Dear Editor, EE Publishers
I am surprised at the negative tone expressed towards diversified energy, carbon emission caps and renewable energy by Dr Philip Lloyd in “An energy crisis or not?” (http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=22258).
Firstly, he expresses that “Diversity of energy resources is a luxury you can afford if you have enough.” But diversity is precisely what you need when you DONT have enough, to ensure that you spread the risk of betting on a single technology. The more diversity, the less risk of failure, the more you can build quickly
In terms of carbon, as the rest of the world seeks to tax carbon emissions, South Africa has two options – either to pursue the dirty energy option and become an international pariah, or commit to cleaning up its act, starting with a form of carbon tax. Morally and ethically, in the light of climate change, the first option is unpalatable.
For Renewables, he claims that “no one has yet figured out a way to produce renewable gigawatts of power on demand except by hydropower”. He neglects to mention that Concentrated Solar Power with storage can do this, not to mention that distributed wind can also act as baseload with a high level confidence. Coupling multiple Renewables together with a little pumped storage can indeed provide 100% baseload. I draw you attention to some work done by Stanford University showing how California could supply 100% of its power from Renewables (“Matching Hourly and Peak Demand by Combining Different Renewable Energy Sources, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/HosteFinalDraft.pdf). With a country as vast as ours with its abundant resources, it should be easier than for California!
But in reality, South Africa does not have a baseload problem – it has a peaking power problem. Again, CSP plants with storage would be ideal for this application, storing energy during the day and running as peaking plants on demand.
Dr Lloyd argues that we need to build coal power stations quickly, but we can roll out Renewables far faster than coal (2 years to build wind), and certainly many times faster than the other proposed alternative, Nuclear (20 years). Taking a lifecycle cost, the Renewables work out cheaper too, with less risks associated with long term fuel prices (for coal and uranium).
But the fastest way to create more capacity is by using less, and this is where Energy Efficiency could play a huge roll in South Africa. For too long our electricity has been too cheap, and we use it inefficiently. If we as a country were to drive a massive energy efficiency campaign, perhaps 100,000 jobs could be created, with a massive net boost to GDP, while alleviating for the short term any need for new power stations.
Thus it becomes quite clear that we can meet our energy needs quite quickly without reliance on coal. What is needed is the political will and foresight to see the benefits of Renewables while shunning the courtship of the current vested interests of coal and ESKOM.
Frank Spencer MSc(Eng) BPhil (Sus Dev)
1 comment:
Response from Dr Philip Lloyd:
Dear Frank
Thanks for your note. Debate always helps, and if I stir a little, it is to stimulate debate - as you do!
First, I must disagree with your love of diversity. Technologies become more robust as they are more widely applied, and that is particularly true in a single economy. I give you the example of France, which decided to go nuclear. It now has 58 reactors of essentially an identical design. A huge industry has been created to service this technology; about 230 000 jobs have been created; and the cost of bulk power in France is now the lowest in the world. "Spread the risk" you advise - minimising the risk in what you have may be a better option.
"The rest of the world seeks to tax carbon emissions." If you have been following the US debate, you will know the US ain't going that way any day soon. China isn't; India isn't. Some of the Europeans are going in that direction, but then, they have governments that desperately need new sources of revenue.
As regards our "dirty" act, consider for a moment that the average nation gets ~80% of its energy from fossil fuels, of which about one third comes from each of coal, oil and natural gas. We lack oil and natural gas, so instead of getting ~27% of our energy from coal, we get about 70%. That is the reason why we appear to be 'dirty' relative to our peers - in fact, we are providing our people with the most reliable and cheap power we can provide, and doing so from our own resources, which is a real merit in a developing nation such as our own.
Yes, I will grant you that in theory you can provide gigawatts of renewable power on demand - the problem is that no-one has so far succeeded, and until they do, it will have to remain a pipe dream. As for CSP plants, the costs (if NERSA is to be believed) are high, and I cannot figure out a way of paying for high cost power - and neither can NERSA. The question just gets passed around like a hot potato. Crack that one, and we will all thank you.
"Taking a lifecycle cost, the Renewables work out cheaper too." Really? Where? I can give you the US nuclear costs - they are the lowest of all the US sources of energy; or the French (which I have already quoted); and when I last looked, our Koeberg was at the bottom of the heap. A recent study on wind power found large turbines to be achieving a 4-year MTBF requiring a major overhaul - that knocks your lifecycle costs out of the window (http://www.ewec2010.info/fileadmin/ewec2010_files/documents/side_events/Reliability_PJT.pdf). Don't give me hypothetical costs - quote real life experience.
Yes, I entirely agree with you about energy efficiency. Eskom has been preaching it for years, with a definite modicum of success. Unfortunately even when there is energy efficiency, economic growth and energy consumption are very directly related, and we need economic growth, so that we are driven to supply more energy to meet the growing demand. The debate is how best to do that.
I admire your optimism, but, please, let it be tempered with just a touch of realism. I am sure that with persistence, renewables will find their rightful place - I am equally certain that, with 80% of the world's energy presently coming from fossil fuels, they will be with us for quite a while.
Best regards
Philip Lloyd
Post a Comment