National clean energy proposals: Part II

In my previous blog I outlined Google’s Clean Energy 2030 proposal for reducing carbon emissions and increasing renewable energy production in the US. As promised, I have gone through the proposal in detail and now offer my thoughts on what I like and dislike about it. As always, these issues are open to debate, and I encourage everyone to get involved, or at least to educate themselves on the subject. I will try to provide links for external sources of information where applicable. My comments are as follows, in no particular order:

• I like that the renewable energy goals are being achieved through three main areas: wind, solar, and geothermal. Nathan Lewis at the California Institute of Technology outlines the total energy that can be potentially captured from natural resources in a series of talks and papers. Of these, wind, solar, and geothermal comprise the three largest, although solar by far is greater than the other two. With that in mind, I think the goal with respect to wind is reasonable in that the technology is currently close to maturity and is cost effective. In my opinion however, the geothermal goals seem a bit inflated considering the level of investment that will be needed for widespread implementation of enhanced geothermal systems. Globally speaking, I think solar (thermal and photovoltaic) will be the best solution, but utilizing all of our mix of resources for a near-term national solution is advisable.


• Transmission capacity will certainly need to be expanded in order to support the increased production from remote and distributed sources, as noted in the proposal. However, the proposal should also take into account transmission efficiency. This is a major area for improvement, as transmission losses make up a large part of the 68% of electricity produced that is wasted, according to 2008 numbers. So while end-use electrical efficiency can be improved through technologies such as Google’s PowerMeter, we should also focus on smart-grid technologies and advancements in superconductors for increased supply efficiency. Perhaps this area is included in the efficiency measures taken to produce flat electricity demand?
  


• I agree that the personal vehicle sector will be the easiest upon which to impart change, but we shouldn’t forget the other 40% of the transportation sector where efficiency improvements can, and are being made. GE has made strides in locomotive efficiency, while large-scale implementation of hybrid trucks, fuel cell buses, and efficient passenger planes are all feasible within the next 20 years.


• I agree that the private sector will/should provide much of the funding for these initiatives, in addition to that which the government contributes. More than anything, the role of the government is most valuable in instilling an attitude with the public that these changes are necessary, and with that said, I think so far the Obama administration has done a good job showing that energy policy is a priority. This includes funding in all levels of R&D, including basic sciences.


• The proposal does not take into account the natural behavioral phenomenon I like to call “guilt-free purchasing” – the idea that if something is environmentally cleaner and/or more energy efficient, people may naturally buy more of it compared to their normal purchases. For example, if a futuristic newly established business knows that LED lights are more efficient, and that the electricity they are using comes from mostly renewable energy, they may install twice as many lights as are necessary to illuminate their showroom. In this sense, publicly speaking, if there is an idea that the electricity we use is clean, people will tend to use more of it, and care less about efficiency. The point I am making is that it is easy to push better efficiency when there are multiple drivers in addition to just cost, i.e. CO2 emissions from electricity generation. As a result, the efficiency measures in the proposal that keep demand constant over the next 20 years are based on today’s urgency. If and when the nation’s electricity is mostly from renewable energy, these efficiency standards will be hard to maintain, especially in a world where economic prosperity and energy consumption are so closely tied. The trouble with this notion is that it is very difficult to quantify. My comment then is that one must be cognizant of this phenomenon and perhaps include a time-dependent variable in the electricity demand calculations that account for this.


• I like the fuel efficiency standard of 45mpg by 2030, although from a technology standpoint I think it can go a bit higher, considering that Europe has set the same standards for 3 years from now. Obviously this is a behavior issue though, as Americans like large inefficient cars. Perhaps that will change in the next 20 years though, where we will find we can eclipse this mark.


• In relation to the above comment, it is important to recognize that when discussing gasoline versus electric cars, fuel savings is not equivalent to CO2 savings. While the proposal takes into account the increased electricity demand, the opportunity cost of gasoline cars compared to electric vehicles must include the CO2 released in the production of the electricity used in the vehicle. Using current figures, I recently wrote a blog in which I calculated that electric vehicles emit 2/3 less CO2 when traveling the same distance as the average internal combustion car. While this would certainly be reduced even more as coal and gas electricity generation is replaced by renewable resources, this CO2 contribution needs to be included in the personal vehicle numbers that the proposal quotes.


• Clean Energy 2030 deserves a lot of credit for recognizing the potential of a program like cash for clunkers (they reference this article in their proposal) well before it was readily accepted and implemented. Accelerated replacement of inefficient vehicles provides immediate carbon emission savings, and establishes a standard for future car generations. The total fuel and carbon savings from this program will perhaps be the subject of another blog…
  


• I agree with the limited role that biofuels are given. I know I am probably angering a whole community of scientists with that statement, but I am open to debate on the subject. In my opinion there are three main reasons I do not support biofuels, at the moment. Firstly, I don’t believe that biofuels are truly renewable. While they in theory have a zero net carbon cycle, this is only true if the biomass is replanted, re-grown, or re-produced in an equal manner. But it is not a closed cycle. The process requires land (for the scale of production required), and land is a limited resource that is used for other products and other means that are just as, if not more important, as outlined in this Science article, which was also covered in The New York Times. The process also requires extreme amounts of water, which may be a concern in coming ages. Secondly, the complete energy efficiency of the cycle, depending on the type of biomass, remains relatively low. Thirdly, there just isn’t enough biomass in the quantities needed in order to significantly impact the energy demand of the world. Despite that, there will be, and are niche areas where biomass serves as a great solution, especially where the added advantages of having a liquid fuel can be utilized. Plenty of information on the basics of biofuels can be found here.


• I am guessing that the intermittency cost of 20$/MWh is not arbitrary, so I would be curious to find out from what source it is taken. Intermittency is and will be a key issue as more solar and wind generation is added to the grid. However, there is a possible solution. While I may be accused of being biased because my background is in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), SOFCs offer a unique solution in that they can be run in reverse as electrolysis cells (SOECs). This dual nature allows for generation of electricity from hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels, but also storage of electricity in the form of these same fuels. Hence, they can be used for power leveling where excess electricity is converted to fuel to be used later when demand exceeds production. SOFCs are also a distributed energy solution, where residential houses, commercial buildings, and utility companies can each have their own fuel storage and electricity generation systems. The full cycle efficiency of electricity-fuel-electricity of an SOFC/EC is upwards of 70%, which approaches the cycle efficiency of a battery, with the added benefit of having unlimited energy storage. While SOFCs are currently not cost effective, ongoing research can certainly meet efficiency and cost goals by 2030, which should greatly reduce the 20$/MWh intermittency value.


• I agree with the doubts regarding the viability of carbon capture as a solution to CO2 emissions. This is a very expensive technology in today’s form, and has not been proven effective in large scale. Additionally, the problem remains as to where and how one would be able to store all this carbon and CO2. I reference again Nathan Lewis’ talk as a great outline for the concerns regarding this technology.
  


• It should not go unmentioned that there are other cost savings to creating a renewable energy economy that are less tangible, yet just as important. Among these are reduced defense spending to fund wars as a result of needed oil imports (“petrodictatorships”, as coined by Thomas Friedman in “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”), cleaner environments, healthier air, and hopefully, less costs resulting from reduced climate change.


• I am a strong believer that any and all technologies that offer viable solutions to our current carbon emissions problems should be implemented in one form or another. While it is my opinion that solar power will be the sole solution to the world’s energy problems in the distant future, a suite of near-term solutions is the most practical and cost-effective means for achieving this goal. With that said, it is important to recognize that efficiency is not a solution in and of itself to our energy problems. While efficiency measures can produce incredible cost and carbon savings, as recently outlined by a team at McKinsey, maintaining electricity demand at current levels over the next 20 years, the goal of Clean Energy 2030, would be just as detrimental without significant development of renewable energy sources. Efficiency measures with today’s energy portfolio only delay the problem. But efficiency measures enhance the solution when renewable sources are implemented.


• Lastly, the financial model is very sensitive to the price of gasoline, as witnessed by the change that occurred when the value was reduced from $4 to $3. It would be nice to see how sensitive the model is to gasoline prices in general, as well as any other variables that are subject to change. With that in mind, I think the best way to present the data is in a “best case - worst case” scenario, where a range of possible outcomes is given. Or at least it could be determined at what price of gasoline the plan breaks even. This would give the reader some insight into how robust the proposal is with respect to natural variables.

In conclusion, I think that Clean Energy 2030 is a great source for understanding the possible solutions for reducing our carbon emissions and establishing a renewable energy portfolio. Whether you agree with the ideas and the financials or not, I hope that we can all agree that a solution in general is needed to curb our nation’s dependence on fossil fuels.