Energy Here, Energy Now – Sean Sullivan
ENERGY HERE, ENERGY NOW:
Hydroelectric and Biomass, Limited Parts of the Answer
By Sean Sullivan
The next generation of power sources in this country must be carbon free. Hydroelectric meets this criterion, but its potential is limited. Biomass is carbon neutral because growing plants remove the same amount of carbon from the air as is produced when burning plant-based fuels. However, current production methods of biomass fuels are energy intensive. These energy sources will play important roles in the diversification of a national carbon-free energy portfolio, but by themselves they are not likely to meet our growing energy needs.
Water power drove our first industries. Connecticut’s many rivers powered the mills that powered our economy. Today, 39 hydroelectric plants continue to generate about 150 MW of clean, renewable power. However, that amount represents only two percent of Connecticut’s electricity needs. While there is some room for growth, there simply is not enough in our rivers to power Connecticut’s modern economy.
Moreover, harvesting additional hydropower requires a delicate balance between power generation and protection of the rivers and watershed areas so important to our environment. The same holds true when considering the potential use of ocean tides and currents for power generation. In Connecticut, a large-scale hydro project would require use of a large water source such as the Connecticut River or Long Island Sound. A dam across these waterways has obvious impacts on the environment and on boating. The impacts are such that use of our large waterways is impractical. Expanded hydropower in Connecticut will therefore involve only small new projects and upgrades to existing ones, meaning the total contribution to our electricity portfolio will remain small.
Biomass refers to the use of a plant to create energy. Wood can be burned directly, but trees take many years to grow. Biomass efforts have therefore concentrated on a crop or weed that is harvested annually and distilled into fuel. However, these efforts have produced fuels that return little when compared to the energy used to make them. For example, ethanol production consumes about 1 unit of energy for every 1.3 units produced. That means that when thirteen gallons of fuel are made, ten gallons must be set aside to produce the next batch and only three gallons are available to supply our energy needs. Absent a technology breakthrough, the energy-intensive production methods of biomass limit their potential as replacements for fossil fuels.
The limits on hydroelectric, biomass, solar and wind currently prevent these alternatives from replacing fossil fuels. They account for only three percent of our nation’s energy needs, and almost all of that is from hydropower.
A breakthrough in technology is always possible, but never certain. It makes sense to invest in technologies that may lead to a breakthrough. However, it would be dangerous to go down a path that relies on a technological breakthrough. Our energy independence is too important to our national security and our economy, and global warming too much a threat to our environment, to place our future in the hands of scientists and engineers on the hope that they will someday be able to do that which is not possible today.
John Kennedy once inspired this nation to send a man to the moon within a decade, and we did just that. However, the space race was viewed as the latest front in a national security battle with the Soviets. Prudently, President Kennedy continued to fund conventional armed forces as he invested in new frontiers. With energy, we must do the same. Invest in alternatives and tackle the challenges head-on, but continue to pursue what we know works.
3 Comments
Leave a Response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There have been some significant advancements in solar this year, in storage, heating efficiency, and application. I’m convinced a combination of solar and thermodepolymerization are the long term solutions.
I appreciate your philosophy here. My opinion is that any energy strategy which suggests a silver bullet solution really does not merit serious consideration.
It should be noted, though, that not all biofuels are the same. Typical biodiesel production yields 3.2 units of energy for every unit of input. This is clearly worth pursuing, especially considering that even the most accessible fossil fuels have a NEGATIVE return in comparison. (http://www.mda.state.mn.us/renewable/renewablefuels/balance.htm).
Hydro is pretty well tapped out in this region. Also, although hydroelectric generation is quite clean, flooding large tracts of land for a reservoir creates a significant amount of methane gas while the plants decompose. This may or may not be offset over the life of the plant, depending on how much fossil fuels are displaced. Run-of-the-mill hydro plants do not suffer this side-effect, but they are generally too small to have much overall impact.
There is a large potential for developing wind energy, even in CT, and this will inevitably be a component of our future energy portfolio. Not 100% or 50%, but probably a significant portion. This is one of the few renewable energy sources that is cost competitive with fossil fuels.
You are generally correct that we can’t simply replace our “growing energy needs”. Even increased fossil fuel drilling (such as offshore or ANWR) will not make the a dent on the supply side of the equation — the supplies are too small to make much difference and will take decades to exploit. Facing these issues, it is pretty clear that reducing demand is the only feasible long-term solution (unless solar power gets really cheap really quick, which it might). We need to slow and reverse our energy demand. This does not mean we have to halt progress by any means. Many fully-developed countries with similar needs are just as successful using half as much energy as Americans use. There is much room for improvement in this area. It will take time and involve technological advances, behavioral changes and institutional changes, but many others do it so we can too.
I disagree a Manhattan project is needed. First historically speaking the Manhattan project was a government project and making a very government centric product, namely a bomb.
Energy is not a exclusive government product.
The stakes are so huge and the problem so immense and the returns so wildly beyond all imagination, the private sector will amass the capital and resources needed to pull off the energy revolution. That fact they have not, merely means there is no identified magic bullet at this time, hence I suspect the calls for a government based solution a Manhattan Project with the government based investments.
To me there is but one solution, Nuclear Power. We need the intestinal fortitude to call out the wackos. The problem is not one of technology, nor one of capital but a political one.