assumed European levels of competence in running transit systems. But that seemed to speculative. And, yes, I know this is drawing a very arbitrary line.
This is more of a long-term suggestion, but a big part of the transportation problem is putting buildings much closer together -- to try to figure out how to de-sprawl the US is nothing we should be doing on a zero-budget, though
Yeah I think by adding transit and walkability you actually accomplish this for zero budget, but over a really long time. Development tends to cluster around transit. And walkability does not have to but can. similarly, if we change subsidies we will gradually see a movement away from lowest density suburbs towards urban, higher density suburbs and even denser small towns (along the lines of the classic main streets that we stopped building in favor of suburbs.) Does not mean that there will be no low density suburbs - just that alternatives will be available. Of course current oil prices may speed all this up. And when you look at all the alternatives to low density suburbs - urban living, high density suburban living, classic American small towns as opposed to sprawling small towns, I suspect most people will prefer one of them to low density suburbs.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:32 am
14 Jul 2008
This would allow zero carbon transport, either a single car or bus or train of buese connected to travel at high speed. Put it safely in tubes in the freeway median. With automatic braking systems that anticipate any situation miles ahead.
Merge commuter rail with over the road vehicles, except heavy trucks. All in plugin hybrid design so they can use renewable electric power on the rails and even recharge batteries for road travel.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:10 pm
14 Jul 2008
I also think of downtown Evanston, Illinois, just north of Chicago, which has managed to reinvigorate its downtown, and has apparently become a model world-wide for urban planners who want to revive their towns. I think towns have a huge potential - maybe as Walmart, etc. sink under the weight of feeding huge fleets of trucks, downtowns will revive -- or maybe they'll revive as people move closer to downtown -- main street -- so that people don't have to drive as much.
But that still leaves a problem of frequency. Again, thinking of our own experience, we live right next to a Metra station, which is the very extensive commuter rail system. It only comes once an hour when it's not rush hours, but as long as it is once an hour, it actually doesn't seem that bad. I think I would be more anxious about a bus, for some bizarre reason. So perhaps being close to a transit stop, even if the frequency isn't so great, is very important.
I have to disagree about injuries -- over 40,000 deaths a year from cars -- I read somewhere that it's 175,000 disabling injuries a year, although I can't find the reference now -- there is no way that fully replacing that with transit would result in anywhere near that kind of carnage. I mean, that's almost an entire Vietnam war every year. According to the stats -- and I need to dig out the reference -- if you look at deaths per passenger mile, rails are 1/27th as deadly as cars.
When I rather inelegantly said a "zero budget", I was actually grumpily referring to our research budget, or at least mine, which is zero. Trying to figure out the cost and consequences of reorienting sprawl to something "smarter" would be an enormous research project that we don't have the time for. That's why I used the statistics for NYC if I want to generalize, because those are fairly easily available, as inadequate as the model is.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:17 pm
14 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:12 pm
14 Jul 2008
That should help with converting most long haul trucking to freight.
I know this would have to happen in stages.
It would be practical to build vehicles with wheel rims compatable with rails where the tires don't contact the surface in rail mode, then at the pull off point, the tires would come in contact again.
These dual use vehicles would ease the transition.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:01 pm
14 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:49 am
15 Jul 2008
Starting with one track in a tube in the median going each way that would allow 150 to 200 mph travel, high speed renewable electric rail eliminating most of the carbon.
Ultralight, composite plugin hybrid vehicles with expandable air bag filled bumpers front and back (for high speed crash protection) and automatic braking that checks the tracks miles ahead, should lower passenger accident statistics.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:22 am
15 Jul 2008
Occupants: 32,092
Motorcycles: 4,810
Pedestrians: 4,784
Cyclists: 773
other: 183
Total: 42,642
Total injuries: 2,575,000
Also, Gar, you have a spreadsheet calculating electric vehicle electricity use. According to the aforementioned report, and "Highway Statistics 2006", Americans traveled about 3,000 billion vehicle miles, not 1,600 billion as you have in the spreadsheet. Also, you have .15 kwh/mile for an electric vehicle: I've seen as low as .25, but if you conveniently use .33 kwh per mile, with 3 trillion vehicle miles, you come up with 1,000 billion kwhrs needed, which is about 25% of the current total national electrical generation.
OK, now I look for rail statistics.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:44 am
15 Jul 2008
Passenger miles: over 17 billion
Fatalities: 4
So if you multiply this by 200 to get somewhere near the 3 trillion vehicle miles, you get 800 deaths; although I suppose you should use car passenger miles, not vehicle milies; at any rate, the passenger death toll is obviously very low for rail.
However, earlier in the report, they say that 95% of rail fatalities are from highway-crossing and trespassing, by which I suppose they mean cars on tracks and people getting too close, which had fatalities of 338 and 473, respectively.
This might not be exact, because I can't quite figure out from this report if there might be another 1,000 fatalities from other accidents; but in any case, as far as heavy rail is concerned, the amount of deaths seems pretty low, even if you scale the passenger rail up. However, now I will see if I can figure out if this includes light-rail -- I think it's safe to say that subways have very few deaths.
By the way, the Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet train), which has been operating for decades and carried a gazillion passengers, has never had one fatality.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:51 am
15 Jul 2008
How about a 20 mpg SUV? 3.2 miles per kwh.
But for plugin hybrid semis what would it be? At 10 mpg the equivalent would be 1.6 miles per kwh.
So a range of under .1 kwh per mile to .6 kwh per mile?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:53 am
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:07 am
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:18 am
15 Jul 2008
Commuter rail: 85
Heavy rail: 23 (I think this is just subways, not passenger rail, but I'm not sure)
Light rail: 17
Buses: 94
Total: 227 (there were a few deaths from some miscellaneous modes)
So I know you're gonna ask, "What about passenger miles?", which is from here:
Commuter rail: 9,102,553,926
Heavy rail: 4,681,146,806
Light rail: 1,806,248,516
Buses: 17,654,709,436
Apparently fatality rates are measured by fatalities per 100,000,000 miles, so cars are around 1.5. So buses are about .5, commuter rail a little less than 1, light rail a little less than 1, heavy rail about .5
However, I guess I would argue that 1) even if these rates scaled up, you'd still be saving tens of thousands of lives per year, 2) Maybe if you looked at European stats, where you have more miles, you would see that the rates fall as miles increase, and 3) realistically, a transportation system that used mostly public transit would need radically less passenger miles, thus saving lives.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:31 am
15 Jul 2008
Anyway, gotta take commuter rail to a cute town with the family, more later.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:33 am
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:11 am
15 Jul 2008
http://www.aar.org/pubcommon/documents/govt/brown.pdf
.61 fatalities per ton mile vs. 1.45
Permalink
cscoxk Posted 8:33 am
15 Jul 2008
The cost of large scale hot rock geothermal is currently of the order of $4500 for a kw continuous capacity and likely to drop to $3000 with large scale development. See http://www.geodynamics.com.au
The cost of large scale solar thermal including heat storage is also of the order of $3000 per continuous kw with large scale development. See http://www.ausra.com/
A different way of looking at the economics is to look at the whole of life economics for the system. That is how much do we invest today and how much return do we get on the investment. Now do the same thing with fossil fuel ignoring the costs of emissions. The problem is that the time value of money distorts the economic calculations because the time value of money includes returns on consumption goods and services which have higher monetary returns more quickly than investment returns. That is the way the calculations are done distorts the economic argument towards quick returns immediately rather than more returns over a longer period.
We can overcome this problem by getting investment directed to these sorts of technologies in competition with each other and not in competition with returns from consumables. One way of doing this is to put up the price of polluting energy but give it back to low consumers as energy rewards but require them to invest the money in renewable energy. See
http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/a-market-approach- ... for a practical inexpensive way to do this.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:16 am
15 Jul 2008
irstly, we have extremely large quantities of hot rocks within 3 - 5km of the surface, in favourable locations throughout Australia.
In terms of Ausra. You site 3,000 per KW including storage. I could not find that number at the site. Please link.
I think you are looking at my higher O&M costs. But I'm including capital and fuel costs for the backup natural gas plants. Also last I hear solar with storage require 1.5 cents per kWh O&M not 1 cent O&M. Thermal storage has an O&M cost, not just the generating plant.
However, looking forward to correction. Incidentally fossil fuels generally have capital costs and O&M too. I used total energy costs, which already include these. So I'm not sure taking the time value of money is an unfair comparison. If you can document those lower costs, glad to incorporate them. This type of correction is what the public posting is for.
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 11:58 am
15 Jul 2008
seems pretty inaccurate, if not disingenuous, after what we've seen from the primary and secondary impacts of lost mangroves, coral reefs, rainforests, old growth, kelp beds, and other ecosystems. floodings, fires, global warming, lost fish, drastic restoration efforts, dead zones, reduced recreation space, species decimation, etc.
deserts, prairies, none of it is disposable - all of it is serving a crucial environmental function and the cumulative destruction caused by a plan of this magnitude would more than wipe out any price differentials in local, point of use systems IF you stop externalizing all the costs. the model commonly used is a superfund fine, not a BLM lease...
You must also assume, with the types of Big Renewable monopolies you wish to build, in lieu of energy independence for we ratepayers, that energy prices from these "farms" will skyrocket in coming years, since there will be no options for consumers. you can use Enron prices during 2001 or Big Oil from 2002 - present as a model for the types of "costs" that monopolies dump onto society...
are you willing to actually attribute real costs to real consequences in this way? if so, i believe you will find that local solutions owned by US are the only sustainable ones, and therefore, the only affordable ones.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:17 pm
15 Jul 2008
If we don't build renewable energy, we're going to end up with an even deader ecosystem, except on a far grander scale.
If you think droughts and heatwaves are bad elsewhere. Try deserts.
_
Solar thermal, we're just looking for about 10,000 square miles.
Which may sound big, but frankly thats 1/3rd the area currently devoted to corn ethanol.
And for that relatively tiny spec of land, we get enough electricity to power the entire nation.
_
That said, I really question if as a guy with "green" in your name, if you even take Global warming seriously.
As if ignoring it is a realistic option.
that there is no "cost" to the many millions of acres of intact ecosystems which would be permanently destroyed by building out massive wind and CSP "farms."
seems pretty inaccurate, if not disingenuous, after what we've seen from the primary and secondary impacts of lost mangroves, coral reefs, rainforests, old growth, kelp beds, and other ecosystems. floodings, fires, global warming, lost fish, drastic restoration efforts, dead zones, reduced recreation space, species decimation, etc.
Funny how, of that laundry list at the bottom, none of that would happen if we did this.
Also funny how you attribute zero cost to ignoring global warming. Since frankly, not only are we looking at many trillions of dollars of economic damage. But we'd also except to get at ALL of those things you say you want to avoid.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 2:29 pm
15 Jul 2008
This can all be done without Big Energy Monopolies, without mass ecosystem death, without eminent domain and without any higher costs if we just use local, point of use renewables rather than remote, wilderness killing "farms."
I love the desert and do not find it to be a throwaway wasteland with no value, so its total destruction would carry no "cost" in calculating the relative costs of local v. remote generation. If anything, we should spend more time studying it to learn how to better cope with droughts and heat, instead of kill it off in some unsustainable, wasteful, ill-conceived gold rush. Directly killing off our functioning, intact ecosystems to prevent indirectly killing off our ecosystems is kind of insane, if you ask me, since there are alternatives.
How does that "ignore" or "attribute zero cost" to global warming? Not only is it a viable solution, it's a better one, scalable much faster, and has the benefit of actually including PEOPLE in the new paradigm, instead of just opening another vein for Big Energy monopolies to build out another expensive, unreliable "infrastructure" so they can manipulate supply and pricing. Engaging people in this process as more than mouth-breathing consumers is critical to its success, since conservation is Job One. Feed in tariffs have proven to be far more successful at encouraging conservation than merely high prices...
Why does that offend you so much? Are you the personal architect of the Centralized Power Plant model we needed in the era of coal and no longer need? We are all on the same side here, I am just not willing to treat deserts as inferior ecosystems, and I'm not willing to immediately bow down to Big Energy as my savior when I know we can do this better ourselves.
I had to chuckle, of course, that someone with a handle referencing "grey," the color of ash, casts aspersions on the eco-cred of someone called "green." One of the funnier ad hominem attacks I've seen. No hard feelings - you are right about one thing - the "green" is disingenuous. "Green Path" is a giant, super destructive, unneeded transmission line the LADWP wants to run through Joshua Tree instead of letting LA's ratepayers put PV on their roofs...
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:56 pm
15 Jul 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:01 pm
15 Jul 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dqjhlPpFhk
Does that sound acceptable?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:06 pm
15 Jul 2008
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,565704 ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:12 pm
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:23 pm
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:23 pm
15 Jul 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:53 pm
15 Jul 2008
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 4:15 pm
15 Jul 2008
it is completely disingenuous to act like they will plot this tidy little square of previously farmed land, since at the public hearings, Big Solar was demanding access to National Forests, National Parks, ACECs and other sensitive habitats, and none of the sites I've visted so far have been disturbed land. That is a greenwashing tactic. And that doesn't even account for these massive, awful powerlines running everywhere.
this map shows about 2/3 of the current projects in CA right now, since many others have come into view in the past 4 months:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html
I'm off!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:11 pm
15 Jul 2008
Yeah but, Germany also have quite an extreme solar handicap to deal with.
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/07/thats-lot-of-sola ...
Luckily though India, China, US, and pretty much any country that's much of a "climate threat" has ready access to deserts.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 12:42 pm
23 Jul 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:52 pm
23 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:45 am
24 Jul 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:39 am
24 Jul 2008
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 12:50 pm
24 Jul 2008
I would be curious about your reaction to a more traditional feasibility study such as the one we did for the Ft. Mojave Reservation. See Http:/energy-renewable.com
While it is useful to look at the big picture, I think that getting the first 10% of a renewable based system up and running is a critical goal in its own right. Obviously, we can't get to 99% unless we solve the many problems of getting to 10%.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:45 pm
24 Jul 2008
That IS included in the workbook. Look at the Sgrid (for smart grid) sheet.
You have to look at electric cars in a grid for two purposes - actual storage where they feed electricity back into the grid and for demand shifting where a large percentage of cars will be able to afford to delay recharge.
Actual feeding power back into the grid Vehicle to Grid or V2G. Even with battery breakthroughs we can expect battery cycle cost to be 20 cents per kWh over the battery lifespan, plus actual electricity cost so 27 to 30 cents per kWh. (Batteries over their life cycle are more expensive than the electricity they store.) Plus round trip losses. And you have to pay a premium over cost to attract drivers to actually sign up - so 40 to 50 cents a kWh. Maybe 35 cents per kWh of battery life cycle costs drop amazingly. This is a reasonable cost to replace spinning and operating reserves, since they represent capital used at very tiny percentages. In some cases it is reasonable to replace seldom used peaking capability. It is NOT suitable for base or load following, and I know of no serious V2G advocate who thinks it is.
Much more significant is demand shifting. If people can charge their cars at both work and home, and drive the average daily U.S. distance or less (which most people do) then you can easily tolerate not charging at work as long as you can charge at home. Or not charging at home as long as you charge at work. Or (more realistically) getting partial charges over the course of combined parking at work and home, as variable wind and solar power are available. And this is huge. It really can cut costs for wind and solar. But it does NOT eliminate the need for base or load following.
Electric car needs and low temp needs, plus things like compressed air and refrigerations, represent about 38% maximum demand you can shift. (Note, this his highly realistic: in practice you are unlikely to ever tap all of this. Some cars will be driving or have batteries two low to delay charging. Some low temperature needs will be immediate. And some people will opt out of allowing any of their demand to be shifted in a smart grid.)
But even if you get the full 38%, unlike electricity storage, you can't handle surges. If you have nine hours storage compared to average demand, and you suddenly lose 90% of power during peak because cloudy and low wind weather coincide, you can draw from that storage and get three hours from it, or perhaps four because of the aforementioned demand shifting. But if all you have is demand shifting, you have a huge power demand you have to meet from backup. So even with tons of electric cars on the grid you need real storage separate from vehicles.
Incidentally, if we start vastly improving efficiency we are going to see shiftable demand as a percent of electricity drop. Because a lot of shiftable demand is in places where we can save electricity, and also many of the opportunties for increasing efficiency involve substituting electricity for direct fueling in industrial and domestic uses. (The last is counterintuitive. I advise looking at the sheet.)
It is really important to take a whole systems approach in looking at this sort of stuff.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:09 pm
24 Jul 2008
Your suggestion to bring in other tribes might solve that problem. I think there is an alternative outside the scope you were allowed that might be worth studying. What about a project that produces many times the electricity all the local tribes will need, that produces for export. The local tribes could be minority partners in a project that takes on outside investors, but as protection be guaranteed first call as customers, be operating partners (which gives them control), make the deal conditional on buyers willing to sign long term contracts (minimizing risks from improved technology).
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 2:29 pm
26 Jul 2008
Another issue is the catch 22 between having to have a long term power sale contract in order to get financing. As I understand it, the power utilities are willing to offer long term contracts at fixed prices and complete ownership of any marketable environmental resources such as carbon credits. Given that energy prices are increasing rapidly and the prospects for revenues from selling carbon credits is excellent, it doesn't make sense to rush into an energy development arrangement where the resource owners get only a small share of the rewards. Since a large solar project could cost a billion dollars it is not something that a tribe could finance easily without outside partners.
If BLM gives away large chunks of the southwest for solar development then the large developers and large utilities may make out like bandits.
In my personal view, the government needs something on the order of the TVA for large scale concentrated solar power development, including a smart and efficient grid to distribute it.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:12 pm
28 Jul 2008
Yes. I agree 100%. But with one major proviso. The TVA has been as bad as private companies when it comes to ignoring local communities. Remember Johnny Prine song, Paradise? Some Tennessee residents have lyrics about the TVA, cause it has stripped a whole of lot of land has been stripped to supply coal for its power plants. Anything TVA-like set up, I'd like to see some way for local communities (including obviously tribes) whose resources were used for big solar and big wind to have substantial voice these resource were used, including the ability to set standards for building, insist on bonds to n handle end-of-life, and substantial say in day to day operation.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:24 pm
28 Jul 2008
Also, why would a solar thermal plant need to be decomissioned? At worst, you would just have to replace various components, I would think.
Permalink
chanceslade Posted 3:25 pm
28 Jul 2008
One possibility for a thermal plant needing to be decommissioned would be something like fusion technology (or even concentrated photovoltaics) making them expensive and outdated. This could also be triggered if water use becomes more expensive.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:26 pm
28 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
29 Jul 2008
But heavy mass produced batteries unsuitable for cars would be fine for emergency backup power in homes and other buildings. A 24 hour cycle of power for phone, lights, computer, and light cooking loads like microwaves.
The beauty of a smart grid is that it can adjust load timing. The big storage capability of a smart grid is that it can cover the biggest domestic loads. Building heating/cooling, domestic hot water, freezer cooling, water pressure in domestic water systems, washer/dryers, plugin hybrid charging, and even ovens (put the food in overnight and let the smart grid time the cooking).
As far as industrial load, that can be timed too, but by using special storage, like phase change heat storage salt, and solar furnaces mounted right on and around the factory. Industrial design would change to incorporate onsite storage and wind and solar generation designed just for that particular factory.
The type of central power generation that needs a huge basedloasd capacity and load following would eventually dwindle over the next 20 years as the transition to renewable smart grid technolgy rakes hold.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:11 am
29 Jul 2008
Unless anybody tells you different, Excel has a 100,000 population smart grid project.
Think what this could do were it subsidized by the government. instead of funds going to big oil, coal, and nuclear power. Oil alone soaks up 18 billion per year.
What would 18 billion per year do for this smart grid initiative?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink