The subsidy tease, part III

A solar grand plan

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 3:14 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Read more about: politics | climate | energy | renewable energy

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

A recent issue of Scientific American featured a "Solar Grand Plan." Its authors described a way for the United States to obtain nearly 100 percent of its electricity and 90 percent of its total energy, including transportation, from solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources by end-of-century. Electricity would cost a comfortable 5 cents per kilowatt hour.

U.S. carbon emissions would be reduced 62 percent from their 2005 levels. Some 600 coal and gas-fired power plants would be displaced. The federal investment would be $400 billion over the next 40 years ($10 billion a year) to deploy renewable technologies and suitable transmission infrastructure.

If that future seems too good to be true, then look at two other studies during the past 13 months that have reached similar conclusions: one sponsored by the American Solar Energy Society (PDF), the other by the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. All three concur that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies can satisfy the nation's demand for power without additional nuclear or fossil-fueled power plants.

If $400 billion seems unaffordable, consider: It's less money than the federal government already has spent on the Iraq war, only a third of the $1.2 trillion that some experts now predict the war will cost, and only a sixth of the federal government's current annual subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy.

And if a Solar Grand Plan seems politically implausible, read the newspaper. Last November, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said we have until 2020 to make major changes in greenhouse-gas emissions. Two weeks ago, the chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell told his staff that world oil demand will outpace supply within seven years. That means rapidly rising oil prices, more recession (the last five recessions in the U.S. were preceded by high oil prices), more power for oil-producing nations like Iran and Russia, and more likelihood of international conflicts.

The more practical -- and certainly the more survivable -- of these two futures is the Solar Grand Plan, an aggressive national effort to rebuild the economy on a foundation of efficiency and sustainable energy supplies. To get to that future, national energy and climate policy must have a few key ingredients.

First, as I argued in the first two parts of this series, we need sensible federal incentives to overcome the array of market imperfections that stand in the way of energy security. Those incentives must be large enough and sustained enough to allow renewable energy industries to become viable and to allow beneficiaries to use them.

Second, the industries need a substantial, assured market to spur investment. A national Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard would help, along with firm commitments by federal, state, and local governments to purchase solar collectors, wind turbines, plug-in hybrid vehicles, energy efficient equipment, and so on.

Third, the federal government must stop subsidizing the energy technologies that are causing climate change and economic instability -- coal, oil, and gas. They are mature industries that can and should stand on their own two feet. Instead, they received nearly $50 billion in federal support in 2006, according to subsidy expert Doug Koplow (PDF). As a result, global warming remains a tax-supported enterprise in the United States even though, thanks to the work of the world's scientists, we should know better.

As for the nuclear power industry, it receives about $9 billion in taxpayer subsidies each year, according to Koplow. Taxpayers have been subsidizing it since 1948. The industry still hasn't figured out how to permanently store its wastes, protect its plants from terrorists, guard effectively against nonproliferation or compete in the marketplace without help.

How do we turn federal subsidies from pork into tools of good public policy -- public policy, in other words, that truly enhances the security, prosperity and opportunity available to the American people?

End virtually all subsidies for the oil, gas and coal industries and redirect the funds to research, development and commercialization of new renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies, carbon sequestration projects, programs that help those least able to cope with climate change and the downsides of climate policy, and local efforts to adapt to climate change impacts already underway.
Conduct an inventory of all other federal subsidies that promote greenhouse gas emissions. Believe it or not, no such inventory has ever been done. Some of these subsidies will be surprising -- for example, mortgage interest deductions for McMansions encourage bigger homes that, unless they are true green, are a significant factor in America's growing energy consumption. To create transparency for the first time in how we subsidize climate change, the inventory should be put on line where everyone can see it.
Create a nonpartisan, cross-sector presidential commission to recommend which carbon subsidies should be repealed, and which are necessary for national security or economic stability. These recommendations will remove the feedbags from a lot of sacred cows and the cows won't like it. So, the recommendations should be handled like military base closings -- in an all or nothing, up or down package placed before Congress.
Create a "Climate Protection Performance Standard" for future subsidies. The standard should be based on the full life-cycle performance of the technology, service or resource being subsidized and require high net energy, net emissions, net water and net economic benefits. The standard could also include the subsidy's projected impact on environmental quality, ecosystem services, energy independence and other critical factors. This week, the New York Times reported that many types of biofuels produce more carbon emissions than they prevent, when factors such as soil tillage and forest-clearing are taken into account. A full-cost life-cycle assessment would bring factors like this to light, rather than committing federal funds on the far-less-objective standard of political clout.
Establish sliding scales. Subsidy levels should decline over time to spur early action. In addition, subsidies should be awarded on a sliding scale to reward best performers -- for example, those activities and products that score best under the Climate Protection Performance Standard.

As we all know, the American people face several urgent issues without a lot of money to address them. Climate change and energy security are among them and are connected with many others, including health care costs and defense spending. We need to invest in our future far more carefully than we are doing today. We need to stop paying one another to destabilize the atmosphere.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

For story: The subsidy tease, part III
29 Comments | Post a Comment

Heliostat photo or drawing?

Who, what, where are those heliostats?

by sunflower at 3:45 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Probably

Probably San Diego Gas and Electrics "Solar Two" project.

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4989/

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 5:25 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Nuclear

As for the nuclear power industry, it receives about $9 billion in taxpayer subsidies each year, according to Koplow.

In 2006.
There's been quite a ramp up since then.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 5:26 PM on 15 Feb 2008

you all love Obama

Let's see if he implements any changes...

If a Republican or Democrat gets elected, I foresee more subsidies for the oil, gas, nuclear, coal, and ethanol industries.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

by John former Marine at 6:51 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Bill Becker's best post..

...because he discusses reports that make it clear that solar/wind/geothermal could replace coal/oil/natural gas. While I appreciate the time and energy going into making carbon more expensive, it will only be after carbon taxes or cap-and-trade are implemented that these solar/wind/geothermal plans could be considered. So it would seem to be logical to me to simultaneously begin a massive, government-supported building program to implement these plans, spending hundreds of billions per year, at least. Or if that seems politicall unrealistic, at least propose the possibility.

by Jon Rynn at 7:10 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Replace, don't end, subsidies

It wont be politically feasible to simply eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. 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.

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

by Gary Gifford at 7:18 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Public green v. private greed

I would rather see graduates writing peer review science than see them forced to take jobs for big business doing green spin and Ponzi schemes. I am weary of magic ponies.

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.

by sunflower at 7:32 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Obama proposals . . .

to: John former Marine-
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/

by Jay Alt at 7:39 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Get real

Sunflower

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

by Gary Gifford at 8:04 PM on 15 Feb 2008

I live on Earth

And Earth will be destroyed by carbon energy. Where then are the jobs? I will never support subsidies for mass murder, nor those who profit from such evil.

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.

by sunflower at 8:26 PM on 15 Feb 2008

As I stated in my original post....

An excerpt (and main point) of my previous post that Sunflower was responding to:

"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

by Gary Gifford at 9:26 PM on 15 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

the reality of solar

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.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 10:00 PM on 15 Feb 2008

Subsidies are braindead mantras

The problem with environmentalists is that they are so closed minded they can't see the forest for the trees. Anything and everything that produces power without carbon emissions they religiously promote , like some braindead born-again who thinks his is the only way. The problem is that we have encouraged pure garbage technologies that have no place in an advanced civilization - hell, wind power is less advanced than the on-demand wood-burning heating systems used by the cavemen, and more ancient ancestors who didn't even possess a written language. Solar photovoltaic is just as crappy, as are most wave technologies. Until environmentalsts get a brain and quit supporting every non-dispatchable, carbon-free, and useless energy technology, they wil continue to be seen for what they are - dimwitted puritans trying to sell everyone a bill of goods.

by theBike45 at 4:46 AM on 16 Feb 2008

Solar wind wood - yes. Subsidies - no

by sunflower at 5:15 AM on 16 Feb 2008

useless form of debate

have long range goals

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

by ce1907 at 5:48 AM on 16 Feb 2008

Bill Hannahan,

Two main points -- first of all, I don't know what the people were smoking that led them to the number of 29,000 TWh by 2100. These straight-line predictions are useless unless you can lay out how those TWhs are going to be generated. 350 million people don't need 7 times the electricity they have now.

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.

by Jon Rynn at 6:51 AM on 16 Feb 2008

Green is as in greenback

The problem with environmentalists is that they are so closed minded they can't see the forest for the trees. Anything and everything that produces power without carbon emissions they religiously promote , like some braindead born-again who thinks his is the only way. The problem is that we have encouraged pure garbage technologies that have no place in an advanced civilization - hell, wind power is less advanced than the on-demand wood-burning heating systems used by the cavemen, and more ancient ancestors who didn't even possess a written language. Solar photovoltaic is just as crappy, as are most wave technologies. Until environmentalsts get a brain and quit supporting every non-dispatchable, carbon-free, and useless energy technology, they wil continue to be seen for what they are - dimwitted puritans trying to sell everyone a bill of goods.

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!

by GRLCowan at 7:57 AM on 16 Feb 2008

So why

So why conventional wind and conventional pv?

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.

-David Ahlport

by GreyFlcn at 10:08 AM on 16 Feb 2008

Dispatchable

Cross connect them over long distances, add storage and wind and solar become dispatchable. And normal 80 meter wind works damn well - cost less than PV and less than PV will for some time.

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 .

by Gar Lipow at 1:23 PM on 16 Feb 2008

Obama

@John former marine

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.

by shazam at 5:00 PM on 16 Feb 2008

Einstein letter written

I guess Bill Becker has written the proverbial "Einstein letter" for this current crisis.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:24 PM on 16 Feb 2008

Smart grid Gar

Conservation and storage possible with smart grid technology should make storage like pumped hydro or batteries unecessary Gar. And long distance energy transport less of a smoothing effect and more of an option for industrial power use.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 8:44 PM on 16 Feb 2008

Solar is a bit weak for greens

Greens can not really take this plan serious. It is carbon-intensive, needs fossil fuels, and won't make a dent in eliminating carbon emissions.

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.

by Jonas at 6:21 AM on 17 Feb 2008

Carbon negative

The only way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere is to increase natural carbon sink by expanding conservation land and going to organic agriculture.

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 7:56 AM on 17 Feb 2008

How to get there from here

My visceral distaste for subsidies is at least equal to Sunflower's, but my understanding of how policy gets legislated is closer to Gary Gifford's. It appears unlikely an energy-policy bill will make it through Congress unless:

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

by maladapted at 10:30 AM on 17 Feb 2008
[ Parent ]

Smart Grid

Smart Grid with conservation and storage is vital. But smart grids shift a portion of demand by twelve hours or less. With really good thermal storage for climate control, hot water, and certain low temp industrial applications you might extend some of this to 24 hours.

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.

by Gar Lipow at 11:11 AM on 17 Feb 2008

Climate Tease -- GREAT POST!

Let's keep these policy ideas coming! And to generate results, can a portion of Grist dedicate itself to a set of policies that it can rally us around?

Joseph Basralian, NYC.

by bedros22 at 4:33 PM on 17 Feb 2008

Agreed Gar

"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."

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 John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:10 AM on 18 Feb 2008

Large Geothermal

Deep geothermal works in theory. You can get to 200 deg F in general around 2 miles down. Drilling 2 miles is feasible, but not your average borehole. The real problem is that unless you can get into a very permeable region at this depth, the rock quickly cools and the amount of total heat you can get out is limited. That is why power geothermal is isolated to areas that have hot rock unusually close to the surface and has sufficient permeability to allow a lot of flow through the hot rocks.

by KenG at 6:34 PM on 18 Feb 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

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.