Renewable Energy Is Capable of Meeting Our Energy Needs

[kristopher]

Renewable Energy Is Capable of Meeting Our Energy Needs

Despite having public support and advantages over other energy sources, renewable technologies have been repeatedly characterized as unable to meet our energy needs. People have been presented only a choice between conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power. This, however, is a false choice. Renewable energy can reliably generate as much energy as conventional fuels, and can do so without producing carbon emissions or radioactive waste.

Renewable energy – which includes solar, wind, advanced hydro, certain types of biomass and geothermal energy – has the potential to replace conventional fossil fuels and nuclear power. While non- hydro renewables presently provide just 2.3% of electricity in the U.S., it is technically and economically feasible for a diverse mix of existing renewable technologies to completely meet our energy needs. In fact, as much as 20% of U.S. electricity could immediately come from non-hydro renewable energy sources without any negative effects to the stability or reliability of the electrical grid. Over the longer term, improvements to the grid can be made, and renewable technologies could supply increasingly higher percentages. Examining possible implementation and growth rates for different technologies, a 2004 report from the European Renewable Energy Council concluded that renewable energy could meet baseload power needs, and in fact, could provide 50% of the world's primary energy by 2040. Similar studies from Shell Oil have explored scenarios in which one third to one half of the world’s energy can come from renewables by 2050.

Importantly, renewable energy technologies produce virtually no greenhouse gas emissions and can effectively address climate change. If unchecked, the disruption of the earth’s atmosphere poses the greatest threat to humankind in our lifetimes. Continuing to fill the atmosphere with greenhouse gases will melt the ice sheets, raise sea levels, bring extreme weather patterns, disrupt food production, and destroy whole ecosystems. Hundreds of millions of people may be left without food, shelter or clean water, causing political and social upheaval. According to a study by Japan’s Ministry for the Environment, renewable energy combined with efficiency measures could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level consistent with goals of global climate stabilization – a 70% reduction by 2050. With minimal initial capital costs and short deployment times, renewable technologies could address global climate change more quickly than nuclear power, and without the production of radioactive waste or other significant types of pollution.

HOW MUCH RENEWABLE ENERGY IS THERE?
In the near to medium term, the combination of wind, solar, advanced hydro, and some biomass and geothermal energy could completely meet U.S. electricity needs. According to a recent National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) analysis, the entire U.S. electricity demand could technically be met by renewable energy resources by 2020. In the longer term, the potential of domestic renewable resources is more than 85 times current U.S. energy use. ...

http://www.citizen.org/documents/RenewableEnergy.pdf

For More Information Contact Public Citizen’s Energy Program at:
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
www.energyactivist.org

The stat quoted for percentage of US energy from nonhydro renewables needs to be updated:

Renewable Energy Provides 14% of US Electrical Generation During First Half of 2013
August 27, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- According to the latest issue of the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) "Electric Power Monthly," with preliminary data through to June 30, 2013, renewable energy sources (i.e., biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, wind) provided 14.20 percent of the nation's net electric power generation during the first half of the year. For the same period in 2012, renewables accounted for 13.57 percent of net electrical generation.

Moreover, non-hydro renewables have more than tripled their output during the past decade. They now account for almost the same share of electrical generation (6.71 percent) as does conventional hydropower (7.49 percent). Ten years ago (i.e., calendar year 2003), non-hydro renewables provided only 2.05 percent of net U.S. electrical generation.

Comparing the first six months of 2013 to the same period in 2012, solar thermal & PV combined have grown 94.4 percent (these additions understate actual solar capacity gains. Unlike other energy sources, significant levels of solar capacity exist in smaller, non-utility-scale applications - e.g., rooftop solar photovoltaics). Wind increased 20.1 percent and geothermal grew by 1.0 percent, while biomass declined by 0.5 percent while hydropower dropped by 2.6 percent. Among the non-hydro renewabes, wind is in the lead, accounting for 4.67 percent of net electrical generation, followed by biomass (1.42 percent), geothermal (0.43 percent), and solar (0.19 percent)...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/08/renewable-energy-tops-14-of-us-electrical-generation-during-first-half-of-2013

[cprise]

1. I don't understand why people come to DU to diss religious preachers

...who exhort that the end is nigh and the best-laid plans of men are for naught, and then turn around to denigrate progressives using basically the same themes.

I have a theory about why this happens: I think it has to do with the hippy counter-culture and the conservative bible revival being cut from the same cloth of mid-20th-century culture shock; the de-personalized environment of a generation of baby boomers growing up in expanding suburban car consumerism, and the strong desire to restore meaning and interpersonal warmth. The ultimate answer they both came up with is to rally people around them in the zeitgeist of anticipating material doom... it must feel almost cozy at times, being huddled around that campfire listening to their horror stories. They both fought the effects of modernity and failed, ending up as anti-science lunatics.

Now when we see a silver lining to the stormcloud of consumption, they rail against any vision for a better society or anything that would pry them away from their cosmic cop-out.

[kristopher]

2. What don't you understand?

I take it you are referring to this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762371

What is it you don't understand?

[cprise]

4. Plenty

The kneejerk anti-science attitude is puzzling. The term 'hip' was supposed to denote enlightenment, but it actually seems to be a cheap imitation.

[kristopher]

3. Wind Turbines Can Boost Grid System Readiness Through Active Power Control

NREL Finds Wind Turbines Can Boost Grid System Readiness Through Active Power Control
Tuesday January 21 2014


Wind energy technology can support and enhance reliability of the U.S. power grid by controlling the active power output being placed onto the system, finds a new study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The rest of the power system's resources have traditionally been adjusted around wind to support a reliable and efficient system; however, NREL says the research that led to its report challenges that concept.

The national lab conducted the study, "Active Power Controls from Wind Power: Bridging the Gaps," with partners from the Electric Power Research Institute and the University of Colorado.

The report also finds that it often could be economically beneficial to provide active power control, and potentially damaging loads on turbines from providing this control is negligible. NREL says active power control helps balance load with generation at various times, avoiding erroneous power flows, involuntary load shedding, machine damage and the risk of potential blackouts.

“Utilities and independent system operators are all seeking strategies to better integrate wind and other variable generation into their electric systems,” says NREL Analyst Erik Ela. “Few have considered using wind power to support power system reliability.”

The study included a number of different power system simulations, control simulations, and field tests using turbines at NREL’s National Wind Technology Center (NWTC). The lab says....

http://preview.tinyurl.com/mcfwss3

NREL study in pdf here: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60574.pdf

[Iterate]

5. Overview of grid reliability in EU

Last edited Sat Feb 1, 2014, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

The CEER has updated its overview of grid downtime and provided a comparison of underground versus overhead power lines in the various member states.

The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) has published an update of its benchmarking report for grid reliability including data up to 2012. It basically focuses on Saidi, a way of scoring grid downtime with and without exceptional events, such as the storms. When such events are left out of the equation, the number of minutes of downtime on average for the year provides a way of comparing grid reliability.
...

In this chart I helped produce for the EnergyTransition.de website last year, we suggested that there is a connection between the share of renewables and minutes of downtime, with grid reliability actually improving as the share of renewables has grown over the past few years.

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/overview-of-grid-reliability-in-eu/150/537/75716/

So in theory I'm supposed to have <17 minutes per year of downtime, but I can't say that I've ever seen it. In the recent big winter storm, there was 98% pre-storm availability of turbines, and none were damaged. Another myth goes down.

In any engineered system there are trade-offs, and the anti-wind folks like to talk about capacity factor without ever considering availability factor. All power systems require reserve capacity; the difference is in how, when, and why their use is required. As usual, Craig Morris says it best:

Conventional plants can fail quickly. In a recent storm that hit Europe, the social media world was concerned about wind turbines being blown away, but I could not find any news of such a thing happening. We do know that the Ringhals nuclear plant, with a capacity of 878 MW, failed completely, however, as one of its blocks did again just a few weeks later.
http://energytransition.de/2014/01/intermittent-or-variable/

The first mentioned failure:
Outage or limitation : Failure SE3 Ringhals Block1 Event duration 1d 2h 47m Duration uncertainty +/- 6 hours
http://umm.nordpoolspot.com/messages/16206

And the second one:
Outage or limitation : Failure SE3 Ringhals Block1 Event duration 1d 1h 48m Duration uncertainty +/- 6 hours
http://umm.nordpoolspot.com/messages/17993

[kristopher]

6. "anti-wind folks like to talk about capacity factor without ever considering availability factor"

It's pretty obvious why, isn't it?

There are very few advantages offered by centralized thermal generation, so they work with what little they have. They aren't engaged in discussions of the actual merits of competing systems, they are fighting an energy war of survival for the value of their property.