Why the Best Path to a Low-Carbon Future is Not Wind or Solar Power

[undeterred]

In this blog, Charles Frank answers five questions on low and no-carbon electricity technologies.

As the science on climate change and its impacts on the global economy become clearer and more urgent, governments are increasingly looking for ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The largest source of these emissions comes from the combustion of fossil fuels—including coal, oil and natural gas—to produce electricity, an effort that in 2012 made up about 40 percent of emissions globally and 32 percent in the United States. More and more, countries are seeking to lower emissions in the electricity sector by turning to low and no-carbon generation options. However, until now, there has been little thorough, empirical analysis of which of these technologies is most efficient, and which provides the best “bang for our buck” as we seek to reduce emissions.

My new Brookings working paper breaks down the comprehensive costs and benefits of five common low-carbon electricity technologies: wind, solar, hydroelectric, nuclear, and gas combined cycle (an advanced, highly energy efficient type of natural gas plant). Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the paper asks the question, “Which of the five low-carbon alternatives is most cost-effective in lowering emissions?” The results are highly policy-relevant, and offer enlightening answers to a number of questions that can help governments aiming for a low-carbon future.

1. What’s it going to cost me?



2. Are the additional costs of wind and solar justified by the benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions?

3. Why are the costs per KWH of wind and solar so much higher, and the benefits not much different, than the other three low-carbon alternatives?

4. How can we be sure that a new low-carbon plant will replace a high-carbon coal plant rather than some other low-carbon plant?

5. What does this paper have for policymakers interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions at a reasonable cost?

Link to blog post: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/05/20-low-carbon-wind-solar-power-frank

Link to full article: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/05/low-carbon-electricity-technologies-frank

[ladjf]

1. This report bears out Mr. Frank's thesis. However, there are reports all over the

INTERNET that state the exact opposite. It's very difficult to form valid opinions with so much contradictory information available.

[newthinking]

2. If this were true and the long term costs were not higher, how is it Nuclear cannot get funding

without the government subsidizing their building and insuring them?

Debunking common myths about Nuclear & Coal Power In Germany
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/debunking-common-myths-about-nuclear-coal-power-in-germany-this-time-repeated-by-the-guardian/

The big picture in Germany is that fossil fuel use (all flavors added) is essentially unchanged in 2012 compared to 2010, that nuclear is in decline, and that renewable has replaced most of that nuclear phaseout exactly as intended.
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/debunking-common-myths-about-nuclear-coal-power-in-germany-this-time-repeated-by-the-guardian/#rqo8lFpQSKjgHEdw.99

Here is a great site with lots of information about why we can do it without the catastrophic risks involved in Nuclear. Nuclear is a "Dirty" fuel. We just haven't thought it through yet. What is the use of avoiding one catastrophe and then burdening future generations with serious and sometimes deadly environmental health issues of another type?

[undeterred]

3. This research (in the OP) seems to frame the question in terms of monetary "costs" alone.

It does seem a bit ironic to be focused on the damage of greenhouse gas emissions while ignoring the obvious environmental risks of nuclear energy.

[yurbud]

4. I wonder if that cost picture looks different if you factor in externalities like pollution, global

warming, dealing with nuclear waste, and dealing with the odd Fukushima or Chernobyl, which made broad swathes of their respective countries uninhabitable for decades at least.