Profitable Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation

Transcription

“Profitable Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation” by Amory B. Lovins
“The Future of Energy,” Harvard University, 3 December 2008
Profitable Solutions to
Climate, Oil, and Proliferation
To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing.
— Raymond Williams
Everything works out right in the end. If things are not working right, it
isn’t the end yet. Don’t let it bother you. Relax and keep on going.
— Michael C. Muhammad
Amory B. Lovins
Chairman & Chief Scientist MAP/Ming Prof. ’07
Rocky Mountain Institute Stanford Eng. School
www.rmi.org/stanford
www.rmi.org
[email protected]
Dir. & Chairman Emeritus
www.fiberforge.com
Copyright © 2008 Rocky Mountain Institute. All rights reserved. Noncommercial PDF reproduction licensed to Harvard and participants for internal use.
Energy policy: a multiple-choice test
Q. How is climate protection like the
Hubble Space Telescope?
Would you rather die of:
1. climate change?
2. oil wars?
3. nuclear holocaust?
A. Both got spoiled by
a sign error (“+” vs. “–”)
The right answer, often left out, is:
4. none of the above
Let’s just use energy in a way that saves money,
because that will solve the climate, oil, and proliferation problems—not at a cost but at a profit
The incorrect assumption—reinforced
daily in all media—that climate
protection will be costly is the biggest
obstacle to achieving it
Copyright © 2008 Amory B. Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute / "Profitable Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation"
3 December 2008 / Harvard University Center for the Environment / The Future of Energy speaker series / Sponsored by Bank of America
www.environment.harvard.edu
1
2007 Vattenfall/McKinsey supply curve
for abating global greenhouse gases
Saving energy costs less than buying it, so
firms are starting to buy energy efficiency
whether or not they worry about climate
(technologically very conservative, esp. for transport)
◊ IBM and STMicroelectronics
CO2 emissions –6%/y, fast paybacks
◊ DuPont’s 2000–2010 worldwide goals
◊
◊
◊
◊
Energy use/$ –6%/y, GHG = 1990 level –65%
By 2006: actually cut GHG 80% below 1990, $3b profit
Dow: cut E/kg 22% 1994–2005, $3.3b profit
BP’s 2010 CO2 goal met 8 y early, $2b profit
GE pledged 2005 to boost its eff. 30% by 2012
United Technologies cut E/$ 45% during 2003–07
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
World emissions were 37 GTCO2e in 2000 and rising
27 GtCO2e in 2030 is 46% of base-case emissions
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
◊ Interface: 1996–2007 GHG –82% (–16%/y)
◊ So while the politicians endlessly debate theoretical
“costs,” smart firms race to pocket real profits!
Average cost of whole curve ~ 2/TCO2e (Exec. Sum., p. 5)
www.vattenfall.com/www/ccc/ccc/577730downl/index.jsp
January 2007
Profitable climate protection
◊ Global CO2 emissions will triple by 2100 if we reduce
E/GDP by 1%/y; level off if 2%/y; and drop—stabilizing global climate—if ~3–4%/y. Is that feasible?
◊ The U.S. has spontaneously saved >2%/y since ’97;
3.4%/y 1981–86; 3.2%/y in ’01 & ’05; 4.0% in ’06
◊ California was ~1 percentage point faster; its new
homes use 75% less energy; still saving much more
◊ China did even better—saved >5%/y for >20 y,
7.9%/y 1997–2001; energy efficiency is top priority
◊ Attentive corporations routinely save ~6–15%/y
◊ So why should 3–4%/y be hard or costly?
◊ Oil causes 43% of US fossil CO2, electricity 41% (’07)
◊ Coal causes 36% of US, 92% of el. generation’s, CO2
◊ 70% of US el. is used in buildings, 30% in industry
Independent, transparent,
peer-reviewed, uncontested
USDoD-cosponsored, Sept 04
For business & mil. leaders
Based on competitive
strategy cases for cars,
trucks, planes, oil, military
Book and technical backup
are free at:
move.rmi.org/oilendgame
Over the next few decades,
the U.S. can eliminate its use
of oil and revitalize its economy, led by business for profit
This work was cosponsored by OSD and ONR. The views expressed are those of the authors alone, not of the sponsors.
2
Vehicles use 70% of US oil, but integrating low mass & drag with advanced
propulsion saves ~2/3 very cheaply
A profitable US transition beyond
oil (with best 2004 technologies)
Petroleum product equivalent consumption
(million barrels/day)
CARS: save 69% at 57¢/gal
U.S. oil use and imports, 1950–2035
35
government projection (extrapolated after 2025)
30
end-use efficiency @ $12/bbl
Vs. $26/bbl oil,
a $180b
investment
saves $155b/y
gross, $70b/y
net; cuts CO2
26%; 1M new +
1M saved jobs
plus supply substitution @<$26/bbl (av. $18/bbl)
25
plus optional hydrogen from leftover saved
natural gas and/or renewables (illustrating
10% substitution; 100%+ is feasible)
20
)
15
5
TRUCKS: save 25% free,
65% @ 25¢/gal
Practice
–85: GDP
1977
Practice run
run 1977–
1977–85:
GDP +27%,
+27%,
oil
17%, oil
50%,
oil use
use ––17%,
oil imports
imports ––50%,
Persian
87%
Persian Gulf
Gulf imports
imports ––87%
QuickTime™ and a
Petroleum imports
OPEC’s
OPEC’s exports
exports fell
fell 48%,
48%, breaking
breaking
its
its pricing
pricing power
power for
for aa decade;
decade; US
US
is
is Saudi
Saudi Arabia
Arabia of
of negabarrels
negabarrels
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
Implementable without new fuel taxes,
subsidies, mandates, or national laws
2000
2010
2020
2030
PLANES: save 20% free,
45–65% @ ≤46¢/gal
QuickTime™ and a
155 mph, 94 mpg
You
You are
are here
here
Petroleum use
10
Surprise:
ultralighting
is free —
offset by
simpler
automaking
and the 2–3×
smaller
powertrain
BLDGS/IND.: big, cheap
savings;
often
lower
capex
Technology is improving faster for efficient end-use than for energy supply
Each day, your car uses ~100×
×
its weight in ancient plants.
Where does that fuel energy go?
Ultralight safety confirmed by
racecar crash experience
(thermoplastics are even tougher)
13% tractive load
87% of the fuel energy is wasted
0%
20%
Braking resistance
Engine loss
Accessory loss
40%
60%
Rolling resistance
Idling loss
80%
100%
Aerodynamic drag
Drivetrain loss
6% accelerates the car; just ~0.3% moves the driver
Three-fourths of the fuel use is weight-related
Each unit of energy saved at the wheels saves ~7–8
units of gasoline in the tank (or ~3–4 with a hybrid)
So first make the car radically lighter-weight!
QuickTime™ and a
H.264 decompressor
Katherine Legge’s 180-mph
walk-away ChampCar (similar
to Formula One) wall crash on
29 September 2006
3
Midsize 5-seat Revolution concept SUV (2000)
Ultralight (1,889 lb = steel – 53%) but ultrasafe
0–60 mph in 8.2 s: 114 mpg with fuel cell
0–60/7.1 s: 67 mpg with gasoline hybrid
Radically simplified manufacturing
◊ Mass customization
Revolution designed for 50k/year production volume
Integration, modular design, and low-cost assembly
Low tooling and equipment cost
“We’ll take two.”
— Automobile
magazine
World Technology
Award, 2003
Show car and a complete virtual design,
uncompromised, production-costed, manufacturable with a $2,511 higher retail price (as hybrid)
14 major structural parts, no hoists
14 low-pressure diesets (not ~103)
Self-fixturing, detoleranced in 2 dim.
No body shop, optional paint shop
Plant 2/5 less capital/car-y, 2/3 smaller
Toyota’s Hypercar®-class
1/X concept car (Tokyo Motor Show, 26 Oct 2007)
◊
1/2 Prius fuel use, similar interior vol. (4 seats)
◊
1/3 the weight (420 kg)
◊
carbon-fiber structure
◊
0.5-L flex-fuel engine
under rear seat, RWD
◊
plug-in hybrid-electric
(if plain hybrid, 400 kg)
• One day earlier, Toray announced a ¥30b plant to mass-produce
carbon-fiber autobody panels and other parts for Toyota, Nissan,
…; in July 2008, similar Honda/Nissan/Toray deal announced too
• Nov 2007: Ford announced 113–340-kg weight cuts MY2012–20
• Dec 2007: 15% av. weight cut in all Nissan vehicles by 2015;
China formed auto lightweighting alliance targeting –200 kg 2010
Stages of the emerging
automotive [r]evolution
◊ An excellent hybrid, properly driven, doubles efficiency
Considerably more if new diesels can meet ratcheting air regs
◊ Ultralighting (+ better aero and tires) redoubles eff’y.
◊ Cellulosic-ethanol E85 quadruples oil efficiency again
Biofuels can make driving a way to protect, not harm, the climate
◊ A good plug-in hybrid (such as Toyota is to plan for
release in MY09 or -10) redoubles fuel efficiency again,
and could be attractive if the power grid buys its
electric storage function
Precursor of “vehicle-to-grid” fuel-cell play—power plant on wheels
So far, these stages can save 97% of the oil/mile used today
◊ Hydrogen fuel cells also compete via cheaper ¢/mile
and 2–6× less CO2/mile (or zero CO2 if renewable)
4
2025 demand-supply integration
demand or supply (million bbl/d)
It pays to be bold: saving half the oil for
$12/bbl is better than saving a fourth at
$6/bbl — otherwise alt. supplies cost too much
30
28.1
7.7
petroleum product equivalent supply & demand, 2025
by
2025
25
20
20.4
5.7
after
2025
15
1.6
7.8
7.0
10
5.2
5
0
EIA 2025
demand
$12/bbl
efficiency
net 2025
demand
biofuels,
biomaterials
subst. saved
natural gas
domestic oil
balance
Great flexibility of ways and timing to eliminate oil in next few decades
• Buy more efficiency (it’s so cheap)
• Wait for the other half of the efficiency—7 Mbbl/d still in process in 2025
• “Balance” can import crude oil/product (can be all N. Amer.) or biofuels
Hypothetically assuming full deployment in 2025 (actually we realize half
the savings by then); these curves assume no further invention in 2005–25
• Or saved U.S. natural gas @ $0.9/million BTU can fill the “balance”…or
• H2 from saved U.S. natural gas can displace “balance” plus domestic oil
• Not counting other options, e.g. Dakotas windpower—50 MT/y H2 source
Can an automaker use an efficiencybased strategy to transform itself?
Five ways government can help
1)
Stimulate demand for very efficient vehicles
Feebates—revenue- and size-neutral, more automaker profit
Create a new million-car-a-year market through leasing to
low-income customers (and scrapping clunkers)
Smart military and government fleet procurement; “Golden
Carrot” and “Platinum Carrot” to speed innovation
Heavy-truck-buyer info/leadership, airline loan guarantees
◊
Boeing’s crisis in 1997 was like Detroit’s a decade later
◊
In 2003, Airbus for first time outproduced Boeing
◊
2) Build vibrant 21st Century industries by sharing R&D
risk and deploying faster than the private market
Boeing’s bold, efficiency-led response: 787 Dreamliner
>20% more efficient than comparable modern aircraft, same price
80% advanced composite by volume, 50% by mass
› Bigger windows, higher-pressure cabin
Military S&T should finance advanced materials development
› Many other important shifts, e.g. hydraulic→el.
3) Lower risk of investment for new manufacturing
plants through loan guarantees to automakers
4) Support development of domestic energy supply
infrastructure (hydrocarbons → carbohydrates)
5) Remove barriers to efficiency through coherent
policies and purging perverse incentives
“This is really a pivotal moment…could be the beginning of the end for
Boeing's storied airplane business,” said Richard L. Aboulafia, an
aerospace analyst at Teal Group in 2003
◊
3-day final assembly (737 takes 11 days)
895 orders, 88 commitments, 459 rights & options
Sold out into 2018
Fastest order takeoff of any airliner in history
Boeing is now rolling out 787’s radical advances to all models
Airbus: Ultra-jumbo A380 2 years late, ~ 5b over budget
Response? Ultraefficient, composite A350—probably too late
5
The oil industry’s conventional wisdom:
approximate long-run supply curve for world
crude oil and substitute fossil-fuel supplies
Implementation is underway via
“institutional acupuncture”
◊
RMI’s 3-year, $4-million effort has led & consolidated shifts
◊
Need to shift strategy & investment in six sectors
◊
(IEA, 2006)
Aviation: Boeing did it (787 Dreamliner)…and beat Airbus
Heavy trucks: Wal-Mart led it (with other buyers being added)
Military: emerged Feb 08 as the federal leader in getting U.S. off oil
Fuels: strong investor interest and industrial activity
Finance: rapidly growing interest/realignment will drive others
Cars and light trucks: slowest, hardest, but now changing
Alan Mulally’s move from Boeing to Ford with transformational intent
Union and dealers not blocking but eager for fundamental innovation
Schumpeterian “creative destruction” is causing top executives to be far
more open to previously unthinkable change
Emerging prospects of leapfrogs by China, India, new market entrants
Competition, at a fundamental level and at a pace last seen in the
1920s, will change automakers’ managers or their minds, whichever
comes first—sped by RMI’s transformational projects, X Prize, feebates
Source: BP data as graphed by USDoD JASON, “Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence” (JSR-06135, Nov. 2006, p. 6, www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf), plus (red crosshatched box)
IEA’s 2006 World Energy Outlook estimate of world demand and supply to 2030, plus (black/gray)
RMI’s coal-to-liquids (Fischer-Tropsch) estimate derived from 2006–07 industry data and subject
to reasonable water constraints. This and following graphic were redrawn by Imran Sheikh (RMI)
(IEA, 2006)
*
†
These substitutions make sense at any relative prices.
Depending on future prices, additional such substitutions
several- to manyfold larger than shown are also available
†
Stretching oil supply curve by ~3 Tbbl
averts >1 trillion tonnes of carbon emissions
and tens of trillions of dollars
Cumulative emissions (gigatonnes Carbon equivalent)
How that supply curve stretches ~3 Tbbl if the
U.S. potential shown in Winning the Oil Endgame scales, very approximately, to the world
*Probably much understated because scaling from U.S. to
world should count abundant tropical cane potential; also, the
estimate does not include emerging major options like algal oils
To scale from U.S. alternatives-to-oil potential in Mbbl/d achievable by the 2040s (at
average cost $16/bbl in 2004 $: www.oilendgame.com) to world potential over 50 y,
multiply the U.S. Mbbl/d × 146,000: 365 d/y × 50 y × 4 (for U.S.→world market size) × 2
(for growth in services provided). Obviously actual resource dynamics are more complex
and these multipliers are very rough, so this result is only illustrative and indicative.
Nobody can know who’s right about peak oil,
but it doesn’t matter
6
Saving electricity works—where allowed
Per
Capita
Electricity
Consumption
Annual
electricity
use
per capita
14,000
California
avoided 65
GW of
peak load
—~$100b
of capital
investment
12,000
10,000
KWh
There is a huge electric productivity gap between top
performing states and the rest of the country (all
adjusted for economic mix and climate).
8,000
6,000
4,000
CA real income/capita rose 79% during 1975–2005; kWh/capita stayed flat;
by 2008 the saved kWh (vs. U.S. average) saved each Californian ~$200/y
2,000
1960
1965
1970
US
1975
1980
CA
1985
1990
1995
2000
Western Europe
Source: California Energy Commission
Equally important in California’s electricity savings were
efficiency standards and rewarding utilities for cutting
customers’ bills—not for selling more energy (a key reform
that 25 states have lately adopted or are considering)
The total energy efficiency potential to bring all states
to the electric productivity of the top ten states is 1.2
million GWh/y (62% of US coal- fired generation)
McKinsey found profitable efficiency
could displace 85% of projected US build
McKinsey&Company, “Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?,” National
Academies Summit on America’s Energy Future, Washington DC, 14 March 2008, slide 7
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
7
Efficiency is a rapidly moving target
1989 supply curve for saveable US
electricity (vs. 1986 frozen efficiency)
Best 1989 commercially available, retrofittable technologies
Similar S, DK, D, UK…
Standard 1995
Japanese
market model
(~1280)
In Lovins
house (85)
State-ofthe-art (61)
EPRI found 40–60%
saving 2000 potential
Now conservative:
savings keep getting
bigger and cheaper
faster than they’re
being depleted
Best 2005
Matsushita
(160)
Japan’s standards aim to cut el. use 30% from ~1997 levels for refrigerators,
16% for TVs, 83% for PCs, 14% for air conditioners,…; all can go much lower
Measured technical cost and performance data for
~1,000 technologies (RMI 1986–92, 6 vols, 2,509 pp, 5,135 notes)
–47 to +115˚F with no heating/cooling equipment, less construction cost
7100', frost any day, 39 days’
continuous midwinter cloud…yet
28 banana crops with no furnace
◊
◊
Key: integrative
design makes very
big energy savings
cost less than small
or no savings
◊
Old design mentality:
always diminishing returns...
Lovins house / RMI HQ,
Snowmass, Colorado, ’84
Saves 99% of space & water
heating energy, 90% of home el.
(4,000 ft2 use ~$5/month worth
@ 7¢/kWh, all made with solar)
10-month payback in 1983
PG&E ACT2, Davis CA, ’94
Mature-market cost –$1,800
Present-valued maint. –$1,600
Design energy 82% below strictest code, 90% below U.S. avg.
Prof. Soontorn Boonyatikarn
house, Bangkok, Thailand, ’96
84% less a/c capacity, ~90%
less a/c energy, better comfort
No extra construction cost
8
New design mentality: expanding returns,
“tunneling through the cost barrier”
New design mentality: expanding returns,
“tunneling through the cost barrier”
“Tunnel” straight to the
superefficient lower-cost
destination rather than
taking the long way
around
To see how, please visit www.rmi.org/stanford
Cost can be negative even for
retrofits of big buildings
New design mentality
◊ 200,000-ft2, 20-year-old curtainwall office near
Chicago (hot & humid summer, very cold winter)
•• Pumps
Pumps and
and fans
fans use
use half
half of
of
motor
motor energy;
energy; motors
motors use
use 3/5
3/5
world
world electricity
electricity
◊ Dark-glass window units’ edge-seals were failing
•• Redesigning
Redesigning a
a standard
standard (sup(supposedly
posedly optimized)
optimized) industrial
industrial
pumping
pumping loop
loop cut
cut its
its power
power
95→7.6
95→7.6 hp
hp (–92%),
(–92%), cost
cost less
less
to
to build,
build, and
and worked
worked better
better
◊ Replace not with similar but with superwindows
Let in nearly 6× more light, 0.9× as much unwanted heat, reduce
heat loss and noise by 3–4×, cost 78¢ more per ft2 of glass
Add deep daylighting, plus very efficient lights (0.3 W/ft2) and
office equipment (0.2 W/ft2); peak cooling load drops by 77%
◊ Replace big old cooling system with a new one 4×
smaller, 3.8× more efficient, $0.2 million cheaper
◊ That capital saving pays for all the extra costs
◊ 75% energy saving—cheaper than usual renovation
•• Just
Just by
by specifying
specifying fat,
fat, short,
short,
straight
straight pipes—not
pipes—not (as
(as usual)
usual)
thin,
thin, long,
long, crooked
crooked pipes!
pipes!
•• Even
Even better
better design
design could
could
have
have saved
saved ~98%
~98% and
and cost
cost
even
even less
less to
to build
build
•• This
This example
example is
is archetypical…
archetypical…
and
and pumping
pumping is
is the
the biggest
biggest use
use
of
of motors,
motors, which
which use
use 3/5
3/5 of
of el.
el.
9
Compounding losses…or savings…so start
saving at the downstream end to save ten
times as much energy at the power plant
EXAMPLE
It’s often remarkably simple
optional
vs.
99%
Boolean pipe
layout
Also makes upstream equipment smaller, simpler, cheaper
High-efficiency pumping / piping retrofit
Notice smooth piping design
– 45os and Ys
Downsized condenser-water pumps, ~75% energy saving
99%
1%
hydraulic pipe
layout
Examples from RMI’s industrial
practice (>$30b of facilities)
(Rumsey Engineers, Oakland Museum)
15 “negapumps”
1%
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
◊
Save half of motor-system electricity; retrofit payback typically <1 y
Similar ROIs with 30–50+% retrofit savings of chip-fab HVAC power
Retrofit very efficient oil refinery, save 42%, ~3-y payback
Retrofit North Sea oil platform, save 50% el., get the rest from waste
Retrofit big LNG plant, ≥40% energy savings; ~60%? new, cost less
Retrofit giant platinum mine, 43% energy savings, 2–3-y paybacks
Redesign new iron mine, no grid electricity or fossil fuels, lower capex
Redesign new $5b gas-to-liquids plant, save 20% capex, >50% energy
Redesign new data center, save 80% el., 15–50% capex, no chillers
Redesign new chip fab, save 20% el., 35% water, 30% ($230M) capex
Redesign next new chip fab, save ~67% el., 50% capex, no chillers
Redesign new supermarket, save 70–90%, better sales, ?lower capex
Redesign new cellulosic ethanol plant, save 50% ht., 60% el., 30% capex
Redesign new chemical plant, save ~3/4 of el., 10% of capex and time
Redesign new 58m yacht, save 50% el., 96% potable water, less capex
“Tunneling through the cost barrier” now observed in 29 sectors
None of this would be possible if original designs had been good
Needs engineering pedadogy/practice reforms; see www.10xE.org
10
Nuclear is the costliest of the
low- or no-carbon resources
Electric shock: low-/no-carbon decentralized sources are eclipsing central stations
RMI analysis: www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid171.php#E05-04
• 2/3 cogeneration (CHP)*, mostly gasfired, saves ≥50% of CO2 and cost
Low- or no-carbon worldwide
electrical output (except large hydro)
4500
4000
Nuclear
2500
Non-Biomass CHP
2000
1500
Geothermal
Photovoltaics
1000
Biomass and Waste
Small Hydro (<10 MW)
500
Wind
Actual
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Projected
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Low- or no-carbon worldwide installed electrical
generating capacity (except large hydro)
800
700
Total renewables plus decentralized generation
600
Nuclear
Non-Biomass CHP
500
400
Geothermal
Photovoltaics
300
Biomass and Waste
Small Hydro (<10 MW)
200
$90b/y
100
Actual
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Wind
Projected
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
• One-third renewable (hydro only ≤10 MWe)
• 1/6 of el, 1/3 of new el, & rising
• 1/6 to >1/2 of all electricity in a
dozen industrial nations
• Negawatts look comparable or bigger,
so central plants have <1/2 of market!
• Micropower is winning due to lower
costs and financial risks, so it’s
financed mainly by private capital
• In 2006, nuclear added less capacity
(1.44 GW, all from upratings) than PVs
added, 10× less than windpower added,
41× (excluding peaking & standby
units, 30×) less than micropower added
• In 2007, China, Spain, & US each
added more windpower than the world
added nuclear capacity; US added more
windpower than 2003–07 coal capacity
13
30
25
20
1¢: 93 kg CO2/$
2¢: 47 kg CO2/$
Carbon displacement at
various efficiency costs/kWh
New nuclear saves 2–11+× less carbon per
dollar, ~20–40× slower, than efficiency
and micropower investments
9
7
4
3
2
1
0
-1
Nuclear plant
4¢
5
N/A
0
Building-scale
cogen
Large combinedcycle gas plant
Large wind farm
(dispatchable)
Combined-cycle
industrial cogen
Building-scale
cogen
Recovered-heat
industrial cogen
End-use efficiency
23 GW of contracted negawatt acquisitions over next ten years
(62% of 1984 peak load)
13 GW of contracted new generating capacity (35% of 1984
load), most of it renewable, + 8 GW (22%) more on firm offer
9 GW of new generating offers arriving per year (25%)
Result: glut (143%) forced bidding suspension in April 1985
Lesson: real, full competition yields too many attractive options
◊ Ultimate size of alternatives also dwarfs nuclear’s
Moody's estimate
Combined-cycle
industrial cogen
Coal plant
“Forget Nuclear,” at
www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid
467.php; “The Nuclear
Illusion,” Ambio, in press,
2009, preprint at
www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/
Energy/E0801_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
All options face implementation risks;
what does market behavior reveal?
10
Large wind farm
Capital
5
Large combinedcycle gas plant
Operation and
Maintenance
6
Keystone high nuclear cost scenario
Coal plant
Firming and
integration
8
15
Nuclear plant
Transmission and
Distribution
10
3¢
Buying new nuclear instead of efficiency
results in more carbon release than if the
same money had been spent buying a new
coal-fired power plant
Fuel minus heat
credit
MIT (2003)
11
◊ California’s 1982–85 fair bidding with roughly equal
subsidies elicited, vs. 37-GW 1984 load:
Coal-fired CO2 emissions displaced per dollar spent on electrical services
(calculated by multiplying coal-plant carbon displaced per kWh
times kWh delivered per dollar)
35
Credit for
recovered and
reused heat
Keystone (June 2007)
12
Cheapest and lowest-carbon
sources save the most C per $
kg CO2 displaced per 2007 dollar
2000
Moody's $7,500/kWe capex + Keystone O&M and financing: 15.2–20.6¢/kWh
14
2007 US¢ per delivered kWh
3500
3000
Cost of new delivered electricity
15
*Gas turbines ≤120 MWe, engines ≤30 MWe, steam turbines only in China
Total renewables plus decentralized generation
Recovered-heat
industrial cogen
End-use efficiency
El. end-use efficiency: ~2–3× (EPRI) or 4× nuclear’s 19% US
share at below its short-run marginal delivered cost
CHP: US industrial pot’l comparable to nuclear; + buildings CHP
On-/nearshore wind: >2× US & China el., ~6× UK, ~35× global
(225 GW of US wind is stuck in the queue for interconnection)
Other renewables: collectively even larger, PVs almost unlimited
Land-use and variability are not significant problems or costs:
variable renewables need less storage/backup than today!
11
What are we waiting for?
We are the people we have been waiting for!
Nuclear power’s market collapse
is good for climate and security
Lovins et al., Foreign Affairs, Summer 1980; Lovins, Scientific American, Sept. 2005
“Only puny secrets need protection.
Big discoveries are protected
by public incredulity.”
◊ Buy ~2–11+× more climate protection per $, faster
◊ Frees up money and attention for superior alternatives—~104× macroeconomic leverage to fund other
needs (development/health/education/public safety)
—Marshall McLuhan
◊ Inhibits spread of nuclear bombs (Iran, N. Korea,…)
by removing ambiguity & smoking out proliferators
◊ How? Just let all ways to save or produce energy
compete fairly—no matter which they are, what
technology they use, where they are, how big they
are, or who owns them
www.oilendgame.com,
Your move…
www.fiberforge.com,
www.rmi.org (Publ’ns.),
www.rmi.org/stanford,
www.natcap.org, www.
smallisprofitable.org
◊ Key to a richer, fairer, cooler, and safer world
12

Profitable Solutions to Climate, Oil, and Proliferation

Transcription

Similar documents

Karlson `Charlie` Hargroves - AFES

: Al ahram hebdo (journal egyptien) 2007

Finding Harvard Business Review Articles

PDF file

Cell Proliferation - Bio

15th Amendment - Princeton University

Baccalaureate 2015 - Commencement News

Geoconcept TourSolver: the simple tool for optimized routes!

WAES 2015-2016 Forms - Amory School District

This Side Of Paradise - Penn State University