Back in February of this year, I wrote about an analysis that I had done on the long-term forecast for different types of generation in the US. I used the most recent data that was available from the US Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook. Using their forecast of electric generation over the next 25 years, some of my findings were:
1. The continued impact that natural gas will have on our energy supply is forecast to be very significant. Of the 196 GW of new generation to be built, it is forecast that natural gas will account for 119 GW (61%).
2. Large generation technologies that utilize economies of scale are still dominant. This is evident by the amount of centralized generation to be added (86%) versus the amount of distributed generation (14%).
3. If only 14% of new capacity additions will be on the distribution system, does this mean you don’t have to worry about distributed generation on your distribution system? It depends. Regional policies such as renewable portfolio standards, tax incentives, rebates, grants, etc. will still lead to significant amounts of distributed generation in some locations. For other locations, the environment won’t be nearly as conducive to strong growth. Just as higher penetrations of distributed generation are already creating issues for some distribution organizations, there will continue to be significant increases in the amounts of distributed generation in some locations. As a whole, solar photovoltatics are forecast to increase seven times, and they will be largely connected at distribution level. Technologies are certainly changing, and the amount of investment is still substantial. Even though the percentage of new capacity additions that will be connected at distribution level is relatively small, they will still have significant impacts on distribution in some locations.
Since this topic interests me quite a bit, I took particular notice of the cover of IEEE Spectrum magazine in July 2012. On the cover was a title of one of the articles inside. It said “Commentary - Alternative Energy is a Mirage”. Contained in the well-respected Spectrum magazine, I had to take a look.
In the article, Vaclav Smil makes various points that the only way that renewable generation, except for hydro and geothermal, has made any headway at all is through government subsidies. Low capacity factors, high installation and interconnection costs, and new technologies to economically recover natural gas make renewable generation, such as solar and wind, uncompetitive compared to other generation types. And the tremendous investment and inertia that is built into our existing energy infrastructure means that even if renewable energy reaches economic partity, it will take many, many decades to switch society over to renewables in substantial quantities.
Of course, common prevailing thought is that we must invest in renewables, or run the possibility of increasing global temperatures due to the emissions of greenhouse gases. However, if global warming is real, then it is a global problem, and not a national problem. We share the earth’s atmosphere with all other countries on earth. And Dr. Smil makes this eye-opening comparison: Between 2004 and 2009 the US added about 28 GW of wind turbines. If we account for the low capacity factor of wind, this is comparable to 10 GW of coal-fired capacity. The US should pat itself on the back and rest assured that it is making a significant contribution to the reduction in global warming, right? Well, during that same period, China installed 30 times as much coal-fired generating capacity. Through 2015, it is projected that China will add another 200 GW of coal-fired generation, or another 200 large coal plants.
It begs the question – is the investment in renewable energy really the most-cost effective use of the US’s research and development funding for reducing generation’s environmental impacts? Or are there other alternatives, such as carbon capture technologies, that should be getting more funding? You can read Dr. Smil’s commentary in Spectrum here http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/0.
