But a recent paper (March 13, 2013) by Mark Z. Jacobson et al makes the case that in fact natural gas - as it is now extracted - is worse in some ways than coal or oil. Some of the problems with natural gas are quite fixable - e.g. flaring and leaking methane at current levels. However the author contends that natural gas will be intrinsically climate warming. The authors place great significance on quick action to stop climate change because the Arctic ice is melting at such a high rate that it will be gone. The reduction of sea ice is itself a contributor to warming and the authors fear that should the ice disappear entirely it may not be possible to regenerate. Their strong caution is that natural gas in the short term a global warming fuel and that the short term is critical.
The authors then develop a pathway to powering all of New York State using only Wind, Water, Tidal, and Solar energy. The authors have else where developed a similar plan for the US and the world and are in the process of doing the same exercise in every state. For this discussion, though, we will stay with the New York example for a few reasons:
- New York is a large and important state that is not ideal for wind and solar - so it is a challenge!
- The state is on the cusp of deciding whether to permit hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus shale - so the decision point is literally now!
- It is likely that the thought processes involved in adopting a renewable strategy are quite local in character - both geographically as well as politically. By looking at New York - the authors are able to capture that local dynamic.
The chart below shows how their goal is achieved through time. Their are two major themes in their approach:
- Energy efficiency to existing infrastructure using technologies now in hand and energy reductions stemming from the fact that an electric transportation sector is inherently more efficient. The net effect of these two efficiencies is to low the amount of power needed by 37%
- The lower section of the graphic shows the ramp up of Geothermal, Hydro , Wind, Solar, and Tidal power.This ramp up squeezes the amount of fossil fuel power needed to 0 by 2050.
Oil, Coal, and Natural gas would still be needed - but not for combustion related power production. They would instead become the input to plastic, fertilizer, and other chemical processes. Mendeleev the Russian chemist and inventor of the periodic table made a famous remark that "that burning petroleum as a fuel would be akin to firing up a kitchen stove with bank notes." - he would pleased to see that we have finally stopped burning our money!
The plan may be summarized in this sentence from the abstract to the paper: "Under the plan, NYS’s 2030 all-purpose end-use power would be provided by 10% onshore wind (4020 5-MW turbines), 40% offshore wind (12,700 5-MW turbines), 10% concentrated solar (387 100-MW plants), 10% solar-PV plants (828 50-MW plants), 6% residential rooftop PV (5 million 5-kW systems), 12% commercial/ government rooftop PV (500,000 100-kW systems), 5% geothermal (36 100-MW plants), 0.5% wave (1910 0.75-MW devices), 1% tidal (2600 1-MW turbines), and 5.5% hydroelectric (6.6 1300-MW plants, of which 89% exist)."
Based on the cost analysis performed by the authors all the technologies employed in their plan should cost less per KWH in 2020 than installing new conventional combustion based power plants, vehicles, commercial buildings, and homes.
Discussion
It is recommended that everyone take a look at the article which is readily available on line. The article may be found at this link:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf
Based on the authors calculations and projections the cost of renewables will be below fossil purls by 2020. So the net energy cost burden is actually less going down this path. While we need to vet this statement it is compelling. I would argue that even if the cost were higher it ought not totally preclude starting down this path - because of the fact that it would reduce the risk inherent in being a total consumer of energy with virtually no capacity to produce on ones own.
The comparison of cost between renewables and conventional (combustion) based generation is complicated by the fact that renewable prices are dropping per installed unit but some infrastructure (high efficiency transmission lines for example) are needed to deliver the power.
Table 3 provides a comparison a comparison of cost per KHW expected in the 2020 - 2030 timeframe.
The summary values (a weighted average of all technologies) is 5-7 cents per KWH vs. 12 to 15 cents for new conventional generation. There is however a need for infrastructure enhancement that reduces the favorable cost comparison somewhat - but it is projected that fuels will continue to increase while renewables will fall as technology improves.
It is important to note that the comparison is not assuming NEW technologies - but rather more efficient production of existing renewable technologies.
Discussion
The authors do not contemplate nuclear power - but I would recommend that it be part of the mix. New plants are vastly improved over older plants and can provide baseline power that would complement the variable nature of renewables.
The one obstacle to nuclear - in my mind - is the storage of spent fuel and radioactive materials. It would seem that no progress has been made in the long terms secure storage of this waste. I suggest that in lieu of the Yucca style storage that New York mandate some form of "Intermediate Acceptable Storage" which would eliminate the potential for water pollution, dirty bombs, and contamination in the event of plant failure. Specifically - I envision that liquids would be solidified, vitrified, and encased in either concrete or steel. This material would still be locally dangerous for someone exposed to it - but aside from being very close to it - would be inert if dropped, exposed to water,etc.
The authors have provided a very valuable service by demonstrating the practicality and possibility of a renewable energy system based in New York. However as we move towards this approach we need not make New York totally self contained. There is no reason for example that all the wind energy would need to come from New York - Canada has great resources that could supplement the New York mix. Likewise if the center of the country becomes a wind power center - and proper lines were built it could add to the mix. Diversifying the mix would likely to add stability to the variable renewable supplies.
Beginning these projects is important. There will be great learning that will come out starting the offshore wind project. Once it is started it can be scaled up relatively more easily. The hard part is starting - permitting, feasibility studies, basic infrastructure etc.
I'd be curious to hear comments pro and con on this proposal.
