The subsidy tease, part III
A solar grand plan 29
-
Posted 3:14 PM on 15 Feb 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 8:45 am
15 Feb 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:25 am
15 Feb 2008
http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4989/
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:26 am
15 Feb 2008
In 2006.
There's been quite a ramp up since then.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 11:51 am
15 Feb 2008
If a Republican or Democrat gets elected, I foresee more subsidies for the oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and ethanol industries.
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:10 pm
15 Feb 2008
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 12:18 pm
15 Feb 2008
What this could look like is a huge pork market. What it should be presented as is a comprehensive renewable energy bill designed to soften economic losses of the most effected regions.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:32 pm
15 Feb 2008
Low-cost low-carbon energy and efficiency is eclipsed by very some very expensive subsidized toys. We need to stop all energy subsidies and hire some adult supervision.
Permalink
Jay Alt Posted 12:39 pm
15 Feb 2008
Obama's uplifting speeches haven't prevented him from thinking and proposing policies to solve the problems of energy security and climate change:
http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/09/obamas-excellent-en ...
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30/obama_factsheet/
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 1:04 pm
15 Feb 2008
I don't know where you live and it doesn't matter, but if voters face the prospect, or the PERCEIVED prospect of unemployment ( due to Coal Industry sponsored propaganda) or a significant disruption of their local economy, they will not support any politician who supports policies that do not support their cause, and, as a result, those politicians will not support policies that will cause their constituents to perceive that they will be unemployed or have their local economies disrupted.
It's just simple politics.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:26 pm
15 Feb 2008
The carbon lobby does not care about jobs. It is about welfare for the wealthy. There are millions of jobs developing efficiency and low carbon energy. Subsidies are not required.
We need a declaration of a national emergency and quickly fund science, engineering, education, and deployment of low carbon futures. No more energy subsidies.
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 2:26 pm
15 Feb 2008
"Fossil fuel subsidies, especially those that effect large parts of state and congressional district economies, such as coal subsidies in largely coal producing regions, will need to be replaced with something that will convincingly make up for the subsidies. Subsidies for solor, wind, geothermal or even subsidies totally unrelated to energy that are of equal economic value to the previous fossil subsidies of a region will be what is required to get the consensus needed to further the shift away from fossil fuels."
I agree with all the things you say we need. Sensible directed incremental solutions are the only things that the electorate will accept, especially when it effects them personally. We should be promoting solutions that are feasible, not one's based on emotion.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:00 pm
15 Feb 2008
Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour.
Ha, that's a joke. The authors claim that by 2020 solar might get down to 10 - 15 cents per kWh in today's money. Now it is much higher than that.
Solar today is at about 15 c/kWh in the desert, and all we need is something like 10; but we think we can get to 6, with time and money - so 10 c/kWh fully dispatchable (or 15 c/kWh, worst case).
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...
The authors ducked the tough questions on the Grand Solar Plan.
1 Let's assume it is 2100 and this vision is fully implemented as proposed.
Assume that we are terrorists who hate Americans and have sworn to kill as many Americans as possible.
We will not drop a bomb on a field of solar collectors. We will use small shaped charges to drop every HVDC power line crossing the Mississippi river, into the Mississippi river. Most wind power is west of the Mississippi river, so it will also be cut off.
We will watch the weather channel, and pick a time when they predict that a huge mass of arctic cold air will flow down from Canada generating record cold temperatures from Maine to Florida, as happened a couple of weeks ago. Or we will attack during a record heat wave such as the summer heat wave of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_American_heat_wav ...
The eastern U.S. will be under blackout conditions for at least a week. That combined with extreme weather conditions will result in a death toll in the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
a) Is this scenario possible? If not, why not?
b) If it is, do you agree that utilities will not be able to buy insurance coverage for it?
2 Under the solar plan the local utility will buy solar power at 11 cents per kWh corrected for inflation to the present.
Power from new nuclear plants is expected to cost about 5 cents per kWh until the plants are paid off, then much less, so the difference is at least 6 cents per kWh.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
The U.S. consumes over 4000 TWh now. That number is projected to be 29,000 TWh by 2100, let's assume an average of 10,000 TWh from now till then.
With a difference of 6 cents per kWh, the solar option will cost consumers $600 billion more than the nuclear option each year.
Over the next 92 years solar will cost consumers $55,000 billion more. That is 131 times the $420 billion subsidy called for in the paper. The subsidy is just the tip of the iceberg.
Assuming an average population of 350 million the average additional cost of solar will be $1,710 per year per person, $6860 per year, every year, for a family of four.
a) If congress proposed a bill to raise taxes on a middle class family of four by $6860 per year, every year, to pay for the marginal cost of solar, how far would it get?
b) Is it ethical to tell people solar is a one time cost of $420 billion spread over 12 years when actually that is a tiny fraction of the real cost?
The countries pushing renewables the hardest have the highest energy prices and generate most of their electricity from fossil fuels.
Denmark is in the lead at 29.5 cents/kWh, due to its huge push in wind power since 1979. Germans pay 21 cents/kWh, and it has recently put up a huge subsidy for solar, over 40 cents / kWh. It will be interesting to see what happens, my bet is that in a few years it will push them into the lead in the race for most expensive electricity in the world. Netherlands pays 25.8 cents/kWh, due to their huge wind subsidies.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
France is among the lowest in electricity cost and emissions in Europe because it is 80% nuclear.
3 I see no discussion of backup power plant capacity or its cost. Suppose a large winter cold front settles in over the desert SW cutting off most of the energy. The compressed air runs out.
a) What happens next?
4 The proposed solar system will burn large quantities of natural gas or equivalent to reheat the compressed air.
From previous comments;
"Adding this 300 Btu/kWh to the CAES power plant fuel consumption of 4,100 Btu/kWh gives us total fossil fuel consumption of 4,400 Btu/kWh.
The end result is fossil fuel efficiency of 3,412 Btu out / 4,400 Btu in, which is a 78% efficiency...
our net energy efficiency is 48%, which is somewhat less than what you calculate using Succar's compression energy estimate. Regardless of how you cut it, PV-CAES improves the efficiency of simple-cycle peak gas turbine power plants by 55-60%. And in terms of fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions the improvements are even greater."
Natural gas turbines have demonstrated 60% efficiency.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=54943
Since the authors assume big improvements in solar and CAES efficiency, it seams barely fair to compare it with proven state of the art gas turbines.
At 60% efficiency the turbine will need 5,687 Btu to make one kWh of electricity.
The solar - CAES system needs 4,400 thermal Btu to make one kWh of electricity.
The reduction in fuel consumption from using solar and CAES is;
(5687 - 4400)/5687 = 0.226 = 23%
Not the 66% savings claimed in the paper.
5 The fuel cost for the current fleet of natural gas turbines operating at 40% efficiency is 52.46 mills per kWh. Upgrading to 60% efficient machines would reduce fuel cost to 35 mills per kWh.
Nuclear reactor fuel costs 4.85 mills per kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...
By using expensive photovoltaic electricity to compress air, the solar system can reduce the natural gas consumption 23% below the best turbine. The natural gas fuel cost is reduced to 27.1 mills per kWh, which is still 5.6 times higher then the cost of reactor fuel, and the reactors do not emit CO2.
Natural gas provides about 20% of the U.S. 4000 TWh / year of electricity, 800 TWh / yr. If electricity consumption goes to 29,000 TWh as projected, and if 70% of that energy passed through a CAES system, it will be 20,300 TWh of stored energy / year.
That is 25.4 times the amount of electricity that is produced by natural gas today. The CAES system will require 13.1 times the amount of natural gas or natural gas equivalent we are using now.
a) How much land will be dedicated to producing that much bio gas?
b) What will it cost?
c) Is that cost included in the published cost estimate of 11 cents per kWh?
If we can produce that much bio gas in 2100 at an affordable price then the smart move would be to produce 29% more bio gas which would allow us to eliminate CAES completely and replace it with 60% efficient gas turbines. This would allow us to;
A) Eliminate the entire cost of the CAES system.
B) Reduce the size and cost of the solar collection systems by 70%.
C) Reduce the capacity of the HVDC power lines by 70%.
D) Provide a distributed array of gas turbines resulting in a stiff reliable grid, highly resistant to the threat of terrorism and natural disaster.
a) What are the thoughts on this change?
6 With 20,000+ Americans dying each year from coal, and considering the threat of global warming, waiting 20 years for solar to take off does not seem reasonable.
The report claims that by 2020 the cost of reliable solar kWh's may drop as low as 11 cents per kWh, if the improvements in solar cell efficiency and energy storage and transmission line cost advance according to projections.
Let us start providing 11 cents per kWh for any low emission electricity sources now, wind, solar, nuclear, wave, tidal, sequestered coal, geothermal etc. This will speed up the reduction of carbon emissions dramatically, and if solar is a good way to go it will acquire its fair share.
a) Do you support this recommendation?
b) If not, why not?
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Technology/Grand ...
http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Solar-Grand-Plan ...
The authors provided no answers to these critical questions, clearly indicating that the plan is not practical.
The federal investment would be $400 billion over the next 40 years ($10 billion a year) to deploy renewable technologies and suitable transmission infrastructure.
That is just the tip of the iceberg. The increased rates will cost Americans an additional $600 billion per year.
As for the nuclear power industry, it receives about $9 billion in taxpayer subsidies each year
Most of that is defense related.
The budget request for commercial nuclear power is about $2 billion.
Nuclear power produces about 20% of our electricity, so lets eliminate that huge $2 billion of pork and make nuclear power stand or fall on its own merits.
While were at it lets give back the $5 billion in taxes collected by local state and federal government agencies on the sale of nuclear power.
And nuclear power is one of our cheapest sources of electricity, O&M cost 2 cents / kWh.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...
So lets add two cents / kWh of nuclear power sold, to be used for nuclear power R&D and to back loan guarantees in support of new nuclear plants construction.
That would be $15.8 billion / year.
P.S. Don't try this approach with so called "renewables", the cash flow would be pitiful.
Permalink
theBike45 Posted 9:46 pm
15 Feb 2008
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:15 pm
15 Feb 2008
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:48 pm
15 Feb 2008
but short-term objectives, with practical approaches
best would be efficiency measures and and alternative energy with low-cost to run, but high up-front capital costs
these could be subsidized with tax breaks and PR campaigns
now organize
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:51 pm
15 Feb 2008
Second, I agree with your implication that the Solar Grand Plan is too centralized (although nuclear isn't a great option when it comes to terrorism either). So, if I ran the zoo, I'd put geothermal exchange units under every building, guaranteeing 55 degrees Fahrenheit, eliminating the disaster scenarios; then I'd put solar collectors and solar thermal units on top of the buildings, with enough storage for an emergency to keep the geothermal exchange units running for a couple of weeks.
And, if I ran the zoo, I'd retrofit all buildings to be much more heating-and-cooling efficient.
Hopefully someone will come up with a study of a mostly decentralized renewable energy network, so that there were wind and solar installations of varying sizes, with plenty of storage, spread throughout the country. But at least the Solar Plan shows that one very important part of that is possible.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:57 am
16 Feb 2008
There are genuine environmentalists, and they all acknowledge that fossil fuel energy is not subsidized.
The ones who insist that it is are deceiving themselves, and others if possible, in regard to their own beholdenness to the fossil fuel money that they are privileged to receive, and the rest of us are required to pay.
That is why the fossil-carbon-free energies they support must be non-dispatchable, or otherwise useless. Don't you agree?
If you want to call it a religion, consider this as one of the collection plates.
Let the baby play with matches in the fuel storage room!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:08 am
16 Feb 2008
Why not solar thermal, geothermal.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/geothermal
and if we still want to keep wind in the mix how about high altitude wind.
http://www.google.com/corporate/green/energy
All reliable, and cost competative.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:23 am
16 Feb 2008
In terms of high altitude wind. Great potential, I've written about it. But all that has been done are prototypes flown very briefly. FEG (Flying Energy Generators nee Gyrocopters) could very well produce 2 cents or cheaper per kWh energy. At that point we could look at compressed air without storage - because even at 40% efficiency (which is what you get from compressed air without a boost from a combustible gas and without storing the heat of compression) your electricy cost in per kWh out would be only be 5 cents per kWh. You have to add capital costs, but capital costs for a pure compressed air system are low.
In the meantime, conventional wind is one of least expensive ways we know to generate renewable electricity.
Geothermal is great, but again:
The kind we know how do now has very little potential compared to world demand.
There is major potential in dry rock technolgy accessed by using explosive to actually create small faults. So far no one has done a commercial demonstration of this, not even a long term demonstration at some multiple of conventional prices.
So at the moment the way to provide massive power renewably is with conventional wind and conventional solar thermal. The solar thermal would have betweeen eight and 24 hours of thermal storage. And the combined grid of solar thermal and wind would have some sort of storage attached - pumped storage, flow batteries, maybe even utility scale lead acid, though I think their short life span makes the latter more expensive in the long run even though capital cost are low. Note that according to the electricty storage association pumped storage still has the
lowest cost per cycle .
Permalink
shazam Posted 10:00 am
16 Feb 2008
The coolest thing about Obama is his willingness to listen and learn. I was most impressed when listening to the NPR debate (Hillary was there too). When asked what was the one thing that he was not so confident of, he said "climate change", with the reason that the evidence seems to be rolling in that it's gravely serious.
Of comparison, all the other answers from the candidates were pretty generic.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:24 pm
16 Feb 2008
Now if the next prez will only read it and take it to heart, like FDR did with Einstein's letter warning of the possibility of the A-bomb in 1933.
The Manhattan Project was iniiated and we see the mixed results.
I think the mix of soultions Bill has chosen will yield much better results, along the lines predicted.
Maybe Al Gore could present it too Hillary and Barack and extract a pledge? It might just help defeat the pack of coal, oil, nuclear, agribizz, and gas lobbyists.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:44 pm
16 Feb 2008
Smart grid potential is still theoretical, based on computer models, but Xcel and others are building out test projects. I think Excel has 1000 homes in their smart grid experiment?
I still think that using excess wind power to pump water back up into resevoirs and wetlands that feed into existing hydro dams is a great backup pumped hydro plan.
And biogas is an easily stored backup renewable source as well. Natural gas could further back up the distributed biogas powered generators, because of the nationwide natural gas pipeline system and conservation of gas now used for heating buildings being replaced by geo heat exchange.
I think the problem of dispatchability is solvable with much less storage than previously thought.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:21 pm
16 Feb 2008
We need a much more radical approach: carbon-negative energy - taking emissions out of the atmosphere, instead of merely 'reducing' them a bit.
That means: biomass + CCS.
It's also much cheaper than this solar grand plan because it doesn't require new infrastructures. It just taps into existing power plants.
Solar is good but not good enough for greens.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:56 am
17 Feb 2008
That is natural CCS using biomass. The biomass has to be returned to the soil for the most part. CCS of the type envisioned with clean coal is a diversion and a boondoggle. So is biomass energy schemes like cellulosic ethanol.
Solar, wind, water and the renewable smart grid and conservation prevents more CO2 from being released.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
maladapted Posted 3:30 am
17 Feb 2008
a few sufficiently wealthy people each stand to make a lot of money; or
a sufficiently large number of ordinary people each stand to make at least a little money.
I wish I was wrong, but my wishes have never passed any legislation.
Sighs, Maladapted
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:11 am
17 Feb 2008
But with a purely local renewable grid, you still are going to get troughs where electricity demand exceeds supply that last longer. And because most local grids have significant potential for sun OR wind not both, you can end up with supply troughs that last days, sometimes weeks. We need local renewable smart grids with low temp storage. But we will still need significant electrical storage. And to prevent that need from being measured in days or weeks rather than hours, we need long distance transmission, so that the grids are NOT purely local.
Permalink
bedros22 Posted 9:33 am
17 Feb 2008
Joseph Basralian, NYC.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:10 am
18 Feb 2008
Yes HVDC state and regional loops are one answer. I like them for industrial power especially. For transporting intensive wind farming and solar power producing capacity around the national grid. Southwest solar thermal, offshore and great plains wind, excess solar rooftop PV power all over to wind/solar drought areas or industrially intense regions.
I think the grid can be stabilized for an emergency minmum standby capacity even on a house to house basis though. Think of a smart grid that prioritizes right down to lights and water pressure and periodically running the refrigerator.
That local neighborhood stability would buildout into stable local, state, and regional grids.
And of course the ultimate backup for this minimum emergency power level would be biogas from waste in distributed cogeneration built into each local smart grid. Since natural gas pipelines go just about everywhere, each local grid can be guaranteed a minimum power level from natural gas in these distributed cogenerators (100 kw to 10 mw?) indefinitely.
Natural gas supplies will last a long time given the huge demand reduction from a switch to geo heat exchange heating/cooling.
Have you seen anything on tapping deeper geoheat for heating whole cities? 200 degree F heat sources ought to be within fairly easy drilling range.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
KenG Posted 11:34 am
18 Feb 2008
Permalink