Transcript Global 10-Year Growth Rates of Energy Sources

Energy Future
Is 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 2015
U.S.
Europe
8 GW
17 GW
China
South Asia
83 GW
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
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
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 Record
Source: 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/MWh
Natural gas with carbon capture $68-109/MWh
Nuclear
$76-87/MWh
Biomass Bubbling Fluidized Bed
$80-136/MWh
Wind on shore
$73-134/MWh
Wind off shore
$122-147/MWh
Concentrating Solar Thermal
$116-173/MWh
Solar 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.