Smil: A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy

[GliderGuider]

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/

A Skeptic Looks at Alternative Energy

Most egregious of all is the boosters’ failure to recognize the time it takes to convert to any new source of energy, no matter how compelling the arguments for it may be. An example is the 2008 plan promoted by former vice president Al Gore, which called for replacing all fossil-fueled generation in the United States in just a decade. Another is Google’s plan, announced in 2008 and abandoned in 2011, which envisaged cutting out coal generation by 2030. Trumping them all was a 2009 article in Scientific American by Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil engineering at Stanford University, and Mark Delucchi, a researcher in transportation studies at the University of California, Davis. They proposed converting the energy economy of the entire world to renewable sources by 2030.

In 2025 modern wind turbines will have been around for some 30 years, and if by then they supply just 15 percent of the electricity in the United States, it will be a stunning success. And even the most optimistic projects for solar generation don’t promise half that much. The quest for non­carbon sources of electricity is highly desirable, and eventually such sources will predominate. But this can happen only if planners have realistic expectations. The comparison to a giant oil tanker, uncomfortable as it is, fits perfectly: Turning it around takes lots of time.

And turning around the world’s fossil-fuel-based energy system is a truly gargantuan task. That system now has an annual throughput of more than 7 billion metric tons of hard coal and lignite, about 4 billion metric tons of crude oil, and more than 3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. This adds up to 14 trillion watts of power. And its infrastructure—coal mines, oil and gas fields, refineries, pipelines, trains, trucks, tankers, filling stations, power plants, transformers, transmission and distribution lines, and hundreds of millions of gasoline, kerosene, diesel, and fuel oil engines—constitutes the costliest and most extensive set of installations, networks, and machines that the world has ever built, one that has taken generations and tens of trillions of dollars to put in place.

It is impossible to displace this supersystem in a decade or two—or five, for that matter. Replacing it with an equally extensive and reliable alternative based on renewable energy flows is a task that will require decades of expensive commitment. It is the work of generations of engineers.

It's interesting that something that is so transparently obvious to some can utterly opaque to others. Needless to say, I think Vaclav Smil has a pretty clear-eyed understanding of the situation.

[GliderGuider]

1. Something else he mentions is worth noting, too.

Between 2004 and 2009 the United States added about 28 GW of wind turbines. That’s the equivalent of fewer than 10 GW of coal-fired capacity, given the very different load factors. During the same period China installed more than 30 times [PDF] as much new coal-fired capacity in large central plants, facilities that have an expected life of at least 30 years. In 2010 alone China’s carbon-dioxide emissions increased by nearly 800 million metric tons, an equivalent of close to 15 percent of the U.S. total. In the same year the United States generated almost 95 terawatt-hours of electricity from wind, thus theoretically preventing the emission of only some 65 million tons of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, China is adding 200 GW of coal-fired plants by 2015, during which time the United States will add only about 30 GW of new wind capacity, equivalent to less than 15 GW of coal-fired generation. Of course, the rapid increase in the burning of Asian coal will eventually moderate, but even so, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot possibly stay below 450 ppm.

I've been harping on this exact point for a while - much to the dismay of the policy wonks who think a combination of FITs and preferential subsidies will combine with the falling cost of the hardware to save the world's food supply from the 40 degree barrier.

Global problems like CO2 require a global perspective on energy production. We're losing the race. Big time.

[PoliticAverse]

2. subsidize something enough,at first it can seem almost reasonable; only later does reality intervene

That certainly describes corn based ethanol in the U.S.

[Democrats_win]

3. Compare where we are now to where we were in the 70s.

While I agree with everything said here, I'm still amazed at how far we've come. Things that we just talked about in the 70s are now common. Wind powered generators, ethanol fuel, solar electricity, and hybrid cars are everywhere. It's true that all of this is just a drop in the bucket, but we do need to start somewhere. Also, all of this is taking money away from big energy. If we play our cards right, maybe in a few years when Iran threatens shipping again, we'll all just yawn.

[PufPuf23]

4. There are specifics where "we" have regressed since the 70s and 80s regardless of

improvements in technology.

Politics and skewed economics (and perpetual war and population growth) have not progressed as a whole to address the human impact on Earth.