Two Ways We Can Use 100% Clean Energy by 2020, from Repower America
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 11. 7.08
While it’s not exactly an answer for a question I put to Al Gore in a recent post, more details have come out about how the clean energy vision Gore articulated in his Repowering America speech can be made a reality. In a series of charts on the Repower America website, two scenarios are laid out which show different energy mixes which will give the US 100% clean energy by 2020. (The two additional years added on since Gore’s speech are only for ease of comparison with DOE charts...)
So here they are, two potential energy mixes that can result of getting our collective act together and making the commitment to only use clean energy:
Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Can Make Up For Not Using Fossil Fuels
In each scenario, Repower America assumes that nuclear power (we’ll leave aside whether this can truly be considered a clean source of energy...) and large scale hydro power remain at current levels (17% and 6% respectively) and that energy efficiency improvements can reduce overall energy demand by 28%.
Each assumes that in addition to these energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy continues robust expansion (solar, wind and biomass rates are consistent with existing industry growth projections), and that a national unified smart grid is built to facilitate bringing that power to the places where it’s needed most. (Note: links in this paragraph go to Repower America’s explanation on how we can do this.)
Scenario A: We've Kicked the Fossil Fuel Habit
I think the most important thing to take away from this is that the amount of solar PV, wind and biomass presented here are consistent with current industry growth rates. We’re not talking about increasing the speed at which these technologies are deployed, just consistently expanding what’s already happening.
Scenario B: Carbon Capture Used on Limited Scale for Natural Gas & Coal
While I still have my doubts about a larger scale viability of CCS technology, perhaps the 4% presented here is viable. Though it seems like it’s more of a head nod to the technology more than anything else. And why not go all the way and knock coal and natural gas out of the running, as in Scenario A?
DOE Reference Scenario: Still Emiting CO2 Like There's No Tomorrow
For more on Repower America’s scenarios, their answers to some objections to these scenarios (Won’t they take up too much land? What about material shortages?), as well as a whole slew of expert quotes on the viability of these scenarios, visit: Repower America.
all images: Repower America
Al Gore, Renewable Energy
Al Gore’s Repowering America Speech Video Clip
Al Gore: New ‘Moon Shot’ Needed to Solve Climate Crisis
Al Gore and Power Vote Team Up to Get Out the Green Vote (Video Clip)
Surf eCo School Saves Rainforest
|
GoodGuide Proves Green is Priority with Top Prize at Web 2.0 Summit
|
Yes, this seems to be where current growth rates in renewables are headed, at least for wind and solar.
I certainly hope we can maintain the current growth rates in these energy sources for another 10-15 years.
However, let's also realize that while efficiency gains can, easily, reduce our electricity demand by 30%, we also have to add in a rise in electricity demand as vehicles begin to move from oil to grid. That is certainly not a game-breaker, and with a smart grid could actually make the transition process easier, but it is something to think about.
As much as I would love to see this happen, current coal and gas plants probably will never just "shut down." But even if current fossil fuel plants stayed open to produce the electric to power electric cars, that is still a huge reduction in pollution and huge increase in efficiency compared to having separate engines in every car.
In both scenaria, the biggest chunk comes from efficiency, 28% in both. This is the key fact about energy - efficiency is the essential task. Concentrate on efficiency first, last, and always and you might just reduce your energy load enough and save enough money in order to make PV and other "exotic" renewables possible and affordable.
I've been following energy issues for over thirty years. I don't want to hear about solar or wind. I want to hear about efficiency. One person I've listened to recently is Thomas Casten of Recycled Energy who has a "zero cost" solution, changing rules and regulations to allow easier and quicker development of cogeneration and higher efficiencies in the use of "waste" energy.
I'd rather see a reduction of the consumption levels, as no current green tech can manage the exponentiality of the demand.
Even though the technology might be available, it is definitely not easy to increase efficiency and reduce consumption by 30%. The Repower site states that this will create a number of new jobs, which is great, but they fail to mention the tremendous amount of additional energy required to increase efficiency on this scale. Even if we could snap our fingers and make everything in this country 30% more efficient without using any energy, we would still be about 10% short of the approximately 40% efficiency gain needed to reduce overall demand in 12 years by 28%.
I was also surprised they promote a national grid so heavily. Clearly the grid could use some updates but sending electricity across the country is not efficient.
Overall I would say their scenarios would be less ridiculous if instead of a 28% reduction in consumption, that 28% came from fusion.