I might as well get this controversial issue out of the way, as it's a bit boring but will have a large impact in America in the future. What's this so controversial issue? It happens to be the
Renewable Portfolio Standards set by each state and regulated by the federal government. [
1] Now, many of you may be thinking that this issue isn't controversial at all, but those within the power industry may disagree.
I actually really like this regulation from an environmental standpoint as renewable energy is clearly the way of power generation of the future (If done properly). With finite resources such as oil, gas, and coal, that are typically used to generate electricity, at peak or past peak levels another power generation method must rise to meet the increased demand (Nuclear could step-up to the task, but that's for another time). After taking classes from two well respected professors at Mines in the power department (
Ammerman, P.K. Sen), I have come to the conclusion that these standards are perhaps unrealistic.
It seems pretty reasonable when you look at it initially, examining colorado alone it only asks that 30% of renewable energy take care of the power demand by 2020. Let's look at energy production by source though.
As you can see from the chart in 2009, about 10% of the US electricity was supplied by renewable energy sources, and that's including hydro. I'd like to point out that hydro consists of much of that, and most renewable energy is moving away from hydro because of other externalities and start-up costs associated with hydroelectric. So basically, take the 4% of other renewable energy sources and apply that to the state level of Colorado. Heck let's be liberal here and say 8% in Colorado(actual amount anyone?) is from other renewable sources and that level of production is supposed to increase by 3 times that amount in the next 9 years. Yeah... not gonna happen!
I totally agree. I guess we just need to drill baby drill!! This is necessary in an attempt to suffice the energy use in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to see this post. I do agree that renewable energy sources have their place, but they must be aware of their limitations. Your point about hydro-electric power is a good one as well. Hydro is basically maxed out here in the U.S. as the dams have been built in all the feasible places for efficient production of hydro power. The fact is that we just have already reached our potential there. The most they could do is continue to make the hydro plants more efficient, but this will only result in small gains. And like you were saying, hydro is the biggest renewable energy source on the grid right now. You are 100% right in saying the goal of 30% by 2020 is not feasible.
ReplyDeleteI also am somewhat skeptical of such goals. Yet I've been talking with folks at Xcel, and they are gearing up to meet it--they've made fairly impressive strides in recent years (according to them) and are aiming for the 30.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it's not usually effective to mandate innovation--we'll probably hit an innovation ceiling at some point, particularly if the economy continues to stagnate. But nobody can deny that states like Colorado have made strides because of this legislation. How long that will last, and at what cost, is a different matter.
Great post.