*[Enwl-eng] Feature: Renewable Energy Can Meet All or Most of OurEnergy Needs
0 views
Skip to first unread message
ENWLine
May 1, 2013, 1:19:31 PM5/1/13
to "ENWL-uni"
Rebuttal: Faulty or Incomplete Analysis Skews Numbers and Conclusions
for Renewable Energy*
By Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
2013-04-10 10:13:42.0 | 11 Comments
Matthew Stepp's analysis of an NREL Renewables study appeared here and
in The Washington Post on April 5th.
Find his piece The Limits of Renewable Energy: A Call for Research and
Development here.
His commentary on the potential for renewable energy to meet climate
change reductions was limited to a narrow study. I routinely hand out 25
studies released in the last few years to my students, that in
aggregate, conclude that the world and the U.S. can meet most-or-all of
their energy needs with commercially available high-value energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
The most recent studies on renewable energy contributions do not address
the potential of high-value energy efficiency.
For example, energy efficient motors, super-insulated and electrochromic
windows, solar daylighting, LEDs/CFLs, higher-insulated buildings, and
combined heat and power (waste heat) could easily save or meet over 20
percent of U.S. energy needs and use according to the American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Most energy efficiency analysis does not always include renewable
thermal technologies --- solar heating and cooling, geothermal heat
pumps, wood pellets and bio-fuels, trombe walls and other passive solar
building features --- all of which could cut U.S. energy demand by at
least another 10 percent.
Base-load renewable energy (capable of supplying power 24-hours a day)
can provide the U.S. (conservatively) 10 percent through geothermal
according to an MIT study, 10 percent by marine energy, which includes
freeflow hydropower, tidal wave, and ocean thermal and currents (EPRI
group study), and 18 percent by waste biomass including landfill gas,
food processing wastes and contaminated grains, animal manures and
poultry litter, human sewage and food wastes, and forest slash and
thinnings that are not able to be absorbed by the forest floor (ORNL
report).
Concentrated solar power (CSP) located in U.S. deserts actually has the
capacity to meet all our electricity needs from a resource standpoint
and can also supply baseload power when it uses molten salts and other
thermal storage. Assuming transmission limitations and costs, CSP could
conservatively, but practically, provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity
needs.
Most studies do not point out that many variable renewbles naturally
coincide with season and peak electric power rates, ratchet rates,
and/or lower utility demand charges. According to Energy Self-Reliant
States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules
Project, "customers in San Francisco on a time-of-use pricing plan pay
more for electricity during peak hours (12 noon to 6 p.m.). In the cold
months (November through April), the peak rate is 11.1 cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to 8.3 cents during non-peak hours. But
in the warm months (May through October), electricity used from 12 noon
to 6 p.m. costs 31 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while off-peak
electricity is 7.9 cents per kWh."
Variable solar, meaning concentrated solar power without storage and
photovoltaics, both utility-scale and distributed on-site generation can
meet a minimum of 12 percent of U.S. needs according to studies by
Navigant, Google.org and others. And the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory studies have shown that onshore and offshore wind power could
supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. In many areas of the U.S.,
these sources offset 'naturally' higher cost (and polluting) energy from
older peak generating plants or are wheeled from utilities far away
incurring line losses.
A great many of these reports fail to incorporate higher-value energy
efficiency that can meet thermal needs such as waste heat and
renewables, passive solar building materials, and solar daylighting ---
this is a huge energy resource, which my colleague Amory Lovins
eloquently labeled "negawatts."
Most of the analysis reports, including many of "my 25 top studies" also
leave out certain renewables. The entire portfolio is the asset, not
just part of the recipe --- like a pizza without crust or a soup without
broth --- not acceptable. But they gloss over it --- and we all accept it.
What is so nice about this blended energy scenario, is that we are not
putting all our eggs in one technology basket, the energy sources are
smaller and more geographically dispersed than the traditional
larger-scale electricity generation, and are closer (in most cases) to
the end users so there are less line losses and greater cradle-to-grave
positive energy balances.
The reduction in water use is an important asset, since energy is the
largest user of water, and we are at the beginning of a 50 year drought
and more intense weather patterns due to a changing global climate.
Wastes are minimal compared to what we are experiencing from unusable
water (fracking), radioactive nuclear waste, and coal ash --- a Sierra
club study identified 39 additional coal ash dumpsites in 21 states that
are contaminating water supplies with heavy metals. The government is
inadequately monitoring these disposal sites and lax at regulating the
toxic waste, according to IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash
Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment (PDF).
These resources are renewable and not tied to global commodity trading
with unexpected increases, minimal greenhouse gas emissions as well as
minimal regulated emissions under the Clean Air Act --- NOx, SO, mercury
and particulates. And contrary to popular notions --- all are
manufactured in the United States with subsidies one tenth of what the
conventional energy industries receive.
So what's wrong with this picture? Not the science. Not the business
case. Not the pubic opinion. Just the political will. But the deficits
in our energy analysis by selectively cherrypicking only part of the
sustainable energy picture just adds to the confusion and does not
propel us to a sustainable future.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/rebuttal-faulty-or-incomplete-analysis-skews-numbers-and-conclusions-for-renewable-energy?cmpid=WNL-Friday-April12-2013
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:48 PM
Subject: Feature: Renewable Energy Can Meet All or Most of Our Energy Needs
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
for Renewable Energy*
By Scott Sklar, The Stella Group
2013-04-10 10:13:42.0 | 11 Comments
Matthew Stepp's analysis of an NREL Renewables study appeared here and
in The Washington Post on April 5th.
Find his piece The Limits of Renewable Energy: A Call for Research and
Development here.
His commentary on the potential for renewable energy to meet climate
change reductions was limited to a narrow study. I routinely hand out 25
studies released in the last few years to my students, that in
aggregate, conclude that the world and the U.S. can meet most-or-all of
their energy needs with commercially available high-value energy
efficiency and renewable energy technologies.
The most recent studies on renewable energy contributions do not address
the potential of high-value energy efficiency.
For example, energy efficient motors, super-insulated and electrochromic
windows, solar daylighting, LEDs/CFLs, higher-insulated buildings, and
combined heat and power (waste heat) could easily save or meet over 20
percent of U.S. energy needs and use according to the American Council
for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Most energy efficiency analysis does not always include renewable
thermal technologies --- solar heating and cooling, geothermal heat
pumps, wood pellets and bio-fuels, trombe walls and other passive solar
building features --- all of which could cut U.S. energy demand by at
least another 10 percent.
Base-load renewable energy (capable of supplying power 24-hours a day)
can provide the U.S. (conservatively) 10 percent through geothermal
according to an MIT study, 10 percent by marine energy, which includes
freeflow hydropower, tidal wave, and ocean thermal and currents (EPRI
group study), and 18 percent by waste biomass including landfill gas,
food processing wastes and contaminated grains, animal manures and
poultry litter, human sewage and food wastes, and forest slash and
thinnings that are not able to be absorbed by the forest floor (ORNL
report).
Concentrated solar power (CSP) located in U.S. deserts actually has the
capacity to meet all our electricity needs from a resource standpoint
and can also supply baseload power when it uses molten salts and other
thermal storage. Assuming transmission limitations and costs, CSP could
conservatively, but practically, provide 10 percent of U.S. electricity
needs.
Most studies do not point out that many variable renewbles naturally
coincide with season and peak electric power rates, ratchet rates,
and/or lower utility demand charges. According to Energy Self-Reliant
States, a resource of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance's New Rules
Project, "customers in San Francisco on a time-of-use pricing plan pay
more for electricity during peak hours (12 noon to 6 p.m.). In the cold
months (November through April), the peak rate is 11.1 cents per
kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to 8.3 cents during non-peak hours. But
in the warm months (May through October), electricity used from 12 noon
to 6 p.m. costs 31 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while off-peak
electricity is 7.9 cents per kWh."
Variable solar, meaning concentrated solar power without storage and
photovoltaics, both utility-scale and distributed on-site generation can
meet a minimum of 12 percent of U.S. needs according to studies by
Navigant, Google.org and others. And the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory studies have shown that onshore and offshore wind power could
supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. In many areas of the U.S.,
these sources offset 'naturally' higher cost (and polluting) energy from
older peak generating plants or are wheeled from utilities far away
incurring line losses.
A great many of these reports fail to incorporate higher-value energy
efficiency that can meet thermal needs such as waste heat and
renewables, passive solar building materials, and solar daylighting ---
this is a huge energy resource, which my colleague Amory Lovins
eloquently labeled "negawatts."
Most of the analysis reports, including many of "my 25 top studies" also
leave out certain renewables. The entire portfolio is the asset, not
just part of the recipe --- like a pizza without crust or a soup without
broth --- not acceptable. But they gloss over it --- and we all accept it.
What is so nice about this blended energy scenario, is that we are not
putting all our eggs in one technology basket, the energy sources are
smaller and more geographically dispersed than the traditional
larger-scale electricity generation, and are closer (in most cases) to
the end users so there are less line losses and greater cradle-to-grave
positive energy balances.
The reduction in water use is an important asset, since energy is the
largest user of water, and we are at the beginning of a 50 year drought
and more intense weather patterns due to a changing global climate.
Wastes are minimal compared to what we are experiencing from unusable
water (fracking), radioactive nuclear waste, and coal ash --- a Sierra
club study identified 39 additional coal ash dumpsites in 21 states that
are contaminating water supplies with heavy metals. The government is
inadequately monitoring these disposal sites and lax at regulating the
toxic waste, according to IN HARM'S WAY: Lack of Federal Coal Ash
Regulations Endangers Americans and Their Environment (PDF).
These resources are renewable and not tied to global commodity trading
with unexpected increases, minimal greenhouse gas emissions as well as
minimal regulated emissions under the Clean Air Act --- NOx, SO, mercury
and particulates. And contrary to popular notions --- all are
manufactured in the United States with subsidies one tenth of what the
conventional energy industries receive.
So what's wrong with this picture? Not the science. Not the business
case. Not the pubic opinion. Just the political will. But the deficits
in our energy analysis by selectively cherrypicking only part of the
sustainable energy picture just adds to the confusion and does not
propel us to a sustainable future.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/rebuttal-faulty-or-incomplete-analysis-skews-numbers-and-conclusions-for-renewable-energy?cmpid=WNL-Friday-April12-2013
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:48 PM
Subject: Feature: Renewable Energy Can Meet All or Most of Our Energy Needs
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages