[this one is funny~cr]
New Berkeley Lab study reviews progress towards a carbon-free power sector
DOE/LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY
Concerns about climate change are driving a growing number of states, utilities, and corporations to set the goal of zeroing out power-sector carbon emissions. To date 17 states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have adopted laws or executive orders to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity in the next couple of decades. Additionally, 46 U.S. utilities have pledged to go carbon free no later than 2050. Altogether, these goals cover about half of the U.S. population and economy.
These are ambitious targets, but a new look at the past 15 years in the electricity sector shows that large reductions in emissions are possible.
New research from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) analyzes historical trends to examine how much progress the power sector has already made in reducing emissions. The study, “Halfway to Zero: Progress towards a Carbon-Free Power Sector,” looks back at the 2005 Annual Energy Outlook from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. government’s official agency for data collection and analysis.
“Business-as-usual projections saw annual carbon dioxide emissions rising from 2,400 to 3,000 million metric tons (MMT) from 2005 to 2020,” said Berkeley Lab scientist Ryan Wiser, lead author of the study. “But actual 2020 emissions fell to only 1,450 MMT. The U.S. cut power sector emissions by 52% below projected levels – we are now ‘halfway to zero.'”
According to the study, relative to projected values, total consumer electricity costs were 18% lower; costs to human health and the climate were 92% and 52% lower, respectively; and the number of jobs in electricity generation was 29% higher.
Drivers of change
From technological advances to policy, the study identified the main drivers from the last 15 years that contributed to lower carbon emissions in the U.S. power sector. Total demand for electricity was almost exactly the same in 2020 as it was in 2005, and was 24% lower than projected fifteen years earlier. “This drop in demand was due in part to sectoral and economic changes, but also to greater energy efficiency driven by policies and technology advancement,” said Wiser.
The researchers found that wind and solar power dramatically outperformed expectations, delivering 13 times more generation in 2020 than projected. This is also a result of technology development and state and federal policies, as prices plummeted for new wind and solar technologies. In addition, nuclear generation has largely held steady, tracking the past projections and helping to ensure no backsliding in carbon emission.
The study found that switching from coal to natural gas for power generation played a big role in lowering carbon emissions. Natural gas generation grew rapidly, driven by the shale gas revolution and low fuel prices.
The researchers also found that changes over the last 15 years had numerous other economic and environmental benefits. For example, total electric bills for consumers were 18% lower in 2020 than previously projected by EIA, for a total savings of $86 billion per year.
According to the study, reduced sulfur and nitrogen emissions led to lower health impacts, such as respiratory disease, with premature deaths falling from 38,000 to 3,100 per year. “Compared to the business-as-usual projection, not only did the nation significantly reduce its carbon footprint, but it did so while also reducing total energy bills and health burdens,” said co-author and Berkeley Lab scientist Dev Millstein.
The study also found that while employment patterns shifted along with changes in the power sector, electricity supply is supporting 200,000 more jobs than might have been the case under the earlier projection.
Looking forward
While a look back shows that dramatic changes in emissions are possible over a 15-year span, the study points out that this does not guarantee the next 15 years will see similar progress.
Given advancements in wind, solar, and battery technologies, these resources are likely to play important near-term roles in further power-sector decarbonization. According to the study, a large share of the capacity needed to approach a zero-carbon power-sector target is already in the development pipeline: about 660 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar have requested transmission access, more than half of what might be required to approach a zero-carbon power-sector target. Not all proposed projects will be built, but the scale indicates interest in development.
Wiser points out there are significant infrastructure requirements related to scaling up renewable energy. The power sector will have to ensure electricity delivery, reliability, and resilience; build new transmission infrastructure; change planning and grid operations; revise siting processes; and focus attention on impacted workers and communities.
Another major challenge is how to meet the last portion of demand, to ensure a reliable power supply when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. The study concludes that further research, development, and demonstration is needed for the numerous technologies that can fill this gap, such as longer-duration energy storage, hydrogen or synthetic fuels, bioenergy, fossil or biomass generation with carbon capture, nuclear energy, geothermal energy, and solar-thermal with storage.
“As the country maps out a plan for further decarbonization, experience from the past 15 years offers two central lessons,” said Wiser. “First, policy and technology advancement are imperative to achieving significant emissions reductions. Second, our ability to predict the future is limited, and so it will be crucial to adapt as we gain policy experience and as technologies advance in unexpected ways.”
###
-By Kiran Julin
Funding for this research was provided by the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest scientific challenges are best addressed by teams, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and its scientists have been recognized with 14 Nobel Prizes. Today, Berkeley Lab researchers develop sustainable energy and environmental solutions, create useful new materials, advance the frontiers of computing, and probe the mysteries of life, matter, and the universe. Scientists from around the world rely on the Lab’s facilities for their own discovery science. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory, managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
Well, the obvious challenge: “According to the study, reduced sulfur and nitrogen emissions led to lower health impacts, such as respiratory disease, with premature deaths falling from 38,000 to 3,100 per year.”. That sounds far too good to be true…
Yup, looking at the numbers, it looks like they rolled those deaths they blamed (without cause, by the bye) on pollution to COVID. Just another fair tale.
It seems to agree with their graphic which shows “Health Damages” (sic) down 92% compared with their projections (not compared with reality).
If you’re being charitable, you would call their numbers a calculation. Maybe we could call them expert estimates by non-experts. I think they are more realistically called wild ass guesses. I note that in Australia the wild ass is considered to be a pest.
“with premature deaths falling from 38,000 to 3,100 per year”
Do I know any of these 3,100 people that died last year as a direct result of “respiratory disease” caused by “sulfur and nitrogen emissions”?
Is there a list of the names of these 3,100 people that died?
Did any of those 3,100 people vote in the last election?
Some cynical people would tell you that, instead of dying of pollution caused diseases, those 35,000 people died of the wuflu instead.
I wonder if the CCP would stop doing away with Uighurs, then there might be some premature death credits available.
I talked to an CDC man years ago and he told me that they basically came up with death attributions over coffee and doughnuts and just made stuff up. “Hey Joe, how many deaths do think are caused by the lint given off by kleenex every year?” “Oh, maybe, 1 in 500,000.” Then, he whips out his calculator, runs the US population and the world population and, boom, that day one of them writes it up.
It’s like the second-hand smoke attribution, as there is no way that it could be quantitated with all the myriad of factors in homes. There was even noise about third-hand smoke. How many kids die because they are exposed to the smoke on their father’s clothes when he comes home from a bar? It’s simply not that lethal or man would have never made it out of the caves with fire.
I claim fourth-hand smoke. How many kids die every year because one of their parent “thought” of having a smoke? Yeah, science.
Actually, the problem with second hand smoke is that the studies often quoted depend on self-reported data about exposure to cigarette smoke. Critics have rightfully suspected the accuracy of such data, but a WHO study a couple of decades ago tried to resolve that by having people wear actual sensors and report their exposure. They did this because they assumed that people regularly under reported their amount of exposure to second hand cigarette smoke. However this study showed just the opposite: people over reported their exposure amounts by 100-200%, casting a significant amount of doubt on previous studies. They promptly buried this study and refused to acknowledge it’s importance, but as far as I know, the results have never been validly refuted.
Isn’t it odd how politically inconvenient studies always end up being vanished instead of retracted?
Check out the SO2 from the volcano on St. Vincent. (click on SO2 just below O3)
https://www.windy.com/-Show—add-more-layers/overlays?tcso2,18.771,-31.641,4,i:temp,aod550
Too good to be “sustainable”, they need more premature deaths than that to keep people scared.
That’s the easiest half.
Yep.
You’d think folks at Berkeley Lab would understand exponential math.
But then the Liberal creed is, If we aren’t lyin’, we aren’t tryin’.
The low hanging fruit was largely accomplished by cheap natural gas from fracking… since they are shutting that down doesn’t that mean we’re headed in the wrong direction again?
They compare the actual outcomes to their projections. So, are there 29% more power sector jobs? Who knows. There are 29% more power sector jobs than they projected.
I wonder why they didn’t present this in terms of labour costs, which must be passed on to consumers, being 29% higher than projected?
“According to the study, relative to projected values, total consumer electricity costs were 18% lower …”
‘Projected’? Predicted, guesstimated, crystal balled, goat entrails, computer model?
If I’m offending the authors of this ‘study’, though luck – it’s just a load of codswallop.
Where to start with this propaganda? Comparing actual to projected says nothing about actual trends in real quantitative terms. I could project 10x as much and claim a 1000% decrease. Renewables are touted, yet only in percentages. 10x nothing = nothing. What are “carbon damages?” Says who? How about carbon benefits? The same can be said of health damages. Show us the bodies. Renewables prices “plummeted?” As repeated numerous times here at WUWT, that is complete fiction, despite anything they Griffey might try to lie about.
more efficient lighting, TVs, monitors, computers, IR switched exterior lighting, etc. has a lot to do with the reduced demand
though I still have my old plasma TV burning up to 300 watts, it keeps on going and going… all the scares about burn-thru, pixels going out and intensity fading 50% every 10 years was a bunch of hooey
Funny
electricity demand is 24% less than projected, while cost paid is “only” up 18% leading to “savings”.
Such clear fudging should get such a study cancelled before release
What these Berkeley Lab idiots fail to acknowledge is ignorant Demorat pols in places like California and New York, where they’ve adopted ‘net zero’ goals, they are heavily dependent on imported power. SoCal depends heavily on imported power from Arizona. When the sunsets, (no solar PV) and A/Cs still have to run, SoCal is consuming large amounts of Arizona power made from nat gas, and nuclear. Cal’s situation will become dire if they proceed to shutting down Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant and the other Natural gas palnts set to close in the next 4 years.
New York and the entire New England-NorthEast grid is heavily dependent on powers imports from HydroQuebec. A lot of that is emissions free, but expensive electricity for hydro so that HydroQuebec and get some return on their investment. Ultimately, if Canada under ignorant Trudeau continues on its net zero goals will need that Hydro power for Canadiens. Then what? New York and the NorthEast aren’t permitting the power lines and gas pipelines that take a decade to permit and put into operation. So when the crunch hits, it’ll be rolling blackouts.
Simply shifitng emissions to other regions and then claiming the reduction is the same as what is happening as we’ve off-shored manufacturing to high emissions areas like China.
How long does that continue before the people revolt at the ignorant Democrat politicians driving this madness?
Washington state has a history of sacrificing its lakes to keep the lights on for California:
https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2001/03-13/0043_lake_cushman__showing_more_shore.html
Washington State Go
Washington State Gov Locke, California Gov Greyout Davis, and POTUS Clinton should all have served prison time for public endangerment.
East of the Cascades it gets cold in the winter. Without power people will die. Coal saved the day but just barely.
Mild climate Seattle residents think the one coal, the one nuke, and the dams on the Snake River should be shut down.
green Quebec hydro power destroyed Native American land and culture . but it is green .
Baloney. In return they got housing, water, power, essentially free travel internally and to cities, and money to invest. Some of the Cree did invest and are doing fine. Lots of the rest are spending the money for designer jeans. Been up north and seen it.
If you tell a big enough lie for a long time, people just assume it must be true as it goes unchallenged by “consensus science”. Why they picked CO2 is beyond me, because it is an essential trace gas in the atmosphere and most of its trace heat retardation magic is in the first 20-30 ppmv. No matter its concentration and even if it doubles from 280 ppmv to 560 ppmv by the end of the century, it is still a trace invisible atmospheric gas which is mostly beneficial to the greening of the good Earth.
“Why they picked CO2 is beyond me”
I don’t think they did actually pick it. It was an unproven conjecture (Arrhenius, 1896) and there could have been some truth to it. Now, of course, we know it not to be true, so it is indeed a big lie. They can still milk it though. In their world, it’s probably better than having a useful profession which, of course they would be useless at, given the fact that they are useless in general.
I’m always impressed by what those early scientists could accomplish without the aid of computing and other modern tools.
Arrhenius believed carbonic acid addition to the atmosphere to be beneficial. He also determined Earth’s temperature to be 15 C, about the same as today.
I think “they” picked CO2 and made it the scapegoat for all things climate and weather, because most people have a rough idea what CO2 is — even people who didn’t take high school chemistry.
A lot of the conjecture alluded to in this article is hokum, starting with the graph at the top measuring the differences between “projected” and “actual.” Projections are little more than educated guesses, and are often wrong, so it doesn’t prove much when projections don’t happen.
Projections, guesses, and conjecture about “carbon-free” power, “carbon-free” lifestyles or carbon-free anything else, are pure hokum. Carbon is an element necessary for all life, in carbon dioxide, in the tissues of plants and animals, the carbonates that form seashells & eggshells, the limestone needed for concrete, and on and on.
The climate worriers are peddling the notion that carbon is poison. They’re also peddling the notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the control knob for climate, and that higher CO2 levels are invariably deadly. NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE.
But no matter. It’s easier to build “science” careers on doomsday prophecies than on actual science with all its complexities and uncertainties — especially to a public operating at the intellectual level of 12 year-olds scaring each other with ghost stories.
I can’t even understand what the point of making up this sh!t is. Are their annual evaluations due? Are the demo-rats paying them to tell the dupes what good little boys and girls they’ve been?
So China did not move to become the “factory for the world” after all and the Made in China label on all the goods we buy has no impact. Someone sneak in a note of thanks to the forced labor compounds of western China. The new catch phrase for the climate crusades should be “hear no evil, see no evil”.
FWIW, Texas’ ERCOT issued out an emergency Tuesday (14th):
“Due to a combination of high gen outages typical in April & higher-than-forecasted demand caused by a stalled cold front over TX, ERCOT may enter emergency conditions. “
The “stalled cold front” threw temperatures in some regions of Texas into “open window weather” levels, while much of Texas was still running air-conditioners. If ERCOT can’t even operate a system with bone chilling 50s and 60s putting the system in chaos, perhaps the use of unreliables should be reconsidered.
AWG-
You obviously weren’t in Texas during Valentines week. I was.
We chastise the warmistas for lying. It doesn’t help to lie for the skeptics cause. It was damn cold (and by that I mean into single digits, F.) all over Texas, except for El Paso, until Friday.
AWG wasn’t talking about February, he was talking about this week.
As always, the devil is in the details.
They mention that demand is 24% less than “projected”. A reduction in demand can result from more efficient machinery that consumes less electricity for the same work done, or switching from electric power to some other energy source (which reduces electricity demand but does not reduce emissions!). Also, the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs (much less power consumption for the same light output) also contributed to a reduction in demand.
They mention that nuclear power is 20% of total generation. How many new nuclear power plants were built in the USA since 2005? Not many, but the existing nuclear power plants may be producing a larger share of a smaller total generation rate, due to decreasing demand. Nuclear power plants SHOULD be built to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but no one should pat themselves on the back for doing nothing for the past 16 years.
Increasing power generation from natural gas by 112% does contribute to a reduction in emissions, because a gas-fired power plant emits about half the CO2 as a coal-fired power plant for the same power produced. If new gas-fired power plants can result in coal-fired plants being shut down, this does reduce total CO2 emissions. Where did all this natural gas come from since 2005? Mostly from fracking in PA and OH, which dear old Uncle Joe wants to shut down.
Increasing the production from “renewables” by 79% since 2005 has much less effect that increasing the production from natural gas by 112%, since natural gas produced far more electricity in 2005 than renewables did.
Looking ahead, that 52% reduction in emissions was the easy part. Replacing coal-fired power plants by natural-gas fired plants can continue to reduce emissions, but will never get us to zero. Renewables (solar and wind) could never provide enough power by themselves, so that true “zero emissions” can really only be achieved by going nuclear. But can greenies of this country be convinced to build new nuclear power plants, when they’ve been deathly afraid of them since the (minor) Three Mile Island incident in 1979, for the past 42 years?
Trying to get to zero emissions will be further complicated if governments try to force the replacement of ICE vehicles with electric vehicles, which would increase the demand for electric power.
yep the evil fossil fuel natural gas, replacing coal, had far more impact than solar and wind combined on reducing CO2 emissions
fossil fuels are crucial to grid stability as the TX debacle proved, and NG is the only fuel that can respond to hour-by-hour shortfalls in the “green” generation, so we are always going to need them in the mix
yet the stupid pols in charge want to obstruct fracking and new exploration when it is the main thing that is reducing the CO2 emissions (their most important goal*)
* but I suspect their true goal is to make more people suffer and foolishly keep voting for them so they will keep “helping” them by doling out more checks
That does sound about right.
One half of all manufacturing jobs off-shored, with fifty percent to go! Should be a cinch to get to 100% by 2050. /s
https://www.rigzone.com/news/who_wins_if_the_usa_gulf_of_mexico_loses_out-14-apr-2021-165161-article/
“Developing coastal areas of Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, Africa, and Western Australia, as well as other countries with high resource development potential that compete with the United States for investment, “may benefit from the moratorium and the planned reduction in new Gulf of Mexico lease activity,” said Reid Morrison, PwC U.S. oil and gas advisory leader. “Investment in deepwater development capabilities will likely go to the regions that have alternate exploitation opportunities and fewer regulatory constraints.”
Still GOM oil workers in the Middle East, others may get to travel more.
The narrative is becoming obvious. High profile science like universities and national labs publishing “we can do it” “the goal is realistic” studies. It looks like a coordinated effort.
ROFL
So we’re halfway to full-on Stupid?
Yayyyy.
If the nitwits could actually make it colder, they probably would. It wouldn’t be a happy ending.
So, just more lies and crapspew from the same crapspewing liars. Got it.
The whole idea of zero emissions is just stupid^squared. Time to hold their feet to the fire and teach them some physics. There is not one piece of defensible evidence that shows that CO2 drives or even slightly warms the climate. They are all about the abuse of science and want what they want, regardless.
CO2 is PLANT FOOD and we need more not less. There is no downside to CO2, except for the political agenda they have that hates people and our lives.
Good Grief! Their 15-years-out projection was 100% over actual. Pretty lousy job of predicting. Would you buy stock from these people?
That article is based on wishful thinking by RE boozers, i.e., not based in the real world.
I am sure no energy systems analysts were consulted.
Do not forget, the world will be irrecoverably lost/dead/defunct after 2035 or 2040, according to AOC, leader of the quad-four cabal.
How can the US and the world use 25% less electricity, when an avalanche of heat pumps and EVs is just getting started?
This article sets a new low, even worse than the totally discredited Jacobson Reports
What about the HYDROGEN economy? Would that be “just around the corner”?
“According to the study, relative to projected values, total consumer electricity costs were 18% lower; costs to human health and the climate were 92% and 52% lower…and the number of jobs in electricity generation was 29% higher”
Well that’s pretty dismal considering they just made all these numbers up! I can make up much higher numbers for lower costs, lives saved, and jobs generated by the fossil fuel industry.
Does ANYONE take this cr*p seriously? Imean other then the activists who believe anything they are told…
I am convinced that the future would will use vehicles will electric drive trains. I expect some of those vehicles will increase the demand on the “power” networks. That means the “power” sector will need to grow dramatically. The story simply shows the projections were in error. Maybe not as many battery electric vehicles as they projected; not surprising.
More feel good green washing than substance. This will be the only way to accomplish the impossible goal without reverting quality of life.
Will the last real scientist please turn off the lights before you leave.
He forgot to do so when he left.
We could easily achieve 100% reduction in carbon emissions: shut down all coal and gas power plants and ban the sale of gasoline and diesel. A green dream come true!
The world needs a gas-guzzler code, which would impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.
The more below 40-mpg, the higher would be the fee.
Any vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.
“Break their will” RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.
On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:
NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile
TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt, 251 g/mile
SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile
VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt, 533 g/mile
It would take at least 20 years to build out 13,500 MW wind turbines off the coast of New England, plus large-scale solar systems to reduce the NE grid CO2/kWh by about 30%
With that much wind and solar, the NE grid would become very unstable, i.e., inoperable!!!
Grid-scale batteries, with a capacity of 3 to 4 TWh, would be required, at about $1.5 to $2 TRILLION, at $500/kWh, delivered as AC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-solar-and-battery-systems
From the article: “costs to human health and the climate were 92% and 52% lower, respectively”
What exactly is the cost to the climate?
Power bills going up for New Yorkers-
New York approves Con Edison’s proposed $800 million power line projects (msn.com)
The transmission lines to try and fix the unreliables problem will be carbon neutral no doubt.
Zero carbon emissions=great accounting trick. Or a meteor hit the earth and killed us all. I’m not sure why an accounting trick or meteor hitting the earth are laudible goals.