Renewable Energy — Hype, Myth and Hope

By Harry {doc} Babad           © 2007 Edited by Julie M. Willingham

 

Introduction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are all sorts of folks, including our president, who are trying to tell you the cure-all for global warming and being held hostage to oil-rich third world dictatorships is renewable energy. A combination of snake oil, paid for by the taxpayer subsidies, supported political correctness (don’t look), and a deep lack of understanding of the laws of physics devalue the true value of this form of critical form of supplementary energy. A recent survey by the BBC indicates to me that people are more concerned, worldwide; with global energy concerns than are their politicians.

 

In this article I share my views on the real potential of this valuable but low-density energy form, after the hype from false expectations and pseudo-economics are put to rest.

 

It’s not that I’m against supporting the need for harnessing renewable energy. What I object to is the smoke and mirrors that both energy providers and our government are using to avoid dealing with the forced reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, both in electricity generation and for transportation.

 

Here are a few of my pet peeves:

 

• We don’t pay the full toll for gasoline, unlike Europeans, because we might have to take actions about the way we drive, pollute, and waste energy.

 

• C A F E Standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) for US transportation are effectively below those 10 years ago, because the industry and their lobbyists buy off Congress. As a result, we do not penalize the gas-guzzlers the American public loves so well. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm

 

• Don’t mention carbon taxes; if we implement them the lobbyists say we’ll be in the middle of the next depression. This despite that the historically documented experiences that every hue and cry about unsustainable costs from industry is overstated. Most such analyses have been blatantly and self-servingly overestimated. When real data become available after a requirement is added, such as CAFÉ standards or a European carbon tax, the benefits always exceed the losses. This is also true when unbiased economists do the analysis. [Reading the Economist, a British new magazine, over the last three years, has provided some interesting insights into the unsubstantiated lobbyist’s “it costs too much” claim.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

 

• A hydrogen economy is our savior, despite the fact that hydrogen is most effectively generated by electrolysis of water. I’m still awaiting a potential payout for nuclear fusion as a source of energy. However, hydrogen fuel for transportation may be a future reality. The electricity for that alternative, for at least the next 10-20 years, to generate the hydrogen must come from either fossil fuels or from nuclear energy. Sorry folks, photosynthetic hydrogen is a low energy density (ED) process (more about ED later).

 

• Subsidizing the petroleum exploration industry despite sky-high profits, $11.9 billion in subsidies via (in part) percentage depletion allowances to the US oil industry in 1995. For details, see http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/climate/1998jun9.html

 

• 
• Not allowing low cost ethanol from entering the US achieved by charging prohibitive tariffs (54 cent per gallon) on Brazilian ethanol. All of this while subsiding corn production resulting in rising food prices both in the US and around the world. By assuring that the price of corn and other grains keep rising, we are in effect, taking food out of people’s mouths so we can drive our cars.

 

I strongly believe in the use of renewable energy, where energy densities warrant it, preferably unsubsidized to eliminate the economic distortions created by taxpayer support of already well-off energy and farming sectors.

 

What’s renewable and what’s not?

Wikipedia described renewable energy as utilizing natural resources such as sunlight, wind, ocean tides, and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, and hydroelectricity, to the use of biomass and biofuels for electricity generation and biofuels for transportation.

 

About 13 percent of the world’s primary energy comes from renewables, with most of this coming from traditional biomass like wood burning. [There’s a whole lot more third world than first world out there.] Hydropower is the next largest source, providing 2-3%; more modern technologies like geothermal, wind, solar, and marine energy together satisfy less than 1% of total world energy demand. The technical potential for their increased use is very large, but remember that all energy alternatives have hidden costs and consequences. [E.g., hydropower floods ecosystems and solar farms take up acres of land.]

 

There are several significant issues that taint our understanding and the ultimate benefit of the of renewable sources to free us from our dependence on energy sources that spew greenhouse gases (coal, oil, natural gas.) For example under some circumstances biomass and biodiesel alternative only time shift releases of such gases but the net amount generated remains relatively constant.

 

 

 

Issues We Need to Consider —The energy issues facing our world consist of several different but interacting segments, some technical and some philosophical. These are the ones that jump to my mind — yes, a mixed bag.

• Encouraging Energy Efficient Mass Transportation Methods — We need to be more efficient when moving materials to where they’re needed from where they are grown or manufactured. And moving people, too; suburbs are nice but create negative transportation related greenhouse effects.

• Support Sustainable Development, not Luddite Approaches that Foster Individual and Cultural Deprivation — We in the United States and other developed nations need to be very conscious of our planet, acknowledging that everyone on earth has the right to a better living standard. If, as I believe, it is an inalienable right for a people to have enough energy to establish and maintain a life-enriching, laborsaving standard of living, then how will this be worked out for everyone? If the United States and other countries try to solve global warming without using sustainable means, it will be not only immoral, but it will cause wars that will make the costs of global warming solutions passé.

Our goals should also include moving toward greener electricity generation methods and the greening of transportation fuels. The alternative is important, because few will voluntarily give up their motor vehicles, and the largest present demands for automobiles are in India and China.

 

Energy Density: Why it matters

 

Although I’ve not found a formal definition of energy density outside of pure physics and mechanics, I like to poke at it in a number of interdependent ways. I know that someone mathematically inclined can convert the various factors I list below into a common scale; but for now, why bother? In dealing with energy alternatives, I believe the ideas of high-to-moderate or low densities will suffice to get you oriented to energy densities.

• What is the average amount of electricity, for solid or liquid fuels, you can generate from a ton of fuel using today’s generating technology? The range for this item includes both newer generating stations and old. For example, a pound of enriched uranium fuel is about 100X more energy rich than a pound of coal. The energy content of a pound of uranium or thorium, if spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, as is done in France, and fully utilized (not yet), is equivalent to about 3.5 million pounds of coal. It’s inherent in the physics. For burnable fuels, a good question is how many pounds of wood or corn stalks equal a pound of coal when used for an electrical generation?

• What is the average amount of energy, a credible range, you can generate from an acre of densely populated generators, either solar, wind or tidal?

• Given the variability of potential energy, how much electricity can you generate for a given head of falling water (hydroelectricity from dams)?

Let’s get real nit-pickingly detailed about energy density related ideas:

• An absurd Quest: How about generating the electricity for your house by running a turbine powered by the rainfall on your roof?

 

• How big a wind farm do you need to run a moderate sized aluminum smelter?

 

• How many solar cells, at 27% efficiency, does it take to run a car? [Hint: checkout the Business Week web site.] http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/jul2007/bw20070713_195996.htm

I’ve generalized about energy density in the table below — but until real numbers are generated and independently peer reviewed (not by lobbyists or their paid consultants), Table 1 only provides you with a birds-eye view of the issue.

 

 

Energy Type/Density	Source Location		Potential Focus	Problem Addressed
Biomass Direct Combustion [LD]	Regional, Mostly Rural		Electricity Generation - Fuel Oil/Natural Gas alternative	ES/GGU
Methane from Landfills [LD]	Narrowly Regional		Electricity Generation - Fuel Oil/Natural Gas alternative	ES/GGU
Biomass Conversion [MD]	Moderately Regional		Electricity Generation - Fuel Oil/Natural Gas alternative	ES
Geothermal [HD]	Narrowly Regional		Electricity Generation - Fuel Oil/Natural Gas alternative	ES
Hydroelectric [LG HD]	Narrowly Regional		Electricity Generation	ES
Hydroelectric [SM HD]	Moderately Regional		Electricity Generation	ES
Photovoltaic [LG/HD]	Narrowly Regional		Municipal or Industrial electricity	ES/RGG
Photovoltaic [SM LD]	Broadly Regional		Off Grid Electric	ES
Solar Thermal [LG MD]	Narrowly Regional			ES
Solar Thermal [SM LD]	Broadly Regional		Off Grid Heating	ES/RGG
Tide Power [MD or HD]	Coastal, varies by tide levels		Municipal or Industrial electricity	ES/RGG
Wind Power on Land [MD to HD]	Regional, varies by location		Municipal or Industrial electricity	ES
Wind Power (Offshore) [MD to HD]	Regional, varies by location		Municipal or Industrial electricity	ES
Acronyms:      ES – Energy Security; GGU — Greenhouse Gas Unfriendly HD – High Density; LD – Low Density		LG — Large Scale (many acres) MD — Moderate Density RGG - Reduce Greenhouse Gasses SM — Small Scale (limited acreage)

Table 1 — An Overview of Energy Density and Fuel Use

 

I have been somewhat arbitrary in cataloging generation methods as small, medium, or large density because no quantitative standards yet exist for these terms.

 

But let’s take a peek at what I consider small projects. Powering my home, supplementing the electricity used for my hybrid car, or generating electricity for a small grocery store — that’s small scale.

 

Powering a residential neighborhood, a moderate sized medical complex — let’s say in Richland WA, or a Wal-Mart Superstore could be considered medium scale. There is an intermediate scale that generates about 50 MW of electricity that might be able to provide electricity to 50,000 residential customers, but that has not yet been actualized. From another perspective, 7.9 million MWh is enough to supply electricity for 740,000 households. [Yes I know I’m mixing and mashing energy units…] However, running a refinery, chlorine-caustic plant, a factory for producing automobiles, an aluminum plant, or large sections of Spokane or Seattle, that takes high-density power.

 

…And back to renewable energy

 

The Wikipedia shares: “Renewable energy technologies are sometimes criticized for being unreliable or unsightly, yet the market is growing for many forms of renewable energy. Wind power has a worldwide installed capacity of 74,223 MW (equal to one newer present generation nuclear plant.) It is widely used in several European countries and parts of the USA. The manufacturing output of the photovoltaics industry reached more than 2,000 MW per year in 2006, and photovoltaic power plants are particularly popular in Germany. Solar thermal power stations, which produce hot water, operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 MW SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert. The world's largest geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW.

 

“Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18 percent of the country's automotive fuel. While only highly subsidized, emphasis added, ethanol fuel is also widely available in the USA.”

 

As an aside, a medium-large sized nuclear power plant generates about 500-1,000 MW of power. Neither I, my neighbors, nor the folks in Mexico are willing to pay more for our food, so folks can drive their gas-guzzlers a bit more greenly. The screams of anguish have only begun to resonate in politicians’ ears… soon they can count the votes.

 

Doc sez, all of this progress in the advance of renewable energy is wonderful. However, it’s not a comprehensive solution to meeting high-density energy demands for manufacturing or concentrated urban living. And as we all read, more and more people are moving from urban areas to cities, not only in China and India, but also in other developing countries.

 

Solar Facts, a Case in Point — I happened to be a fan of solar voltaic energy for supplementary power generation. I recognize, believer in technology that I am, that energy efficiency is improving and cost per watt of power will drop. I am willing to bet on a future outcome of a 10X drop in the price of solar voltaic cells in the near future. This does not change the technical basis that, as opposed to the simpler photovoltaic cells you might find on the roof of a house or on a solar-powered calculator, which make use of about 15% of the energy available in sunlight, "multijunction" cells are about 27% efficient and so far cost about 100 times more. Therefore, except in space and in sunny remote regions, no one uses them. Neither does it take into consideration the life-cycle costs for creating the solar cells and building the associated infrastructure to add the produced power to the grid [more about life-cycle costs later in this article]. But in spite of these things, temporary obstacles I hope, my heart says solar voltaic is a good energy alternative. That’s enough to turn any economist I know green.

 

How do we use energy in the US and around the world?

 

Based on information published by the Department of Energy, world market energy consumption is projected to increase, in the base case, by 57 percent from 2004 to 2030. Total energy demand in the non-OECD countries increases by 95 percent, compared with an increase of 24 percent in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Total world energy use rises from 447 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2004 to 559 quadrillion Btu in 2015 (25%) and then to 702 quadrillion Btu (57%) in 2030 (Figure 1). Global energy demand grows despite the relatively high world oil and natural gas prices that are projected to persist into the mid-term outlook (2030).

 

 

 

 

The electric power sector accounts for about two-thirds of the world’s coal consumption throughout the projection period, and the industrial sector accounts for most of the remainder. Coal and natural gas remain the most important fuels for electricity generation throughout the projection period, together accounting for 80 percent of the total increment in world electric power generation from 2004 to 2030 in the reference case.

 

 

Liquids remain the most important fuels for transportation, because there are few alternatives that can compete widely with petroleum-based liquid fuels. On a global basis, the transportation sector accounts for 68 percent of the total projected increase in liquids use from 2004 to 2030.

 

Unless there is a drastic and unprecedented change in the direction taken for energy generation for both electricity and transportation, most of this energy will come from fossil fuels. Of course, then the world’s population will remain hostage to both greenhouse effects and, for most OECD nations, to third world oil suppliers.

 

 

Renewable Energy and Global Warming

 

Energy density is only part of the story; global warming causing greenhouse gas generation is another. Let’s examine all current renewable energy options, without even considering their costs from a life-cycle perspective. You should instantly be able to recognize they fall into two ”greenhouse gas” categories: carbon dioxide generating or not.

 

Renewables such as biomass, whether as direct fuel, or by burning it, or by converting it to transportation fuels, only defers the Pied Piper’s bill. Without an ability to permanently dispose of greenhouse gasses, called sequestration, you’re only shuffling the CO₂, not decreasing the amount generated or preventing its release. At 100% efficiency, that means you’re just staying even, not reducing the amount of green house gases released. That's better than burning coal, oil, or natural gas, and better supports energy security. However it does not actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Different fuels contribute varying amounts of greenhouse gases, as shown in Table 2. The table does not take into account the amounts of greenhouse gases generated during the mining of coal or uranium, or when drilling for oil, or refining the uranium and oil, or transporting any fuels to a power plant.

 

 

Table 2 - Carbon Dioxide Releases From Various Types Of Power Plants

 

 

Table 2 does not take into account the greenhouse gas costs of manufacturing the equipment used for energy generation. Such life-cycle greenhouse gas data is becoming available for the nuclear industry and is certain to be refined as the international war on greenhouse effects is fought. Table 3 lists some recently published International Energy Agency data on the more compelling life-cycle emissions from energy generation.

 

 

Power Generation Type	Gram-Equivalents CO2 per KW-hour
Nuclear Power	2 to 59
Hydroelectric	2-48
Wind	7-125
Solar	13-731
Natural Gas	389 to 511
Coal	Preliminary data from the IEA suggest several times greater than natural gas.
International Energy Agency [IEA] analysis results reported in the August/September 2007 Insight. Insight is a Nuclear Energy Institute publication.

Table 3 - Approximate Life Cycle Emissions From Power Generation

 

 

Conclusions

 

To meet the goals of energy independence and battling the greenhouse effect, we must support and make appropriate use of renewable energy. However, unless they become orders of magnitude more energy dense, renewables can only supplement, not replace, high energy density sources of power.

 

Let’s not be blinded by the hype! Renewables will support enhancement of quality of life across the world, but basic energy needs still require use of hydroelectric, nuclear, space-based solar collection (still a dream), and, for now, the extensive use of fossil fuels. A possible path forward includes:

 

• Increase our ability to use renewable energy sources such as the wind, sun, hydropower, and the tides, perhaps even the heat of the earth. We need to start, even though most experts don’t believe there will be enough energy from these means to meet total global energy needs.

 

• Find the means to enhance conservation without Orwellian controls and loss of living standards. It’s the art of using less energy in our lives, but minimizing the pain. (E.g., use fluorescent lights instead of tungsten bulbs.)

 

• Let’s clearly publicize the subsidies that hide real costs. Let the taxpayers decide whose getting the gravy and who’s being ripped off. Remember, costs count, [JMW1]  and sooner or later they catch up with you.

 

 

 

• Mandate standardized Life-Cycle Accounting (e.g., nuclear vs. coal or oil) as part of give-away programs our well-lobbied representatives live on. Stop hiding actual greenhouse contributions from the cradle-to-grave costs of power generation. The nuclear industry does this; it’s required by law. Why can’t coal or solar energy be forced to do the same?

 

• Fight back on lobbyist hype. Name names and list dollars donated to our public officials. The lobbyists prevent making tough decisions such as:
  • Road taxes based on energy efficiency that should relate to vehicle weight. This should also help rebuild our shattered infrastructure.

   

  • Establish transportation energy requirements (e.g., fleet mileage limits)

   

  • Validate and widely publish the real cost of corn ethanol and other globally positive greenhouse/energy solutions beloved by special interests.
• Establish tough unsubsidized Cap and Trade systems or carbon taxes. The Europeans blew it in their first round, but the updated system is much more realistic. As an alternative, create a system of value added taxes [VAT] for the products created by polluting industries. That ought to keep the economists and politicians busy for a while. It would penalize polluters who would find their products more costly and harder to sell. If implemented — a big if — perhaps it can sway coal rich nations (US, Russia, China, India) think twice before adding more no longer cheap power plants. [No, I’m not smoking funny stuff, but am dreaming just a little.]

Reality Check — Burning carbon-based fuels in power plants or as transportation fuels clearly adds to the global warming issue. Nuclear energy, hydroelectric power, and renewables are the only presently known ways to generate power with minimal impact on global warming. We need to support all of these.

 

We can also cover significant parts of our farmland in sunshine and wind-rich states with wind solar farms. This seems a poor alternative to energy density, but it does generate the overall power we need. Since I could not find reliable acreage information on acres of land per MW from solar or wind, I could guess how much agricultural land we need to convert. One could then create a new state song that allowed one to praise the virtues of being surrounded by acres of solar cells or wind farms, rather than as in Washington State, acres of clams.

 

 

Added Reading

 

I thought about adding a reading list to this article, but two things stopped me;

 

• First, a hundred or so references would get old fairly quickly.

 

• Second, most of you who are non-believers would find alternative articles by pundits, often with no technical or economics credentials, to refute my arguments. They know they can save the world, given the power and dollars to do so. I only know that there are no black and white solutions, and all solutions have hidden cost over their lifetimes.

 

So check out Wikipedia and the major international and national web sites that are related to energy. These include those about energy maintained by organizations like the IEA, the IAEA and maintained by federal agencies. Check out advocacy sites; but like all things on the web; take all of them with a grain of salt.

 

Enjoy, and if you have thoughts on this column, write an article and submit it to macC. We’ll only edit your grammar, not your beliefs. Remember, rants and raves are okay, but do so politely with your set of perceived facts.

 

PS

 

The figures and tables included in this column were generated by the US Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration, a variety of agencies sponsored by the United Nations, the International Energy Organization, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other widely peer reviewed information sources.