Original source URL: http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free - Executive Summary Executive Summary Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy1 Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D.2 July 2007 A Joint Project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research 1 This is a summary of a book of the same title, to be published in October 2007 by RDR Books. The book is a joint project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and will be available as a report at www.ieer.org/carbonfree in August 2007. Full references can be found there. 2 I would like to thank the Nuclear Policy Research Institute for having sponsored the project that will result in the book on which this summary is based. Helen Caldicott was the star who raised the funds, provided critical comments and suggestions, and had the vision that this study should be done because it is urgently needed. Helen's and S. David Freeman's presentations at NPRI's 2006 energy conference and our private discussions afterwards inspired me to write the book. Thank you to Julie Enszer for smoothly shepherding this project from beginning to end. I also wish to thank Hisham Zerriffi, Jenice View, and Paul Epstein, who, as members of the Advisory Board of the project (in addition to Helen and Dave and others), contributed valuable insights and criticisms of the draft manuscript and this summary. However, they may or may not agree with the recommendations or conclusions in this summary. The book will contain statements from Board members who wish to comment. Full acknowledgements will appear in the book. For their support of this project, NPRI and IEER wish to thank The Park Foundation, The Lear Family Foundation, The Lintilhac Foundation, and many individual donors who wish to remain anonymous. A three-fold global energy crisis has emerged since the 1970s; it is now acute on all three fronts: 1. Climate disruption: Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions due to fossil fuel combustion are the main anthropogenic cause of severe climate disruption, whose continuation portends grievous, irreparable harm to the global economy, society, and current ecosystems. 2. Insecurity of oil supply: Rapid increases in global oil consumption and conflict in and about oil exporting regions make prices volatile and supplies insecure. 3. Nuclear proliferation: Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is being undermined in part by the spread of commercial nuclear power technology, which is being put forth as a major solution for reducing CO2 emissions. After a decade of global division, the necessity for drastic action to reduce CO2 emissions is now widely recognized, including in the United States, as indicated by the April 2007 opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court3 that CO2 is a pollutant and by the plethora of bills in the U.S. Congress. Many of the solutions offered would point the United States in the right direction, by recognizing and codifying into law and regulations the need to reduce CO2 emissions. But much more will be needed. Moreover, most of the solutions being offered are likely to be inadequate to the task and some, such as the expansion of nuclear power or the widespread use of food crops for making fuel, are likely to compound the world's social, political, and security ills. Some, like production of biofuels from Indonesian palm oil, may even aggravate the emissions of CO2. Our report, of which this is a summary, examines the technical and economic feasibility of achieving a U.S. economy with zero-CO2 emissions without nuclear power. This is interpreted as an elimination of all but a few percent of CO2 emissions or complete elimination with the possibility of removing from the atmosphere some CO2 that has already been emitted. We set out to answer three questions: * Is it possible to physically eliminate CO2 emissions from the U.S. energy sector without resort to nuclear power, which has serious security and other vulnerabilities? * Is a zero-CO2 economy possible without purchasing offsets from other countries - that is, without purchasing from other countries the right to continue emitting CO2 in the United States? * Is it possible to accomplish the above at reasonable cost? 3 On the Internet at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf. 2 ______________________________________ Central Finding The overarching finding of this study is that a zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power and without acquiring carbon credits from other countries. In other words, actual physical emissions of CO2 from the energy sector can be eliminated with technologies that are now available or foreseeable. This can be done at reasonable cost while creating a much more secure energy supply than at present. Net U.S. oil imports can be eliminated in about 25 years. All three insecurities - severe climate disruption, oil supply and price insecurity, and nuclear proliferation via commercial nuclear energy - will thereby be addressed. In addition, there will be large ancillary health benefits from the elimination of most regional and local air pollution, such as high ozone and particulate levels in cities, which is due to fossil fuel combustion. ______________________________________ The achievement of a zero-CO2 economy without nuclear power will require unprecedented foresight and coordination in policies from the local to the national, across all sectors of the energy system. Much of the ferment at the state and local level, as well as some of the proposals in Congress, are already pointed in the right direction. But a clear long-term goal is necessary to provide overall policy coherence and establish a yardstick against which progress can be measured. A zero-CO2 U.S. economy without nuclear power is not only achievable - it is necessary for environmental protection and security. Even the process of the United States setting a goal of a zero-CO2, nuclear-free economy and taking initial firm steps towards it will transform global energy politics in the immediate future and establish the United States as a country that leads by example rather than one that preaches temperance from a barstool. The tables on pages 18-22 provide a sketch of the roadmap to a zero-CO2 economy with estimates of dates at which technologies can be deployed as well as research, development, and demonstration recommendations. ______________________________________ Recommendations: The Clean Dozen The 12 most critical policies that need to be enacted as urgently as possible for achieving a zero-CO2 economy without nuclear power are as follows. 1) Enact a physical limit of CO2 emissions for all large users of fossil fuels (a "hard cap") that steadily declines to zero prior to 2060, with the time schedule being assessed periodically for tightening according to climate, technological, and economic developments. The cap should be set at the level of some year prior to 2007, so that early implementers of CO2 reductions benefit from the setting of the cap. Emission allowances would be sold by the U.S. government for use in the United States only. There would be no free allowances, no offsets and no international sale or purchase of CO2 allowances. The estimated revenues - approximately $30 to $50 billion per year - would be used for demonstration plants, research and development, and worker and community transition. 2) Eliminate all subsidies and tax breaks for fossil fuels and nuclear power (including guarantees for nuclear waste disposal from new power plants, loan guarantees, and subsidized insurance). 3) Eliminate subsidies for biofuels from food crops. 4) Build demonstration plants for key supply technologies, including central station solar thermal with heat storage, large- and intermediate-scale solar photovoltaics, and CO2 capture in microalgae for liquid fuel production. 5) Leverage federal, state and local purchasing power to create markets for critical advanced technologies, including plug-in hybrids. 6) Ban new coal-fired power plants that do not have carbon storage. 7) Enact at the federal level high efficiency standards for appliances. 8) Enact stringent building efficiency standards at the state and local levels, with federal incentives to adopt them. 9) Enact stringent efficiency standards for vehicles and make plug-in hybrids the standard U.S. government vehicle by 2015. 10) Put in place federal contracting procedures to reward early adopters of CO2 reductions. 11) Adopt vigorous research, development, and pilot plant construction programs for technologies that could accelerate the elimination of CO2, such as direct solar hydrogen production (photosynthetic, photoelectrochemical, and other approaches), hot rock geothermal power, and integrated gasification combined cycle plants using biomass with a capacity to sequester the CO2. 12) Establish a standing committee on Energy and Climate under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board. ______________________________________ Summary of Main Findings 1. A goal of a zero-CO2 economy is necessary to minimize harm related to climate change. 2. A hard cap on CO2 emissions -- that is, a fixed emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero - would provide large users of fossil fuels with a flexible way to phase out CO2 emissions. However, free allowances, offsets that permit emissions by third party reductions, or international trading of allowances, notably with developing countries that have no CO2 cap, would undermine and defeat the purpose of the system. A measurement-based physical limit, with appropriate enforcement, should be put into place. 3. A reliable U.S. electricity sector with zero-CO2 emissions can be achieved without the use of nuclear power or fossil fuels. 4. The use of nuclear power entails risks of nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and serious accidents. It exacerbates the problem of nuclear waste and perpetuates vulnerabilities and insecurities in the energy system that are avoidable. Summary of Main Findings (continued) 5. The use of highly efficient energy technologies and building design, generally available today, can greatly ease the transition to a zero-CO2 economy and reduce its cost. A two percent annual increase in efficiency per unit of Gross Domestic Product relative to recent trends would result in a one percent decline in energy use per year, while providing three percent GDP annual growth. This is well within the capacity of available technological performance. 6. Biofuels, broadly defined, could be crucial to the transition to a zero-CO2 economy without serious environmental side effects or, alternatively, they could produce considerable collateral damage or even be very harmful to the environment and increase greenhouse gas emissions. The outcome will depend essentially on policy choices, incentives, and research and development, both public and private. 7. Much of the reduction in CO2 emissions can be achieved without incurring any cost penalties (as, for instance, with efficient lighting and refrigerators). The cost of eliminating the rest of CO2 emissions due to fossil fuel use is likely to be in the range of $10 to $30 per metric ton of CO2. 8. The transition to a zero-CO2 system can be made in a manner compatible with local economic development in areas that now produce fossil fuels. ______________________________________ Main Findings Finding 1: A goal of a zero-CO2 economy is necessary to minimize harm related to climate change. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global CO2 emissions would need to be reduced by 50 to 85 percent relative to the year 2000 in order to limit average global temperature increase to 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial times. A reduction of 80% in total U.S. CO2 emissions by 2050 would be entirely inadequate to meet this goal. It still leaves U.S. emissions at about 2.8 metric tons per person. A global norm of emissions at this rate would leave worldwide CO2 emissions almost as high as in the year 2000.4 In contrast, if a global norm of approximately equal per person emissions by 2050 is created along with a 50 percent global reduction in emissions, it would require an approximately 88 percent reduction in U.S. emissions. An 85 percent global reduction in CO2 emissions corresponds to a 96 percent reduction for the United States. An allocation of emissions by the standard of cumulative historical contributions would be even more stringent. A U.S. goal of zero-CO2, defined as being a few percent on either side of zero relative to 2000, is both necessary and prudent for the protection of global climate. It is also achievable at reasonable cost. Finding 2: A hard cap on CO2 emissions -- that is, a fixed emissions limit that declines year by year until it reaches zero - would provide large users of fossil fuels with a flexible way to phase out CO2 emissions. However, free allowances, offsets that permit emissions by third party reductions5, or international trading of allowances, notably with developing countries that have no CO2 cap, would undermine and defeat the purpose of the system. A measurement-based physical limit, with appropriate enforcement, should be put into place. A hard cap on CO2 emissions is recommended for large users of fossil fuels. The annual revenues that would be generated by the government from the sale of allowances would be on the order of $30 billion to $50 billion per year through most of the period, since the price of CO2 emission allowances would tend to increase as supply goes down. These revenues would be devoted to ease the transition at all levels - local, state and federal - as well as for demonstration projects and research and development. Finding 3: A reliable U.S. electricity sector with zero-CO2 emissions can be achieved without the use of nuclear power or fossil fuels. The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States. North Dakota, Texas, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska each have wind energy potential greater than the electricity produced by all 103 U.S. nuclear power plants. Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the high insolation areas in the Southwest and West. Just the parking lots and rooftops in the United States could provide most of the U.S. electricity supply. This also has the advantage of avoiding the need for transmission line expansion, though some strengthening of the distribution infrastructure may be needed. A start has been made. The U.S. Navy has a 750 kW installation in one of its parking lots in San Diego that provides shaded parking spots for over 400 vehicles, with plenty of room to spare for expansion of electricity generation (see Figure 1). Wind energy is already more economical than nuclear power. In the past two years, the costs of solar cells have come down to the point that medium-scale installations, such as the one shown above, are economical in sunny areas, since they supply electricity mainly during peak hours. The main problem with wind and solar energy is intermittency. This can be reduced by integrating wind and solar energy together into the grid - for instance, wind energy is often more plentiful at night. Geographic diversity also reduces the intermittency of each source and for both combined. Integration into the grid of these two sources up to about 15 percent of total generation (not far short of the contribution of nuclear electricity today) can be done without serious cost or technical difficulty with available technology, provided appropriate optimization steps are taken. Solar and wind should also be combined with hydropower - with the latter being used when the wind generation is low or zero. This is already being done in the Northwest. Conflicts with water releases for fish management can be addressed by combining these three sources with natural gas standby. The high cost of natural gas makes it economical to use combined cycle power plants as standby capacity and spinning reserve for wind rather than for intermediate or baseload generation. In other words, given the high price of natural gas, these plants could be economically idled for some of the time and be available as a complement to wind power. Compressed air can also be used for energy storage in combination with these sources. No new technologies are required for any of these generation or storage methods. Baseload power can be provided by geothermal and biomass-fueled generating stations. Intermediate loads in the evening can be powered by solar thermal power plants which have a few hours of thermal energy storage built in. Finally, new batteries can enable plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles owned by fleets or parked in large parking lots to provide relatively cheap storage. Nanotechnology-based lithium ion batteries, which Altairnano has begun to produce, can be deep discharged far more times than needed simply to operate the vehicle over its lifetime (10,000 to 15,000 times compared to about 2,000 times respectively). Since the performance of the battery is far in excess of the cycles of charging and discharging needed for the vehicle itself, vehicular batteries could become a very low-cost source of electricity storage that can be used in a vehicle-to-grid (V2G) system. In such a system, parked cars would be connected to the grid and charged and discharged according to the state of the requirements of the grid and the charge of the battery in the vehicle. Communications technology to accomplish this via wires or wireless means is already commercial. A small fraction of the total number of road vehicles (several percent) could provide sufficient backup capacity to stabilize a well designed electricity grid based on renewable energy sources (including biomass and geothermal). [tables in original] Glossary Baseload generation: A large-scale power plant designed to generate electricity on a continuous basis. Biofuel: Fuel derived from biomass. Biomass: Organic material produced by photosynthesis. Carbon capture: Capture of carbon dioxide when fuels containing carbon are burned for their energy. Carbon sequestration: Deep geologic storage of carbon for long periods (thousands of years) to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. CFL: Compact fluorescent lamp, which is a high-efficiency light bulb. CHP: Combined heat and power. In this arrangement, some of the energy derived from burning a fuel is used as heat (as for instance in heating buildings or for industrial processes), and some is used for generating electricity. Combined cycle power plant: Power plant in which the hot gases from the burning of a fuel (usually natural gas) are used to run a gas turbine for generating electricity. The exhaust gas from the turbine is still hot and is used to make steam, which is used to drive a steam turbine, which in turn generates more electricity. Electrolytic hydrogen production: The use of electricity to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water. Geothermal heat pump: A heat pump that uses the relatively constant temperature a few feet below the earth's surface in order to increase the efficiency of the heat pump. IGCC: Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant. This plant gasifies coal or biomass and then uses the gases in a combined cycle power plant. LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - a rating system used for building efficiency. The platinum level is the highest rating. Microalgae: Tiny algae that grow in a variety of environments, including salty water. Nanocapacitor: A capacitor that has the surface area of its electrodes increased greatly by the use of nanotechnology. Photolytic hydrogen: Hydrogen produced by plants, for instance, algae, in the presence of sunlight. Photoelectrochemical hydrogen: Hydrogen produced directly using devices similar to some solar photovoltaic cells that generate electricity. In this arrangement, hydrogen is produced instead of electricity. Pumped storage: Using electricity at off-peak times to pump water into a reservoir and then using a hydroelectric power plant to generate electricity with the stored water during peak times (or, when used with wind energy, when the wind is not blowing). Solar light pipe: A fiber optic cable that conveys light from the sun along its length without leaking it out of the sides, much like a wire carries electricity. It can be used to light the interiors of buildings during the daytime. Solar PV: Solar photovoltaic cells - devices that turn incident sunlight into electricity. Solar thermal power plant: A power plant that uses reflectors to concentrate solar energy and heat liquids that are then used to produce steam and generate electricity. Spinning reserve: The capacity of electric power plants that are kept switched on ("spinning") but idle in order to be able to meet sudden increases in electricity demand. Standby capacity: Power plants that are kept on standby to meet increases in electric demand. Ultracapacitor: A capacitor that can store much more electricity per unit volume than normal capacitors. V2G: Vehicle to grid system. Parked cars are connected to the grid. When the charge on the batteries is low, the grid recharges them. When the charge is sufficient and the grid requires electricity, a signal from the grid enables the battery to supply electricity to the grid. -- -------------------------------------------------------- Posting archives: historical: http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?lists=newslog recent: http://groups.google.com/group/newslog/topics Escaping the Matrix website: http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website: http://cyberjournal.org How We the People can change the world: http://governourselves.blogspot.com/ Community Democracy Framework: http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html Moderator: •••@••.••• (comments welcome)
