Where Will the U.S. Get Its Electricity in 2034?-Renewables and natural gas may dominate ...

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=where-will-the-us-get-its-electricity-in-future

February 25, 2010

Where Will the U.S. Get Its Electricity in 2034?

Renewables and natural gas may dominate the generation of electricity during the next three decades

By David Biello

Cleaner coal, nuclear, solar, wind: these are some of the options for power generation to feed the U.S.'s electric power requirements. That need is expected to grow by 30 percent during the next 25 years, according to the Energy Information Administration, even with a slew of energy-efficiency measures and improvements to the grid infrastructure that delivers the electricity. But the primary source of electricity in 2034, according to a new projection from consulting firm Black & Veatch, will be natural gas. It is the fossil fuel with the least greenhouse gas impact on the atmosphere—burning it releases 43 percent less CO2 than burning coal—and looks set to increase its share of the electricity market, even with looming regulations to restrain climate-changing emissions. And there's this boost, too: new, vast reserves of natural gas found in places like the Marcellus Shale Formation, which stretches from West Virginia to New York State.

By 2034, according to Black & Veatch, nearly half of U.S. electricity will come from natural gas combustion turbines or combined-cycle units, whereas conventional coal-fired generation will shrink to just 23 percent (although few of the power plants will be shut down). Nuclear will grow to provide nearly 150,000 megawatts of electricity as renewables jump from just 54,000 megawatts today (excluding hydroelectric dams) to more than 165,000 megawatts in 2034.

Mark Griffith, head of Black & Veatch's power market analysis, spoke with ScientificAmerican.com about the U.S. electric grid's future configuration of energy sources.

(An edited transcript of the interview follows.)

You recently released a survey of electric utility CEOs. What did you find?

It's a very interesting survey. On the one hand, it illustrates there is a wide range of opinion in utilities on what needs to be done. Some people are skeptical of the need for carbon legislation and others think it's very important. Looking at the survey and what's going on in the industry, regardless of people's personal or political opinions they want to move towards a lower carbon footprint for the power sector. A lack of legislation right now in some corners creates more concern. It's hard to plan for the future if you don't know what that future is from a regulatory standpoint. Assuming something does happen, the survey supports the concept that utilities see nuclear as a reliable green technology, quite different from what people would have thought 10 years ago. Nuclear has been recast, at least that's how industry is looking at it.

...

[endless october]

1. nuclear and renewables.

NG is a poor choice. makes it hard on the poor in the north to afford heat. plus, it's a CO2 producer.

as for the anti-nuke arguments, it's going to be that or coal for a long time unless you're willing to pay a lot more for electricity.

[kristopher]

2. Nuclear is far far more expensive...

But your concern for the poor is noted.

Also natural gas is an interim fuel that will phase out as renewables continue to expand. Since we have a huge amount of underutilized capacity already built and paid for, we can focus the funds on the renewables.

http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-01_NuclearIllusion

http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS: RENAISSANCE OR RELAPSE?

MARK COOPER
SENIOR FELLOW FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
VERMONT LAW SCHOOL


Conclusion:

Policymakers should refuse to allow taxpayers and ratepayers to be put at risk. If nuclear reactors cannot stand on their own in the marketplace, they should not be propped up by subsidies.

This analysis has shown that there is a range of alternatives that can meet the need for electricity at a lower cost and with a more benign environmental impact. The aspiration of the nuclear enthusiasts symbolized in the first MIT report has become desperation in the second MIT report precisely because their cost estimates do not comport with reality. Notwithstanding their hope and hype, nuclear reactors are not economically competitive and would require massive subsidies to force them into the supply mix. It was only by ignoring the full range of alternatives -- above all efficiency and renewables -- that the MIT studies could predict a feasible economic future for nuclear reactors. Today the analytic environment has changed from the early days of the great bandwagon market, so that it is much more difficult get away with the "systematic confusion of expectation with fact, of hope with reality."

The highly touted nuclear renaissance is based on fiction, not fact. It garnered a significant part of its traction in the early 2000s with a series of cost projections that vastly understated the direct costs of nuclear reactors. As those early cost estimates fell by the wayside and the extremely high direct costs of nuclear reactors became apparent, advocates for nuclear power turned to climate change as the rationale to offset the high cost. But introducing environmental externalities does not resuscitate the nuclear option for two reasons. First, consideration of externalities improves the prospects of non-fossil, non-nuclear options to respond to climate change. Second, introducing externalities so prominently into the analysis highlights nuclear power’s own environmental and external problems. Even with climate change policy looming, nuclear power cannot compete in the marketplace, so its advocates are forced to seek to prop it up by shifting costs and risks to ratepayers and taxpayers.

The massive shift of costs necessary to render nuclear barely competitive with the most expensive alternatives, and the huge amount of leverage (figurative and literal) that is necessary to make nuclear power palatable to Wall Street and ratepayers is simply not worth it. The burden will fall on taxpayers. Policymakers, regulators, and the public should turn their attention to and put their resources behind the lower-cost, more environmentally benign alternatives that are available. If nuclear power’s time ever comes, it will be far in the future -- after the potential of the superior alternatives available today has been exhausted.

[endless october]

5. perhaps right now it is more expensive.

as the "don't ever build a nuke plan anywhere" movement becomes irrelevant, new nuclear technology will improve and will bring down prices.

[kristopher]

8. There is no basis for that conclusion except wishful thinking

[endless october]

11. whale oil will never be affordable.

therefore, the internal combustion engine is doomed.

DC is the only feasible way to supply electricity.

[bananas]

18. The nuclear industry collapsed in 1974 because it was too expensive

and they haven't gotten any cheaper since then.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/nuclear-power-s-new-debate-cost
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/the-bumpy-road-to-nuclear-energy

[Statistical]

3. there has to be some NG in the mix.

Nuclear reactors have rather static output, they also can't be started quickly. Renewables (other than hydro) are variable the output can't be controlled.

So you would need to either:
a) overbuild renewables so that the lowest aggregate output meets peak demand - lots of wasted capacity most of the time.
OR
b) has some sort of massive energy storage system to even out differences between demand and supply (supply > demand = store, demand > supply = draw from reserves).

Neither are particularly cheap, and still may result in period where demand exceeds supply and you have rolling blackouts or uitlities disconnect high loads.

Using natural gas turbines (which can be spun up and down quickly) to acts as the flex between demand and supply makes sense.

Simply put large enough carbon tax on it and nat gas will only be used in limited fashion to equalize supply & demand.

[endless october]

4. i'm against carbon taxes.

just hurts the poor who then turn down their furnaces that they can't afford to replace or try to live on space heaters. fuck that.

if nuclear's off the table for whatever stupid reason, then i would support coal over NG.

luckily, nuclear's not off the table.

[Statistical]

6. Nuclear isn't off the table but that isn't the point.

A nuclear reactor can't vary its thermal output rapidly enough to adjust to load changes. This is why it is used for baseload and load following or peaking plants.

Wind & Solar can be used for baseloads but lets say in a hypothetical instant you have 2 nuclear reactors outputting 2300 MW into the grid. The aggregate output of wind & solar at that instant is say another 1800 MW. So 4100 MW of supply.

What happens if demand if 4200MW or 4300MW? Rolling blackouts? Frequency inbalance? Brownouts?

Some sort of adjustable, rapidly responding power plant is required to acts as a shock absorber between supply & demand. Natural gas is the best fit. Turbines can adjust from nothing to peak load down to partially load very rapidly. They are the glue that holds the grid together. That is why they are used today despite being one of the most expensive forms of power. They are also compensated more for running this adjustable output.

[endless october]

7. can excess nuclear power be diverted to other grids?

my preference is to have so much capacity that we aren't experiencing overloads. because we are going to need that when / if electric cars / plug in hybrids start taxing the system, especially in the west.

NG power has a lot of lobbying power and it might be ideal for quick starts and filling in gaps. however, what it does to the heating bills poor in the north / midwest is why i don't support expanding it at all.

we need something else to fill that gap. and honestly, the NIMBY shit is going to have to end. the population grows, and there's no way we can conserve enough to fill our energy needs even if the population were to remain exactly as it is now. we need more capacity. otherwise, it's import fossil fuels and interventionism to maintain our access to them.

[Statistical]

14. Nuclear simply puts out the same power 24/7/365 it never stops

It always outputs nearly uniform power constantly except for trips (SCRAMS), maintenance, and refueling. Even then they are up 92% of the time running at full capacity nearly constantly. Remember nuclear reactors have finite lifespan and 90% of the cost is construction and interest. If you run one at 50% capacity or 99% capacity either way construction and interest will end up being the same you are just producing less power at 50% capacity.

Power can be shared between grids however even when doing that the load is constantly changing. There is also limited capacity on how much power can be shunted to another grid over long distance links.

Regardless every second of every day, 24 hours a day 365 days a year supply (generation) has to exactly match load (consumption).

When you turn on a light switch - bam you just added to the load and you didn't need to wait. A voice didn't come on and say spooling out power... please wait 30 seconds. No it just instantly works. Some power plant had to compensate for that (and millions of other people turning on and off devices without warning).

It takes a lot of work to keep supply and demand constantly balanced no matter what consumers do. If load or supply every get too far out of balance the generators it can be very dangerous both for the grid and nuclear reactors.

It is bad for the grid because everything you plug into the wall assumes the wall will provide 120 volts that cycles 60 times per second (60Hz). When power coming out of the wall doesn't match that it can damage motors and electronics. Imagine your $40,000 electric car getting damaged because instead of 120V @ 60Hz the wall was outputting 102V @ 50Hz.

It is dangerous for reactors because the reactor can't adjust its output fast enough and the turbine (costing hundreds of millions of dollars) is in risk of being damaged. To protect the turbine it is disconnects from the steam loop and spins down. The loss of power automatically triggers and emergency trip and reactor SCRAMS. Reactors have backups but loss of any power source requires an automatic unavoidable trip.

So it isn't a matter of choice. We absolutely 100% MUST HAVE power sources that we can control and that can respond quickly to demand changes. It can come from distributed generation (hundreds of small power plants at businesses & residences) or it can come from couple thousand massive natural gas turbines. Either way a portion of the grid must be "dispatchable" which is just a fancy way of saying we can control it as needed.

My perfect power grid would be:
40% nuclear
40% renewable
20% high efficiency natural gas (and biogas) turbines
no coal, no oil.

[endless october]

16. thanks for the explanation.

gives me a better picture of some of the details.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Are you familiar with LIHEAP

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/

Many states have their own assistance plans, to help the poor heat their homes.

If we instituted a "carbon tax" it could finance heat for the poor.

On the other hand, if we don't cut carbon emissions, it is the poor who will suffer the most.

[endless october]

10. subsidizing artificially overpriced energy?

fuck that. then you just end up soaking the middle class. the carbon tax is a losing idea. the winning idea is to stop interventionism worldwide and to use that money to build infrastructure right now. especially since we need the jobs.

we also need to vastly increase the resources we invest in renewable R&D.

but carbon taxes / cap and trade? no way. completely regressive, no matter how you slice it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. Unfortunately, the "American People" have proven repeatedly that they only respond to high prices

Sorry... when the oil shocks of the 70's hit, Americans decided to use less oil. They bought smaller cars, they insulated their homes, they started heating with wood.

Then, oil became more affordable and SUV's became all the rage. People decided they needed McMansions. Every home needed a dozen TV's.

If the poor cannot heat their homes, then (as we are doing) we can help them to insulate them, and subsidize their heating.

The price will go up eventually without a "carbon tax" (we'd just be accelerating things a bit.)

[endless october]

13. carbon taxes are a regressive and backwards way to approach the problem.

the solution is to re-prioritize and attack the problem as a national priority.

if that's not something we can do as a nation, then it's going to be coal, limited nuclear, gasoline cars, and whatever renewables GE can manufacture overseas. carbon taxes accomplish nothing except hurting the poor / middle class. not to mention that it will just make the last couple manufacturers we have left here decide to build shit in Mexico / China where the power is cheap. that would do more to cause climate change than to stop it.

[Statistical]

15. Coal is incredibly cheap. Without carbon tax how do you get utilities to stop using coal?

You could do a mandate but that is disruptive and can cause price shocks.

A slowly escalating carbon tax would let utilities know that say over next decade goal, oil, natural gas are going to get more expensive. They can plan long term and see nuclear, and wind are cheaper and going to stay cheaper. They will make plans on when/how to shut down coal plants and reduce natural gas usage. Rather than a mandate economic pressure will cause utilities to do "the right thing". Carbon tax aligns economic goals with goals of reducing emissions.

[endless october]

17. you stop the coal by replacing it.

it's phased out and replaced piece by piece with other sources. it will take a while.

but we actually have to build that infrastructure, and i see no other way than to do it federally or as we build highways. whether the new facilities will be run federally or privately is another debate.

either way, we need more power plants, we need more jobs, and we need to phase out coal. making lower middle class electric bills higher and shipping out jobs takes us no closer to that goal.

[hunter]

24. Places like California don't need natural gas for that.

There's lots of water we can move around and much of the infrastructure already exists.

Beyond this other projects are possible. For example, a link between the Salton Sea and the Gulf of California might be used to balance electric supply and demand throughout much of the Southwest and improve the already artificial ecosystem of that body of water.

One thing we really ought to be working on are the interfaces between natural and artificial water systems. The pumps that suck water out of the Sacramento delta and the various agricultural drains throughout the state are ecological nightmares. I think we could design systems that are politician proof; systems in which it would be physically impossible to overdraft fresh water or irrigate and develop lands to the detriment of environments wastewater drains into.

[kristopher]

26. That's interesting - the infrastructure is largely in place, you say?

I haven't heard of this idea before and it sounds promising. Is this something you've seen fleshed out somewhere?

[hunter]

27. Hydro capacity in California is about 13,000 megawatts.

A large fraction of that water is already confined within various water projects, some of which are already operating as pumped hydro storage systems.

The state water project also uses huge amounts of electricity to pump water south. This system has been upgraded over the years to use more off-peak power rather than running continuously and further improvement projects are ongoing. This hydroelectric system alone could accommodate large scale solar and wind development without further need for natural gas plants. Unfortunately it's often easier to build more turnkey gas plants. Large hydro plants and plant modifications require very sophisticated engineering because each project is unique. For natural gas plants a developer acquires the site, wrangles out the approvals, and writes a check for an existing design.

The Salton Sea projects are speculative. I haven't looked at them recently. Try google. One of the great stumbling blocks is our relationship with Mexico. Forget McCain's accusation of California "stealing water" from Arizona. Beyond that the United States has never left much Colorado river water for our own indigenous people or for Mexico. And we've utterly destroyed the riparian environment of the lower Colorado River just as we destroyed the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We'll never really know what those places were like before our industrial society erased them from the earth.

As an aside, I think it's disgusting how we hear so often about the extinction of Chinese river dolphins but hear so very little about the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaquita) vaquita which were almost certainly devastated by Colorado River development. Those few vaquita remaining are now threatened by fishing.

Hydro projects have always been about money and development. It's probably not feasible to rip them all out (one can dream...) but they might be reworked to accommodate increasing supplies of renewable energy and the restoration of natural riparian environments.

[kristopher]

28. An assessment should be done.

I did a quick, non-comprehensive search and didn't find anything specific to California or the west. It could be a good graduate thesis for someone at UC.

[Terry in Austin]

19. The U.S. will need electricity in 2034?

Who knew? Electricity is so 20th century...

The finer points of mule breeding is probably more pertinent for 2034. That and explaining what this "U.S." thing was.

Seriously, though, these kinds of articles always seem to assume a straight-line extrapolation of familiar trends and conditions -- not a very safe (or interesting) thing to assume, given that the fossil-fuel props are about to be kicked out from under our industrial-age arrangements.

I'm sure there will be people harvesting solar and wind and bio energy on a local scale, but it's also very likely that "electric utility CEO" will be another term that needs explaining in 2034.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Well, you have to make some assumptions

Should they assume that the US demand for utility-supplied electricity will be cut in half?

[Terry in Austin]

22. True enough

What do you think they should assume?

It sorta matters how sound the assumption is. Far as I can tell, demand won't be as pertinent an issue as supply in this case.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. Well, one of the goals seems to be to move to "alternative" sources of electricity

Solar, wind, tide, wave... (geothermal to an extent)

So, assuming there's some actual success in moving from burning things to using renewable electricity, even if overall energy use were to hold steady, demand for electricity should increase significantly.

[Terry in Austin]

29. Scale trouble

Gotta move to the alternatives, no doubt about it. The sooner the better. Fossil fuels won't be an option much longer.

Trouble is, alternative sources are not a "replacement" for fossil fuels in terms of amount.

The sheer scale of btu's in fossil fuel resources can't be matched, not even close -- probably by an order of magnitude. Yes, there will be alternate energy, but no, there won't be "enough."

In the face of that, it hardly matters how high the demand is. We can want, but we won't get. What we need to get is used to it!

[bananas]

30. That's not true at all

Either wind or solar by itself could replace all the "btu's" in fossil fuel.
Solar could provide several orders of magnitude more.

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

Solar energy

Renewable energy sources are even larger than the traditional fossil fuels and in theory can easily supply the world's energy needs. 89 PW<56> of solar power falls on the planet's surface. While it is not possible to capture all, or even most, of this energy, capturing less than 0.02% would be enough to meet the current energy needs. Barriers to further solar generation include the high price of making solar cells and reliance on weather patterns to generate electricity. Also, solar generation does not produce electricity at night, which is a particular problem in high northern and southern latitude countries; energy demand is highest in winter, while availability of solar energy is lowest. This could be overcome by buying power from countries closer to the equator during winter months. Globally, solar generation is the fastest growing source of energy, seeing an annual average growth of 35% over the past few years. Japan, Europe, China, U.S. and India are the major growing investors in solar energy. Advances in technology and economies of scale, along with demand for solutions to global warming, have led photovoltaics to become the most likely candidate to replace nuclear and fossil fuels.<57>

Wind power

The available wind energy estimates range from 300 TW to 870 TW.<56><58> Using the lower estimate, just 5% of the available wind energy would supply the current worldwide energy needs. Most of this wind energy is available over the open ocean. The oceans cover 71% of the planet and wind tends to blow stronger over open water because there are fewer obstructions.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/surface-area-required-to-power-the-whole-world-with-solar-power-wind.php

Surface Area Required to Power the Whole World With Solar and Wind Power

[joshcryer]

32. Good link. I wish projections suggested we were going in that direction.

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. Apparently, you have information the DoE does not

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html

...

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

...

[Terry in Austin]

34. The DoE has abstractions

I've seen a number of arguments like this. Some of them even include the energy needs of an electric vehicle fleet, which will need to be factored in once fossil fuels are out of the picture. This one doesn't even do that.

The operative term in all of these is "could." It's seductive. All it has to do is sound plausible. I find it unconvincing, but YMMV.

[OKIsItJustMe]

35. They don't suggest that solar will provide all of our power any time soon (if ever)

On the other hand, you made a definitive statement, "The sheer scale of btu's in fossil fuel resources can't be matched, not even close -- probably by an order of magnitude."

There's a great difference there.

I don't believe that tomorrow we will be powering our country with solar panels. It just can't happen overnight. Nor will we be powering our country tomorrow with wind, but, we're making process:

[joshcryer]

21. This is sobering. They're predicting few coal plants get shut down. But new nat gas comes online.

This is not a good thing. We need major net reductions, worldwide, to stem us from tipping points. This is a fact.

[hunter]

25. Fracking, the latest fad in natural gas development really sucks.

Those ads for "a hundred years of gas" mean that.

Maybe natural gas is not so hideous as coal, but coal sets a very low standard.

[joshcryer]

31. I'd be OK with it if they were shutting coal down. But they're not projecting that.

Coal needs to be shut down in a dramatic fashion.