By Dennis Markatos-Soriano, American Forum
May 28, 2009
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission director Jon Wellinghoff recently stated that the U.S. may not need any new coal or nuclear power plants. Due to our tremendous renewable energy potential, the rising challenge of global warming, and the high cost of new conventional plants, I think he’s right.
The U.S. can meet future electricity demand by deploying efficiency and renewable energy.
The potential for renewable energy is great. The U.S. has more wind and solar potential than all its oil, gas and coal reserves. Our current total electrical generating capacity of 1,000 GW is dwarfed by the combination of onshore and offshore wind potential of ~3,000 GW cited by Interior Secretary Salazar. And solar power’s potential is many times greater than that if we deploy panels on less than 1 percent of our land. Add to that the potential of geothermal, hydropower, and biomass — and fossil fuels begin to look like a dinosaur of the 20th century that will soon be replaced.
The price of new renewable energy is decreasing dramatically and may soon be lower than new fossil fuel power supply. For instance, solar photovoltaic modules have fallen from $20 per watt in the early 1980s to below $3 per watt today. Between 2004 and 2008, white-hot demand growth that outpaced solar supply growth prevented prices from falling. But now that supply has caught up with demand, 2009 prices continue downward.
Fossil fuels have powered our rising standard of living since the late 1800s. But now that we recognize large current and future costs from greenhouse gas pollution, we must cap such pollution and lower our emissions. We successfully lowered lead emissions from gasoline in the 1980s and sulfur dioxide from coal smokestacks in the 1990s. A similar cap (with emissions trading) to lower carbon emissions is now being considered in Congress. Such a framework gives renewable energy the opportunity to grow in electrical market share from 10 percent today to over 20 percent by 2020.
The renewables market is poised to meet all new electricity demand. Of renewables’ 10 percent share of electricity, hydro contributes the most — followed by wind, biomass, geothermal, and solar. Renewable capacity represented over half of new capacity in 2008 (with wind power growing a record 8.5 GW and solar .36 GW). By 2011, renewable capacity growth can provide the ~15 GW per year our grid needs without adding expensive new coal or nuclear power plants. By the mid-2010s, renewable electricity can replace retiring old coal power plants, especially in the wind-rich Midwest and the solar-rich Southwest.
U.S. electricity demand growth is slowing and may soon stagnate even as population continues to climb. From 9 percent per year in the 1950s, demand growth has fallen each decade to ~7 percent, 4.2 percent, 2.6 percent, 2.3 percent, and then ~1 percent so far in the 2000s. Today’s recession erased the need for new electric capacity recently as electricity use fell almost 1 percent in 2008 and is projected to fall much further in 2009. Electricity demand is not expected to recover to 2007 levels until 2011.
This tough economic period is an opportunity to build a more secure economy by spurring our recovery through efficiency and renewables. As long as the recent stimulus bill is executed well, we can hold demand constant through living more efficiently and implementing smarter grid design.
Deploying efficiency and renewables can support millions of green jobs in our country and strengthen our economy as we free ourselves from huge foreign oil bills. Becoming the global leader in low-carbon energy and efficiency is a path to prosperity in a world focused on reducing emissions in the decades ahead.
We maintained economic health in the past by leading innovations of the 20th century. A domestic market was always crucial for success, such as U.S. computer demand driving Silicon Valley’s advances. Now, a domestic market for efficiency and renewable energy will help us regain our economic footing.
Jon Wellinghoff is right. Our country has the renewable resources to take advantage of falling costs for wind and solar power. The time is ripe to aggressively match this deployment with efficient usage, simultaneously saving ratepayers thousands and helping preserve a stable global climate.
Markatos-Soriano is the director of Sustainable Energy Transition (www.setenergy.org), a nonprofit dedicated to helping campuses and communities throughout the country move to a climate-friendly energy future based on efficiency and renewables.
The Hunger Site
May 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Some Facts To Counter The Pro-Nuclear Illusion
1) Nuclear power plants are so expensive and time consuming to build that not nearly enough of them could be built in time to have any measurable impact whatsoever during the time deadlines needed to effectively counteract the global climate crisis. According to the latest science we now have 10-30 years to go carbon free to avoid a major global environmental and civilisational collapse. We simply do not have time to wait for large scale nuclear.
2) Nuclear power plants, contrary to industry claims, are responsible for large scale CO2 emissions. This is because of mining and ore processing. Because the world is neither filled with solar and wind power plants nor nuclear plants, uranium ore must be processed using fossil fuel power. Because of this, over the course of its life time, a nuclear plant generates one third to one half of the CO2 emissions of a natural gas fired power plant.
3) Peak Uranium. Just as with oil and natural gas, uranium is reaching its peak global extraction curve. It is becoming progressively harder and harder to find uranium at previous levels of purity. The result is that less pure ore is extracted and this ore requires -more- fossil fuel burning to purify. If we were to try to switch to nuclear power in the massive capacities suggested for countering global warming, the added fossil fuel inputs necessary to process the ore as it rapidly becomes less and less pure would completely counteract the lower on-site emissions of the nuclear plants themselves. If we were to pursue such a course, the average nuclear power plant would generate the same CO2 emissions as the average natural gas power plant within just 10 years. So once again, the realities of basic geology and physics make using nuclear power to counter the climate crisis an impossibility.
4) A fact unknown to most, because it is covered up by the industry, is that nuclear power plants require the continuous emission of ‘low level’ nuclear waste into the air, all throughout their entire lifetimes. (I put ‘low level’ in quotes because worldwide, nuclear scientists recently reached solid consensus that there is -no- safe level of radiation exposure.) If we were to build lots of nuke plants, we would be swamping the biosphere and our communities with these radioactive wastes.
For all of these reasons, it is impossible, -impossible- for nuclear power plants to have any measurable or safe impact on the climate crisis.
Eric Brooks
May 28, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Francis, I used to think nuclear energy could be a viable alternative to coal, gas and oil, but the simple fact is, fissionable materials, like coal, oil and gas, are also finite resources. Plus, nuclear power stations are very expensive to construct and have a finite shelf life before they become another expensive environmental hazard/clean up/deconstruction project.
May 28, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Let’s not overlook nuclear power in the renewal energy discussion, shall we?
Nuclear power costs about the same as coal, so it’s not expensive to make. It doesn’t produce smoke or carbon dioxide, so it does not contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Nuclear power produces huge amounts of energy from small amounts of fuel. Yes, it produces a small amount of waste but this waste is reusable! We can reuse spent fuel rods. President Jimmy Carter greatly curtailed this practice because of a fear of their being used for nuclear weapons.
Windmills and tide turbines and biofuels and solar panels will NEVER be able to meet our high energy demands. We have to use every power source at our disposal to get our of this bloody energy mess we’re in.
May 28, 2009 at 1:22 pm
By “sustainable or renewable energy†we mean those sources of energy that meets our present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their energy needs, right?
For example, there are only so many reservoirs under the ground containing crude oil. There are no dinosaurs dying today that will be providing us with gasoline in the future. Once we get done drilling for oil, we cap the pipe and move on to another oil field. Maybe an oil-rig tower used a second or third time at different locations could be considered “sustainable,†but that is a stretch. Again, there are only so many existing pockets of oil left on the planet.
But a wind mill will keep producing power as long as the wind blows which, for the most part, will be forever. Ball bearings and propellers parts might wear out, but they can be replaced. The wind keeps right on blowing. Similarly, corn used for biofuel can be grown again and again, year after year.
The tough part to get over, at least in the minds of the public, is that gasoline is “pound for pound†or “gallon for gallon†a kick-ass energy source. You get a lot of bang for your buck with petroleum, especially in a finely tuned automobile with a clean carburetor and tight piston rings.
While last year’s high oil prices increased the purchases of hybrids, when gas dropped in price at the pump, so did the public’s interest in buying hybrids.
But, again, there are only so many existing pockets of oil left. The transition will have to take place sometime.
Do we want to make hybrids mandatory? Or, at least offer, a tax discount on their purchases?
Do we want to make it mandatory that at least some percentage of gallon of gasoline contain ethanol? That’s it, no “if, ands, or buts†that will be the standard and all gas stations must comply.
Some people wait until they have a heart attack to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Others adopt a healthy lifestyle before a heart attack happens to them.