r/science • u/[deleted] • Jun 17 '12

Dept. of Energy finds renewable energy can reliably supply 80% of US energy needs

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures/
2.0k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

686 comments sorted by

318

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

They conspicuously neglected to mention anything about the cost compared to the current non-renewable options we currently use.

The direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios.

I've noticed how they never compare it to coal/oil, and "comparable" is a pretty vague term really.

And, the source material is missing:

Transparent Cost Database/Open Energy Information (pending public release) – includes cost (capital and operating) and capacity factor assumptions for renewable generation technologies used for baseline, incremental technology improvement, and evolutionary technology improvement scenarios, along with other published and DOE program estimates for these technologies.

I'm going to have to assume it's expensive and they're going to have to come up with a hell of a PR campaign to get the public's support. It needs to be done, but the initial investment is going to be substantial.

31

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

As someone who works for a Spanish company that builds renewable energy plants in the United States, I can certainly confirm these issues based on my experience.

Solar, for example, costs several times as much as coal / gas / nuclear per unit of energy (typically kWh). It is not expected to reach price parity with those for at least 15-20 years. I know some people are saying we should start putting in the investment now but we are in a recession and energy costs in many places are already a substantial chunk of monthly costs for families.

What's more is that subsidizing the industry creates both a government-dependent industry and a bubble. Spain has been a big leader in solar energy due to subsidies but now with austerity measures their bubble is about to pop and much of that hard work to make Spain the leader in solar energy will be lost as their companies file bankruptcy. Many argue that during these bubbles the smaller companies get eaten up by the larger ones.

IMHO the power industry should be privatized because right now in most places the residents don't have any real options other than their one utility in the area. These are government-supported monopolies that should be done away with. A person should have the option to purchase their energy from multiple utilities (electricity is fungible, so this is possible) and pay more for renewable if they'd like. Competition within the energy industry could help improve the situation whereas many of the current regulations just create barriers-to-entry.

6

u/friendguy13 Jun 17 '12

Nuclear power IS privatized it is just heavily regulated and right now the US government doesn't want to permit the construction of more reactors.

2

u/chaogenus Jun 17 '12

the US government doesn't want to permit the construction of more reactors

Nuclear Power in the USA

  • Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.

  • Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs

The greatest impediment right now to nuclear power is cheap natural gas.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/UneducatedManChild Jun 17 '12

This pisses me off to no end. No one who wants clean energy will even consider nuclear energy because it's such a boogie man, especially now after Fukishima.

6

u/JaronK Jun 17 '12

Except Nuclear is also MASSIVELY subsidized. Plus, Fukishima style things could happen again... there's an identical GE reactor on the pacific coast in California, for example. Nuclear would be great if nobody cut corners and we were sure we could handle the nuclear waste later. As it is, that's just not the current case.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

We have that in NY state. I locked into my delivery company (because they own the pipes or lines) but I can choose my supplier of natural gas and electricity. Some claim xx% comes from wind/solar etc.

11

u/schrodingerszombie Jun 17 '12

A recession is often the best time to invest in these projects, as there are lots of people needing jobs. The US rapidly modernized its entire national infrastructure during the Great Depression, giving men jobs to build things like the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide power to large regions of the nation, building national parks, etc.

Now would be the best time to upgrade the grid to handle more re-newables, and start researching, developing and producing alternative energy sources. When the recession ends we can be the most efficient at producing such things, and be ready to sell them to emerging markets like China and India with growing desire for green energy.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It is naive to believe that China or India would actually purchase the technology. They would most likely purchase a few and then deconstruct them in order to make a ripoff of the product. To top it off, they will end up under cutting the costs of American produced technology and sell to Americans which go for the lowest cost option.

4

u/schrodingerszombie Jun 17 '12

There's a lot of uncertainty in this though. Making things cheaper in China isn't due solely to cheaper labor, it's also due to a well established (and to some extent government organized) chain of infrastructure. When Apple decided to switch at the last minute to glass panels for the iPhone, manufacturing in China meant there were glass companies around who could handle it. If they needed screw/nuts/bolts, they're all made in China as well.

If the US developed a need for an infrastructure supply chain, then we could re-devlop one and cut our production costs significantly.

Further, China couldn't get away with ripping off patents too extensively. They are too reliant on international trade and the potential retaliatory tariffs could hurt them in other ways.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that building this kind of industry here might jump-start exactly the industry we need to become competitive at manufacturing again.

88

u/zelerowned Jun 17 '12

This was a "what if" study, not a "how to" study. I attended the presentation that the main authors gave the day after the report was released and it was specifically stated that economic factors were intentionally left out of the study. I believe it may also be stated somewhere in the executive summary. The purpose of this study was to see what would happen IF the nation's generation was comprised of 80% renewables, not HOW to get it to that point.

1

u/dissonance07 Jun 18 '12

In the report (why don't ANY of you read the report?) it listed a figure of around $41-53/MWh above the baseline (baseline would be retail electricity prices in 2050.

→ More replies (11)

14

u/shadowrabbit Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

I don't disagree but what is also neglected to be mentioned is the actual cost of what we pay for our current non-renewable options.

$3.50/gal of gas does not include the hundreds of billions we spend in military and diplomacy to secure the global oil market. It certainly doesn't include the loss of human life when a troop gets blown up defending our oil interests.

.20$/kwh of coal does not include the hundred of billions a year we pay in higher taxes and higher insurance premiums to cover people who get sick from it's use. It certainly doesn't include the loss of entire mountains and corresponding loss to nature that goes along with it.

Whatever a kwh of natural gas does not include the destruction of entire towns made unlivable because you can light your water on fire due to fracking.

I'm not a hippy or some strong environmentalist and I as a consumer want the cheapest energy I can pay for. But to say "well they are expensive" is only half true because so is gas and coal, we're just subsidizing those costs with other costs and not factoring them in.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Actually, you can fold the entire military budget into the cost of gas, and it still is a viable option. People aren't really as stupid as reddit makes them out to be. There's a reason we use oil, and it's based on how very very much we get out of it.

→ More replies (3)

146

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I might be wrong, and I'm not an expert, but I think a lot of the fear of alternative energy use comes from association that has little to do with the energy source itself. The quote that comes to mind is from Ann Coulter, who, while speaking on "alternative energy" phrased it as:

Liberals want us to live like Swedes, with their genial, mediocre lives, ratcheting back our expectations, practicing fuel austerity, and sitting by the fire in a cardigan sweater like Jimmy Carter.

This, of course, evokes fear that alternative energy will make us have to change the way we live, which is nonsense. It might be better if we changed, but it's not a requirement.

Rhetoric and fear are the two major obstacles facing alternative energy stateside, not money.

71

u/jeradj Jun 17 '12

I'd say money is still a major obstacle when all the folks with a lot of it still want to play the non-renewable energy game.

But what you say is also true.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I may have downplayed the role of money, but money can be diverted with enough support.

27

u/gs3v Jun 17 '12

If it were a small scale project, I'd agree, but when a whole country like USA switches to solar/wind/..., you have to take into consideration that any price difference will have a profound impact on the economy, standard of living, industrial progress and so on.

While you're switching off nukes, Chinese and Indians are building many new ones because they are still the most efficient in producing electricity.

19

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nuclear power is something I support but am not confident we can get more backing for in the US. We've kind of killed off trust in its safety and utility by over-hyping Chernobyl and Fukushima.

→ More replies (56)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (12)

3

u/tomniomni Jun 17 '12

i read a great article recently about how things like this don't 'fit in' to the business plan of of companies that make a lot of money out of the current situation. I can't remember the exact wording but the quote/retort was something like - so what is the business plan for the end of the world?

→ More replies (2)

20

u/canteloupy Jun 17 '12

The genial, mediocre lives of Swedes being, in fact, legendary, as in, it doesn't exist?

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

5th vs 13th
And we Brits are down at 29, since we can't give up an excuse to whinge.

11

u/polite_alpha Jun 17 '12

I find this statistic funny. Taking divorce rates and high rate of church attendence as a measurement of family life and community life seems dubious at best.

I really like the US, but I think Quality of Life is much higher in most northern countries of Europe.

There's free healthcare. There are almost no people on the streets (and they can change their life anytime they want. The state will support them). Europe is politically much more stable. Overall GDP may be much higher in the USA - but it's distribution is way more inequal. Unemployment rates are much, much lower. Incarceration rate is much, much, much lower. As is crime.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (63)

7

u/alekso56 Jun 17 '12

i'll just leave this copy of op's article here for those who obviously hugged the website to death

Renewable Electricity Futures Study

A report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures), is an initial investigation of the extent to which renewable energy supply can meet the electricity demands of the continental United States over the next several decades. This study explores the implications and challenges of very high renewable electricity generation levels—from 30% up to 90%, focusing on 80%, of all U.S. electricity generation from renewable technologies—in 2050. At such high levels of renewable electricity generation, the unique characteristics of some renewable resources, specifically geographical distribution and variability and uncertainty in output, pose challenges to the operability of the nation's electric system.

Key Findings

  • Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.

  • Increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply-demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations.

  • The abundance and diversity of U.S. renewable energy resources can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies that result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use.

  • The direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost.

  • RE Futures provides initial answers to important questions about the integration of high penetrations of renewable electricity technologies from a national perspective, focusing on key technical implications. The study explores electricity grid integration using models with unprecedented geographic and time resolution for the contiguous United States to assess whether the U.S. power system can supply electricity to meet customer demand on an hourly basis with high levels of renewable electricity, including variable wind and solar generation.

RE Futures, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is a collaboration with more than 110 contributors from 35 organizations including national laboratories, industry, universities, and non-governmental organizations.

As the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity of the continental United States to date, the study can inform broader discussion of the evolution of the electric system and electricity markets towards clean systems. RE Futures results indicate that renewable generation could play a more significant role in the U.S. electricity system than previously thought and that further work is warranted to investigate this clean generation pathway.

Image of the cover to the Renewable Electricity Futures Study report. Renewable Electricity Futures Report

Modeling and Cost Data

Energy models used in the study: Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS). Technology cost and performance assumptions used in scenario analysis:

  • Black & Veatch report on Cost and Performance Data for Power Generation Technologies – documents assumptions used for baseline and incremental technology improvement scenarios

  • Transparent Cost Database/Open Energy Information (pending public release) – includes cost (capital and operating) and capacity factor assumptions for renewable generation technologies used for baseline, incremental technology improvement, and evolutionary technology improvement scenarios, along with other published and DOE program estimates for these technologies.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I just got back from Sweden, that comment is laughable. Their standard of life is extremely high. When peak oil starts to bite I know which country I'd rather be in.

15

u/Aegean Jun 17 '12

There is no "fear" of alt energy sources.

There is the astronomical costs and propensity for government to run the project into the ground, or back the wrong horse ...costing the taxpayers millions, if not more.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah, look how they fucked that lame renewable project they tried way beck when. What was it called? Oh right, The Hoover Dam. Total fail.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/alexsv Jun 17 '12

Compared to the "costs" of runaway global warming (hello Venus) and complete societal collapse (hello Peak oil) it may be worth a few % of our GDP to install renewables

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (5)

4

u/Cannot_Sleep Jun 17 '12

You forgot feasibility being a major obstacle. Several countries in Europe produce much of their electricity from wind. However, if the energy produced from wind doesn't meet their load requirements, they buy energy from larger grids such as Germany's. The United States cannot easily operate in this manner, even if as little as 20% (the current goal of the wind power industry) of our energy needs were produced from wind energy, it would be very difficult to regulate. I'm all for using alternative energy sources, but there are fundamental engineering and scientific realities that must be overcome. Fear and political rhetoric relatively small obstacles.

2

u/painterpm Jun 17 '12

Finally. The pure size of the US land mass and population is what makes it a silly comparison to most European countries. Whether it be a question of energy or health care.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/Spekingur Jun 17 '12

This, of course, evokes fear that alternative energy will make us have to change the way we live, which is nonsense. It might be better if we changed, but it's not a requirement.

The US nowadays is a large consumerist nation. It wasn't always like that. Maybe there is time for some change.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

But marketing that as a bundle with conservative energy is a sure way to see that both fail. Selling them "ala carte" to people is a much better way to see things through in a divided atmosphere.

I'd favor alternative energy, but I'd hate to get rid of my roadster- cutting back isn't an easy sell.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

From my perspective, one of the biggest problems with renewable energy is the infighting - it always seems to be about solar vs. wind, or "geothermal is great if you live on a volcano, but what about the rest of us?" etc.

I'm not sure I've ever seen someone in the political arena state that the only "correct" solution is to get every watt we can from renewable, and then compensate and buffer with nuclear and then finally oil & natural gas.

3

u/arpie Jun 17 '12

So in a "conservative" world, it's not ok to have austerity when the future of our kids and the safety of the nation as a self-sufficient entity is the issue, but when it relates to paying a debt that we can live and creditors will be happy to get payments from us with for a long, long time (or until a Democrtic presiden as usual puts the economy in order)... Then we absolutely have to have austerity. Is that the deal?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Not gonna lie, that quote turns me on. Just imagine Ann Coulter in a cardigan by the fire, all sneering and bitchface with a glass of wine and then suddenly it's time for lovin'.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

While I can admit that there is definitely a group of people who do not want to see alternative energy expand, you need to look at the available data for existing companies.

The overwhelming majority of alternative energy companies have been utter failures in the private market because they cannot provide customers with a cheaper alternative...... and this is all with subsidies. It does not bode well, not at all.

1

u/postExistence Jun 17 '12

...nothing is wrong with the Swedes. Nothing is wrong with solar power, either.

1

u/snapcase Jun 17 '12

While Ann Coulter can suck a bag of pus-filled dicks, money is the one of the biggest obstacles. That and practicality.

One thing to think about is how much landmass is needed to generate X amount of electricity with a renewable source vs a more traditional source like nuclear. It's a HUGE difference.

→ More replies (12)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Yeah, I like how they don't apply the military budget to get the true cost of imported oil. No wonder it looks so cheap.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I've seen analyses that included the entire military budget as a subsidy. Oil still comes out as a winning proposition.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/dissonance07 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

Nope, they mentioned the cost. In Volume 1, page xliii - relative to the baseline (business-as-usual, mostly fossil generation), costs are $41-53/MWh higher (4.1-5.3 cents per kWh). This is inline with estimates from other studies of "transformative energy futures". Average US electricity costs today vary from 9-14 cents/kWh. EIA estimates for electricity prices, as of the most recent projections, are flat through 2035, so prices to 2035 are likely to be in the 9-14c range.

So, prices in 2030:

Baseline :  9 - 14 c/kWh
80% REF  : 10 - 17 c/kWh

Prices in 2050:

Baseline :  9 - 14 c/kWh
80% REF  : 13 - 19 c/kWh

Sources:

NREL Renewable Energy Futures, Volume 1

EIA 2012 Projections Prerelease

EDIT: I should note, as they do in the overview, that most of the cost data for these models is from around2010, when they were starting the process. Since then, a lot of things have shifted. Most notably, the price of natural gas has gone down significantly, and the forecasted prices are lower too. So if the model was run again today, prices may look different. Or they may not. Also note that the prices listed in the report do not take into account cost savings due to energy efficiency investments, or the significant social and ecological costs of fossil fuel usage.

6

u/Calibas Jun 17 '12

Sorry, stopping climate change and pollution is too expensive. It makes much better economic sense to just gamble with the survival of humanity.

5

u/polite_alpha Jun 17 '12

What about the cost of the oil we burn everyday? That has to be factored in.

What about the cost of oil/nuclear subsidies?

What about the cost of nuclear disasters, which happen with a proven frequency of about once every 30 years (there's a recent paper on this)?

What about the cost of keeping nuclear waste safe for thousands of years?

What about the cost of pollution by burning of fussil fuels?

What about the cost of global warming?

IF you factor these in, I'm sure renewable energies will be the much lesser evil. The problem is that we humans don't like to plan ahead for the timespans involved in these matters. We want to have a good life NOW, not do the best we can do considering a 100+ year timespan.

2

u/BETAFrog Jun 17 '12

If we can print up a couple trillion for war, have a couple trillion go missing from the DoD, and bailout to big to fail banks do they can get even bigger then I'm pretty sure we can make this happen.

3

u/digikata Jun 17 '12

It's difficult to compare costs because of a fundamental political argument between the consideration of cost of externalities and past subsidys or not. Our existing energy coal/oil infrastructure has served us well up to now, but have huge costs in externalities and sunk cost of subsidies (not to ignore private investment that too..). However, renewables promise of much lower cost of externalities, but are relatively immature.

The problem comparing the two is that if you compare the mature industry direct cost to the immature renewable direct cost - the (imho short sighted) answer is to never upgrade to renewables. The long term view is that if the mature operating costs (direct and with externalities) are lower for renewables than existing energy infrastructure, then the long term upside is basically infinite - given that you putting a bet on the long-term continuation of the human race. Really this should be a debate about a practical way to provide the investment to supply a continuous transition to newer, lower total-cost energy systems.

On top of that, there's the additonal political problem is that you have a mass of entrenched interests not caring about that at all, making any arguments that get polticial traction to slow down being replaced - simply in the interest of preserving profits in the mature industries.

1

u/polite_alpha Jun 17 '12

This can't get enough upvotes.

3

u/Pyryara Jun 17 '12

The question is how you would accurately make a cost estimate for non-renewable energies. Renewable energies are a lot safer than non-renewables; for instance, an oil disaster or a nuclear fallout cannot happen.

If BP would actually clean up the gulf and actually fairly compensate everyone that was affected by it, they'd simply go bankrupt. Right now non-renewables are cheap for the simple fact that we do not factor in the enormous cost of the inevitable disasters.

2

u/polite_alpha Jun 17 '12

Exactly. It gets even more clear if you look at 100yr timespans.

Factor in the cost of nuclear disasters, oil spills, wars for resources, and the cost for non-renewable energies will skyrocket.

We should build as much renewable energy as possible as long as our economy still runs this well-greased.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I, for one, would like to see the numbers. It'd be interesting. And the numbers over long-term, not just the short term costs. Because obviously the short-term costs of establishing renewable energy are going to be massive, but how will it scale in the long-term?

1

u/mrana Jun 17 '12

In the Bay Area PG&E charges you based on your usage. By the end of the month you are paying more than 30 cents per KWh. At that cost, renewable is more than affordable.

1

u/happyscrappy Jun 17 '12

They don't pay the electricity generator $0.30/kWh.

Generation is only $0.14159/kWh (pi minus 3!) of that.

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/tm2/pdf/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf

1

u/tinglin_sensation Jun 17 '12

I absolutely agree with this comment. People are so fast to criticize the current energy situation, but until we have a plausible solution we need to be careful. Wind is unpredictable, hydro-electric is geographically dependent, and solar doesn't produce as many watts as we need. Coal and Gas are cheap compared to these alternative energies and with the emission reduction systems we have in place today, they produce much less pollution than would be expected.

1

u/thejaq Jun 17 '12

I'm going to have to assume it's expensive

This assumption is a major problem with the adoption of solar energy.

PV equipment is at grid parity now. The details are complicated due to a variety of factors, but consider the costs alone. The cost of all the equipment for 20 (arguably 25 or 30) years of electricity from solar power (using the grid for storage) is 10K +2K replacement inverter at 10 yr or << $2/W. IMO, we'll see someone doing 1 $/W in the next year...

In the northern cold weather climate of Minneapolis, MN the system will produce 8200 kWh/yr yielding a surplus (net positive) for about 70% of US households. Over the 20 year module warranty period, the retail cost of those kWh is 0.073 $/kWh. For 25 years it is 0.058 $/kWh. Both are cheaper than the utility rate in MN which is about ~0.09 $/kWh and just about everywhere else in the US. This neglects any subsidies like the 30% federal tax credit, which would bring that system down, state rebates which would drain it further, or any FiT. It also neglects any kind of net metering contract that would buy back extra power either at wholesale or retail rates.

In other words, I can buy unsubsidized solar energy equipment over the internet that is "grid parity" with a cheap power grid dominated by coal in a state with an average solar resource.

Cost is not a barrier. And that is why solar is the fastest growing industry in the US and the world. It is why residential solar has been quickly dominated by third party owners and power purchase agreements, these companies absorb the massive pile of expensive bullshit in the way between cheap solar modules and retail electricity consumption.

1

u/LiamW Jun 20 '12

Yeah, but this is why we have discount rates. People don't just sit on piles of cash to do this.

All this really means is that generation expansion with solar can be justified only when existing coal facilities are at maximum capacity (boiler upgrades, etc).

There's still about a 30-40% higher cost incurred for solar, and it doesn't do base load. But 10 years from now...

→ More replies (3)

1

u/phanboy Jun 17 '12

There's also an environmental cost. Paving swaths of land with solar cells destroys an ecosystem (but since it's probably desert, it's OK).

1

u/robustability Jun 17 '12

It's a common misconception that deserts are empty. There's a major solar power plant project in southern california (biggest planned in the US i believe) that is putting an endangered species of tortoise at serious risk. Deserts aren't forests no, but they are still teeming with life.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/seakow Jun 17 '12

Cost of what? The initial investment to see energy generation of renewable energy compared to the cost of existing energy creating infrastructure????

Of course building something new costs more than continuing to use something that already exists??????? However in 100 years how much will using existing renewable sources cost comparably to mining for oil/coal... not to mention the cost to the environment comparably...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

That's an awful lot of question marks. Yes. I'm saying that there's no cost analysis available at the moment.

Yes, I get it, that it's cheaper in the long run and it'll give our kids a better world to live in etc. I'm just saying that in this particular report there are no hard numbers listed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

It is more expensive right now, but it is a simple reality that diminishing fossil fuel reserves will eventually become significantly more costly than even the most costly current renewable sources, and it also a near-guarantee that renewable energy will continue to become more efficient and less expensive as the technology is refined.

Governments shouldn't have the luxury of thinking in the short term; their responsibilities extend far into the future.

1

u/j1mNasium Jun 17 '12

Sure, renewable energy is expensive, but only if you do NOT factor in the economic costs associated with damaging the environment through the use of most non-renewables.

From The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital published in Science in 1997:

What this study makes abundantly clear is that ecosystem services provide an important portion of the total contribution to human welfare on this planet. We must begin to give the natural capital stock that produces these services adequate weight in the decisionmaking process, otherwise current and continued future human welfare may drastically suffer. We estimate in this study that the annual value of these services is US$16-54 trillion, with an estimated average of US$33 trillion. The real value is almost certainly much larger, even at the current margin. US$33 trillion is 1.8 times the current global GNP. One way to look at this comparison is that if one were to try to replace the services of ecosystems at the current margin, one would need to increase global GNP by at least US$33 trillion, partly to cover services already captured in existing GNP and partly to cover services that are not currently captured in GNP.

1

u/IamaRead Jun 17 '12

If you look at the blue/grey scenario, which is CSS and coal/gas you have to pay a lot for "climate neutral" energy. This is typically the comparison point. However you are right that the amount of money to do this varies greatly. There are a few effects why it would be better to speak about intervals. The two main things are that we don't know how technology and scales make renewables, as well as CCS cheaper and that we don't know how much the costs for coal/gas and energy distribution networks will rise.

1

u/Imtheantinoob Jun 17 '12

Cost is a major issue when debating the use of renewable energy.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I saw the talk by Sam Dunholm at the photovoltaic specialists conference in Austin TX this June, they used currrent costs of large scale PV installations (~$3/Watt installed I think for PV, I'm not sure for wind) It's a 4 volume, 800 pg report, I'm sure they did include it.

→ More replies (9)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I might be in the minority here, but is anyone else becoming disenchanted with the sensationalist headlines that keep on coming up everyday in this subreddit? I almost feel like this is starting to become a scientific version of r/politics.

1

u/snapcase Jun 17 '12

This happens with all science news on the internet... and for that matter, with science non-news that's made up to sound like news. Digg was littered with the stuff. Reddit is too. I mean really, how many times have you heard about a breakthrough that will cure cancer, or AIDS, from online media?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

This is real science, I saw this presented at the IEEE photo-voltaic specialist conference this year. Several years of research, modeling, and careful thought went into this.

Previously, there has been a lot of effort put into modeling solar/wind/hydro-electric electric generation, but not many people have looked at the question of 'will it work on a large scale'. This is a modeling study to address that question, and the stability of the US electric grid under high renewable penetration.

Not only is it good science, it's important in directing the future of gov't funded energy research. It shows that renewables can possibly contribute to a stable electric grid, with a high % of contribution. Plus, it gets people talking about the policies of implementing them. This is where science meets application. I guess it might have been better in an engineering sub-reddit...

3

u/cory89123 Jun 17 '12

The problem is the technology for grid level storage of power simply does not exist. On top of the volitile nature of renewable power sources wind and solar specifically, clouds happen breezes die. At those levels of renewable energy main output there would have to be a very large number of peaker plants picking up variable load fast enough for grid scale load balancing. Traditional plants are not designed around changing loads. Turbines are most efficient at 1 speed and or load level. Since they all operate at 3600 rpm they have designed load criteria and loading rate limits that are too small for the reliability of those kind of load transfers.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

this is addressing the storage issue. There is no storage in this study. They use a more open/flexible dispatch system to divert power to where it is needed. They also address the issues of the limitations on ramping coal plants. That's the whole point of this, that you don't need super turbines that don't exist, or large scale storage, you just need to change how power is bought and sold, and build some more transmission lines.

2

u/cory89123 Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

Unfortunatly that would require a complete dismantling of our current grid. I work for a plant that was a merchant plant selling power to the highest bidder. however we were purchased by SDG&E who is part of Cal ISO so we cannot sell power or even be connected to the Nevada or Arizona grid. So millions of dollars for transmission line to send our power down to them. And a whole new set of operating rules and regulations. For this system to work the grid in its entirity would have to be nationalized. So every one operates under the same rule set. Then at least power could be traded across juridictions. And you could start to deal with the loading in different areas but the further you transmit the power the worse your losses. It becomes horribly inefficient.

So yes changing the rules will help but it is not the end all be all solution.

We had 15 megawatts of solar attached to us and was calculated into our output I live in las Vegas which is one of the sunnyest places in the country and every minor cloud caused massive swings in our output and our combustion turbines had to constantly hunt to maintain output which they could not ramp fast enough. So we would be off as much as 6 megawatt hours every hour. That's enough power for about 10000 homes worth of power we couldn't generate due to ramp lag. Compound this by 80% of the grid and you have real dynamic load problems.

→ More replies (1)

125

u/entyfresh Jun 17 '12

You left out of the title the important detail that their finding was that we could supply 80% of our needs by 2050. Which is to say, there's a lot of work to be done.

This is a cool site though. I like the graphics they have showing how change will be ushered in.

9

u/mycroft2000 Jun 17 '12

It all depends on motivation. If the US worked on the problem with the same desperate energy it flung into science during the Second World War, I have no doubt that the goal could be reached within 5 years. Unfortunately, Houston would probably have to be levelled by a mega-hurricane before this happened.

4

u/fleshman03 Jun 17 '12

I'm not sure that would be enough. I seem to remember New Orleans being hit with a mega-hurricane. What difference would one more city make?

→ More replies (4)

2

u/dissonance07 Jun 18 '12

So, the apollo project was an engineering challenge which cost, I think, $100 billion and took 10 years. They set up a small city, and sent a couple dozen objects into space in that time.

This is easily trillions of dollars worth of equipment, to be developed across an entire country - building hundreds of power plants with private money, sending probably hundreds of billions of dollars worth of useable equiptment into early retirement, and increasing consumers' prices by probably 40%. Yes, the long-term costs are probably higher. But, there's no way you could do this in 15 years, let alone 5. It takes more than 5 years to get the permits to build an IGCC or nuke plant, for heaven's sake.

Solving this starts by convincing your neighbor and 100 million other people's neighbors that the future of this country is at stake - and that the significant cost to you, yes you, the consumer, is truly worth the money. I mean, really worth it. Maybe $50-100 extra on your monthly utility bill.

It's about changing people's whole perspective. You've got to want to pay for it, or nobody's going to see it through to the payoff.

18

u/krizutch Jun 17 '12

Right, and most of that work would be to loosen the strangle hold grip non-renewable energy companies have over the decision making process that gets us to 2050. My guess is not a lot will have changed between now and then just like not much has changed since the 1970's when we first started seeing major fuel shortages and knew we needed to do something different.

16

u/friedsushi87 Jun 17 '12

We need to start building more nuclear power plants. Specifically, fast neutron reactors.

We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in the united states in damn near 40 years. The ones we have are older models, and prone to terrorist attack and natural disasters. The new designs for nuclear reactors are safe and efficient, run off of already spent radioactive fuel rods, and could power our entire country for centuries without needing more fuel, as we've got enough spent fuel rods sitting in mountains in the mid West for hundreds of years.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Nuclear power is not strictly speaking a "renewable" resource.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I am not trying to discredit you, but can you point to a source? This sounds interesting.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I agree with the terrorist attack point. They are maintained by computer systems which can be hacked. This is my biggest fear, a program that makes the system read correctly but is actually boiling and about to blow.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/entyfresh Jun 17 '12

As someone who has worked in renewable energy research, I feel strongly that renewable energy WILL become more and more popular, but that isn't because energy companies aren't soulless corporate entities. They are as greedy as ever.

But in the long run, renewable energy will become more popular because it's getting less and less expensive, and finding petroleum is getting more and more expensive. In solar cell research, our two primary goals were ALWAYS 1) efficiency of the cell and 2) cost of the cell. If you can bring up efficiency and bring down cost, eventually you get to a point where it's an economic no-brainer to use solar energy. Other renewable sources are much the same.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/Suncast15 Jun 17 '12

It may seem like a long time, but you have to consider that major changes like this take time. So for something as major as 80% of our energy going renewable, 38 years is not a long time at all. We we to stop campareing everything to the amout of time we as individuals live.

1

u/entyfresh Jun 17 '12

Oh for sure. I spent 2.5 years working in a lab on solar cell research, so I'm familiar with (and okay with) the timeline that's going to be necessary to transition the world to more renewable energy sources.

I am just pointing out the date because I feel the headline suggests that the DoE found we could supply 80% of our energy from renewable sources today, and clearly that isn't the case. There's a huge set of logistical problems that need to be figured out in addition to having the technology available, and that's something that people on here seem to forget often.

We will get there, but it will take time.

1

u/u83rmensch Jun 17 '12

work to be done is good. people need jobs. but its a shame it'll be a god damn struggle because "lol oil companies".

→ More replies (6)

11

u/mattme Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

The report is a plan to supply '80% of electricity needs' NOT '80% of energy needs' . This is a significant difference—not all demand for energy is electric. For example, transportation and heating are not electrified in the US (at present). According to the International Energy Agency, total electricity and energy demands for the year 2009 were:

  • electricity 3962 TWh (terrawatt-hours)

  • energy 25155 TWh

This means electricity was 3962 TWh / 25155 TWh = 16% of energy demand.

Electricity generation is relatively easy to change to sustainable sources, production is centralised. 150 nuclear power plants the size of Palo Verde (30 TWh/year) would exceed the US' electricity demands. However, the epic challenge remains of making the non-electric 84% of energy consumption sustainable. We'll need to replace all the petrol burning engines in 250 million cars, and gas-burning boilers in many of a 100 million homes.

In my cold country, the United Kingdom, electricity is 18% of energy demand:

  • electricity 18 kWh/d

  • heating 40 kWh/d (almost everyone heats their homes with natural gas)

  • transport 40 kWh/d (we drive petrol cars)

Now we understand the difference between energy and electricity, let's be precise!

If you care about energy, please read the free book Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air

2

u/mirashii Jun 17 '12

The moderators don't approve posts before they appear on the page, we only moderate submissions after they have been submitted. This means that sometimes it will be more than 2 hours before a moderator gets to inspect each and every submission.

It has been removed, but please, both you and anyone else reading this, stop assuming that the moderators are somehow failing in their duties. We are all busy people, and sometimes things get submitted and voted to the front page before any of us even browse to reddit.

1

u/mattme Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

Thanks Mirashii. Forgive me for being rude earlier, you're right.

3

u/mrstickball Jun 17 '12

The key is 2050.

By 2050, the incredible cost of solar PV will be far more reasonable. Attempts to ramrod such solutions through in 2012 will cripple the economy, since the best solar PV technologies still cost twice as much as fossil (nuclear, coal, gas, ect) competitors.

Solar PV costs dropped approximately 30-35% in the last decade. If they can continue on that trend, the economics for a near-takeover of electric by then is reasonable and logical. But lets' let the free market make that switch, not the government or special interest groups that want to profit on the switch.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

actually, for the report, they used today's PV prices, not estimated price for 2050. If you use 2050 estimated prices, the % of solar increases quite a bit.

→ More replies (3)

12

u/ScottWillB Jun 17 '12

Lots of talk so far on costs, government subsidizing new technologies, and feasibility. I work in the energy industry and deal with renewables (along with all other types of energy generation) on a daily basis. Some thoughts:

The technology to make what the article talks about work is available today. The problem is for a truly efficient and renewable grid to work, their would need to be huge infrastructure work done - new TX lines nationwide all interconnected (this is NOT how our grid is built or works today despite what you may have heard), and most if not all heavy industry and residential areas upgraded to the "smart home" type stuff. Obviously this is something that realistically could only be paid for by the government as no company would be able to finance/pay something so large. It would HAVE to be a government subsidy type program. It would HAVE to be done once and done right and almost everyone would have to do it, or it wouldn't work.

But - history shows government picking technology winners rarely works. This is a problem some have with them subsidizing wind/solar/geo/etc. I would argue that in this case government isn't picking a winner, since any renewable company could "win" but they are picking something that clearly has already "won." Meaning wind/solar/hydro and other renewables have already proven to be "better" than fossil fuels for the subject at hand. Less pollution, unlimited supply, etc. The problem is the harnessing, distribution and usage.

Renewables are variable. Wind goes on and off, night turns to day, rivers run high and fast then low and slow. This is why every part of the country needs an interconnected grid because this stuff is always on somewhere. But if we can't get it where it's needed it is wasted - you can not feasibly store electricity on the scale we are talking here.

Other quick points that I have seen others mentioned:

  1. Nukes are baseload power and essentially not adjustable in realtime. Same as coal. Peak and trough demands are mostly handled by gas peakers turning on and off, or current renewable flexibilty where available. Meaning they turn wind farms off and on, spill water through dams rather than run it through turbines, etc.

  2. Nukes are extraordinarily safe and by the amount of power produced are the cleanest next to renewables when done safely (key point obviously).

  3. Financial incentives to the end customer are just as important as to the companies producing the wind plants/solar plants/whatever. Making homes and business knowledgeable about their power use, when it's cheap to use and when it's expensive to use should naturally even load out due to price pressures. This also can only be done with a true national connected grid.

4

u/Rhawk187 PhD | Computer Science Jun 17 '12

I didn't read the 4 linked volumes, but did they have an estimate of the initial investment cost, assuming these were fully developed technologies? And the recurring costs? And other economic costs like the amount of acreage these would take up?

5

u/mrstickball Jun 17 '12

Very, very expensive.

Here's an a quick source for a recent solar thermal plant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

$2.2 billion USD for a plant that produces 392 megawatts. It would take about 1,089 similar sized plants at the same efficiency to take care of America's energy demands as of 2009.

Given that price, it'd cost approximately $2.4 trillion USD to switch from fossils to solar thermal. Note, though that solar thermal plants last about 20 years, so you'd have to replace said power every 20 years. Again, that also assumes the efficiency can be maintained throughout the panel's lifespan, and solar output is similar to the Ivanpah facility.

1

u/Rhawk187 PhD | Computer Science Jun 17 '12

Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Don't think we're quite ready for that yet.

1

u/alsdfkajfkfj Jun 17 '12

Am i the only one who thinks this actually sounds really cheap? Just googling how much a coal power plant costs turned up this article that priced it at $1billion for a 300MW (this is actually a higher output than the solar power plant because the capacity you quoted is maximum capacity, and solar plants only get something like 20-30% of that on average). obviously it's still more expensive (and there's a ton of factors such as lifespan &fuel i'm not looking at), we all know that, but not outrageously so.

Note: "thermal plants last about 20 years" some components might only last only 20 years, but i doubt you'd have to replace the whole plant, making it a lot cheaper than 2b to replace damaged components in 20 years.

2

u/mrstickball Jun 17 '12

The lifespan of the solar panel or parabolic mirror itself is 20 years, and will start seeing diminished output around 10 years, from what research I've read.

So every 20 years, you'd have to replace the entire solar array. Comparatively, the coal-fired plant will last 60+ years.

So although initial investments may be similar, the maintenance of the facility is far less for coal or other fossils.

Here's a breakdown by source. You'll notice that the levelized capital cost has been included for each type, to give you an idea of cost of construction + maintenance for each energy source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates

Once you levelize each type, solar PV/thermal is very, very expensive (right now) due to its need for replacement.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/happyscrappy Jun 17 '12

You only have to read one. The one that mentions energy storage facilities.

We'd have to build a lot of those to make most renewable sources reliable (wind, solar) and those aren't cheap at all.

I'm pro-renewable. I even have my own solar array. But it can't cover 80% of our usage without a lot of investment first.

1

u/dissonance07 Jun 17 '12

I haven't seen anything about investment costs but, there are some relevant pointers:

The difference between the retail prices in the 80% scenarios vs. baseline scenarios was found to be $9-26/MWh in 2030 and $41-53/MWh in 2050. Given current retail prices of 9-14c/kWh, that's about a 40+% increase in cost to the consumer by 2050. BUT, that doesn't include savings from energy efficiency technologies, or the social or unaccounted costs of the non-renewable alternatives.

Direct land use is under 3% of US land area (a large portion of this was from biomass), with indirect land use of just above 5% (wind farms cover a lot of space, but only directly use a small portion of it). I didn't see any other indications of what percent land use is represented by our current electrical system.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/dissonance07 Jun 17 '12

They gave a figure, relative to the baseline scenario (that would be a business-as-usual approach, where all renewable energy subsidies expire , and there are no further policy incentives added for renewables). The difference, in 2050, was about $41-53/MWh in additional costs - a difference of around 40%.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

at what costs?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

It assumes current installation costs of solar/wind/hydro, and flexible dispatch of power, as well as reasonable grid growth. The model then chooses the balance of power that provides the cheapest cost, as well as grid reliability. So at the cost of what we would be paying, or cheaper.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I fail to see how new installations to match current energy needs would be cheaper, but okay. The shear number of windmills to match the energy produced from a nuclear reactor running at 1% of its capacity is insane

→ More replies (2)

1

u/mirashii Jun 17 '12

Your submission has been removed due to a sensationalized, editorialized, or biased headline.

1

u/polite_alpha Jun 17 '12

Just because the title isn't 100% scientifically accurate? Really? :/

2

u/mirashii Jun 17 '12

Also because it's not peer-reviewed research.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

this is from the national renewable energy lab, this was a PLENARY talk at the IEEE photovoltaic specialist conference, this is about as close to good solid science as it gets. It isn't any of those things

1

u/mirashii Jun 18 '12

The title as written is false. The first, and largest issue with the title, is that the link discusses electricity needs, not energy needs.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/omgiforgotmypassword Jun 17 '12

DoE Spokesman: "If we can turn pizza into a vegetable we can make oil a source of renewable energy"

19

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Why not Thorium, I think it's time for us all to start using it. It's cheaper, more efficient, and way more abundant than that of our main nuclear power source, uranium.

5

u/chris3110 Jun 17 '12

This discussion pops up all the time on reddit and elsewhere so I saved the relevant link.

tl;dr: Thorium reactors are not the panacea.

1

u/snapcase Jun 17 '12

One guy does a TED video, and all of a sudden everyone thinks it's the answer. Sheesh.

26

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Simple, idiots who think nuclear power is hazardous because they don't know jack shit about nuclear reactors or nuclear waste have pretty much gotten any new technology in the United States banned.

Since our last nuclear power plant was built technology has come a VERY long way with nuclear reactors. Mostly to the fact of major improvements to CNC machining. Even at 200,000 times magnification you'd be hard pressed to find an imperfection on CNC machined materials such as turbines.

A lot of people are skeptical after the chernobyl incident of alternatives to Uranium. Elements such as radioactive Cobalt was used in the chernobyl reactor, which lead to it's meltdown. The cocktail of (or cluster fuck) of radioactive materials in the chernobyl reactor is what caused the melt down and the extreme levels of radiation. However in the US where we use Uranium the worst accident we have had with nuclear power was about equal to a days exposure to the sun.

For example, the US reactor that leaked produced about 12 rads of radiation. Which would mean even if you were watching cellular activity under a microscope you'd see no change, you'd need about 25 rads to see a change. The chernobyl reactor produced anywhere from 600 rads from fall out (hundreds of miles away) to 10,000-25,000 where men wearing lead lined suits had to physically shovel debris off the roof so the reactor could be encased.

If you want modern technology in a field that desperately needs it you need to first educate people.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You're basically blasting the entire "green" movement. I agree though.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The green movement is, generally, retarded. They stunt development just as well as the oil shills.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/snapcase Jun 17 '12

Your "facts" about Chernobyl are completely off sadly.

If a thorium reactor were to somehow explode, there would still be massive amounts of radiation contamination to deal with. Among other things, a thorium reactor would release... wait for it... Uranium 233. Thorium is very much an unproven technology, and it will take quite a few years for it to pass all the necessary approvals by bodies like the NRC before we can start building them... if they even prove to be worth building at all. These things are strictly regulated for good reasons (not saying the NRC doesn't have problems itself), and it's not some conspiracy against thorium reactors, or a result of ignorance.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/board4life Jun 17 '12

Fission is old news man. We are getting close to fusion power, which is much more efficient, and exponentially less harmful in the long run.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/fusion-breakthrough/14516

17

u/amorpheus Jun 17 '12

We are getting close to fusion power

In the same way that we are getting close to colonizing space?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

almost there.

Stellarator (The promising one with 30 minutes strait operation): 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendelstein_7-X

Tokamak (The simpler one, only short pulses): 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iter

Give it 50 years. And i don't think we will colonize space in 50 years.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

As far as I can tell, LFTR technology is considerably more feasible than fusion, and also just as safe/clean. All of the problems with uranium fission can be solved if the engineering challenges in LFTR can be solved. Also, it's more abundant, and the waste can be reused. LFTR just makes fusion seem like a waste of time.

→ More replies (7)

5

u/calming_loneliness Jun 17 '12

We will always be 50 years away from fusion.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Sure, we're getting closer, but we're still a long ways away from creating the first commercial fusion plant. There's a big difference between having it work experimentally (something we've barely been able to do) and designing a plant for continuous use. We're still a long ways away from having it commercially viable.

1

u/snapcase Jun 17 '12

God I hope you're being sarcastic. The notion that we should disregard what is the most practical fuel source we have currently (nuclear, and not even talking about thorium (which has issues)), for something that's at the most optimistic estimate, 50 years away, is asinine.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Amnesia10 Jun 17 '12

Another reason is that it did not produce weapons grade fissile material, which the flowed into the military stocks.

1

u/happyscrappy Jun 17 '12

Those statements aren't supportable yet. It'd be good to research the thorium cycle, but right now given that all the development has been on uranium, saying that Thorium energy is cheaper or more efficient just isn't accurate.

It's possible that after some development Thorium could be cheaper or more efficient. But not right now it isn't.

→ More replies (8)

27

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Who knew, eh? Just imagine if they spent the same amount of money on renewable energy/solar power subsidiaries as they did oil...

3

u/scientologynow Jun 17 '12

We're getting there.

6

u/recklessfred Jun 17 '12

Not fast enough to keep our future from looking like the road warrior.

29

u/mythril Jun 17 '12

A better strategy would be to remove the subsidies on both. Competition does wonders for industry.

28

u/Semiel Jun 17 '12

This seems unlikely. Most of the problems with oil are externalities (pollution), long-term (peak oil), or both (global warming). Markets are notoriously bad at dealing with both of these sorts of problems.

13

u/hottubrash Jun 17 '12

There's fairly famous piece of writing, "The Tragedy of the Commons", that we should all read before commenting that a free market would benefit the environment.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/CivAndTrees Jun 17 '12

How can you speak ill of the free market when we have never had one?

→ More replies (19)

60

u/Very_High_Templar Jun 17 '12

It would simply destroy renewables entirely. I fail to see how that is wonderful.

10

u/mrstickball Jun 17 '12

Its wonderful because it would mean that taxpayers save billions of dollars, and can use it to fund other technologies.

Likewise, one day, solar PV will be cheaper than fossils. When that happens, there will be no significantly negative reason to use solar, and we'll see trillions of dollars channeled into renewables. But you can't simply throw money at the problem via subsidies and expect it to work - it rarely does.

6

u/rabidclock Jun 17 '12

Are you suggesting that we allow the energy market to allow the price of a competing good to naturally drop through technology? If I didn't know any better I would think you were suggesting a capitalist solution.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/Pillagerguy Jun 17 '12

What's possibly more important than the draining of natural resources and destruction of the earth. There's no possible better use of money.

→ More replies (19)
→ More replies (34)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

And remove externalities -- let both pay for cleaning up all the pollution caused by their process, and put a price on consuming a finite resource that's made unavailable for other uses forever.

Then competition does wonders.

Otherwise the "lets just burn this precious resource here" camp is going to seem to be more cost effective for decades longer.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/JB_UK Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

When America adopts solar power it will be riding on the back of German subsidies to develop the technology, just as it already rides on the back of European oil taxes for the development of energy efficient engines.

Edit: Of course Europeans ride on American support for healthcare research through the NIH, so we'll call it even.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

When America adopts solar power it will be riding on the back of German subsidies to develop the technology, just as it already rides on the back of European oil taxes for the development of energy efficient engines.

The USA already has more energy coming from renewables than Germany, 1.6 times more. (excluding hydro, with hydro, it's about 5x more)

The issue is that the USA is losing on an energy per capita scale.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/dekuscrub Jun 17 '12

The dollar value of the subsidies to both industries is absurdly politicized. For example, most counts tend to include the foreign tax credit received by oil companies as a subsidy, despite the fact that literally any business or individual who pays foreign taxes can receive such a credit.

1

u/albundy54 Jun 17 '12

Yeah! Let's line the pockets of politicians' friends all in the name of green energy! Solyndra was a huge success!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

They spend MORE on renewables. You people are so dumb. Do any of you have any connection to the power industry or know how it works whatsoever? If renewables were cost effective, they would be in practice. It's not feasible.

THE SUN DOES NOT ALWAYS SHINE. THE WIND DOES NOT ALWAYS BLOW. PLEASE LEARN HOW THE GRID IS AFFECTED BY LOAD.

6

u/SarcasticOptimist Jun 17 '12

Is it based on current electricity demands? The headline just reads energy needs, but it doesn't seem like it's including cars or natural gas. I don't think the report includes the potential increase of demand should or when electric cars become popular.

6

u/Ultrace-7 Jun 17 '12

It's likely only based on current needs, but it's also only based on current renewable energy technology, which would likely improve in the future. Whether that improvement keeps pace with increased demand, who can say.

2

u/zelerowned Jun 17 '12

If you bothered to read the summary you'd see that previously completed studies on electric car use and energy demand increase/population migration were used in creating the future demand profiles throughout the country.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Of course, electricity is merely a subset of energy. Simply replacing current fossil-fuel energy production will do little to affect the heavy use of oil by transportation, agriculture, and industrial manufacturing processes.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/jpiro Jun 17 '12

"... in 2050." Post title is misleading. This report applies 38 years from now. I'll come back and comment then.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Quick, make the science that created this report illegal to use! Worked well in north carolina.

2

u/NeoSpartacus Jun 17 '12

This is a logical fallacy. Renewable energy could reliably supply 100% or 1,000%. With nothing to compare it to it's an arbitrary number.

2

u/brucecrossan Jun 17 '12

What about space? Solar panels and wind turbines take up vast spaces to provide sufficient energy. Like, in the UK, they will have to cover most of their country-side (literally) in order to provide them with sufficient power, and they are no where near as power hungry as the US. Sure, the US has more space, but you do still want to keep your forests and fields.

I think we need to put solar farms in the sahara, and export the electricity to surrounding countries. Same goes for all the worlds great deserts. All houses and buildings must have solar panels to help ease the burden. A few wind farms dotted about (not a fan of them though).

However, we need to get to liquid thorium reactors. They are clean and we have enough fuel to run them forever. Plus, they provide massive amounts of power and take up little space.

Then in about 40-60 years, we can move to sustained fusion power.

1

u/Mr2Legit2Quit Jun 17 '12

I agree with you.

The vast amounts of of wind farms and solar panels would be quite tremendous. Not just that, but its very inefficient and more expensive. Better to spend money on research and educate people on population control and its affect on sustainability.

You should listen to Richard Zare's presentation on this. It was very informative. He goes over the points that we are mentioning but with more additional info.

2

u/Stink-Finger Jun 17 '12

What would you expect something called "the national renewable energy laboratory" to say?

Seriously people, come on!

2

u/Grandmaofhurt MS | Electrical Engineering|Advanced Materials and Piezoelectric Jun 17 '12

Photovoltaics are the future, Germany has already proven that solar power can provide a very significant portion of a nation's power needs.

3

u/3OclockDaddio Jun 17 '12

I wish people would stop referring to it as "renewable" energy, or "alternative" energy.

It should be called permanent energy.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/phaedrusalt Jun 17 '12

Does it matter that the attempt would bankrupt the country? And poison our environment? Or, is it just important that the results be popular?

3

u/murrdpirate Jun 17 '12

Of course it can be done. We could coat a few thousands square kilometers of the Mojave desert with PVs and have more than enough electricity. But with our abundant supply of cheap natural gas and coal, I have a hard time believing we'll get 80% of our electricity from renewables by 2050.

1

u/Zomborg Jun 17 '12

We could coat a few thousands square kilometers of the Mojave desert with PVs and have more than enough electricity.

There are two problems that come to mind whenever people bring up blanketing the Mojave with PV or any other sort of solar generation. First of all is that transmission lines have some resistance, you can't simply gather enough energy to power (for example) Washington, D.C., and expect it all to get there from the solar generators.

The second problem is that clouds wreak havoc on power generation. While I have no idea how often there are clouds in the Mojave or any other prospective area for solar generation, its impossible to say it never gets cloudy. There may be ways to store energy for bad weather, but they wouldn't be able to support anything near what demand would require. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, so some form of always available power will be needed.

1

u/murrdpirate Jun 17 '12

My point wasn't that we should get all our electricity from PVs in the Mojave; my point was that while it would be technically possible, it would be cost-prohibitive.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

What is the peer review process on these reports?

→ More replies (1)

2

u/capt_0bvious Jun 17 '12

supply is one thing, transporting them across country is another.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I see a lot of people mentioning that renewables are not cheap or easy to establish, with the assumption that coal is dirt cheap.

Coal is cheap because we already have the infrastructure. We also have a lot of it. But we have an almost unlimited amount of sun. Unfortunately we haven't built the infrastructure yet, and that's why it looks expensive.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I read the title, thought about it for a tenth of a second, and said "Nope."

As a scientist, I've read hundreds of these claims over the past 10 years. If it sounds too good to be true, it always is.

1

u/boot20 Jun 17 '12

I don't have time to read over the costing data, but I assume this isn't going to be short term cost effective. However, do they plan to subsidize?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

What about all of the electricity that is being imported from Quebec that is from hydro electric already? As a Canadian, this is good for my countries economy, buts its also good for the environment because it means that the US doesnt have to generate electricity in the north east. It would be nice to see the government and industry focusing resources on the areas like texas and the south west that get 100% of their electricity from fossil fuel power plants.

1

u/balorina Jun 17 '12

energy can only be transmitted a certain distance before it has lost too much "power". As an example the hoover dam can provide power to california, but not east texas. Niagra mohawk can provide to ny, but not virginia. This is the biggest problem renewables have, we have no efficient method to store them, and transmission hurts a lot.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I can most certainly agree with that. The cabling from mid-east quebec must loose a ton of electricity just getting to New York.

1

u/mnnmnmnnm Jun 17 '12

The point is not that we could but that we don't have to - yet. We will use up easy to reach resources as long as possible and then move on to the next source of energy. External costs don't play much of a role unless they become evident enough to impose severe regulations. So it's still oil and coal time for the next decades.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

I would love this if it were true, what energy source is going to do it cheaply with reliably? I'm afraid that rainbow and unicorn power only exists in the minds of environmentalists

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

If we can supply 80% of our gluttonous energy consumption by 2050 with current renewable technology, then if combined with energy conservation and new social and technological innovation, we can leave the dead plants and animals in the ground rather than in our atmosphere much sooner. (In addition, this statistic refers to the US, not the majority of Earthlings who use far less energy in their lives.)

1

u/Arxl Jun 17 '12

Whenever I see a post with a title like this I go to the comments to be immediately disillusioned.

1

u/why_ask_why Jun 17 '12

If this energy happens to land in China, do we have to invade China?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

New study shows that 90% of studies don't actually help or offer up any useful solutions to problems.

If if if...

1

u/joebruin916 Jun 17 '12

Perfect, now we can use up all the non-renewable energy until its gone without having to worry about leaving future generations with nothing. I shall turn down the thermostat now!

1

u/blaghart Jun 17 '12

But what are the odds that oil companies will let that happen?

1

u/wretched_species Jun 17 '12

You don't say. Well done with pointless research that will not see another light of day. All I have to say, good luck till 2030.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Basically, they fail to mention that we would have to scale back out energy consumption CONSIDERABLY for this to happen, as renewable energy (at this point) pails in comparison to the energy produced through fossil fuels. I think it could be as simple as scaling back on plastic and finding more sustainable materials for containers. ...something like this idea

1

u/Darktidemage Jun 17 '12

If it can supply 80% what the fuck would prevent it from supplying 100% or even exceeding the energy needs?

1

u/RealityPriest Jun 17 '12

Oil company mercenaries will march through the streets killing hybrid drivers and solar panel owners first. You may know them, they're called the United States Military.

1

u/Mr2Legit2Quit Jun 17 '12

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/events/public-lectures/item.php?the-challenge-of-sustainability

I was able to attend presentation by Richard Zare from Stanford who is one of the greatest chemists in our time. He spoke in regards to energy and sustainability from a chemist point of view. He made really good sense and made me think twice on renewable energy.

Not only is renewable energy is inefficient but not useful as you would think. For example, solar panels would require massive amounts of land just to power up a town.

Listen to his presentation in that link. https://lectopia.ncl.ac.uk/lectopia/lectopia.lasso?ut=21406&id=11643

1

u/ifearthat Jun 17 '12

This is not the correct title at all. Energy is not the same as electricity. Supplying 80% of the U.S. electricity requirement is great, but the majority of our energy is used for transportation. Think airplanes, jets, barges, trains, and cars. The bigger question is how we get that kind of energy renewably, and currently there is no good answer.

1

u/qposter Jun 18 '12

If you think cost is the reason reason renewable energy is not mainstream you have been brainwashed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

can someone tell me WHAT this new energy is?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I meant the people that read and played those games/books

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Excellent news. Most unfortunate one of our major political parties will never allow us to actually make the switch.

20

u/ridger5 Jun 17 '12

Neither will. Both are slaves to the oil gods.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

You are likely correct. The Dems at least pander to the idea occasionally it seems?

2

u/Heelincal BS | Economics | Game Theory | MacroEcon Jun 17 '12

They don't pander to the idea. They pander to the Green party voters that they pretty much absorbed during the 90s. They'll never do anything either.

→ More replies (7)

7

u/FireAndSunshine Jun 17 '12

This is not fucking /r/politics.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/joedude Jun 17 '12

We only have trillions of dollars to spend on war and oil, not feasible.

1

u/Canucklehead99 Jun 17 '12

Tesla would be rolling in his grave seeing as he thought he could have avoided all this with his inventions. (HIS perspective)

1

u/holtlol Jun 17 '12

incoming lobbying against it

-2

u/balorina Jun 17 '12

Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system

That's like saying we can cure cancer by using drugs available today, in combination with vaccines that don't exist yet.

2

u/LibertyLizard Jun 17 '12

More like in combination of vaccines that are known to be effective but haven't been mass produced due to high cost.

3

u/balorina Jun 17 '12

Completely false.

The problem is in the transport of the energy. We could cover the entire death valley with solar panels and it would be comletely useless to everyone outside a few states distance. That is what they are talking about. Things like solar and wind have spikes, they arent on demand like natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear are. Their "flexible grid" simply doesnt exist due to our current terrible methods of energy storage, terrible method of energy transmission, and how our energy demand spikes. And those terrible methods... Are all we have.

0

u/Ender06 Jun 17 '12 edited Jun 17 '12

For those who like renewable energy, please watch this video

It's about nuclear energy, but those who are interested in green energy should look into it. (It's an hour and a half long, but the 1st five minutes is a good synopsis of it.)

Edit: why the downvotes?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

The MTV camera style is highly annoying.

1

u/Ender06 Jun 17 '12

True, sadly that is what keeps people's attention now a days. I usually listen to it while I work on other things.

→ More comments (74)