|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 257
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
Figures
OCR for page 258
OCR for page 259
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
8
Real Price ($ / thousand cubic feet) 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1976 1981 1987 1992 1998 2003
Year
FIGURE 1-1 Average price for natural gas for the electric power sector. SOURCE: EIA (2008a).
WA: double credit for DG
NH: 0.3% solar electric by 2014
MA: TBD by MA DOER
MI: triple credit for solar
NV: 1% solar by 2015; NY: 0.1542% customer-sited by 2013
2.4 to 2.45 multiplier for PV
CO: 0.8% solar electric
NJ: 2.12% solar electric by 2021
by 2020
OH*: 0.5% solar PA: 0.5% solar PV by 2020
by 2025
DE: 2.005% solar PV by 2019;
UT: 2.4 multiplier
triple credit for PV
for solar
MO: 0.3% solar electric MD: 2% solar electric in 2022
by 2021
NC: 0.2% solar DC: 0.4% solar by 2020;
AZ: 4.5% DG by 2025
by 2018 1.1 multiplier for solar
NM:
NM: 4% solar electric by 2020
0.6% DG by 2015
State RPS with solar/DG provision
TX: double credit for non-wind
(non-wind goal: 500 MW) State renewables goal with solar/DG provision
Solar water heating counts towards
solar set-aside
* It is unclear if solar water heating is eligible for OH’s solar carve-out.
DG: Distributed Generation
FIGURE 1-2 Map of state renewable portfolio standards. SOURCE: Database of State
Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, available at http://www.dsireusa.org. Courtesy of
N.C. Solar Center at North Carolina State University and the Interstate Renewable Energy
Council.
259
OCR for page 260
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
WA: double credit for DG
NH: 0.3% solar electric by 2014
MA: TBD by MA DOER
MI: triple credit for solar
NV: 1% solar by 2015; NY: 0.1542% customer-sited by 2013
2.4 to 2.45 multiplier for PV
CO: 0.8% solar electric
NJ: 2.12% solar electric by 2021
by 2020
OH*: 0.5% solar PA: 0.5% solar PV by 2020
by 2025
DE: 2.005% solar PV by 2019;
UT: 2.4 multiplier
triple credit for PV
for solar
MO: 0.3% solar electric MD: 2% solar electric in 2022
by 2021
NC: 0.2% solar DC: 0.4% solar by 2020;
AZ: 4.5% DG by 2025
by 2018 1.1 multiplier for solar
NM:
NM: 4% solar electric by 2020
0.6% DG by 2015
State RPS with solar/DG provision
TX: double credit for non-wind
(non-wind goal: 500 MW) State renewables goal with solar/DG provision
Solar water heating counts towards
solar set-aside
* It is unclear if solar water heating is eligible for OH’s solar carve-out.
DG: Distributed Generation
FIGURE 1-3 Solar and distributed generation requirements within state renewable portfolio
standards. SOURCE: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, available at
www.dsireusa.org. Courtesy of N.C. Solar Center at North Carolina State University and the
Interstate Renewable Energy Council.
160
140 Average Price of Wind
Pow W
er ithout PT C
Operating C of N
ost atural
120
G C bustion T
as om urbine
100
2005$/MWh
80
Average Price of Wind
60
Pow W PT
er ith C
40
20 Operating C of N
ost atural Wholesale Price R e ang
G C bined C
as om ycle for Flat Block of Pow er
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
1990
1991
1992
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
FIGURE 1-4 Impacts of the production tax credit on the price of wind power compared to costs
for natural-gas-fired electricity. SOURCE: Wiser and Bolinger (2008); presented in Wiser
(2008).
260
OCR for page 261
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 1-5 Annual private investments in wind, biofuels, and solar power. SOURCE:
DOE/EERE (2008).
FIGURE 1-6 Annual venture capital investment in wind, biofuels, and solar. SOURCE:
DOE/EERE (2008).
261
OCR for page 262
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 1-7 Regional growth in nonhydroelectric renewable electricity generation, 2006-2030,
in gigawatt-hours. Acronyms are defined in Table 1-5. SOURCE: EIA (2007).
Permission Pending
FIGURE 1-8 Regional fuel mix for current electricity generation. SOURCE: Edison Electricity
Institute (2008).
262
OCR for page 263
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 2-1 U.S. map of wind power classes and 50-meter wind energy resource. SOURCE:
DOE (2008).
FIGURE 2-2 Solar energy resources in the United States. Note that the distribution is highly
uneven. SOURCE: NREL (2004).
263
OCR for page 264
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 2-3 Direct normal solar radiation in the Southwest, which represents the most suitable
region for electricity generation from concentrated solar power. SOURCE: National Renewable
Energy Laboratory; reprinted in WGA (2006a).
FIGURE 2-4 Regional map of hydrothermal power resources identified by the Western
Governors’ Association. SOURCE: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; reprinted in WGA
(2006a).
264
OCR for page 265
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 2-5 Allocation of U.S. geothermal resources at 3.5 km (top panel), 5.5 km (middle
panel), and 10 km (bottom panel) depths. SOURCE: MIT (2006). Copyright 2006 MIT.
265
OCR for page 266
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 2-6 Histogram of heat content (EJ) as a function of depth for slices 1 km thick.
SOURCE: MIT (2006). Copyright 2006 MIT.
FIGURE 2-7 U.S. wave energy resources for the continental United States. SOURCE: EPRI
(2005).
266
OCR for page 267
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 2-8 Total biomass resources available in the United States, by county. SOURCE:
Milbandt (2005).
267
OCR for page 294
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 6-5 Installed wind project costs over time. SOURCE: DOE (2008b).
FIGURE 6-6 Global PV module production 2000-2007 and average module price during the
same time frame. SOURCE: Courtesy of Paula Mints, Principal Analyst, Navigant Consulting
PV Services Program.
294
OCR for page 295
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 6-7 Crystalline silicon shipment and thin-film shipment market shares in the United
States, 1997-2006. SOURCE: EIA (2007).
FIGURE 6-8 Learning curve cost reductions for crystalline silicon PV modules. SOURCE:
Department of Energy; presented in Cornelius (2007).
295
OCR for page 296
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
Source: Firs t S olar and Martin Green
FIGURE 6-9 Learning curve cost reductions for crystalline silicon solar PV, thin-film solar PV,
and natural gas combustion turbines. SOURCE: Courtesy of Charles Gay and Applied Materials.
Permission Pending
FIGURE 6-10 Generalized diffusion curve for adoption of new technologies and key
characteristics of the various adopters. SOURCE: IEA (2003).
296
OCR for page 297
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 6-11 The cash flow valley of death for the process from product development to
commercialization. SOURCE: Murphy and Edwards (2003).
297
OCR for page 298
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
On track so far
with 5200 MW
installed in ‘07
FIGURE 7-1 Annual and cumulative generation needed to achieve 20 percent wind generation of
electricity by 2030. SOURCE: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; presented in Wiser
(2008).
FIGURE 7-2 Map indicating potential new transmission corridors for integrating 300 GW of
wind power. SOURCE: DOE (2008).
298
OCR for page 299
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 7-3 Reductions in CO2 emissions resulting from 20 percent wind scenario compared to
the no-new-wind reference case. Also shown is the trajectory for reducing CO2 emissions by 80
percent. SOURCE: DOE (2008).
299
OCR for page 300
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
2007 (Cents/kWh)
2015 (Cents/kWh)
2030 (Cents/kWh)
FIGURE 7-4 Comparison of projected average retail electricity rates with projected high and low
PV costs, indicated by yellow box outline, for 2007, 2015, and 2025. SOURCE: Pernick and
Wilder (2008), Clean Edge, Inc. (www.cleanedge.com).
300
OCR for page 301
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
2,500
MINICAM - ref case
MINICAM - 550 ppm
IGSM - ref case
IGSM - 550 ppm
2,000
AEO 2009
Renewables electricity generation
1,500
(billion kwh)
1,000
500
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Year
FIGURE 7-5 Renewables electricity generation from reference case and 550 ppm stabilization
scenarios for MiniCAM and IGSM models compared to AEO2009. SOURCE: CCSP (2007) and
EIA (2009).
301
OCR for page 302
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE 7-6 Mini CAM reference case and 550 ppm stabilization scenario impacts on the
United States energy mix, which includes efficiency improvements and demand reductions in the
category labeled “Energy Reduction from Reference.” SOURCE: CCSP (2007).
302
OCR for page 303
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
5000
Electricity generation (billion kWh)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2006 reference core high cost reference core high cost
2020 2020 2020 2030 2030 2030
coal natural gas nuclear renewable sources
FIGURE 7-7 Mix of electricity generation from EIA core and high-cost analysis of CSA bill
compared to electricity mix in 2006 and to the AEO2008 reference. SOURCE: EIA (2008b).
303
OCR for page 304
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
FIGURE A-1 America’s Energy Future Project.
FIGURE F-1 Range of life-cycle CO2e emissions from various technologies for generating
electricity from coal. SOURCE: Based on data compiled from Denholm (2004), Hondo (2005),
Odeh and Cockerill (2008), Spath and Mann (2004), Spath et al. (1999), and White (1998).
304
