Can we do it?:
Reading to date:
At this point you have hopefully read the Can We Do It? chapter from David's book. This chapter attempts to tie everything together and imagine what's really possible. The core question is whether we can really manage getting our energy just from renewables in some realistic way.
Let's start by letting David speak for himself. We will no doubt stop multiple times through this talk to chat about some of the things he is saying. As David often does he offers a new plot which introduces another perspective on the possible renewable solutions.
US vrs UK:
A core difference between our opportunities here in the US and those described by David in the UK is that there is clearly enough renewable energy available in the US to meet all of our energy needs with only renewables. There are certainly challenges but the fundamental question of whether it's doable is pretty settled. It is very important that we recognize that this is almost entirely due to the fact that the US is a physically large country with a relatively small population. At 24 103 m2/p as our 'share' of the community resource compared to 4 103 m2/p in the UK we have 6x as much space available to use for generating energy. That is the primary reason we are in good shape. Yes we have good solar and wind energy resources but it's mostly about the available space.
Challenges:
There are definitely challenges and we are going to explore some of them.
What is Likely (NIMBY)?
The next question that needs consideration is what are we actually likely to do. I'm delighted that David was able to collect the data below from a number of careful studies that were done in the UK. I'm looking to see if I can find similar studies for the US but no luck so far. Each of the studies was attempting to project what might actually be done to create sources of renewable energy in the UK. The left hand stack is David's estimate of what is possible and reasonable. No doubt you will notice that it includes a number of sources that we didn't talk about. In addition notice that the stack of possible energy sources meets the current energy needs of the UK.
One of the ways we try to separate excess optimism and bias in assessing what is possible is to put many people with expertise in the room to discuss and challenge each other. This is not a perfect system but it often provides important insights. Each of the individual government studies is a perspective on what is realistic. David is fortunate that there have been multiple significant studies addressing the same question for comparison. What do you notice about the 5 studies? I'm thinking of two features of particular importance......
Activity: Discuss with your group what you think this graphic tells us about what is likely to happen?
I hope one of the things you notice is that there is an awful lot of white space relative to David's estimates. Given that David estimates that there just might be a way to make enough renewable energy for the UK this is disheartening. If we take an average of the probable implementation for each form of energy you will notice that the analysis suggests that, in most cases, only about 10% of the proposed resource will actually be implemented. Why is this? One important player turns out to always be an effect called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Even if folks are generally supportive of the idea many folks don't want to see the wind turbines out their window. A common version of this takes place when every community is trying to figure out where to build the 'dump' (Knott Landfill here in Central Oregon). There is general agreement that it is needed but almost everyone wants it to be somewhere else.
HW: Can Do?
Using your preferred search engine search for 'NIMBY' and 'renewable energy'. PIck an article and summarize how NIMBY-ism plays a role in the news described in the article.
The other thing I hope you notice is that some of the study groups seem to have a particular energy source that they are very optimistic about. The IEE group seems to feel that geothermal is going to save the day. The CAT group is very focused on things that happen in the ocean (why do you suppose this is?). The PIU group is all about incineration and energy crops. The CAT group seems focused on getting things off shore (probably because of NIMBY) and the Tyndall group seems generally less optimistic. It is a nice example of how multiple perspectives are often richer than one.
The summary of this graphic is that it seems more likely that only 20 kWh/p/d of renewable energy generation will be implemented which is about 15% of what seems possible. That is not a very hopeful sign for the UK.
2010 to Now:
We have an interesting opportunity to see how David's analysis and that of the various study groups cited above has played out. We can look at the data for wind power (I recognize the limitations of a wiki page but it's a workable place to start) in particular for the last 10 or 12 years and see what has actually happened.
The data we have is the installed windpower capacity for each country. Here is the process for translating from installed capacity to kWh/p/d for the UK.
Assumptions: Capacity Factor: 25%, population 67 Million
Actual Power = Installed Power x Capacity Factor : 6 GW = 24 GW x .25
Energy/Day= Actual Power x 24 h/1 day : 144 GWh/d = 6 GW x 24 h/ 1 day
Energy/person/day = (Energy/d)/population : 2.2 kWh/p/d = (144 GWh/d)/ 67 Mp
David, based on the studies above, projected roughly 7 kWh/p/d as the probable wind energy generation for the UK with a bit over half of it being offshore. This data suggests that David's projections are pretty much on track.
HW: Can Do?
Using the same data for the US (from the wiki page) how many kWh/p/d are being generated in 2019 by wind power? What percentage of our total energy needs is this?
Applied to the US:
Lets imagine for a moment that a similar prediction would apply to the US. We calculated that the overall wind (Wind I Breadcrumb) energy resource for the US was 1.7 103 kWh/p/d if we carpet the US with wind turbines. If we use 10% of 'our area' we would expect to generate 170 kWh/p/d. This is about 2/3 of our need (250 kWh/p/d) here in the US.
Wind: 10% of our area = 170 kWh/p/d
Similarly for PV solar energy (Solar I Breadcrumb) if we cover 5% the US we would generate about 180 kWh/p/d. This is also about 2/3 of our total need.
Solar: 5% of our area = 180 kWh/p/d
Combining wind and solar it looks very plausible that we could meet all of our needs with what we have. Any mix of wind and solar that gets us to 250 kWh/p/d would work. Given the numbers above it would take more than 5% of our area but less than 15% of our area to make it work.
Another View:
As an interesting contrast, here is a much more abbreviated presentation from Solarworld/Elon Musk that offers some interesting examples of less that straightforward communication. In class we will walk through this and try to appreciate each of the statements and how they connect to the data. For reference here is the LLNL Sankey plot we have referred to throughout the term.
We may not get to it right away but here is a pdf of my fairly extensive analysis of this video and some of the challenging or misleading statements it makes.
Cutting Back:
For the UK there is clearly a need to consider reducing demand as part of a potential pathway to a renewable energy future. We should not forget that the UK already uses energy at about half the rate that we do in the US. We are fortunate indeed to live in a country with a high standard of living, as shown by our energy consumption, and with significant geographic resources so we can possibly craft a renewable energy future without cutting back. As David points out in his chapter 'Every Big' this is not about unplugging your cell phone charger. As we saw in a previous HW problem there is not enough energy involved to make a difference.
While it is not simple it is clear that there is substantial room to reduce overall energy consumption in the transportation part of our lives if we walk and ride bikes more (which means different kinds of cities and towns) and we move to some form of vehicle electrification where the electricity is made from renewable resources. An electric vehicle uses less than half the energy input of a standard gas vehicle. It is a fair challenge that electric vehicles are not particularly useful for long trips but most of our driving is less than 50 km with only the driver in the vehicle. David's estimate is that we could reduce our energy consumption for transportation by at least half without a significant loss in our sense of mobility.
It is also pretty clear that we could, with only modest cost and effort, significantly reduce our energy use in our homes without large changes in our lifestyle. There are some competing factors here. In Bend it is easy for us to notice the difference between the size of homes from back in the 50's (800 - 1000 square feet) and our current homes (typically 1500 - 2000 square feet plus garages). Even if the construction is more efficient bigger homes still tend to use proportionally more energy. Some people have pointed out that, as a country, we could save a remarkable amount of energy if we knocked down every house built before 2010 and rebuilt using current best practices. Think of all the jobs it would create as well! While this seems unlikely to actually happen the math is quite correct. On average we probably can't save half of the energy we use in our homes but we could get close.
Another large source of energy use that we didn't talk about is what is called embodied energy. When we buy a car or a washing machine or a phone there is a lot of energy that went into creating the object as well as a remarkable amount of energy that is used to package it and get it to us from far parts of the globe. This hidden energy use is generally as big or bigger than any other identifiable energy use which makes it hard to address. Being conscious of buying locally where possible and avoiding packaging if you can (brutally hard) can make a real difference. Again, addressing this would lead to more regional jobs BUT it will also increase the cost of things we take from granted. There are no 72" flat screen TV's in our world if they aren't made in Asia where labor is cheap nor will our clothes be anywhere near as inexpensive if they aren't fabricated in Bangladesh. Even the food we have come to expect in our supermarkets carries a lot of energy from other parts of the world to us if we wish to buy oranges any time of year.
Will We?
This is always a rich conversation. It is both very personal and very community focused. The evidence to date is that we, as humans, are pretty challenged by the idea of 'giving things up'. Perhaps a good model is the automotive industry and safety. When I was a kid seat belts were an occasional thing and fuel efficiency was irrelevant. Now we mostly accept the wisdom of wearing seatbelts and value other safety features in our cars. Fuel efficiency, driven by national standards, is part of how we assess our vehicle choices. Perhaps the same slow generational realignment of our values will lead us to more energy efficiency in our lives without a sense of having 'given something up'.
Activity: What are you personally willing to give up or pay more for? How do you feel about 'giving things up' if others around you don't?
HW: Can Do?
What 'big' energy use are you personally most willing to address in your life. How do you hope to do this and can you put a rough number on the kWh/p/d you will save? Consider the various energy consumption categories that David discusses in the Can We Do It? chapter even if we haven't discussed them in class. .
Assignment: HW: Can Do?
Complete and assemble your solutions to all the HW problems (3) listed here showing all the steps in your solutions. Scan to a pdf and turn in on LMS. Please review HW format expectations for guidance about your homework solutions.
Reading Ahead:
We will continue this discussion next time. Read David's chapter on 5 Plans which is not so different than the issues facing us in this country. We will explore similar considerations using an NREL resource.
