Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
mal power. In most countries, these sources are currently much more
expensive than fossil fuels and have grown primarily because of large
subsidies. Without major improvements in cost, replacing fossil fuels
with renewable energy would impose a huge expense—on the order of
hundreds of billions of dollars annually—on the United States.
It will be useful to look closely at the nature of the transition to a
low-carbon economy by examining projections from energy models.
Take as an example an analysis of the technological requirements of
stabilizing emissions over the next four decades. Two modeling teams
(the Joint Global Change Research Institute and the National Renew-
able Energy Laboratories) examined the technological changes in the
U.S. electricity sector that would be consistent with a temperature sta-
bilization target. The two models are both state of the art. One (GCAM)
is a global model with a detailed energy sector for major regions, while
the other (ReEDS) is a model of the U.S. electricity sector with a de-
tailed regional resolution.
8
The models were calibrated to produce the same electricity genera-
tion over the 2010 -2050 period. Then each model calculated the mix
of technologies that would meet the electricity path at the lowest costs.
Even though the models have completely different architectures, focus,
economic structures, and scientifi c teams, they showed remarkably con-
sistent results.
• The most prevalent technologies currently used to generate
electricity—conventional coal and natural gas—are phased out
by 2050.
• Nuclear power grows modestly, keeping approximately its current
share of generation.
• A wholly undeveloped technology—coal and gas with CCS—has
about half of the electricity market by 2050.
• Wind power has about one-quarter of the market by 2050.
• Advanced renewable generation of various kinds (solar photovol-
taic, solar thermal, biopower, geothermal) captures another quar-
ter of the market.
