energy future is coal king or disappearing? global competition, energy sources, economic growth and...
Post on 23-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Energy FutureIs Coal King or Disappearing?
Global Competition, Energy Sources, Economic Growth and Human Welfare
World Energy Use by Fuel Source:Energy Information Administration
Global 10-Year Growth Rates of Energy Sources
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2010
Coal Has Much Less Price Volatility
Rich Countries May Shy from Coal, But Not the Rest of the World:
New Coal Plants Coming Online by 2015U.S. 8 GWEurope 17 GW
China 83 GWSouth Asia 97 GW
Elsewhere 44GW
New plants will consume 790 million tons coal annually
The U.S. No Longer Drives Energy Markets
U.S. Coal Use a Shrinking Share of Global Consumption
U.S. Manufacturing Decline (and Greater Efficiency) = Less Energy Use; Other Countries Make Up for It
Economic Progress and Electricity (Energy from Coal) Are Highly Correlated
Electricity: People Live Better and Longer
Sources: CIA World Fact Book; UN Development Program: Human Development Report
Billions Want What We Take for Granted
2.5 Billion Burn Wood/Dung for Primary Energy:Bad for Health, Economy, and the Environment
World Health Org.:2.5 million women and children die prematurely annually from breathing fumes from biomass stoves.3.6 billion people have no access or inadequate access to electricity.
Latent Demand for Electricity in India:Red: No Electricity; Green: Cook with Wood or Dung;
Blue: No Refrigeration
International Energy Agency: Coal and Natural Gas Dominating New Electricity Generation
kW Prices of Electricity 2007
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Conventional
Coal
Natural Gas Biomass Wind Solar Thermal
Electricity from Coal Dominates Much of Country;These Plants Cannot Easily Change Fuel
Same Old Song; Pipe Dreams Are Not New
Cleaner Coal Possible: 40 Year RecordSource: EPA
Electricity from coal up 182%
Total Emissions down 42%
Best Hope as of Today: Carbon Capture
King Coal: U.S. Is Saudi Arabia
We’re Number 1!!
Coal Is “Nonrenewable”—So What?
Worried about the Trade Imbalance?U.S. Coal Exports at Highest Level in 20 Years
Why is coal unpopular? CO2 Emissions
Coal is big in Greenhouse gas emissions.Its emission is double that of natural gas per BTU generated.
Main Alternative to Coal: Burn More Natural Gas (less CO2 than coal);
“proven” reserves—100 years and growing.
Expanding Natural Gas Use Will Be Costly and Take Decades
Alternative: What About Nuclear?
Last plant to open in U.S. was in 1996.One new TVA plant may come online in 2013.DOE permit process takes 4 years; construction takes longer than that.Expensive compared to gas and coal.Political issues, to say the least.
Alternative: Hydro; No CO2 When operating.
6% of total U.S. electricity.60% of “renewable” electricity.Problem—look at the river →Most greenies hate “big hydro” but think “small hydro” is good.But, small hydro is of little value.
Alternative: Wind turbines “work” but no one wants to live near them; need new transmission lines to get power to market.
Alternative: U.S. Has Lots of Sunshine—Transmission to Market Costly
Solyndra aside, solar is likely to become more competitive in some areas as cost is slowly dropping.
Unless we want to freeze (or sweat) in the dark, solar, wind & other “renewables” are irrelevant
Electric Power Research Institute:Generation Technology Options
Many trade-offs to consider: Nuclear has highest capital cost per kW (double wind), but life is assumed to be 40 years vs. 20 for wind farm. On-shore wind farm produces at 28-40% of stated capacity; nuclear produces at 90%.When all such factors considered, LCOE is $49-79/MWh for nuclear; $75-138/MWh for wind given today’s technology.
EPRI - Given New Technology:Where do we expect to be in 2025?
Coal with carbon capture $85-105/MWhNatural gas with carbon capture $68-109/MWhNuclear $76-87/MWhBiomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed $80-136/MWhWind on shore $73-134/MWhWind off shore $122-147/MWhConcentrating Solar Thermal $116-173/MWhSolar PV $210-396/MWh* Ignoring transmission costs, site-acquisition costs, no subsidies assumed
Conclusion: Traditional Energy Sources Are Here to Stay, Even if the U.S. and EU Do Not Like It
Give the U.N. credit—their energy people know that massive energy change means we live in small villages eating our own crops, or live in high rises with minimal transportation—including rickshaws. They endorse that as necessary to stop GW.
top related