THE FIRST AND THIRD TARGETS
In conjunction with parts 1 and 2, this relates to the Climate Change Conference just concluded in Poland
The first target is that they hope to reduce emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Greenhouse Gas by a factor of 20% by the year 2020.
The second target means they want to make energy savings of 20% by the year 2020.
The third target is that they want to increase electrical power production from renewable sources to 20% by the year 2020.
The first and third targets might be able to be dealt with one in conjunction with the other, and that is what I will be doing here.
If this calls for a cutback in CO2 emissions in the power sector, then this is aimed squarely at the coal fired power generation sector. So an effective cut of 20% here can be offset by an equivalent percentage construction of power plants in the renewable sector, one replacing the other.
You might look at this and think that it can be done, but the actuality of it is more complex than the theory might seem.
Currently the coal fired power sector produces just under 50% of the overall power total for the US. This is achieved form large plants with nameplate capacity of around 400,000MW, so a 20% cut in that amounts to 80,000MW, and for convenience, this amounts to the shutting down of 40 of those large coal fired power plants.
So then, what we now have to do is to construct plants using renewable sources equivalent to 80,000MW.
Renewable sources might include hydro electric power, but it will be absolutely impossible to get any new dams constructed, let alone even one of them.
Geothermal power is still in its infancy, and will be for a long time yet.
What this target is specifically aimed at is the solar power and wind power areas, so for this exercise, I will just be using those two sources, and for the sake of equivalency, I will split that 50/50 for them.
So that’s 40,000MW from the solar sector which I will deal with first.
Luckily, there is currently an example in the US that could be considered, and that is the solar thermal plant operated by Abengoa Solar, This is the Solana plant at Gila Bend, near Phoenix in Arizona. Why I have used this is because it is one of those solar plants that won’t just go offline when the sun goes down as do most solar plants.
This plant uses thousands and thousands of specially constructed concave mirrors. At the focal point of the rows and rows of mirrors is passed a pipe through which is pumped a liquified salt solution. This salt then is stored in two large vats. The salt becomes molten, and this molten salt is then used to boil water for a conventional steam turbine generator complex. The molten salt in theory stays molten during the night, still capable to boil the water to drive the turbine. Effectively meaning that it might be able to produce power on a constant basis.
This plant produces a nameplate capacity of 280MW.
So, to replace half the coal fired plants to a capacity of 40,000MW, you would need to construct 140 of these plants. The cost of this Solana Plant is $1.2 Billion, so the total cost is now $170 Billion. Add to that the infrastructure to get the water to the plants, and the infrastructure to get the power to the grid, and this might add a further 50% to that, conservatively, so the end figure now becomes $255 Billion.
What also needs to be added again is that hundreds, and probably more, factories will be needed to construct the specialised mirrors and the need for 140 of these plants to be supplied would amount to tens of millions of these mirrors.
Now, for the wind sector, we also have an example to follow, that of the Cape Wind Plant in Nantucket Sound Massachusetts. This has 140 huge towers with the huge 3 bladed fans. The nacelles atop them produce 3MW each giving a theoretical nameplate capacity of 420MW. However, because of the variability of the wind, they are only rated at 30% efficiency. This is a theoretical maximum because where these plants have been in operation for ten years in some Northern European Countries, the best efficiency achieved so far is 16%, but for the sake of this exercise, we’ll go with the claimed 30% So now the power produced from Cape Wind comes down to 125MW.
So, to achieve the replacement factor of 40,000MW, we will need to construct 320 of these plants, each one covering an area of around 100 square miles or more. That will necessitate the use of 45,000 of the large towers with fans.
The cost of Cape Wind is $850 Million, so now the total here amounts to $275 Billion.
Add to that also the infrastructure to get the power to the grid, again probably 50% on top, so now the end figure becomes $415 Billion.
Add also to that the cost of constructing hundreds and more new factories to build the nacelles, and the towers, and the costs steeple considerably.
There is every possibility that if all those factories were in operation right now then that target of 45,000 nacelles might not be able to be achieved, and the same might apply for the mirrors with the solar plants.
So, then the costs now to replace all those coal fired plants those plants in their totality amounts to $670 Billion, just for the plants themselves, not counting the factories.
Between now and 2020 amounts to 11 years, so the outlay averaged out becomes $61 Billion each and every year.
What also needs to be considered is that the Solana plant took 9 years from planning to power to the grid. The Cape Wind plant took 11 years from planning to the grid. Incidentally, neither is in operation yet.
So the timespan for the one plant takes it out now to almost 2020, and the hope is that they can construct not just these two, but 460 of them.
Also what needs to be taken into account is that while all these plants are in construction, power will still need to be supplied, so they will not be able to shut down those coal fired plants until these come on line and supplying power to the grid. Then, as each of these plants is closed down, the site needs to be rehabilitated, a cost of up to $1.5 Billion per plant, a further cost now of $60 Billion.
What needs to be looked at now is that power produced from renewable sources, those two in sharp relief here, solar and wind, currently stands at just on 1% of the total power consumed in the US, and wind makes up nearly all of that. If these plants are indeed the way of the future, then entrepreneurs would be flocking to get in on the ground floor. This is just not happening, because the costs are just so horrendously large, and returns from those original outlays are decades off into the future.
What also needs to be taken into account, that if this direction is taken, then costs per unit of electricity in every sector would increase, and that increase would not be small, but a quantum level higher than for what is currently being paid.
So, as admirable and well intentioned this catchphrase seems it is virtually impossible to deliver, on any of the targets it suggests.
For the last thing on this subject, I’ll go back to the press release.
Developing nations argue that the industrialised world should lead by example, and foot the bill for clean-energy technology and coping with the impact of global warming.
So, the wheeling and dealing at the conference means that not only do those 37 Industrialised Countries have to pay fortunes to do the work in their own Countries, those other 155 Developing Countries have more than enough votes to keep the status quo at the UN, and vote that those rich countries also pay for all the work in those developing Countries.
This is something that cannot, and will not be achieved.
papundits
Ditzy Dee
Grumpy Old Man
T Lee Humphrey
marlin6
Annie Apple
TonyfromOz
Carl
Turtle
steevesna
Doc'
Joe from PA
mjmotley
sosUSA
Aussie
patpacer
Guest Contributor
Posted on 12/15/2008 by TonyfromOz
0