Renewable energy, the only way not to wreck our planet

Esbjerg, Jutland, Denmark --- Wind farm in ocean --- Image by © Cameron Davidson/Corbis

A solid fog lin­gers on public deba­tes over pre­sent and futu­re of “renewa­ble ener­gy”, a discus­sion that is usual­ly approa­ched by both sides of the aisle in an ideo­lo­gi­cal, non con­struc­ti­ve way. As such, it’s a topic that is nor wide­ly or dee­ply under­stood. A pity, con­si­de­ring that maste­ring renewa­ble ener­gy is a fun­da­men­tal buil­ding block for having a futu­re as a species.

In the Uni­ted Sta­tes, in 2016, about 65% of total elec­tri­ci­ty gene­ra­ted came from fos­sil fuels (with natu­ral gas at 34% and coal at 31%), 20% from nuclear power, 15% from renewa­ble ener­gies. Of that 15%, the lar­ge­st con­tri­bu­tor was hydro­po­wer, fol­lo­wed by wind, then solar, bio­mass and geo­ther­mal. Given that that 65% of elec­tri­ci­ty gene­ra­ted by both natu­ral gas and coal will have to go down to 0% and renewa­bles will have, then, to pick up the slack, let us try and under­stand what both past and futu­re for each of the sour­ces of renewa­ble ener­gy look like. It is also worth men­tio­ning that the next tar­get for renewa­ble ener­gy is to be 20% of total elec­tri­ci­ty gene­ra­ted by 2020.

petrolio-eolico-corbis-258

Hydro­po­wer, as sta­ted, is the most suc­ces­sful of all renewa­ble ener­gies, with a capa­ci­ty of more than 100 GW. 1 GW, as a refe­ren­ce, is the same power that 1.3 mil­lion hor­ses or 4.6 mil­lion ave­ra­ge-sized solar panels can gene­ra­te. For as suc­ces­sful as hydro­po­wer is, this capa­ci­ty hasn’t increa­sed much in the last 15 years. Much of this hydro­po­wer is loca­ted on the West Coa­st, with the sta­tes of Washing­ton, Ore­gon and Cali­for­nia top­ping, respec­ti­ve­ly in this order, the list. Under the sce­na­rio put forth by the Depart­ment of Ener­gy, capa­ci­ty could increa­se by 50% by 2050, with invest­men­ts total­ling a solid 148 bil­lion dol­lars, savings from glo­bal dama­ges gene­ra­ted by gree­n­hou­se gases to a whop­ping 209 bil­lion dol­lars and fur­ther savings to 58 bil­lion from redu­ced mor­ta­li­ty and mor­bi­di­ty. With such invest­men­ts more than 35 mil­lion Ame­ri­can homes would be ser­ved by hydro­po­wer. Of this new 50 GW capa­ci­ty, 13 would come from new hydro­po­wer gene­ra­tion capa­ci­ty (adding power to exi­sting dams and canals and upgra­des to exi­sting plan­ts) and 36 from new pum­ped storage.

Next on the list, is wind power, with a capa­ci­ty of lit­tle more than 80 GW, gene­ra­ted by more than 52.000 wind tur­bi­nes ope­ra­ting in 40 sta­tes. Capa­ci­ty has dou­bled in the last 5 years, and had dou­bled in less than 3 years befo­re 2011. The lar­ge­st pro­du­cers, after this capa­ci­ty dou­bling, are now Texas, Iowa and Cali­for­nia, with Texas alo­ne gene­ra­ting more than ¼ of the total amount. Both the fir­st and second lar­ge­st wind farms are loca­ted in the Uni­ted Sta­tes. Other 10 GW are under con­struc­tion and 8 in advan­ced deve­lo­p­ment and they all should be rea­dy soon enou­gh. The upward trend is unde­nia­ble as it is explo­si­ve, con­si­de­ring that wind power capa­ci­ty is expec­ted to dou­ble again by 2022 bypas­sing hydro­po­wer, who­se recent expan­sion has been, as alrea­dy said, very limi­ted. This expan­sion will have posi­ti­ve effec­ts also on the ever-more-urgent reduc­tion of gree­n­hou­se gases emit­ted into the atmo­sphe­re: each new tur­bi­ne built redu­ces year­ly CO2 emis­sions by 4300 metric tons, appro­xi­ma­te­ly the same mount gene­ra­ted by 900 cars. In the year that just pas­sed, wind power allo­wed a reduc­tion of power sec­tor CO2 emis­sions of 9%, rou­ghly equi­va­lent to 34 mil­lion cars. Wind, thou­gh, it’s not the only renewa­ble ener­gy sour­ce who­se pro­spec­ts are rosy.

Solar power has even rosier pro­spec­ts than wind, as a mat­ter of fact.
As of 2016, solar capa­ci­ty is more than 40 GW, a num­ber rea­ched after a dou­bling of capa­ci­ty in the last year. If Texas was king in wind power, then Cali­for­nia is in solar, gene­ra­ting more than 17 GW in 2016. Far and away, at second and third pla­ce respec­ti­ve­ly, an unex­pec­ted North Caro­li­na and Ari­zo­na. In 2017, 13.2 GW of new capa­ci­ty are to be added and capa­ci­ty is expec­ted to tri­ple by 2022 and increa­se
ten­fold by 2040, always accor­ding to the Depart­ment Of Ener­gy. Much of this increa­se will come thanks to fur­ther deploy­ment of pho­to­vol­taics rather ther­mal power, as the lat­ter still strug­gles to expand its share of the market.

Lastly, both bio­mass and geo­ther­mal powers are expec­ted to remain rela­ti­ve­ly insi­gni­fi­cant as share of total pro­duc­tion. The capa­ci­ty of the lat­ter amoun­ts to only 4 GW and much of it it’s loca­ted, again, in Cali­for­nia. The dif­fi­cul­ty in tap­ping into geo­ther­mal ener­gy lies in the fact that geo­ther­mal works more like oil and gas rather than wind and solar: geo­ther­mal resour­ces need to be disco­ve­red, dril­led for and extrac­ted. Whi­le tech­no­lo­gi­cal advan­ces in the­se prac­ti­ces are making it chea­per to tap into geo­ther­mal, they are also making it chea­per to tap into oil, some­thing pro­ble­ma­tic in and of itself, obviously.

The million dollar question is always the same one: can we transition to a zero emissions economy in time to avoid wrecking the planet?

From a prac­ti­cal stand­point, renewa­ble ener­gy poten­tial is immen­se: if one were to cover the enti­re Saha­ra in solar panels, the esti­ma­ted power gene­ra­ted would be clo­se to 750 TW when, at any given second, the Earth is con­su­ming 13.5 TW.
Recen­tly, solar power, in at lea­st some parts of the world, has beco­me chea­per than gas in pro­du­cing a KW/h. On a more natio­nal note, avai­la­ble wind resour­ces in 12 Roc­ky Moun­tains and Mid­we­stern sta­tes is 2.5 times lar­ger than the cur­rent pro­duc­tion of elec­tri­ci­ty and cove­ring one per­cent of the natio­nal area in solar panels could gene­ra­te tri­ple the amount of power that wind resour­ces can generate.

As it is often the case, the suc­cess in the tran­si­tion will depend on poli­tics: with a for­ce­ful poli­ti­cal will, that would take the form of a rerou­ting of the waste in govern­ment expen­di­tu­res (which amount to more than 4 tril­lion dol­lars) and a sim­pli­fi­ca­tion of the pro­ce­du­res for set­ting up such power plan­ts in order to attract pri­va­te resour­ces toward wise invest­men­ts in hydro, wind and solar powers, the Uni­ted Sta­tes will suc­ceed. Not only that: the Uni­ted Sta­tes would lead the effort in tac­kling this chal­len­ge at a pivo­tal moment in the histo­ry of man­kind. Should we not suc­ceed, our fai­lu­re in this tran­si­tion will be our last.

Con­di­vi­di:
Marco Canal
Aspi­ran­te eco­no­mi­sta, let­to­re, aman­te dei dibat­ti­ti intel­let­tua­li e gin&tonic, alpi­ni­sta, film il pane, viag­gio il vino e i Pink Floyd come reli­gio­ne. Pec­ca di insa­zia­bi­le curio­si­tà, bat­tu­ta faci­le, smo­da­ta ambi­zio­ne e deci­sio­ne. Alea iac­ta est.

Commenta per primo

Lascia un commento

L'indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.