Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Can we build our way out of an energy crisis?

While the world stares down Japan in an attempt to seal off nuclear containment with collective Superman eye lasers none of us actually possess, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu touched on the crisis for just a moment in his speech to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He discussed how the U.S. is helping Japan with detectors, experts and assessments of contamination.

Nuclear may have been on his mind, of course, but not just in the form of the ongoing Japanese issue. Chu was on Capitol Hill to discuss nuclear and other forms of energy within the context of the President’s budget plans for the Department of Energy.

Diversity was key for Chu’s speech. He included nuclear, despite the crisis, along with fossil fuels and renewable efforts. But, what the President and Chu really want to do is make stuff.

“President Obama has a plan to win the future by out-innovating, out-educating and out-building the rest of the world.” Chu said.

Can we build our way out of an energy crisis? Well, you can spend your way out of a financial crisis. So, I guess it’s technically possible, depending on what, exactly, you want to build. The President, it seems, wants to build lots and lots of clean energy bits---so much so that we could get 80 percent of our power from clean sources by 2035.

Biofuels, the smart grid, R&D and carbon capture are all mentioned in this long-term goal, along with loan guarantees for renewables and energy efficiency tech. Nuclear got a push, too---up to $36 billion to help deploy a “new generation of American nuclear reactors.” Whether that will be in the final budget is hard to say. It likely depends on how well the Japanese walk the tightrope between potential meltdowns and how scared the average American is by all of that front page news.

This push up for renewables and nuclear loan guarantees is balanced by the elimination of some fossil fuel subsidies that have been deemed “unnecessary.”

This plan of Obama’s is lean and green, but is it mean? I get where he’s going. There’s a great logic to unhooking ourselves from fossil fuels and imports, creating power from the wind and sun that blesses most of the American landscape daily. But, to get to 80 percent is quite a lot of building. And, the one area that might have helped bridge that gap---nuclear power, which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases---may be sidelined.

And all renewables goals aside, we’ll never get to that 80 percent without significant improvements in energy storage---or building the world’s largest battery. Or both.

While it’s very nice to see the Administration taking a long-haul look at energy, I’m still left wondering exactly what we’re going to build to go from our current energy portfolio (with coal leading at 45 percent and renewables---not including hydro---at 4 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration) to that whopping 80 percent renewables. Like our attempts to stop Japan’s nuclear disaster, we may need some super powers for that.

3 comments:

  1. We customers can build our way out of the energy crisis but only if we are allowed to individually invest in nuclear and off site solar. For example a residentail customer seeking about 12,000 kWh annually could invest about $7500 up front cash to build 1.5 kW of nuclear plant. That 1.5 kW would privide about 40 years of energy at a cost of about 2 cents per kwh. Sound like a good deal. It is. If a million investors could be found to each invest $7500 thenn we could build a 1350 MW nuclear plant, such as STP unit 3. NRG would not need to borrow any money and would have no IDC. All they would have to do is get the plant built and running. Its a win win deal for NRG and the investing customers. Interestingly there is nothing stopping us from doing this right now other than there has been no retail outlet company formed to put this package together and offer it to customers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Today we're smart enough to account for externalities. For example:

    The nuclear power and nuclear weapons value chains overlap significantly. From training and fission/fusion research to mining and centrifuges, you can't have one without the other. The nuclear establishment impose other external costs and risks on citizens, such as transportation security, insurance, and disposal of waste.

    One positive externality of solar: When roof owners own their own generation and storage assets and trade electrons in an open market, this supports distributed wealth, distributed political power and energy efficiency -I sell more if I use less. Distributed wealth reduces the pressure for redistribution of wealth, which stares us in the face as automation accelerates and education stagnates.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why could'nt all citizens have the opportunity to invest in renewables and nuclear in the form of US Bonds for energy projects? Once the cost of defending oil is factored in, $15/gal may be cheap in comparison. One of the difficulties in paying for residential solar and various types of infrastructure is people move; so the cost structure per person can change a bit. Major US municipalities are caught offguard by demographic shifts - but these need to be considered. Its a huge challenge...

    ReplyDelete