Totten Wind Solar Today So07 Real Homeland Security

SUSTAINABLE WORLDVIEW

production in 2030, and that wind’s generating cost will remain over 6 cents per kilowatt-hour through 2030! How strange. Obviously EIA neglected to read the May 2007 DOE report, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006 (www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf), A renewables advocate shares his view of the relative merits of which summarizes the empirical evidence. Wind power has been competitive in wind and conventional energy technologies. wholesale electricity markets since 1998, By Michael Totten and the last 8 gigawatts (GW) of installed wind power had an average generating price efficiency, combined of 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (including he battle has been won, and now heat and power production tax credits [PTCs] and some the question looms — is the war (CHP) and energy with renewable energy certificates [RECs]). being lost? from wind, solar, In contrast, EIA estimates nuclear power There is overwhelming scientific valigeothermal and biowill generate electricity at 6 cents per kilodation, public consensus, state and local mass wastes are watt-hour by 2015 and less than 6 cents per actions and federal (if anemic) acceptgoing to be marginkilowatt-hour by 2030, leading to the conance of the reality that climate change alized as boutique struction of 12 GW of new reactors (more poses a multi-century threat to humaniindustries. Disagree? than all the wind currently installed in ty’s economic growth, health and wellNorth America). Moreover, only 2.6 GW of being and ecological stability. It seems Michael Totten The Facts, the existing 100 GW of nuclear reactors are we have finally won that battle. Please projected to retire before 2030, even However, even a cursory review of though most reactors are over 30 years legislation introduced in Congress shows Consider some recent findings by old. The nuclear cost estimates are well that pork barrel politics are thriving under supposed experts informing federal policybelow the June report on nuclear power by the new banner of climate solutions. makers. The June 2007 report by the U.S. the Keystone Center, whose experts estiIf post-9/11 national politics showed us Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy mate new nuclear generation costing 8 to anything, it's that patriotism is serving as Information Administration (EIA), Annual 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. justification for pandering to special interEnergy Outlook with Projections to 2030 EIA estimates even cheaper coalests. Taxpayers are shelling out $1 trillion ( w w w. e i a . d o e . g o v / o i a f / a e o / i n d e x . generated electricity, basically because EIA every 24 months to fuel administration html), concludes that wind power will concludes that “carbon capture and forays into “global conflict management.” not exceed 1 percent of total electricity sequestration (CCS) technology is How ironic that as more and more not projected to come into use taxpayer revolts limit local and during the projection period”! As state budgets (already starved by a result, EIA projects development decreasing federal funds), an of 10 GW of new pulverizing coal administration that proclaims and nearly 18 GW of combined itself fiscally conservative is bleedcycle plants. New coal accounts ing taxpayers’ dollars as if the for 54 percent of all new generaworld was ending. tion capacity through 2030, at a What does this have to do non-CCS generation cost of 5 with ecologically sustainable cents per kilowatt-hour. energy services, or wind power, EIA could have cited two this column's putative topic? comprehensive and authoritative More than mainstream media is CCS reports. The first is the recent willing to discuss. Future of Coal MIT report (http:// It is a straightforward case of web.mit.edu/coal/The_ system dynamics. If governments Future_of_Coal_Summary_Report at all levels lack discretionary .pdf), which estimates CCS will funds to shape public policies; add 3 cents per kilowatt-hour taxpayers’ revolts keep a tight lid to the cost of electricity from coal on new initiatives; the governplants. The second is the 2005 ment is dramatically less commitIntergovernmental Panel on ted to enforcing environmental Climate Change (IPCC) special laws, let alone superseding antireport on Carbon Dioxide Capture quated regulations; and deep tax and Storage (www.ipcc.ch/ breaks for corporations and activity/srccs/index.htm), which wealthy investors reinforce the estimates CCS costs at between business-as-usual investment in 1 and 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, uncompetitive, heavily subsidized smokestack industries, then other- Wind is a cost-effective electricity generation strategy that reduces depending on a number of key variables. wise stellar options like end-use carbon dioxide emissions economically.

Real Homeland Security

COURTESY OF VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS A/S

T

16

www.solartoday.org SOLAR TODAY

Wind Wins Add a couple of cents per kilowatt-hour for transmission and distribution, putting the delivered cost of coal plus CCS and nuclear at 9 to 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, and two things become obvious. First, a greatly increased pool of end-use efficiency, CHP and on-site solar becomes economically preferable, and second, given its attractive economics, the expansion of wind power merits a high priority. Scaling up wind 20 times today’s 10 GW by 2020 and twice that by 2030 will require substantial research, development, demonstration and commercialization, combined with stable, long-term incentives. Coal and nuclear advocates respond sarcastically to these rapid growth rates. Yet it should be obvious that scaling up any future energy option, including coal plus CCS or next-generation nuclear reactors, will require exactly the same “big game change” kinds of extraordinary policy commitments. Yet federal policymakers continue to ignore this fundamental point. Hence, we get business-as-usual research and development (R&D) budgets, subsidies and policies for coal, coal-to-liquids, oil shale, tar sands and nuclear power, while hamstringing

September/October 2007

R&D for advancing wind and solar and sunsetting PTCs in ever-shorter timespans. The Senate’s rejection of the renewable portfolio standards (RPS) legislation in June is a case in point. Too many senators simply ignored industry analyses, such as Wood Mackenzie’s (http://public utilities.utah.gov/archive/federalrenew ableenergyportfoliostandard.pdf), showing $240 billion gross consumer savings from a 15 percent RPS by 2020, while increasing renewable capacity 500 percent beyond 2006.

But Coal Still Rules Meanwhile, senior members of Congress are grandstanding for large-scale expansion of coal-to-liquids (www.future coalfuels.org/documents/bunning_ bill.pdf), calling for 25-year Pentagon fuelprocurement contracts, guaranteed loans and tax credits. In addition, a mania is being mounted to accelerate CCS, without any sort of mandated comparison with lower-cost, lower-risk options. Even CCS proponents like the authors of the MIT report highlight major CCS challenges. The nearly 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year (tCO2/yr) from 600 GW of U.S. coal plants will require

injecting 50 million barrels per day (bbl/day) of superfluid CO2. This is a volume equivalent to total current U.S. oil consumption. Each 1-GW coal plant emits 6 million tCO2/yr, requiring CCS injection of 100,000 bbl/day. By contrast, the biggest injection operation today is 40,000 bbl/day and 3,000 bbl/day is the average. CCS is projected to cost $40 per ton of CO2, prior to transport and injection/storage, which adds an additional cost of $1.50 (low) to $11.50 (high) t/CO2. Of most immediate concern, CCS is not yet ready for prime time. The MIT study recommends demonstrations injecting 1 million tCO2/yr for five years, with 10 CCS demonstration projects, each at a cost of $15 million per year for 10 years. Meanwhile, wind power achieves CO2 reductions at $6 per tCO2 now, and end-use efficiency efforts are reducing CO2 while saving money. Maybe it’s time to define real homeland security. ● Michael Totten, the senior director of Climate, Water and Ecosystem Services at Conservation International, resides in Denver and works in China. Contact him at [email protected].

17