From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:43 PST
Subject: --Studies Wrong on Emissions
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601913:000:6305
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Nov 16 05:43:00 1992


/* Written  5:34 am  Nov 16, 1992 by tgray@igc.apc.org in igc:en.energy */
RADER, HAMRIN TAKE ISSUE WITH
STUDIES DISMISSING RENEWABLES
 
Contrary to the findings of two widely-publicized studies,
renewable energy sources such as wind may have a significant role
to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to two
renewable energy experts.
 
Writing in a recent issue of The Electricity Journal, Nancy Rader
and Jan Hamrin of the San Francisco-based energy consulting firm of
Hansen, McQuat, Hamrin and Rohde, Inc., said the two studies -- one
by Congress's Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) and the other
by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) -- "[generally fail] to
reevaluate renewables based on recent evidence . . .
 
"Over the last decade, advances in technology have reduced the
costs of solar and wind electricity by 60 percent to 75 percent and
increased reliability to the point where these resources, along
with biomass, can now compete with conventional electric plants in
some markets, especially those in which environmental benefits are
considered.
 
"These resources must be accurately valued to optimize carbon
dioxide (CO2) reduction strategies."
 
Among criticisms leveled by Rader and Hamrin at the studies are the
following:
 
o    The strongest CO2 reduction strategy in the OTA study,
     Changing by Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases, calls
     for only 22,000 MW of non-fossil electric generating capacity
     to be installed by the year 2015.  Even if all of this new
     capacity were to come from renewables (and none from nuclear
     power), it is quite modest in scale, amounting to only four
     times what the state of California alone achieved with
     renewables during the 1980s.
 
o    "[N]either the OTA or NAS accepted or even adequately reported
     the recent conclusions of a comprehensive government report on
     the potential of renewable energy."  That report, developed by
     five national laboratories as part of the Bush
     Administration's National Energy Strategy deliberations, found
     that renewable energy sources could provide about 20 percent
     of U.S. energy demand by the year 2015, a level which would
     require that renewables be brought on line roughly four times
     as fast as the OTA study projects.
 
o    The maximum carbon dioxide reductions in both the OTA study
     (29 percent from current levels) and the NAS report (a range
     of 10 percent to 40 percent) fall well short of the level of
     60 percent or more considered necessary by the United Nations
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to stabilize
     the Earth's atmosphere.
 
o    The NAS methodology lumps each resource into a block of energy
     available at a single price (for wind, 9.5 cents/kWh).  This
     ignores the fact that wind energy is available at some sites
     today at considerably lower prices.  [ed. note:  The Utility
     Wind Interest Group, a group of utilities working with the
     U.S. Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research
     Institute to promote greater awareness of wind energy, has
     concluded that wind energy is currently available at 7.5
     cents/kWh on average, using standard utility power plant cost
     assumptions.]
 
 
o    OTA's methodology also assumes that renewable energy "is
     almost always . . . a more expensive option than [other
     options such as energy efficiency, natural gas, and nuclear
     power]."  Yet an investigation in detail suggests that this
     assumption is unsound:
 
     *    OTA's projections for energy efficiency gains are "vastly
          in excess of what has been achieved in the past."
 
     *    The levels it proposes for natural gas supply may well
          lead to a supply "crunch" and a dramatic rise in gas
          prices.
 
     *    OTA argues that nuclear plants can achieve an average
          capacity factor of 70 percent, even though some 20
          nuclear reactors had lifetime capacity factors of
          approximately 50 percent or below as of the end of 1988.
 
     If OTA's estimates do not materialize, the need for new
     energy, presumably from renewables, would increase sharply.
 
o    If a national carbon tax is imposed on fossil fuels, as OTA,
     NAS, and other policy analysts have recommended, renewable
     energy sources would be favored along with nuclear power and
     energy efficiency.

"Why OTA and NAS chose to cast such a bleak shadow over renewables
is curious," Rader and Hamrin concluded.  "Dismissing the potential
of renewables might have been defensible a decade ago because of a
lack of data and experience.  But that excuse is not valid today:
many renewable technologies have achieved excellent technical,
economic and operational records since 1978.
 
"A more accurate assessment -- one which does more than recycle
preconceived notions of the past -- must be expected from studies
of this consequence.  Analyses which fairly evaluate all resources
would provide more meaningful information to Congress about the
full slate of options available to the country for meeting
greenhouse gas reduction goals."
 
The article, entitled "The Role of Renewable Energy in Global
Warming Mitigation -- a Critique of Trusted Assessments," is
adapted from a more extensive report available from the authors.
 
===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org            UUCP: uunet!cdp!tgray