The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy

[kristopher]

Policy Sciences
Volume 41, Number 3, 245-261, DOI: 10.1007/s11077-008-9063-1

The problem with the “portfolio approach” in American energy policy
Benjamin K. Sovacool

Abstract
One predominant theme in American energy and electricity policy is the idea of a “portfolio approach,” or that society must embrace an assortment of different energy technologies simultaneously. This article argues that such a strategy, in practice, is (a) biased, since fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have been heavily favored; (b) opaque, obscuring the different full social costs of energy systems; (c) inequitable, promoting technologies that contribute to climate change; and (d) unsophisticated, ignoring important qualitative differences among technologies. The article estimates the full social costs of electricity generation, concluding that the five cheapest forms of electricity generation are all renewable resources; that intermittency is not a reason to reject renewable energy technologies; that nuclear power has significant technical and environmental problems, especially from a greenhouse gas emissions and climate change perspective; and that “clean coal” and carbon capture and sequestration technologies face significant challenges to deployment.

...This article argues that a “portfolio approach" is

...(a) biased, since fossil fuel and nuclear technologies have been heavily favored;

...(b) opaque, obscuring the different full social costs of energy systems;

...(c) inequitable, promoting technologies that contribute to climate change; and

...(d) unsophisticated, ignoring important qualitative differences among technologies.

...the five cheapest forms of electricity generation are all renewable resources;

...intermittency is not a reason to reject renewable energy technologies;

...nuclear power has significant technical and environmental problems, especially from a greenhouse gas emissions and climate change perspective

[XemaSab]

1. No link?

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

6. link:

http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/docs/fac/benjamin-sovacool/Published%20Papers/Sovacool-Problem%20With%20Portfolio.pdf

[XemaSab]

8. Thank you

:)

[XemaSab]

15. This is an interesting article:

Finally, and perhaps most important, nuclear power plants contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. A forthcoming assessment of 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants (Sovacool 2008b) found that the average CO2 emissions over the typical lifetime of a plant are around 66 g/kWh. Pehnt (2006) conducted lifecycle analyses for 15 separate distributed generation and renewable energy technologies and found that all but one, solar photovoltaics, emitted much less gCO2e/kWh than nuclear plants. While it may be unfair to compare base-load sources such as nuclear to intermittent or non-dispatchable sources such as wind and solar PV, if these data are correct, then offshore wind power has less than one-seventh the carbon equivalent emissions of nuclear plants; large-scale hydropower, onshore wind, and biogas, about onesixth the emissions; and small-scale hydroelectric and solar thermal one-fifth. Renewable energy technologies, then, are seven-, six-, and five-times more effective on a per kWh basis at fighting climate change.

[PamW]

2. Try peddling that to someone...

that intermittency is not a reason to reject renewable energy technologies;
===============================

Try peddling that to someone who has just been hit by a power interruption due
to a wind storm or ice downing of electric lines, or whatever...

They want their power on. If you attempt to tell them that an interruption in
power will be occur commonly with renewable-supplied electricity.

Attempt to tell them that they won't have electric power at night because all
the solar power stations in our 100% solar-powered society are in the dark at night.

Attempt to tell them that on those really hot days when they would love to have
the air conditioning running that there is no electricity for it because the hot
air is stagnant and not turning the turbines at the local windfarm.

I don't know about you, but I think intermittent nature of renewable power is an
excellent reason to reject same.

PamW

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

10. SELF-DELETED BY MEMBER

This message was self-deleted by kristopher.

[YankeyMCC]

3. This seems counter intuitive

but of course we can't make these kind of long term plans effectively on intuition.

If you can't post a link can you include the crux of the argument against diversity of sources providing a more reliable availability of supply? Assuming the proper infrastructure is in place.

[kristopher]

5. You could google "distributed generation"

DOE has produced several documents on the topic.

As for "diversity of supply" I take it you mean that to imply we should include atomic fission pot boilers as part of the mix?

If so, you also fail to understand that a "centralized-grid-built-around-large-scale-generation" is a completely different machine (literally it is a machine) than a "distributed-grid-built-around-renewable-generation".

They are conceptually different, technically different, and economically different. That is why there exists a bias in the present system against renewables and for atomic fission. Technically it is indisputable that a distributed grid built around renewables is far superior to a centralized grid.

That is why after 50 years of intense policy and economic support for fission, nothing has changed about the nature of the present grid - it still loves coal.

That is why building renewables and striving for energy efficiency causes fission products to be unworkable in the market; and why state efforts to prop up fission damage efforts to move away from centralized generation.

...Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca.220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU20085.pdf

Do you think that fission boilers, as expensive as they are, can survive economically when only 56% of their product can be sold at a price above costs? Electric markets allow generating sources to sell on any given day at a price based strictly on fuel costs, but over the long term there must be sufficient market to recoup the costs of capital investment along with O&M costs. Private investment runs as fast as it can from fission because the economics, as shown above, are against it.

That presents a policy choice - do we use state muscle and unending public funding to force nuclear onto the market in order to preserve the place of centralized coal, or do we provide the appropriate short term subsidies and policy support that have already demonstrated their effectiveness at reducing costs of electricity from renewable sources?

They are mutually exclusive.

[XemaSab]

9. And if you Google "aliens killed kennedy"

you get 210,000 hits.

Instead of telling people to Google shit, provide a link. It's not that hard.

[kristopher]

11. It's not that hard to google either.

If you don't like what I post, feel free to hit the ignore button.

[XemaSab]

12. I wish I knew how to quit you.

:cry:

[kristopher]

13. Go to MYDU and select the path to ignore.

That will work.

[XemaSab]

14. You made me choke on a jalapeno!

:(

[YankeyMCC]

16. Thanks for the info however

I actually wasn't thinking of nuclear at all, I was thinking about diverse renewable sources.

Not sure why you thought to put that thought into my question. But that's ok, it might have occurred to me also at a later time.

Thanks.