Scientific American article

Scientific American has an article in the Nov 2009 issue entitled, "A path to sustainable energy by 2030." My question: is a sustainable energy future realistic? I hear so much ho-hum, and I'm tired of talking without action, debating of whether the science--or global warming for that matter--is real. My belief is that Americans, but not just Americans, are wasteful consumers. I flipped on the TV show, Extreme Homemakover, and though I admire the work that the show does for families in need, I happened to flip to the part when they installed a flat screen TV in a renovated home. It could have been 32in. It just reminded me that when Americans think of a better life, we think of having bigger cars and fancy things. Better lifestyles consume more energy. NPR reported that a dazzling flat screen tv can lead to greenhouse gas emissions anywhere up to a half-ton of carbon. A 50 in plasma tv can consume up to 500 KW which takes 0.5 ton of carbon from a coal-fired powerplant.

Check out the stats from NPR:
"Still, your friendly neighborhood coal-burning power plant would emit a half-ton of carbon dioxide every year to keep this one TV on for five hours a day — and that's in energy-saving mode. For comparison, the 32-inch LCD in its brightest setting pulled about 115 watts. That's the equivalent of about two incandescent light bulbs or nine or 10 compact fluorescent lights."
I'm not trying to tell anyone to stop buying flat screens. My main concern is if everyone in American wants to advance him/herself and have a better salary, a better life, how can our future be sustainable if a better life demands more of the resources that are already limited. Americans don't make smart choices. We retrofit a house for a needy family with glitzy televisions that then increases their electric bills. We have to make smarter, sustainable choices. Does everyone really need an energy-guzzling TV to enjoy shows or movies?

If it has come across that I am pointing the finger to everyone else, I apologize, for I am a culprit of the crimes I have identified. My dreams include eventually having a moderately-sized home, traveling (god, airline emissions will bust my carbon footprint), and taking long hot showers which consumes energy and water.

So, are we on a path to achieve sustainable energy by 2030 as the article says? The author's plan calls for 3.8M large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and more renewables including geothermal, tidal, and rooftop PV installations. How much energy does the U.S. currently consume and will consume?

The avg U.S. home in 2007 consumed 936 Kwh or a ~1MWh to simplify. In 2008 according to EIA, 46% of the energy consumed in the U.S. (based on 2008 generation by source data) came from coal, 22% from natural gas, 20% from nuclear, 6% from hydro, and the remaining 6% came from a combination of other renewables (including solar, wind, municipal solid wastes, etc.). Barely 1% of our 2008 electric generation came from petroleum liquids (distillate fuel oil, etc.) most likely due to high oil prices.

Is Al Gore's goal of having 100% carbon free electricity in 10 yrs realistic--and itself sustainable--if since 1995, coal generation has provided 50% of America's electricity. We want the carbon-free electricity that currently provides ~1/4 of our electricity to become 100%?

The article presents the following arguments:

• renewables cost centers/KWh (production cost + transmission) is about the same as that of coal fired generation. Total overal construction costs for WWS system is ~$5trillion/yr for 20 yrs ($100T total) worldwide (excluding transmission).

I think the drawback of this story is that it mentions the challenge of the intermittency of wind and solar but does not delve into it nor present a chart. Saying the cost of renewable is on par with coal when the U.S. lacks the smart grid and transmission to move generation from where the wind blows to where it is needed is a deficit to this story. I think this story would have been strengthened if it didn't bury these issues but graphically and more clearly addressed them. Instead, it spends a page on saying that the lack of materials, such as lithium for electric car batteris and concrete and steel for wind turbines, could hinder the development of renewables. Yes, and the fact that if you build and generate, our grid is not sufficient, in its current state, to move the power.

I support renewables and a sustainable future. I commend Mark Jacobson (a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford) and Mark Delucchi (research scientist at Institute of Transportation studies at Univ of California, Davis) for recommending a plan. It is better than all of us who harp but do not have a plan. But I think the article needs to present all the potential hinderances to renewable development, not giving the impressing that renewable energy costs could easily be on par with the costs of coal generation. I think the article addresses the political and material obstacles, but not the financial obstacles fully. What is the total cost worldwide including tranmission? The cost to move the power from where the wind blows and the sun shines should be incorporated in the cost to generate renewables. Until that has happened, renewable costs are not going to be economic.