New magnetic fusion technology could be ready in 5 years

[johnd83]

Despite the fact that nuclear fusion has been pursued as a power source since the 1950s, fusion reactors have yet to be effectively turned into a regular power source. Tokamaks, the first kind of fusion reactor attempted, generated power by using magnets to squeeze and heat plasma in a giant ring. To make it work, you need a massive donut-shaped vacuum chamber, and it can take years to go from construction to power generation. There has been something of a modern revival of fusion reactor attempts, but most designs still are tremendous undertakings, requiring the kinds of resources and infrastructure that usually only governments can provide. And such coordination efforts are difficult in the best of times and can be an impossible sell during severe financial constraints.

So in part, it's the feasibility of the new Lockheed project that makes it so compelling. Much smaller than traditional fusion attempts, the compact fusion reactor uses a cylinder, not a ring, which makes for a stronger magnetic containment field and leaves fewer points where the energy could escape. This could make for a reactor that's small enough for a truck to transport and still robust enough to generate power for 100,000 homes. Lockheed hopes to have a test model available by 2017, and scale up to regular production by 2022.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/fusion-power-could-happen-sooner-you-think

If you have a few minutes the video is worth watching. The design is based on a different geometry than the standard Tokamak reactor that allows the new design to be much smaller. In my opinion this technology has a much greater chance of replacing fossil fuels compared to current renewables due to the high cost and low energy density of current renewable technologies.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "Within five years" for the last 50 years.

[johnd83]

5. The technology has advanced a lot recently

There are now practical industrial superconductors, high efficiency RF plasma microwave generators, and advanced plasma computational simulations. The situation is much different than it was 20 years ago. Because of the development path of computers we think that technology advances much faster than it really does. Most other technologies have a much slower development speed and it may be that it has just taken this long to develop the required technology.

Edit: meant to type "superconductor", not semiconductor...

[Warren Stupidity]

6. "the technology has advanced"

Look, I'd welcome an actual functional feasible fusion reactor, well that is another one other than the sun, but I've been around long enough to not believe any of the advance notices of fusion breakthroughs. We've "broken through" at least 20 times in my lifetime. When they can demonstrate a functional power positive cost effective and safe device, let me know.

[johnd83]

7. There really isn't a practical alternative except Thorium reactors

and the radiation profile is much better for fusion. A single fusion reactor would be the same size as a single wind turbine with 10-30x more energy output that is constant. The solar and wind technologies really aren't ready for mass production either so there is no reason not to invest in more research in every opportunity.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. alrighty then, your agenda is way out in the open.

Keep up the good work.

[johnd83]

11. Lol

So just because I don't think renewables work in the real world I am some scary industry insider sock puppet? Get real, I just don't think they work. The efficiency levels are terrible and ecological damage from hundreds of thousands of wind turbines and solar panels is still very real

[FogerRox]

14. Yup crystal clear. Wow.

[FogerRox]

2. Isnt this just a mirror machine.

[GreydeeThos]

3. It used to be four years

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415935

[johnd83]

4. Everyones budget got cut

Also engineering estimates on this type of project can vary. If there was more funding available it would probably go a lot faster.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. That was almost a year ago. 1 + 4 = 5. You do the math.

[FogerRox]

10. Lacking information why it can be smaller.

While apparently this machine would befall the same pressure requirement that a Tokamak falls prey to. Temp too. SO wont it have the same ignition requirements that a Tokamak has?

Fail.

[johnd83]

12. Did you actually watch the video?

The Tokamak has a reversed pressure profile compared to this design. The speaker does a good job explaining why the physics are different.

[FogerRox]

13. In an ignition machine you either raise the temp or the pressure

The speaker said the magnetic fields dont weaken as the plasma pressure goes up. ANd what about the materials research needed to develop materials that dont become brittle due to neutron bombardment?

[johnd83]

15. The field gradient is inverted

meaning that as plasma gets farther from the center of pressure it encounters a greater force pushing it back. This is the opposite of the Tokamak where the field gets weaker farther from the center of the pressure. This means that what he called the "Beta" can be much higher meaning the effective plasma pressure is much higher compared to the magnetic field. They are also using RF to generate the temperatures so the heat does not come from the magnetic containment. Neutron radiation is difficult to know how they handle because the details are pretty sketchy. This project will probably be used in military craft before commercial power production so they are not really forthcoming on the details. Any nuclear reactor has neutron radiation so it is not an unknown.

[FogerRox]

16. Sketchy? More like they dont exist.

Any nuclear reactor has neutron radiation so it is not an unknown.

Any nuclear reactor has neutron radiation

Helium and Proton/Boron fusion are aneutronic fusion fuels, the reactants are 99.9% alpha particles not neutrons.

[PamW]

18. Crawl, before you walk, before you run.

Yes there are aneutronic fusion schemes.

The problem is they all have ignition conditions on pressure / temperature that are HIGHER than D-T fusion.

Before we get any of these aneutronic fusion schemes running; we should be able to do the "simple" one; D-T

PamW

[FogerRox]

22. pressure & temp vs acceleration

Acceleration by itself is simple. 550 KeV gets you to proton Boron 11 fusion. A virtual cathode of electrons knocks that down to 55KeV, which is doable with copper N2 cooled magnets for a proof of concept machine running at most for 10's of seconds.

D-T requires Temp & pressure, and well for a proof of concept we wont need the Neutron resistant materials, thats simple?

Does the Navy ONR fund and D-T fusion research?

I know the Navy funds 2 separate Proton Boron11 programs. Which would dovetail perfectly into the whole "electric boat" program.

[PamW]

17. Don't believe it.

I don't believe this hype that you are going to get a small fusion reactor that could be put in a truck.

The leading fusion reaction under consideration is D-T fusion:

1D2 + 1T3 --> 2He4 (3.5 MeV) + 0n1(14.1 MeV)

which is the D-T fusion reaction yielding 17.6 MeV total; but I've indicated
which product particle receives how much of the released energy.

The bulk of the energy goes into the neutron; 14.1 MeV. The problem is that the 14.1 MeV neutron is neutral, and therefore is NOT confined by any electric nor magnetic fields. This high energy neutron has a mean free path in most materials that is a good fraction of a meter. That means that in order to trap this neutron which is the only way to get its energy; you will need a "blanket" that will be several meters thick. That is the only way to trap the neutron.

Even if you are contemplating using only the 3.5 MeV alpha (2He4) for your energy; you will still have to SHIELD against those 14.1 MeV. You aren't going to have a truck rolling down the highway spewing 14.1 MeV neutrons.

PamW

[johnd83]

19. The truck is just to transport the core to the plant site

Of course it will need additional shielding once installed. The video does a pretty good job explaining the project.

[FogerRox]

23. That 14.1 MeV

if we want that energy could we use a thermal plant to do that?

Isnt it simpler to directly convert alphas to electricity using Proton Boron11 fuel? 8.68MeV, and none if it goes to waste. Such a shame to waste 14.1 MeV out of 17.6 MeV on a thermal plant.

Thermal plants are so big and clunky. Certainly not KISS theory.

[FogerRox]

26. Has anyone confined a plasma with a magnetic field whose gradients

have been inverted?

IS that also a transverse magnetic field? as mentioned in this paper?

http://www.jp-petit.org/science/mhd/COREE_2010/Int_MHD_meeting_Corea2010.pdf

[kristopher]

20. "In my opinion..."

In my opinion this technology has a much greater chance of replacing fossil fuels compared to current renewables due to the high cost and low energy density of current renewable technologies.

That's quite a strong statement.

It is also untrue.

Do you have a reference to any peer reviewed work that supports your opinion?

[johnd83]

25. It is an opinion shared by many engineers

Four top environmental scientists raised the stakes Sunday in their fight to reverse climate change and save the planet.

Climate and energy scientists James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley have released an open letter calling on world leaders to support development of safer nuclear power systems.

Wait -- pro-nuclear environmentalists? Isn't that an oxymoron? Apparently, not so much anymore.

Embracing nuclear is the only way, the scientists believe, to reverse the looming threat of climate change which they blame on fossil fuels. Depending who you ask, they're either abandoning -- or leading -- traditional environmentalists who for a half-century have rejected clean-burning nuclear power as too expensive or too dangerous. Opponents cite disasters at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile island.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

I'd prefer fusion over fission because it is safer but both are still far better than fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

27. So your opinion is backed by the opinion of other nonspecialists?

Does that mean you have zero basis for your claim in the academic literature?

You are wrong. You won't be able to find peer reviewed support for your position because it doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist because it isn't a valid proposition.

There are loads of "opinions" out there, but, there is absolutely no substantiation for those opinions from any sector of academic study. Take Hansen etal. for example - opinion with no supporting evidence and tons of contradictory evidence.

A flip way of supporting my position is to point you to some of the most enthusiastic pronuclear academic literature out there, MIT's 2003 study "The Future of Nuclear Power".

They endorsed nuclear power but because of the constraints of academic ethics, they refused to stake out the position you espouse. Being as the entire document was designed to promote the potential and need for nuclear power, if they had been able to make the case you can bet your bippy they would have had it plastered everywhere from the Executive Summary to the EndNotes.

[johnd83]

28. James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley?

Non-specialists?

Here is just one:

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

A climate scientist at Columbia University isn't good enough? Who the hell would you believe?

[kristopher]

29. You think climate science and global energy use are the same field?

Hansen has done zero work in the field of energy

I asked a simple and legitimate question - show the PEER REVIEWED WORK THAT SUPPORTS YOUR CLAIM.

If it existed, it wouldn't be difficult, would it. You wouldn't have to be getting a bio from a nonspecialist from wiki.

[johnd83]

32. IEEE spectrum article

IEEE spectrum is considered journal quality and is peer reviewed, but is written in a more accessible style. IEEE is the international electrical engineering professional society and the Spectrum magazine is the flagship publication for the organization.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy

[kristopher]

34. Sorry, that isn't peer reviewed. It is an opinion piece.

The arguments are more fully laid out, but they do not withstand scrutiny and could not make it through peer review. For example, an often repeated proof put forth is, when stripped to its essential nature, saying that since we haven't yet transitioned to renewables, then we can't. Another similar type of fallacy is the focus on capacity factor. That simply has no bearing the question of whether of not we can scale up renewables and power the world with them.

I asked for peer reviewed for a reason - it strips the BS out of the equation. When someone writes a peer reviewed article in a peer reviewed journal there is an accountability for claims that is present no where else.

The peer reviewed literature since 1992 has acknowledged our ability to scale up and power our culture with renewable energy sources.

You need to revisit your beliefs.

ETA: I went from here to another post with an avid nuclear supporter who is making this claim. Can you spot the "essential" (and fallacious) nature of the argument?

It's nice to say "storage" and "smart grid" - but where are they???

There no "storage" that has ANYWHERE NEAR the capacity required.

The only energy storage technology that comes close is "pumped hydro" and we don't have anywhere NEAR the amount of pumped hydro storage that would be required to run the grid on renewables.

Instead of building pumped hydro; the "greenies" are all having wet dreams about such anemic technologies as Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technologies.

Show me where we have a several gigawatt-days worth of V2G storage.

SHEESH!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=56950

[johnd83]

36. "Ability" and "Feasibilty" are two different concepts

My opinion, and a lot of other engineers, and even Pres. Obama is that converting to pure renewable is completely impractical. It is an opinion that is not going to change for me without huge improvements in technology. It may be technically "possible", but it is not economically or politically realistic.

[kristopher]

37. Then you should be able to show peer reviewed analysis that support your claim.

It is not only technically "possible", it is the least cost, safest, most sustainable and most dependable energy system we can build.

And please don't try to use a politician as a reference. It's really scraping the bottom of the barrel, because you have no idea what he actually thinks as opposed to what he does from political necessity; you can see that, right?

Tell me the truth - have you ever read a peer reviewed article on this topic?

[johnd83]

38. Yes, but not from journals you would be happy with

"Peer review" usually means by people who more or less agree with you. If the journal editors assume that it is possible they are probably not going to refute it. Most of the articles I have found are from nuclear journals. Let's flip this around: what articles have you so convinced?

[kristopher]

40. I don't agree with your characterization of peer review.

So I ask (for what, the 4th time) what peer reviewed articles support your claim? I'm not asking for opinion pieces, I'm asking for technical analysis; so it shouldn't matter what journal it is in.

What convinced me was study of the problem from the ground up. I can point you to a couple of authoritative samples that go to the conclusions of what I've studied if you like, but I'd appreciate your admitting that there is no peer reviewed material that supports your view.

I gave you a sample of one nuclear advocacy study (MIT) that couldn't make the case, now let me share another with you. You might or might not have heard of David McKay's "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air".

It is about the only high level publication (it's a book) that makes a claim similar to yours, but it is a regional not a global analysis. Nonetheless it serves as another example of how the results are not easy to come by.

McKay is a respected researcher. His book that purports to make a numbers based study of the energy alternatives available to the UK. He lays out estimated "numbers" for all of the alternatives including demand in the first section. Next he has a section where there is a discussion of the meaning of the numbers, then, to support the first section, the final section gives hard data from reliable sources.

Here is how he fudges it.

...Let’s talk about energy consumption and energy production. At the moment, most of the energy the developed world consumes is produced from fossil fuels; that’s not sustainable. Exactly how long we could keep living on fossil fuels is an interesting question, but it’s not the question we’ll address in this book. I want to think about living without fossil fuels.

We’re going to make two stacks. In the left-hand, red stack we will add up our energy consumption, and in the right-hand, green stack, we’ll add up sustainable energy production. We’ll assemble the two stacks gradually, adding items one at a time as we discuss them.

The question addressed in this book is “can we conceivably live sustainably?” So, we will add up all conceivable sustainable energy sources and put them in the right-hand, green stack.

In the left-hand, red stack, we’ll estimate the consumption of a “typical moderately-affluent person;” I encourage you to tot up an estimate of your own consumption, creating your own personalized left-hand stack too. Later on we’ll also find out the current average energy consumption of Europeans and Americans. (pg 22)

Section one, where he is "estimating", proves conclusively that renewables cannot do the job.

Section three, which contains the real data, shows his "estimates" to be pure fiction.

Look for yourself. It will take some time, but it's right here http://www.withouthotair.com/

That is, I'm afraid, about as good as it gets in the area of supporting the claim you've made.

On the flip side, everyone from the IPCC, to the UN, to the IEA, to the National Academy of Sciences to the California Energy Commission, to the National Labs to Greenpeace has produced a work that validates the belief that we can and will move into the future with renewables.

The best thing they say about nuclear (there are two analysis that agree) is that if we move away from it sooner rather than later, it would have a nearly unnoticeable impact.

[johnd83]

43. I have done many peer reviews

and been on the receiving end of many peer reviews for papers I have published. The peer review process is far from perfect. I have seen plenty of articles slip through that are completely wrong. A "book" is not peer reviewed.

Anyway, I have skimmed the book book. The numbers are... optimistic. He claims we need 200 m^2 of solar farm per person. That means 63,000 km^2 in solar farms for the US assuming 315 mil. people. That is the equivalent of covering EVERY SQUARE MILLIMETER of the state of West Virginia. Sure it would be spread out, but that is a A LOT of area. It would also cost at least a trillion dollars. "Defense" is also laughably low. In the US a significant portion of our energy use is for defense. In fact on page 109 he goes through all the problems. This is just after 10 minutes of skimming, I am sure if I really spent the time I could find many more issues.

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/sewtha.pdf

Edit: just as an example I once reviewed a paper (Chinese team) that kept computing magnetic force the same way as you would compute electrostatic force, ie so horrendously wrong it was scary. I am fairly sure they managed to publish that paper in a "peer reviewed" journal. Some things like climate change are settled, but clean energy is not.

[kristopher]

45. Clean energy is every bit as settled as climate change.

And if you'll notice the evasiveness and position shifting in the face of simple direct request for science is every bit as obvious when it is you claiming to be supporting your position as it is when the denial is targeting climate.
For example, I gave you the MIT study - you ignored it.
I gave you the problem with McKay's work - you went of on a tangent that is irrelevant to the nature of the problem with the work. All you did was make a cursory effort to try and score a rhetorical (and meaningless) point.

In other words, you can't support your position, yet you refuse to consider the validity of arguments that show your belief to be untrue.

Who would you believe?
The National Academy of Sciences?
Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments
ISBN 978-0-309-13708-9
388 pages 8 x 10 PAPERBACK (2010)
America's Energy Future Panel on Electricity from Renewable Resources; National Research Council

Or how about the volume that first definitively established the capability and potential of renewables?
Renewable Energy, Sources for Fuels and Electricity
Burnham etal 1992 Island Press
Commissioned by the UN as input to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

And here is one more thought for you to consider. The forecasts on how long it will take offer a fairly wide range of scenarios. But, now that we have been seeing a great deal of movement over a couple of decades, we can see that the conservative models have been wildly inaccurate. While those that are the most optimistic are close to what is being delivered.

[johnd83]

46. It still doesn't change the number...

which is why I don't believe any of it. 63,000 sq km is a conservative estimate for land usage. Where are we going to get that much land? Are we really going to pave the equivalent of the state of W Va with solar panels? What does the other book say for total solar panel area?

[kristopher]

47. Did you even read what I wrote about the study?

His estimates are garbage on both the demand and supply side.

DOE says that using just brownfield sites (not even tapping rooftops) in the US we have more than enough space for solar to provide all of our electricity. That too, however is meaningless since we will also have wind and geothermal (both have more realistic potential than our projected demand) along with biomass and various forms of water power.

I think we're done, unless you want to actually participate in a discussion.

[johnd83]

48. Huh?

I still don't get what you mean. That is just for solar power in the book, he also has wind turbines and geothermal as part of his estimates. He also, on page 109, talks about political and economic reality. His numbers may be correct (for England at least), they just aren't practical. And on page 109 he talks about that.

[kristopher]

49. What I mean is...

Clean energy is every bit as settled as climate change.

And if you'll notice the evasiveness and position shifting in the face of simple direct request for science is every bit as obvious when it is you claiming to be supporting your position as it is when the denial is targeting climate.
For example, I gave you the MIT study - you ignored it.
I gave you the problem with McKay's work - you went of on a tangent that is irrelevant to the nature of the problem with the work. All you did was make a cursory effort to try and score a rhetorical (and meaningless) point.

In other words, you can't support your position, yet you refuse to consider the validity of arguments that show your belief to be untrue.

Who would you believe?
The National Academy of Sciences?
Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments
ISBN 978-0-309-13708-9
388 pages 8 x 10 PAPERBACK (2010)
America's Energy Future Panel on Electricity from Renewable Resources; National Research Council

Or how about the volume that first definitively established the capability and potential of renewables?
Renewable Energy, Sources for Fuels and Electricity
Burnham etal 1992 Island Press
Commissioned by the UN as input to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

And here is one more thought for you to consider. The forecasts on how long it will take offer a fairly wide range of scenarios. But, now that we have been seeing a great deal of movement over a couple of decades, we can see that the conservative models have been wildly inaccurate. While those that are the most optimistic are close to what is being delivered.

[johnd83]

50. I skimmed through "Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments"

The last two chapters 7 and 8 are very informative. The land usage numbers are even worse than the ones that I had in my previous post. Section 7 talks about the massive increase in mining and industrial production that would be required, and also that many of the required materials are rare. It is actually a very good read (or skim as it may be) but it is still quite interesting. The conclusion is not exactly glowing:

An understanding of the scale of deployment necessary for renewable resources to make a material contribution to U.S. electricity generation is critical to assessing the potential for renewable electricity generation. Large increases over current levels of manufacturing, employment, investment, and installation will be required for non-hydropower renewable resources to move from single-digit- to double-digit-percentage contributions to U.S. electricity generation.

Page 317 still has the "high cost" scenario as only covering a fraction of electricity use by 2030, and still requires a tremendous amount of fossil fuels just for electricity. That doesn't even include transportation energy use. The reference case is atrocious and is what we are on course for. The "Core" case with mostly nuclear looks much more promising.

All of this data is really interesting but not at all convincing. If we don't severely cut fossil fuels by 2030/2040 we are all screwed anyway and this book does not seem to support your claim that it will be possible without a LOT of nuclear power. Actually it makes my point even stronger based on their conclusions.

Edit: sorry, left out the reference link: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12619&page=317

[kristopher]

51. Another "I'd rather not have to admit I'm wrong" tangent, eh?

That's OK, it's a trait we all share so no hard feelings. But it's gone on long enough so let's cut to the chase:
You said an undeveloped fusion reactor "has a much greater chance of replacing fossil fuels compared to current renewables due to the high cost and low energy density of current renewable technologies" and "There really isn't a practical alternative except Thorium reactors ... solar and wind technologies really aren't ready for mass production"

The National Academy study says this:

In the panel’s opinion, increasing manufacturing and installation capacity, employment, and financing to levels required to meet the goals for greatly increased solar or wind penetration goals is doable. However, to do so would require aggressive growth rates, a large increase in manufacturing and installation capacity, and a large infusion of capital. The magnitude of the challenges is clear from the scale of such efforts. pg 321

It continues

t is reasonable to envision that, collectively, non- hydropower renewable electricity could begin to provide a material contribution (i.e., reaching a level of 10 percent level or more with trends toward continued growth) to the nation’s electricity generation in the period up to 2020 with such accelerated deployment. Combined with hydropower, total renewable electricity could approach a contribution of 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2020.

In the period from 2020 to 2035, it is reasonable to envision that contin- ued and even further accelerated deployment could potentially result in non- hydroelectric renewables providing, collectively, 20 percent or more of domestic electricity generation by 2035. In the third timeframe, beyond 2035, continued development of renewable electricity technologies could potentially provide lower costs and result in further increases in the percentage of renewable electricity generated from renewable resources. However, achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) level of renewable electricity penetration will require new scientific advances (e.g., in solar photovoltaics, other renewable electricity technologies, and storage technologies) and dramatic changes in how we generate, transmit, and use electricity. Scientific advances are anticipated to improve the cost, scalability, and performance of all renewable energy generation technologies. Moreover, some combination of intelligent, two-way electric grids; scalable and cost-effective methods for large-scale and distributed storage (either direct electricity energy storage or generation of chemical fuels); widespread implementation of rapidly dispatch- able fossil-based electricity technologies; and greatly improved technologies for cost-effective long-distance electricity transmission will be required. pg 322

That study was released in 2009 and it is based (note the dates on the references) on research released mostly around 2006 and 2007. That is significant in that since, China has entered the scene in both renewable energy manufacturing and installation. As an example of the nature of the impact, they are going to install 9GW of distributed solar this year, 12 next year and the year after - going from 2GW of capacity in 2011 to 35GW in 2015.

But solar isn't ready for mass production, according to you.

A more recent study is NRELs Renewable Electricity Futures Report. It is updated with research and data to 2010. It was released in 2012. But hey, since it is a government report with no copyright issues, let's let them tell you about what they have done. From "Renewable Electricity Futures Study Volume 4: Bulk Electric Power Systems—Operations and Transmission Planning." pg iii, iv

The Renewable Electricity Futures Study (RE Futures) provides an analysis of the grid integration opportunities, challenges, and implications of high levels of renewable electricity generation for the U.S. electric system. The study is not a market or policy assessment. Rather, RE Futures examines renewable energy resources and many technical issues related to the operability of the U.S. electricity grid, and provides initial answers to important questions about the integration of high penetrations of renewable electricity technologies from a national perspective. RE Futures results indicate that a future U.S. electricity system that is largely powered by renewable sources is possible and that further work is warranted to investigate this clean generation pathway. The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.

The renewable technologies explored in this study are components of a diverse set of clean energy solutions that also includes nuclear, efficient natural gas, clean coal, and energy efficiency. Understanding all of these technology pathways and their potential contributions to the future U.S. electric power system can inform the development of integrated portfolio scenarios. RE Futures focuses on the extent to which U.S. electricity needs can be supplied by renewable energy sources, including biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind.

The study explores grid integration issues using models with unprecedented geographic and time resolution for the contiguous United States. The analysis (1) assesses a variety of scenarios with prescribed levels of renewable electricity generation in 2050, from 30% to 90%, with a focus on 80% (with nearly 50% from variable wind and solar photovoltaic generation); (2) identifies the characteristics of a U.S. electricity system that would be needed to accommodate such levels; and (3) describes some of the associated challenges and implications of realizing such a future. In addition to the central conclusion noted above, RE Futures finds that increased electric system flexibility, needed to enable electricity supply-demand balance with high levels of renewable generation, can come from a portfolio of supply- and demand-side options, including flexible conventional generation, grid storage, new transmission, more responsive loads, and changes in power system operations. The analysis also finds that the abundance and diversity of U.S. renewable energy resources can support multiple combinations of renewable technologies that result in deep reductions in electric sector greenhouse gas emissions and water use. The study finds that the direct incremental cost associated with high renewable generation is comparable to published cost estimates of other clean energy scenarios. Of the sensitivities examined, improvement in the cost and performance of renewable technologies is the most impactful lever for reducing this incremental cost. Assumptions reflecting the extent of this improvement are based on incremental or evolutionary improvements to currently commercial technologies and do not reflect U.S. Department of Energy activities to further lower renewable technology costs so that they achieve parity with conventional technologies.

RE Futures is an initial analysis of scenarios for high levels of renewable electricity in the United States; additional research is needed to comprehensively investigate other facets of high renewable or other clean energy futures in the U.S. power system. First, this study focuses on renewable-specific technology pathways and does not explore the full portfolio of clean technologies that could contribute to future electricity supply. Second, the analysis does not attempt a full reliability analysis of the power system that includes addressing sub-hourly, transient, and distribution system requirements. Third, although RE Futures describes the system characteristics needed to accommodate high levels of renewable generation, it does not address the institutional, market, and regulatory changes that may be needed to facilitate such a transformation. Fourth, a full cost-benefit analysis was not conducted to comprehensively evaluate the relative impacts of renewable and non-renewable electricity generation options.

Lastly, as a long-term analysis, uncertainties associated with assumptions and data, along with limitations of the modeling capabilities, contribute to significant uncertainty in the implications reported. Most of the scenario assessment was conducted in 2010 with assumptions concerning technology cost and performance and fossil energy prices generally based on data available in 2009 and early 2010.

Significant changes in electricity and related markets have already occurred since the analysis was conducted, and the implications of these changes may not have been fully reflected in the study assumptions and results. For example, both the rapid development of domestic unconventional natural gas resources that has contributed to historically low natural gas prices, and the significant price declines for some renewable technologies (e.g., photovoltaics) since 2010, were not reflected in the study assumptions.

Nonetheless, as the most comprehensive analysis of U.S. high-penetration renewable electricity conducted to date, this study can inform broader discussion of the evolution of the electric system and electricity markets toward clean systems.

The RE Futures team was made up of experts in the fields of renewable technologies, grid integration, and end-use demand. The team included leadership from a core team with members from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and subject matter experts from U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, including NREL, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), as well as Black & Veatch and other utility, industry, university, public sector, and non-profit participants. Over the course of the project, an executive steering committee provided input from multiple perspectives to support study balance and objectivity.

RE Futures is documented in four volumes of a single report: Volume 1 describes the analysis approach and models, along with the key results and insights; Volume 2 describes the renewable generation and storage technologies included in the study; Volume 3 presents end-use demand and energy efficiency assumptions; and this volume—Volume 4—discusses operational and institutional challenges of integrating high levels of renewable energy into the electric grid.

Let me repeat what they call their central conclusion:

The central conclusion of the analysis is that renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the United States.

I wish I could say thanks for the discussion, but it was too much like trying to communicate with a climate denier for me to say it honestly. But I will thank you heartily for a polite exchange; that does mean a lot.

[hunter]

21. Cheap fusion? Oh, God no, I hope not...

I think the difficulty of fusion is as is said, "God protecting fools and children."

Given that kind of power our current civilization would simply eat the earth.

It is better we humans learn to live in harmony with the natural environment now, rather than later.

I think this is the most valid reason for opposing nuclear power too. Safety-wise, even with accidents at obsolete plants like Chernobyl or Fukushima, nuclear power is still less deadly than fossil fuels.

I've no doubt that nuclear power could be cheap and fairly safe; that we could all be driving our lovely electric cars with minimal pollution, that we could supply great urban areas in dry climates with desalinated water too, and run great aqueducts everywhere.

But an entire planet covered with suburbs, strip mines, and "factory farms," with a few parks and huge cities in between, with every able adult working a "productive" forty plus hour work week, the oceans swarming with bulk ore carriers and container ships, and the skies full of airliners and freight planes, no, bloody hell no, that is NOT my vision of utopia. (I don't want the desert wilderness covered with solar power plants either.)

My utopia is a low-energy post-consumerist society with a population of maybe a billion or less living very gently upon the land with plenty of room for all the diverse species that survive this current global man-made environmental catastrophe.

[johnd83]

24. I think that is the main reason that I don't agree with a lot of people here about energy

I don't expect the utopian vision to be possible. It may happen in a few hundred years, but it won't happen in my lifetime or for a number of generations. In the future economic growth is going to continue and the best we can do is "bend the curve" so we don't obliterate the planet in the process.

I do think that current nuclear energy is fine if done properly. Fusion would however be safer. With economic growth energy needs are going to continue to rise quite dramatically around the world and the only current technology capable of scaling up is fossil fuels which is really not good.

[hunter]

30. Pushing the core problem of our civilization deeper into the future is not my idea of a "solution."

I've not embraced Gliderguider's thermodynamic Buddhist what-will-be-will-be sensibilities, I'm in that "Wherever you go, there you are," place.

[johnd83]

31. We still consider "freedom" to include reproduction

meaning that populations are going to continue to grow. Compelling smaller families was a disaster in China.

[GliderGuider]

35. "Current nuclear energy" is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

In the event of a global socioeconomic collapse, with all the chaos that ensues, I think having a bunch of uranium nukes around (that need to be coddled to stay safe) is a horrifyingly bad idea. I call it the "400 Fukushimas" scenario, and I think the Precautionary Principle would advise against putting civilization at that kind or risk just for less than 5% of the world's primary energy budget.

I have no problem with pursuing research on fusion, but only because I'm fairly sure the collapse I mentioned above will happen before it becomes a commercial reality. If fusion were to have a chance of being realized, I would object like crazy, because IMO the last thing the world can stand is human beings running around with more (potentially vastly more) energy. We're planet-killers as it is, and we need to look at using less energy, not just more of it from a different source.

[johnd83]

39. Alrighty-then

This seems to be the heart of the problem. I am not a dooms-dayer or believe that industry is evil. I also don't like the OLDER types of reactors. Newer ones are much less sensitive and can cool down on their own without exploding. I think Thorium is a much safer fuel as well. Fusion would be a really nice solution so I HOPE that this will work, not that I guarantee it.

[intaglio]

33. Firstly, the tech has not advanced particularly

It has just got bigger

Second, no-one has yet generated 1 milliWatt of usable electrical energy from a fusion source, they have just produced more heat energy than they have put in. There are no current plans in place for any method of transferring that heat to where they can use it. What is more there are immense practical problems to extracting that heat as any movement of even a minimally conducting fluid will interfere with the electrical and magnetic fields that contain the plasma. Additionally as superconducting magnets are used you have to keep the working fluid separated from the very low temperature cooling fluid.

Third, not one of these devices has run for more than minutes producing the energy, and any usable fusion reactor will have to run for years without interference. It is highly unlikely, given the fact that the walls of these devices erode due to plasma not contained within the fusion zone, that they can run for years. Much of this errant plasma is absorbed but the coconuts used to make this specific activated charcoal are a limited resource barely able to supply current research reactors.

[FogerRox]

52. Thats exactly why there has been more interest in the proton Boron 11 fuel recently

No heavy shielding, no thermal plant, vast majority of reactants are alphas to be directly converted to electricity.

[CRH]

41. Back it up with facts, now it is worse than thin. ...

[CRH]

42. Magnetic Fusion, please repeat after me, ...

our problem is collective not individual propulsion,; or are we just saving the first world?

[johnd83]

44. ... Did you watch the video?

The target for this technology is distributed power in under served areas... I also don't get your point, this is for installed power generation not transportation.