Part 3 of the Chart That Changed the Energy Picture. The way to think of energy is in its three states of matter – gas, liquid, and solid. Petroleum is liquid. Natural gas is obviously gas, and coal and nuclear are solid. Liquid energy is portable and solid energy is not (as least not in its current configuration).
If we start with solid energy at the bottom of the EIA chart depicted in the first blog - Nuclear Electric Power bubble on the left-hand side – it supplies 8.3 quadrillion btus of the US overall power source. If we trace the line from that bubble to the Electric Power square, we see that 100% of nuclear power goes to the Electric Power sector (representing 38.3 quadrillion btus of demand, or 40% of the total energy demanded by the US). For the electric power sector, nuclear represents 22% of the total electricity produced in the US that is consumed.
If we negatively alter the nuclear picture the way Germany is (see earlier blog on Germany’s Nuclear Winter), then we decrease the electricity produced from this source, thereby increasing our reliance on the other 4 inputs into the Electric Power sector – renewable energy 11% (dominantly hydropower), coal 48%, natural gas 18% and petroleum 1% (dominantly petroleum based electrical power generators).
If we assume that the US cuts electric power generation from some of its oldest nuclear power reactors, then we need to either make up the difference using the 4 inputs or decrease consumption of electricity (my choice. The 1% contribution that petroleum makes is not likely to increase because that is used primarily in back-up electric power generators for mission critical facilities, like hospitals, internet server farms, and any national security facility. That leaves us with increasing the use of natural gas, coal, or renewable energy.
We have choices here. We have now abundant, cheap natural gas and abundant, cheap coal. As we have seen through the failure of Solyndra (approx. $535 million in Federal loan guarantees by Congress with the DOE giving up the right of first lien -what were they thinking – obviously they were not), Spectrawatt, and Evergreen Solar, the Federal Government should not be in this business. This is why we have public and private equity markets. What is the most interesting aspect of the solar companies failures, is that despite the reputed job gains from this green energy source, the very people who can afford this are being castigated by the March on Wall Street crowd. The corporations have also been large sponsors and purchasers of solar, yet the March on Wall Street crowd is bashing them. The cost to the taxpayers for the not-ready-for-prime-time energy is astronomical and irresponsible.
Again I ask, where will we make up the difference in electrical generation?
As a long time electric utility guy, I agree on maintaining the nuclear option, as it has been the safest industry in the US bar none. But, everyone halfway knowledgeable knew Solyndra made a bad bet that really went south when the price of polysilicon dropped so dramatically and when it turned out, that dog couldn't hunt, nor could the technologies offered up by Spectrawatt and Evergreen. One venture group, Rockport, and one investment bank, Goldman Sachs, both tight with Republicans and Democrats finessed them both on Solyndra, that is why the March on Wallstreet, they are the ones hurting the masses with lobbying and taking advantage of the disadvantaged - our elected officials. Solar will be grid neutral by 2014 and one local firm without government loans, will be a shining star in that solar future. How's that for a ramble job! Cheers to you Clay, nice blog!
ReplyDelete