On Energy Efficiency
There are a few reasons why I recommend this article on energy efficiency by my young friend Stephen Lacey.
1) I can’t think of anyone whose observations I regard as more astute than Stephen’s. I’ve known him for about four years, and seen him develop from his first job out of college, where he skyrocketed through the ranks to be UNarguably the most important voice at Renewable Energy World, to his position at Climate Progress, and finally to his latest gig at GreenTechMedia.
2) I interviewed him for both my first book, Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies, and my third, Renewable Energy – Following the Money. I don’t wish to appear like one of these temperamental Hollywood types, but trust me, I would not ask anyone for a second interview if I hadn’t been impressed with the first one.
3) His point here that energy efficiency and conservation are more important in lowering the footprint than energy generation, is right on, and he does a fantastic job articulating this and expanding on it.
I hope you will appreciate this as much as I did.
While I agree that energy conservation and improved efficiency is of extreme importance and of great benefit both nationally and globally, I cannot agree that it negates a need for increased energy production, hopefully green energy.
A reliance on conservation and efficiency gains would only be sufficient in a static society. As it is, population growth and increasing standards of living in developing countries wipe out any gains from efficiency and conservation.
China is a great example of good intentions but inablility to go green because of the rapid increase in demand by both population growth and rising standard of living.
Looking at regions of the USA that are greying and stagnant, yes, conservation and switching to LED lighting may eliminate the need for a new power plant. That is not typical on a global or even a national scale.
Larry,
In general I agree with you. However, it may be that the U.S. and other prosperous nations can improve standards of living without increasing energy consumption. Even so, that could turn out to be impossible.
Global warming will occur regardless of what steps we take to prevent it. At this time, all we can do is limit it by reducing CO2 emissions. But to deal with the global warming that it is too late to stop, we will have to deal with drought conditions, probably at least in part by the desalination of sea water; that is very energy intensive. Also, air conditioning requirements will increase.
You also point out the situation in other countries, such as China; India and other countries should also be included. To lift their people out of poverty, they will have to increase energy use greatly. Some other countries will probably have to depend on sea water desalination.
Considering the above, probably world energy consumption will have to be increased by at least two times, and perhaps even by four times, regardless of improvements in the efficiency of energy use.
I do not believe that we can provide for the world’s inevitably growing energy needs without nuclear power. Almost all of the VALID objections to nuclear power are the result of choosing a very bad nuclear technology, i.e., the pressurized water reactor (PWR). The PWRs we are using are horrendously inefficient which is why nuclear waste is such a serious problem. After they extract less than 1% of the available energy from the nuclear fuel, the rest is discarded as waste. Because they operate at about 2,500 PSI to keep the cooling water from boiling, they require an extremely expensive vessel. And, to prevent a disaster in case a pressure vessel or large pipe breaks, they require a gigantic and expensive concrete containment structure.
There are better nuclear technologies available. Unfortunately, under the Clinton administration, R & D on the integral fast reactor (IFR) was halted, probably shortly before it was ready for testing on a commercial scale. Even before that, R & D on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) was halted; it too is promising.
Once R & D is halted, the teams of scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel break up and much of the knowledge is lost. That is exactly what has happened with nuclear R & D. It will be very costly to restart the R & D, but we must do it. It is imperative to develop and implement a better nuclear technology. If that is not done, the use of fossil fuels will increase regardless of how much emphasis is put on solar and wind, and the world’s people will pay a very heavy price.
I did not read the first line of first para …to remain in the same line (of thinking).
I’ve said it before and undoubtedly will again; the single most important element we can add to the energy grid is storage which allows the ability to regulate the release of unused energy when its needed at the same time store that energy when its not needed. The ability to “smooth” and time shift energy can and will bring efficiency and regulation without the need for more fossil fuel balancing while reducing curtailment of renewables at times of high production. Grid scale pumped storage with the advancements that have been made in the pump/turbine industry is far more efficient than using natural gas and much more environmentally friendly than hydro where the fish may be harmed. To clarify – closed loop pumped storage where the project is removed from the recreational and environmental environments.
It is true that intermittent power systems will not do the job without storage. Even with fossil fuel power systems, economical storage would be desirable to level demand. Unfortunately, there is no way to store large amounts of energy at an acceptable cost. Even if there were, the fact is that renewal power systems, except for hydro, are intermittent and therefore would require considerable over-capacity to provide enough power on average. For example, if we were to depend on wind energy, we would have to over-build by about FOUR TIMES, even with storage, so that on average there would always be enough power available.
I see no solution except nuclear. However, very few people, at least percentage-wise, are aware that there are many possible nuclear technologies and that we have chosen a very bad nuclear technology, i.e., the pressurized water reactor (PWR). Because PWRs utilize less than 1% of the available energy in the uranium fuel, the amount of waste they generate is horrendous, nor is that their only problem.
The usual objections to nuclear power are generally valid for PWRs, but it should not be assumed that the objections are valid for other nuclear technologies.
Objecting to nuclear power based on the 40 year old designs we are now using is about as reasonable as it would have been in 1950 to object to automobiles because too many people broke their arms cranking them.
Here is what is happening in Germany as the result of phasing out nuclear power:
http://wot.motortrend.com/german-car-manufacturers-generating-own-power-as-nuclear-phase-out-continues-332895.html#axzz2Lwk5E7yn