Energy decarbonisation plans

From ScienceForSustainability
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Studies & data

Global

The Breakthrough Institute's paper "Historic Paths To Decarbonisation" examines the rate at which various contries have decarbonised their energy supplies, compared with the rate thought necessary to stabilise climate change. The paper looks particularly at Sweden and France's decarbonisation following the 1970s Oil Crisis, and Ireland and the UK.


Solar Power to Triple During Next Five Years JOHN ADDISON; Cityminded; 21 Jul 2015

Global solar capacity is forecasted to triple from the 178 GW capacity at the end of 2014 to over 500 GW by 2020, equivalent of one thousand typical coal or nuclear power plants. Solar energy will be 540 GW by 2020 in the high estimate, and 396 in the low, according to the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA).
+ figures for China, Japan, USA

Wind Energy Setting Records, Growing Still: The Wind Energy Outlook for 2016 Vince Font; Renewable Energy World; 3 Feb 2016

Markets to watch include Canada, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa but China will be the biggest leader for installing wind energy capacity in 2016.

Europe

European Renewable Energy performance and costs: 2014

Germany

Agorameter

Power Generation and Consumption

Should other nations follow Germany's lead on promoting solar power? Ryan Carlyle; Quora

Solar power itself is a good thing, but Germany's pro-renewables policy has been a disaster. It has the absurd distinction of completing the trifecta of bad energy policy: Bad for consumers, Bad for producers, Bad for the environment (yes, really; I'll explain)


Energiewende: Germany, UK, France and Spain Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 3 Nov 2013

Germany: energiewende kaput? Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 19 May 2014

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ as a model for Australian climate policy? Graham Palmer, Energy Matters; June 2014

history of anti-nuclear movements in Germany & Australia

An update on the Energiewende Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 22 Aug 2016

Denmark

Myths about Danish Wind Power: Why 39% Wind Is Not Enough Taís Pinheiro; Worldwatch Institute Europe; 7 Feb 2015

In the first week of January, the Danes celebrated the fact that 39% of total electricity consumed in Denmark in 2014 came from wind turbines. Data from the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building indicates that the amount of electricity consumed from wind power has experienced a significant increase from the 18.7% nearly a decade ago, to 32% in 2013 up to 39% today. Last year’s increase can be attributed to the decrease of energy consumption and the installation of over 100 new offshore windmills. The historical increase of wind power over the past decade is a result of massive investments in wind technology by the Danish industry since the 1970s. These investments resulted in the establishment of the first offshore wind farm in the world in 1991 off the Danish coast. In addition, Denmark has numerous wind turbines installed across the country, and Danish wind companies have spread their technology by installing over 90% of the world's offshore turbines. Glancing at these achievements, a few facts can be easily misinterpreted, such as the percentage of turbines in Denmark relative to the world, the real share of wind in the total energy production, and the necessary effort to reach 100% renewable energy.

Portugal

Portugal runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone Arthur Neslen; Guardian; 18 May 2016

Portugal kept its lights on with renewable energy alone for four consecutive days last week in a clean energy milestone revealed by data analysis of national energy network figures. Electricity consumption in the country was fully covered by solar, wind and hydro power in an extraordinary 107-hour run that lasted from 6.45am on Saturday 7 May until 5.45pm the following Wednesday, the analysis says.

Electricity consumption in Portugal was secured for more than 4 days followed by renewable sources Zero.org; 15 May 2016 (translated)

Portugal ran entirely on renewable energy for 4 consecutive days last week John Fitzgerald Weaver; electrek; 16 May 2016

According to Zero.ong, and brought to our attention by SolarCrunch, Portugal ran on renewable energy alone for 4 straight days last week. This 100% was preceded by more than 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources of energy during the first quarter of 2013, and 63% for all of 2014. Portugal stopped burning coal in 1994.
According the the IEA, the main sources of Portugal’s energy is coming from biofuels and waste. Wind and hydropower and adding increasingly larger amounts, with geothermal and solar just starting to take off.

Portugal 2016 review IEA; 2016

Did Portugal run for four days on renewables alone? Roger Andrews; Energy Matters; 23 May 2016

Recently there has been much rejoicing in the green media that the entire country of Portugal succeeded in powering itself with 100% renewables for four straight days from May 7 through May 10, 2016. Here we look into the question of whether this is true (it is) and second the question of what caused it (the weather). Over the period in question Portugal was able to make maximum use of its hydro and wind capacity because of unusually heavy rains and strong winds, a combination of renewables-favorable weather conditions that has been described as “fantastic”, although the tourism industry may take a different view.

UK

Data

Data Explorer National Grid

Balancing Mechanism Reporting System (BMRS)

Nuclear Plant Status EDF

Leo Smith's Gridwatch UK National Grid Status

A control-panel style display of instantaneous, daily, weekly, monthly and annual electricity demand and supply by various sources, with informative bubbles that pop up giving additional information about the various measures.

UK Grid Graphed

The Changing Face of UK Power Supply Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 11 Mar 2016


Clive Best's pages:

by Clive Best ([Summary of last 30 days of UK peak electricity supply blog])


Scotland-England Electricity Transfers

Ireland

CO2 Emissions Variations in CCGTs Used to Balance Wind in Ireland Euan Mearns; Energy Matters; 15 Apr 2016

The island of Ireland functions as a single electricity grid linked to the British mainland by two interconnectors with a combined capacity of 1 GW. The Republic of Ireland in the south has set a goal to have 40% of electricity generated from renewables, mainly onshore wind, by 2020. Variable intermittency will be balanced using frame type combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs). As the level of wind penetration grows the CCGTs need to work harder ramping up and down to compensate for variable wind. This causes increased wear and tear on the CCGT plant and also significantly reduces the energy efficiency of the CCGTs raising their specific CO2 production. During 2014 and 2015, average wind penetration was 22%, the CCGTs produced 575 Kg of CO2 per MWh and the average fuel efficiency was 32% compared with a design specification of 55%.

France

Gridwatch France


French NIMBYs get wind turbines removed, shift focus back to nuclear Joanna Foster; RenewEconomy; 20 Nov 2013

Earlier this month, judges in Montpellier, France ordered French energy company GDF Suez to take down 10 wind turbines near the city of Arras in Northern France. The decision comes after a six-year legal struggle between GDF and a local couple who claimed the 10 turbines, installed back in 2007, destroyed the character of their 17th century chateau. France is currently heavily dependent on nuclear. 58 nuclear reactors across France provide over 75 percent of the nation’s power mix. Nuclear reactors have long been the key to French energy independence. French President Francois Hollande has pledged to bring the country’s reliance on nuclear down to 50 percent by 2025, without lifting the country’s ban on fracking, in place since 2011.

Sweden

IEA report on Swedish Energy.

Environmental and health impacts of a policy to phase out nuclear power in Sweden

How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden Raymond Pierrehumbert; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Special Issue: Young People and Existential Threat; Volume 72, Issue 2, 2016

Bringing global warming to a halt requires that worldwide net emissions of carbon dioxide be brought to essentially zero; the sooner this occurs, the less warming our descendants for the next 1000 years and more will need to adapt to. The widespread fear that the actions needed to bring this about conflict with economic growth is a major impediment to efforts to protect the climate. But much of this fear is pointless, and the magnitude of the task – while great – is no greater than the challenges that human ingenuity has surmounted in the past. To light the way forward, we need to examine success stories where nations have greatly reduced their carbon dioxide emissions while simultaneously maintaining vigorous growth in their standard of living; a prime example is Sweden. Through a combination of sensible government infrastructure policies and free-market incentives, Sweden has managed to successfully decarbonize, cutting its per capita emissions by a factor of 3 since the 1970s, while doubling its per capita income and providing a wide range of social benefits. This has all been accomplished within a vigorous capitalistic framework that in many ways better embodies free-market principles than the US economy. Consequently, the Swedish experience shows that solving global warming does not require us to “tear down capitalism.” The world just needs to be a bit more like Sweden.

http://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/rbul20/2016/rbul20.v072.i02/00963402.2016.1145908/20160310/images/medium/rbul_a_1145908_f0001_oc.jpg


The looming Nordic energy crisis Rauli Partanen; energy post; 10 Mar 2016

Sweden is faced with the possible shutdown of its entire nuclear generating capacity. This could result in grid instability, price hikes and much higher greenhouse gas emissions, writes Rauli Partanen, an independent analyst and author on energy and the environment. Partanen calls on policymakers to take action to avoid a Swedish nuclear phaseout.
Nuclear power in Sweden has become uneconomical. Wholesale prices of electricity in Sweden have been much lower than the breakeven price for nuclear generation. Electricity has been sold at a record low price of €20 per megawatt hour (MWh), while the cost of generating nuclear power has been in the same ballpark, or even slightly higher. In addition, the Swedish government has set a tax on nuclear power, which has been steadily rising. After the latest hike, it amounts to about a third of the wholesale price, roughly €7 per MWh.
Sweden’s lobbying organization for wind power has written that it thinks Swedish nuclear can be replaced by building many times more wind power than Sweden has now, and by dealing with peak hours and low winds by building gas turbines. This amount of wind would be hugely uneconomical to build. The gas turbines could also cost billions of euros, and they would be running only a few hours during the year, making them monumentally bad investments. At current market conditions, nobody would build either of these without very generous subsidies from the government.

V wants to prioritize fossil settlement Dagens Nyheter

The phasing out of fossil fuels will be prioritized and decommissioning of nuclear power is secondary. It is a key point in the new ecological-economic program of the Left Party leadership hopes to support the Congress in May. - Climate adaptation should go first, said party secretary Aaron Etzler.


Brown coal wins a reprieve in Germany's transition to a green future Christian Schwägerl for Yale Environment 360; Guardian; 7 Jul 2015

Even as Europe’s biggest economy aspires to be a renewable energy leader, it is exploiting its vast reserves of dirty brown coal, reports Yale Environment 360

Why Is Germany's Greenest City Building a Coal-Fired Power Plant?

German CO2 emissions rise 1% in 2015 Megan Darby; Guardian; 14 Mar 2016

Higher heat demand and use of brown coal for power behind estimated increase in climate pollution, says think tank Green Budget Germany

Renewable Energy Costs and Effectiveness in Germany

Germany Pays to Halt Danish Wind Power to Protect Own Output

Reality Check: Germany Does Not Get Half of its Energy from Solar Panels Robert Wilson; the Energy Collective; 19 Aug 2014

Germany will never run on solar power. Here is why

Last year, 5.7% of Germany’s electricity generation and 2.5% of primary energy consumption came from solar panels.

The 4th Largest Economy In The World Just Generated 90 Percent Of The Power It Needs From Renewables JEREMY DEATON; Climate Progress; 9 May 2016

On Sunday, for a brief, shining moment, renewable power output in Germany reached 90 percent of the country’s total electricity demand. That’s a big deal. On May 8th, at 11 a.m. local time, the total output of German solar, wind, hydropower, and biomass reached 55 gigawatts (GW), just short of the 58 GW consumed by every light bulb, washing machine, water heater and personal computer humming away on Sunday morning. (It’s important to note that most likely, not all of that 55 GW could be used at the time it was generated due to system and grid limitations, but it’s still noteworthy that this quantity of power was produced.)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b44e3214-2f13-11e6-bf8d-26294ad519fc.html Boost to nuclear energy as Sweden agrees to build more reactors] Richard Milne, Nordic Correspondent; FT; 10 Jun 2016

Sweden aims to produce all of its power from renewable sources by 2040 but in the meantime will build new nuclear plants to replace old ones being phased out, according to an agreement between government and opposition parties on Friday. ... Friday’s agreement does not specify which technology the plants should use. ... Permission may be granted to replace existing reactors at the same sites with a maximum of 10 to be built in all, according to the deal between the governing Social Democrats and Greens as well as the opposition Moderates, Centre party and Christian Democrats. ... Politicians emphasised that the goal of 100 per cent renewable energy by 2040 did not mean that nuclear plants would be closed then. “This is a goal, not a cut-off date that would prohibit nuclear power, and it does not mean either the end a closure of nuclear power,” the agreement stated. Ibrahim Baylan, the energy minister, said: “This is a traditional Swedish compromise.”

Canada

A discussion of Canada's energy requirements, in particular the challenges of supplying power to remote communities in the North and Arctic regions, and to the oil sands industries, Canada's nuclear regulatory system, and the companies planning to build reactors for these applications: Canada edges closer to SMR build after VC funding deal Nuclear Energy Insider, 26 Jan 2016.

Ontario

GridWatch Electricity Generated in Ontario pie chart of proportion by sources at current instant and other statistics Revitalizing the Bruce Power Site

Ontario Clean Air Alliance

anti-nuclear

China

Solar, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear energy in China Next Big Future; 2 Jan 2016

Nuclear Power in China World Nuclear Association; 30 Nov 2015

China is on an epic solar power binge Richard Martin; MIT Technology Review 22 Mar 2016

In 2015, the country added more than 15 gigawatts of new solar capacity, surpassing Germany as the world’s largest solar power market. China now has 43.2 gigawatts of solar capacity, compared with38.4 gigawatts in Germany and 27.8 in the United States. According to new projections, it seems that trend is going to continue. Under its 13th Five Year Plan, China will nearly triple solar capacity by 2020, adding 15 to 20 gigawatts of solar capacity each year for the next five years, according to Nur Bekri, director of the National Energy Administration. That will bring the country’s installed solar power to more than 140 gigawatts. To put that in context, world solar capacity topped 200 gigawatts last year and is expected to reach 321 gigawatts by the end of 2016.

Nuclear growth revealed in China's new Five-Year Plan World Nuclear News; 23 Mar 2016

China's operating nuclear generating capacity will double over the next five years under the country's latest Five-Year Plan. The plan also calls for the preparation for construction of inland nuclear power plants and work on a reprocessing plant to start by 2020.


Low energy prices and China's drive for a smaller and more efficient coal industry is killing solar power and coal companies NexBigFuture; 20 Mar 2016

China's Coal companies shifting to solar, wind, ultra-efficient coal and nuclear energy

10-20 years of pressure on solar and coal as China shifts energy mix and US technology keeps oil prices low NexBigFuture; 20 Mar 2016

Facing Grid Constraints, China Puts a Chill on New Wind Energy Projects COCO LIU; Inside Climate News; 28 Mar 2016

Chinese regulators said the windswept regions of Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Gansu, Ningxia and Xinjiang will suspend the approval of new wind projects in 2016, according to a March 17 statement published on the website of China's National Energy Administration. The six regions have installed nearly 71 gigawatts of turbines, more than the rest of China combined. It's at least the fourth time in five years that Beijing has ordered wind operators there to slow down growth.


China Stops Building Wind Turbines Because Most Of The Energy Is Wasted Andrew Follett, Energy and Environmental Reporter; Daily Caller; 29 Mar 2016

China wind curtailment transmission line costs Texas

South America

Costa Rica

Costa Rica Targets 93% Clean Electricity in 2015 United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) Newsroom; 6 Jan 2015

Costa Rica’s achievements in perspective Suzanna Hinson; Climate Answers blog; 4 Feb 2016

Chile

Burned in Chile: The folly of merchant solar power Carlos St James; LinkedIn; 28 Mar 2016

This January Chile hit two significant milestones: installed capacity of solar energy passed the one gigawatt mark, and it surpassed wind. Surely a great omen for a country known for its solar resources and stable economy. Yet losses are mounting at some power plants, caused by weak planning on behalf of the public sector and an unwillingness from the private sector to acknowledge some real risks in the rush to invest – decisions that are now costing the industry millions and scarring Chile’s porcelain reputation.

Uruguay

Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy Guardian; 3 Dec 2015

In less than 10 years, Uruguay has slashed its carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs ...
the main attraction for foreign investors like Enercon is a fixed price for 20 years that is guaranteed by the state utility.

IEA report for 2013

Renewable Energy Investment Opportunities brochure 2014

Australia

Germany’s ‘Energiewende’ as a model for Australian climate policy? Graham Palmer, Energy Matters; June 2014

history of anti-nuclear movements in Germany & Australia

Tasmania and El Hierro

The Myth of Sustainable Power from Renewables Institute for Energy Research; 17 mar 2016

Two islands—one off Spain and one off Australia—are using renewable energy to supply power to their homes and industries in the hopes that they can be free of fossil fuels. Tasmania, an island off the south coast of Australia, was virtually 100 percent renewable, but had to bring in diesel generators to get it through an energy crisis. El Hierro, one of the Canary Islands off of Spain, had been 100 percent diesel-powered, but turned to a hybrid wind/pumped storage hydroelectric system to replace the diesel generators, only to find that the island is still dependent on them. In each case, the cost has been huge, and should be cautionary tales to policymakers who want to tinker with the electricity systems we depend upon.

Islands Trying To Use 100% Green Energy Failed, Went Back To Diesel ANDREW FOLLETT, Energy and Environmental Reporter; Daily Caller; 18 Mar 2016

The islands of Tasmania and El Hierro tried to power their economies with 100 percent green energy, but both islands eventually went back to diesel generators after suffering reliability problems and soaring energy costs.

El Hierro Renewable Energy Project

Energy Matters

Gran Canaria Chira-Soria

Chira-Soria – Another Flawed Renewables Project

King Island

King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project Hydro Tasmania

Nearly 100 years ago Hydro Tasmania embarked on a clean energy journey, becoming one of Australia’s leaders in renewable energy development. Today, we continue our proud history of clean energy with the King Island Renewable Energy Integration Project (KIREIP).

Asia

Bhutan

This Country Isn’t Just Carbon Neutral … It’s Carbon Negative Cole Mellino; EcoWatch; 19 Mar 2016

Bhutan is often overlooked by the international community. The small nation lies deep within the Himalayas between China and India, two of the most populated countries in the world. But the country of about 750,000 people has set some impressive environmental benchmarks. As we’ve written about in the past, Bhutan is not merely carbon neutral, it’s also a carbon sink—making it one of the few countries in the world to have negative carbon emissions. This means the country’s carbon sinks, such as its forests, absorb more carbon dioxide each year than its sources of pollution, such as factories, emit. “According to recent figures, the country emits around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon annually, while its forests absorb over 6 million tonnes,” Proudly Carbon Neutral said.

Futures / plans

(UK) Institute of Mechanical Engeneers Energy Policy, UK 2050 Energy Plan (2011 version) summary report.

Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; 17 Apr 2015

Energy solutions in a changing climate Iida Ruishalme; Thoughtscapism; 6 Mar 2015

Many people respect the views of the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) on the state of the climate – at least roughly half of the global population perceives global warming as a threat. Most of them whole-heartedly acknowledge that we need to take action to mitigate climate change. The odd thing is, though, that a great many seem to ignore a significant portion of what the IPCC is saying when it comes to climate solutions.

David MacKay: Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air

David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air discusses, with numerical estimates, the UK's various energy demands and sources of sustainable energy to supply them, and shows example plans for scenarios matching them. MacKay went on to work at the Department of Energy and Climate Change where he was involved in developing the Department's 2050 Pathways Calculator online application in which one can play with scenarios for achieving the UK's Climate Change Act commitment to 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 through simulated changes in demand and supply, and their subsequent and more ambitious Global Calculator.

MacKay has been accused of being pro-nuclear by Jim Hickey, and the 2050 Pathways calculator has been accused of being pro-renewables by Roger Andrews who claims its assumptions regarding the storage requirements of intermittent renewables are unrealistically optimistic.

MacKay on solar

http://www.inference.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/RSsolar.pdf Solar energy in the context of energy use, energy transportation, and energy storage] David J C MacKay

Taking the United Kingdom as a case study, this paper describes current energy use and a range of sustainable energy options for the future, including solar power and other renewables. I focus on the the area involved in collecting, converting, and delivering sustainable energy, looking in particular detail at the potential role of solar power.

DECC calculators

2050 Pathways classic version

Global calculator

IPCC

working group 3

energy

Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers

p82:
Limiting warming with a likely chance to less than 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels would require substantial cuts in anthropogenic GHG emissions by mid-century through large-scale changes in energy systems and possibly land use. Limiting warming to higher levels would require similar changes but less quickly. Limiting warming to lower levels would require these changes more quickly (high confidence). Scenarios that are likely to maintain warming at below 2°C are characterized by a 40 to 70% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, relative to 2010 levels, and emissions levels near zero or below in 2100 (Figure 3.2, Table 3.1). Scenarios with higher emissions in 2050 are characterized by a greater reliance on CDR technologies beyond mid-century, and vice versa. Scenarios that are likely to maintain warming at below 2°C include more rapid improvements in energy efficiency and a tripling to nearly a quadrupling of the share of zero- and low-carbon energy supply from renewable energy, nuclear energy and fossil energy with carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) or BECCS by the year 2050 (Figure 3.2b).

http://scienceforsustainability.org/pix/IPCC_synthesis_p82.jpg

Timeline: The IPCC’s shifting position on nuclear energy Suzanne Waldman; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; 8 Feb 2015

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed in 1988 as an expert panel to guide the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The treaty’s objective is to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a safe level. The IPCC has published a series of five multi-volume climate change assessment reports, the most recent of which was completed just a few months ago, as well as a number of special reports assessing specific issues. Over time, the organization has subtly adjusted its position on the role of nuclear power as a contributor to de-carbonization goals. Here is a timeline of the IPCC’s shifting attitude toward nuclear power.

IMechE

Future Climate UK 2050 Energy Plan - The challenge continues Jul 2011

1 This report presents the ongoing work of the IMechE in support of the International Future Climate Project. Previous work was presented in our report: “UK 2050 Energy Plan” published in September 2009.
2 The primary basis for this project continues to be the objective of keeping the maximum global average temperature rise to within the guideline of 2oC. As a developed country, the UK has shown international leadership in enacting legal obligations to reduce total GHG emissions by 80% of 1990 values by 2050. The UK also has an obligation under the EU Renewable Energy Directive to achieve a target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. The overall renewables target for Europe is 20% by 2020.
3 The analysis work of DECC, led by Prof. David MacKay and the development of the DECC pathways software has shown clearly that to maintain a modern developed society in the UK it is necessary to build an energy supply system based on a combination of wind energy (the only renewable currently available at scale in the UK), nuclear power and gas/coal combinations abated by CCS. The major issue is that the current version of the DECC pathways model does not include pathway cost comparisons such as cost per tonne of CO2 abated as used by other models.
4 In total, other sources of energy such as biomass, solar, wave and tidal power, hydro, geothermal, waste heat recovery and energy from waste materials have an important role to play in providing a resilient energy system. Some of these may develop into major energy sources in the future.
5 As in our previous report we believe that doubling the existing electricity supply is at the limit of practical achievement of the current UK approach to infrastructure projects. This means that the demand side of the energy equation must reduce to balance with supply. This can be achieved through a combination of three activities listed in ease of implementation, behaviour change being the most difficult to achieve:
a) Efficiency improvements throughout the system
b) Time shifting of electrical demand.
c) Basic reduction in demand by energy conservation through modal shift and lifestyle change.
6 Our investigations suggest that the target reductions in emissions will not be achieved through energy efficiency measures and existing technologies alone but that new innovative technologies will be needed in all sectors of the energy supply and demand landscape.
Some of these innovations may already be recognised as important - such as marine energy - but based on past experience it is likely that other so far unrecognised technologies will need to be brought into play before 2050.
7 The cost of implementing the new infrastructure needed in the UK to deliver a new, balanced and low carbon energy economy is significant and estimated at around £500 billion between now and 2020. To obtain best cost for the new infrastructure it is important that technologies and their supporting industries reach critical mass. In evaluating the relative costs of the alternative infrastructure pathways it is critical that the benefits such as job creation are also taken into account.
8 We believe that the creation of so called Green Jobs will be a major motivator in driving forward the low carbon energy supply. The UK needs some 1million additional manufacturing jobs over the period to balance the economy. To reach this level of new job creation will require a conscious development of UK based supply chains so that the supply chain job multiplier comes into play.
9 It is recognized however that there should not be an overemphasis on reducing greenhouse gases as resource management in the broadest sense, population growth and the adequate provision of food and water are no less pressing global challenges for engineering in the coming decades.

forecasts

IEA sees global energy transition

low-carbon technologies expected to generate almost half of the world's electricity by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Nuclear's share of global electricity generation is set to remain around the current level.

BP

BP Energy Outlook to 2035

World Energy Mix in 2035 will have more nuclear because China will build it Next Big Future; 3 Apr 2016

According to the 2016 edition of the BP Energy Outlook, launched last month, BP says world energy consumption will grow by 34% between 2014 and 2035, from 12,928 million tonnes oil equivalent (toe) to 17,307 million toe. Some 95% of this growth will come from non-OECD countries.
The global use of nuclear energy is forecast to grow by 1.9% per year from 574.0 million toe in 2014 to 859.2 million toe in 2035, which is an overall increase of 50%.
Nuclear output in the European Union and North America is expected to decline 29% and 13%, respectively, as ageing reactors are gradually retired and "the economic and political challenges of nuclear energy stunt new investments". However, output in China is forecast to increase 11.2% annually. BP said Japan's nuclear output will reach 60% of its 2010 level by 2020 as reactors restart over the next five years.
Coal's share of global primary energy production is expected to drop from 30% in 2014 to 25% in 2035.

Nuclear's share of primary energy to rise, says BP World Nuclear News; 10 Mar 2016

While global energy demand is expected to grow by 34% between 2014 and 2035, nuclear power generation will grow 50% in total over the same period, according to the latest Energy Outlook from oil and gas giant BP.

mix - plans

Steve Holliday, CEO National Grid: “The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”

Let’s Run the Numbers: Nuclear Energy v. Wind and Solar Mike Conley & Tim Maloney; The Energy Reality Project; 17 Apr 2015

  • It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana. Or:
  • It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia. Or:
  • We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles. Or:
  • We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel.

Compares

  • Steel
  • Concrete
  • CO2 (from material production and transport)
  • Land area
  • Deathprint (casualties from power production)
  • Carbon karma (achieving CO2 break-even)
  • Construction cost


Do The Math


100% Renewables / non-nuclear plans

Jacobson et al

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering impacts of the solutions on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, reliability, thermal pollution, water pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. To place electricity and liquid fuel options on an equal footing, twelve combinations of energy sources and vehicle type were considered. The overall rankings of the combinations (from highest to lowest) were (1) wind-powered battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), (2) wind-powered hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, (3) concentrated-solar-powered-BEVs, (4) geothermal-powered-BEVs, (5) tidal-powered-BEVs, (6) solar-photovoltaic-powered-BEVs, (7) wave-powered-BEVs, (8) hydroelectric-powered-BEVs, (9-tie) nuclear-powered-BEVs, (9-tie) coal-with-carbon-capture-powered-BEVs, (11) corn-E85 vehicles, and (12) cellulosic-E85 vehicles. The relative ranking of each electricity option for powering vehicles also applies to the electricity source providing general electricity. Because sufficient clean natural resources (e.g., wind, sunlight, hot water, ocean energy, etc.) exist to power the world for the foreseeable future, the results suggest that the diversion to less-efficient (nuclear, coal with carbon capture) or non-efficient (corn- and cellulosic E85) options represents an opportunity cost that will delay solutions to global warming and air pollution mortality. The sound implementation of the recommended options requires identifying good locations of energy resources, updating the transmission system, and mass-producing the clean energy and vehicle technologies, thus cooperation at multiple levels of government and industry.
These build on Jacobson's 2009 paper.
  • Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes abstractpreprint Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi, Mary A. Cameron, and Bethany A. Frew; Nov 2015
This study addresses the greatest concern facing the large-scale integration of wind, water, and solar (WWS) into a power grid: the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty. It uses a new grid integration model and finds low-cost, no-load-loss, nonunique solutions to this problem on electrification of all US energy sectors (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) while accounting for wind and solar time series data from a 3D global weather model that simulates extreme events and competition among wind turbines for available kinetic energy. Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for heat (in soil and water); cold (in ice and water); and electricity (in phase-change materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen), and using demand response. No natural gas, biofuels, nuclear power, or stationary batteries are needed. The resulting 2050–2055 US electricity social cost for a full system is much less than for fossil fuels. These results hold for many conditions, suggesting that low-cost, reliable 100% WWS systems should work many places worldwide.
Computer simulations by Professor Mark Z. Jacobson have shown that offshore wind farms with thousands of wind turbines could have sapped the power of three real-life hurricanes, significantly decreasing their winds and accompanying storm surge, and possibly preventing billions of dollars in damages.
links to paper, additional resources, video etc, and to other of Jacobson's works


Commentary & criticisms of Jacobson et el

Analysis and critique of the 100% WWS Plan advanced by The Solutions Project Timothy Maloney; (Blog)

I've gone through the 100% WWS Plan at some length, and here's my critique of it. Spoiler alert: The amount of land that it needs is vast; the amounts of money and material are enormous beyond your wildest dreams; and it won't work.

Here's what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy David Roberts; Vox; 2015

Blair King aka "A Chemist in Langley" has written several blog posts criticising the work of Jacobson (with and without Delucchi and others):

looks at Jacobson et al's dismissal of nuclear power, summarising that it is quite clear that the authors did not want to include nuclear power in the mix but that "instead of saying outright that they are excluding nuclear power to provide for an interesting research perspective they do so in a manner that smears nuclear power".
questions adequacy of supplies of the quantities of rare earth elements and lithium required in Jacobson et al's plans.
examines the feasibility of Jacobson et al's plans for storing the energy produced by intermittent renewables to cover gaps in availability.
examines Jacobson's 100% WWS scenario for Canada

Jani-Petri Martikainen ("a physicist with a keen interest on science and environmental and energy issues") PassiiviIdentiteetti blog:

The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans Julian Spector; CityLab; 20 Jul 2015

Also reprinted by MotherJones as Why We Need Nuclear Power

Stanford Prof. Deletes Data From Study Showing Green Energy Will Kill Jobs Michael Bastach; Daily Caller; 13 Jan 2016

Claims that Jacobson deleted data showing net long-term job losses associated with his 100% WWS plans from a spreadsheet published on his website following criticism by a blogger, and subsequently admitted deleting the data but claimed it was "test" numbers.

Comments on Jacobson et al.'s proposal for a wind, water, and solar energy future for New York State Nathaniel Gilbraith & others, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University; 2 May 2013 [paywalled]

Abstract: Jacobson et al. (2013) recently published a paper arguing the feasibility of meeting all of the energy demands in New York State with wind, solar, and water resources. In this forum we suggest that the authors do not present sufficient analysis to demonstrate the technical, economic, and social feasibility of their proposed strategy.

A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? Peter J. Loftus1 et al, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 93–112; Jan/Feb 2015 [paywalled]

"Dozens of scenarios are published each year outlining paths to a low carbon global energy system. To provide insight into the relative feasibility of these global decarbonization scenarios, we examine 17 scenarios constructed using a diverse range of techniques and introduce a set of empirical benchmarks that can be applied to compare and assess the pace of energy system transformation entailed by each scenario. In particular, we quantify the implied rate of change in energy and carbon intensity and low-carbon technology deployment rates for each scenario and benchmark each against historical experience and industry projections, where available. In addition, we examine how each study addresses the key technical, economic, and societal factors that may constrain the pace of low-carbon energy transformation. We find that all of the scenarios envision historically unprecedented improvements in energy intensity, while normalized low-carbon capacity deployment rates are broadly consistent with historical experience. Three scenarios that constrain the available portfolio of low-carbon options by excluding some technologies (nuclear and carbon capture and storage) a priori are outliers, requiring much faster low-carbon capacity deployment and energy intensity improvements. Finally, all of the studies present comparatively little detail on strategies to decarbonize the industrial and transportation sectors, and most give superficial treatment to relevant constraints on energy system transformations. To be reliable guides for policymaking, scenarios such as these need to be supplemented by more detailed analyses realistically addressing the key constraints on energy system transformation."

Mark Z. Jacobson is proud that his models disagree with IPCC (and almost everyone else)

He then uses his climate model to determine how a mixture of wind, water and solar energy collectors can, in total, produce 40% less energy each hour than the conservatively estimated power demand in 2050 published by the Energy Information Agency. His explanation for producing less energy than the EIA expects society will need is that electrical machinery is that much more efficient than combustion machinery.
The reason for emphasizing that Dr. Jacobson describes his model as a climate model is that it is not an energy production system model, not an economic model, and not a production scheduling model. The characteristics of power system components like generators, transformers, HVDC conversion stations, transmission lines, transmission towers, network operating centers, and numerous less visible but no less important components are treated in generalized, almost cartoon form.
His cost and schedule estimates are substantially less credible than hand waving; they amount to something like the following: “I have no earthly idea what my ideas are going to cost and how they are going to be planned, scheduled and implemented, but trust me, I know this will be cheaper. All we need to do for comparison is to include all of the invisible gains society will receive when we stop burning fossil fuels and biomass.”

David MacKay's reply to a claim of Jacobson's

Is it feasable that “The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres - in theory, at least"?
This "3 square kilometres" assertion is hilarious. If only they put turbines on thinner poles, perhaps held up by guy wires, the "area" taken by the turbines could be even smaller. (In case anyone has not understood Jacobson's joke, the joke is that he's talking about the area of the bases of the wind turbines. Did he write the article on April 1st?)

STEWART BRAND VS. MARK Z. JACOBSON: DOES THE WORLD NEED NUCLEAR ENERGY? - A REBUTTAL TO JACOBSON Dr. Patrick L. Walden; TRIUMF (Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics and accelerator-based science)

Zero Carbon Britain (CAT)

The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT)'s Zero Carbon Britain.

French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)

French Environment and Energy Agency (ADEME)'s Vers un mix eléctrique 100% renouvelable en 2050 (and responses "ADEME was wise in not publishing its scenario" by Hubert Flocard, and "Analysis and comments on the report: towards a mix 100% renewables in 2050" - both in French).

Commentary & criticism of ZCB, ADEME etc

Critical analysis of ADEME and CAT/ZCB scenarios with particular reference to energy storage in: Renewable Energy Storage and Power-To-Methane Roger Andrews; Energy Matters blog; 25 Jun 2015

The Renewables Future – A Summary of Findings Roger Andrews; 13 Aug 2015


Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill: Australia

Simulations of scenarios with 100% renewable electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market Ben Elliston, Mark Diesendorf, Iain MacGill

Dispelling the nuclear 'baseload' myth: nothing renewables can't do better! Mark Diesendorf; The Ecologist; 10 Mar 2016

The main claim used to justify nuclear is that it's the only low carbon power source that can supply 'reliable, baseload electricity', writes Mark Diesendorf - unlike wind and solar. But not only can renewables supply baseload power, they can do something far more valuable: supply power flexibly according to demand. Now nuclear power really is redundant.
Commentary & criticism of Elliston, Diesdendorf and MacGill

Critique of the proposal for 100% renewable energy electricity supply in Australia Dr Ted Trainer; Brave New Climate blog; 2 Jun 2014

Elliston and Riesz

Future high renewable electricity scenarios – Insights from mapping the diversity of near least cost portfolios B. Elliston, J. Riesz

This paper reports on future electricity generation scenarios modelled using NEMO, a model that applies a genetic algorithm to optimise a mix of simulated generators to meet hourly demand profiles, to the required reliability standard, at lowest overall industry cost. The modelling examined the least and near least cost technology portfolios for a scenario that limited emissions to approximately one quarter of those from the Australian National Electricity Market (NEM) at present. It was found that all the near least cost solutions (within 15% of the least cost solution) involved wind capacity in the range of 31-51 GW, with 98.8% of these near least cost portfolios having at least 35 GW of wind installed. In contrast, the near least cost solutions consistently involved much lower quantities of PV, with 90% of the near least cost portfolios having less than 4.9 GW of installed PV capacity. This suggests that policies to promote high levels of wind deployment and grid integration are likely to be important for achieving low cost, low emissions outcomes, while policies to promote significant PV deployment may be less warranted in the absence of cost effective supporting technologies, such as battery storage or significant demand side participation.
3/4 of peer-rev'd refs are author's own. Other is BZE which proposes Australia abandon aviation by 2020. - Oscar Archer ‏@ActinideAge

Greenpeace / Brainpool

Wind power with 'windgas' is cheaper and greener than Hinkley Point C nuclear plant Ecologist

STUDIES ABOUT THE PLANNED BRITISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HINKLEY POINT C Energy Brainpool

  • Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: At a lower cost / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (German only)
  • Wind power as an alternative to nuclear power from Hinkley Point C: A cost comparison / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, January 2016 (English)
  • Effects of Hinkley Point C on the german electricity market / Study on behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, July 2015 (German only)
  • Level of public funding of Hinkley Point C / Short analysis an behalf of Greenpeace Energy eG, June 2015 (German only)

WIND POWER AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEAR POWER FROM HINKLEY POINT C: A COST COMPARISON A short analysis commissioned by Greenpeace Energy in Germany

What happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Southern Alliance for Clean Energy blog

Greenpeace

energy [r]evolution 2015

5th Edition
  • Project manager and lead author Dr. Sven Teske, Greenpeace International
  • Global Wind Energy Council steve sawyer
  • SolarPowerEurope oliver schäfer
  • research & co-authors
  • Overall Modelling: dlr, institute of engineering thermodynamics, systems analysis and technology assessment, stuttgart, germany: dr. thomas Pregger, dr. sonja simon, dr. tobias naegler


2030 Energy Scenarios report

In early 2015 we were commissioned by Greenpeace UK to design and test an ambitious, low carbon 2030 energy scenario using the 'Smart Household Energy Demand (SHED) model. It shows that it is possible for the UK's power system to be nearly 90% renewably delivered by 2030, while electrifying 25% of all heating demand - and putting 12.7 million electric cars on the road. But only if we can cut demand for space heating by 57% in the next 15 years - a major challenge.

4 ways the UK can get almost all its power from renewables – without Hinkley

Energy Revolution 2015

Skeptical science

Can renewables provide baseload power? based on

Krugman

Planet on the Ballot Paul Krugman; NY Times; 29 Feb 2016

Paul Krugman Needs an Energy Reality Check Robert Bryce; National Review; 3 Mar 2016

Chivers

Two Energy Futures

The stuff problem Danny Chivers; New Internationalist blog;

+links

Others

How The Grid Works, & Why Renewables Can Dominate Christopher Arcus; CleanTechnica blog; 16 Dec 2015

Claims that high levels - though not not 100% - of renewables penetration could be achieved without significant storage.

The Environmentalist Case Against 100% Renewable Energy Plans JULIAN SPECTOR @JulianSpector; Citylab; 20 Jul 2015 (republished on Mother Jones as Why We Need Nuclear Power)

Leap Manifesto (Canadian)

Energy proposals based on Jacobson

Critique of 100% renewables plans generally

Energiewende and Caliwende – the Heavy Cost of Ideology Seeker Blog; 17 Jan 2016

A Brave New World - deep decarbonisation of energy grids J.P.Morgan; 19 Oct 2015

we focus on Germany and its Energiewende plan (deep de-carbonization of the electricity grid in which 80% of demand is met by renewable energy), and on a California version we refer to as Caliwende. We compare these systems to the current electricity mix, and to a balanced system with a mix of renewable and nuclear energy
Our primary conclusions:
  • A critical part of any analysis of high-renewable systems is the cost of backup thermal power and/or storage needed to meet demand during periods of low renewable generation. These costs are substantial; as a result, levelized costs of wind and solar are not the right tools to use in assessing the total cost of a high-renewable system
  • Emissions. High-renewable grids reduce CO2 emissions by 65%-70% in Germany and 55%-60% in California vs. the current grid. Reason: backup thermal capacity is idle for much of the year
  • Costs. High-renewable grid costs per MWh are 1.9x the current system in Germany, and 1.5x in California. Costs fall to 1.6x in Germany and 1.2x in California assuming long-run “learning curve” declines in wind, solar and storage costs, higher nuclear plant costs and higher natural gas fuel costs
  • Storage. The cost of time-shifting surplus renewable generation via storage has fallen, but its cost, intermittent utilization and energy loss result in higher per MWh system costs when it is added
  • Nuclear. Balanced systems with nuclear power have lower estimated costs and CO2 emissions than high-renewable systems. However, there’s enormous uncertainty regarding the actual cost of nuclear power in the US and Europe, rendering balanced system assessments less reliable. Nuclear power is growing in Asia where plant costs are 20%-30% lower, but political, historical, economic, regulatory and cultural issues prevent these observations from being easily applied outside of Asia
  • Location and comparability. Germany and California rank in the top 70th and 90th percentiles with respect to their potential wind and solar energy (see Appendix I). However, actual wind and solar energy productivity is higher in California (i.e., higher capacity factors), which is the primary reason that Energiewende is more expensive per MWh than Caliwende. Regions without high quality wind and solar irradiation may find that grids dominated by renewable energy are more costly
  • What-ifs. National/cross-border grid expansion, storing electricity in electric car batteries, demand management and renewable energy overbuilding are often mentioned as ways of reducing the cost of high-renewable systems. However, each relies to some extent on conjecture, insufficient empirical support and/or incomplete assessments of related costs


The Climate Challenge: Can Renewables Really do it Alone? Josh Freed, Matt Bennett, Matt Goldberg; Third Way think-tank; 16 Dec 2015

tl;dr: no

Can You Make a Wind Turbine Without Fossil Fuels? Robert Wilson; Carbon Counter; 11 Jun 2015

fossil fuel requirements and CO2 emissions of steel & concrete production - relevant to nuclear etc also
THIS POST ORIGINALLY APPEARED AT THE ENERGY COLLECTIVE

nuclear

Why James Hansen might be underestimating nuclear energy’s growth potential and why Joe Romm is wrong

A Roadmap for U.S. Nuclear Energy Innovation

Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change James Hansen, Kerry Emanuel, Ken Caldeira and Tom Wigley

Decarbonising UK Power Generation – The Nuclear Option Energy Matters; 29 Apr 2016

Guest Post by Andy Dawson who is an energy sector systems consultant and former nuclear engineer.
How to decarbonise UK Power generation is a topic of heated debate, with renewables enthusiasts often keen to argue that there are a range of obstacles to the use of nuclear generation to meet more than a small proportion of total demand. Reasons cited are availability of space/sites, grid integration and the challenges of meeting variable demand. So, is an all-nuclear UK grid (with the small sleight of hand of pumped storage hydro in support) potentially viable? I’ll set out an argument that it is indeed so, and more so that it comfortably exceeds any current carbon intensity targets. The basic concepts arose from discussion on the website of the “Guardian” newspaper about the relative strength of fit between pumped storage on one hand, and nuclear or renewables on the other. That led me to do some basic numbers on how much pumped storage hydro (hereafter PSH) you’d need to meet UK daily demand variations on the assumption of a steadily generating nuclear fleet underpinning it. The first pass surprised me on how relatively close we were in terms of total PSH capacity (and in how few nuclear units basic demand could be supplied).

Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data Staffan A. Qvist, Barry W. Brook; PLOS one; 13 May 2015

The World Really Could Go Nuclear David Biello; Scientific American; 14 Sep 2015

In just two decades Sweden went from burning oil for generating electricity to fissioning uranium. And if the world as a whole were to follow that example, all fossil fuel–fired power plants could be replaced with nuclear facilities in a little over 30 years. That's the conclusion of a new nuclear grand plan published May 13 in PLoS One. Such a switch would drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nearly achieving much-ballyhooed global goals to combat climate change. Even swelling electricity demands, concentrated in developing nations, could be met. All that's missing is the wealth, will and wherewithal to build hundreds of fission-based reactors, largely due to concerns about safety and cost. "If we are serious about tackling emissions and climate change, no climate-neutral source should be ignored," argues Staffan Qvist, a physicist at Uppsala University, who led the effort to develop this nuclear plan. "The mantra 'nuclear can't be done quickly enough to tackle climate change' is one of the most pervasive in the debate today and mostly just taken as true, while the data prove the exact opposite."

anti-nuclear

Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS DIRTY ENERGY (and does not fit into a “clean energy standard”) NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

Economics

The Naked Cost of Energy -- Stripping Away Financing and Subsidies James Conca; Forbes; 15 Jun 2012