100% Renewables Study Implies Historic Construction Program

The often cited study by Mark Jacobson et. al. that asserts it's economic to replace every fossil fuel use with either electricity from wind, water, and sun (WWS-only) or hydrogen produced using WWS-only in 139 countries over the next 33 years implies a massive construction program the likes of which we may not have ever seen. I find it useful to compare the implied construction program to what we have experienced in the recent past. Click here to see his paper on the 50 U.S. states.
Over the next 33 years, even under his extraordinary drop in total electric load, he envisions approximately 5.8 million MW of new generation are needed (plus an additional 600GW for peaking and system stability). He reports that as of 2013, 2.71% (of 5.8 million MW) is currently installed, or approximately1.6 million MW. Such quantities indicate an extraordinary construction program, especially since the U.S. installed capacity rose by only about 177,400MWs over the eight year period, 2006-2014, an increase of about 18%. 
Looking at current expansion plans, generating plants in various stages of development as of 2015 amount to roughly 200,000MW. Even if all these plants are constructed, it represents a total addition of roughly 17%.  Even if no existing generation capacity is retired between now and 2050 (of which there will be many), adding 4.8 million MW of new generation over the next 33 years implies an annual average increase in installed capacity of roughly 139,000MW. Every year for 33 years. That means every year the U.S. installed generation capacity will need to increase by roughly 79% of the growth witnessed over the eight year period, 2006-2014, and that assumes no plant retirements.
When these new generators are multiplied by costs for each type, the total generation capital cost is roughly $4.5 trillion. According to EEI, transmission & distribution investments are roughly 38% of the generation capital cost. With these T&D costs added, a conservative estimate of the needed construction program is a little over $6 trillion.  Spread over 33 years, this translates to about $188 billion/year, which is twice the spending that’s occurred recently.
I find these numbers humbling.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does A Carbon Offset Cut Current CO2 Emissions?

Image
Maybe yes, maybe no.  It depends on several factors that boild down to the qualityu of the offset.  The Natural Reosurces Defense Council, NRDC, has a concise summary of the issue with some suggestions. It's worth noting that at least there is the potential for a carbon offset to reduce current CO2 emissions whereas a Renewable Energy Certificate, in and of itself, will not reduce current CO2 emissions. As the NRDC summary indicates, the first course of action is to reduce our current activity that is causing the CO2 emissions.
Read more

Is California About to Require that by 2045 All Electricity Must Come from Renewables?

Image
Not exactly. Let me explain. Our lack of even the most basic understanding of how the elecricity system operates (explained below) allows us to mistakenly imagine we are taking actions that will shut down CO2 emitting generators. A number of headlines read something like "California Poised To Require All Its Electricity To Come From Renewables."  SB100  appears to be a bit more complicated, however.  Plus, electricity complies to the laws of physics, not the laws we mere mortals devise. Hoefully, this post will identify several important implications of these distinctions. Recognize that electrons (what electricity consists of) going over the wires thorughout California flow from all generators located everywhere within what’s called the Western Interconnect (WECC).  Electrons are already present throughout all the electric wires in every building in every community at every moment in time. When you flip a light switch on, more electricity gets generated that replaces
Read more

What is More Important, Building Renewables or Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removing Existing CO2?

Image
What if cutting greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), especially CO2, is not the same as increasing the share of electricity generated using renewables? Which would you pick? As an economist, such questions interest me. This kind of question interests me because we face a slew of problems and we have a limited amount of effort available to help solve them.  If we are able to cut CO2 emissions at a lower cost one way rather than some other way, why pick the more costly approach? For many folks, there is no question of deciding between cutting GHG and installing more renewables. They are assumed to be one in the same. Is there any evidence to suggest otherwise? Actually, there is. Electricity planning analysis performed by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NWPPC) is but one such body of work. In their 7th Power Plan, which was released at the beginning of 2016, is a chapter that addresses this very issue. Here's another source. What the NWPPC found is that cheaper and more e
Read more