1. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 1 HONR 229L: Climate Change: Science, Economics, and Governance Economics of Renewable Energy Your name here 4 November 2015

2. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 2 As always, I suggest working the admission ticket questions into the presentation. But you have plenty to choose from, since the reading ends with a nice set of discussion questions. I suggest still working with the admission tickets, since most students will have thought of these questions just before class. Here is Q1: The reading states the three cost challenges for producing more energy from renewable sources are net energy, overcoming intermittency, and capital intensity. Table 3 provides net energy ratios from various energy sources. Based on your prior knowledge and/or material covered in this class: a) what aspect of Table 3 is least surprising? b) what aspect of Table 3 is most surprising? Note: I think there is a clear “surprise” in the table … i.e., something I absolutely did not expect to see. So I decided to do my own research. This is the paper cited for “farmed willow chips”: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07352680500316334 (only need to read the abstract). See a difference ?!?

3. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 3 Here is Table 3 as an easy to re-size PNG I always try to “double source” info but in this case, as far as I can tell, the single source for farmed willow chips seems to be off. Can also, should you so desire, pull info from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12111/full (will need to be on campus to access this article, and one on prior slide)

4. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 4 Here is Figure 5 from this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcbb.12111/full Please note totally your call whether to use !!! Reason to use would be to motivate students to check sources of info.

5. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 5 Here is Q2: Table 4 provides an estimate of the cost of providing electricity from various sources. a) What aspect of Table 4 would you challenge based on first glance, given your knowledge of material covered in other readings? The authors have decided to use capacity factor in an interesting way, for the rank ordering of the capital cost of renewable energy given in Table 4. b) Briefly, how has capacity factor been used and do you feel the use in this manner is appropriate? Feel free to communicate with me about your take on the answers to these questions

6. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 6 And Table 4 as an easy to re-size PNG Here is the table, as given in the book

7. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 7 And Table 4 as an easy to re-size PNG Here is the table, with an interesting mathematical operation applied!

8. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 8 And Table 4 as an easy to re-size PNG And here is the same table, prior page, with the sources ordered based on last column. Can have plenty of discussion about this table, including: a)statement on page 8 of the PDF file (this was assigned as auxiliary reading for Mon) that the US and China have just developed 16% and 24%, respectively, of their “technical potential” for hydro b)Need to address intermittency, which is the only way this “re-multiplication” and “re-ordering” would be feasible c)Factor of 3 increase in cost for offshore wind relative to onshore wind … prob due to harsh marine envir d)Huge challenge faced by the low capital cost of gas … which is driven in part by the huge “discount” applied to future purchase of gas explained just about the table.

9. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 9 And Table 4 as an easy to re-size PNG And here is the same table, prior page, with the sources ordered based on last column. Can have plenty of discussion about this table, including: e)Also, strange that geothermal electricity does not appear in the table. Could ask students to speculate why. I have my own idea … wonder what you and the students think ?!?

10. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 10 Speaking of intermittency … the reading refers to the Northfield Mountain pumped storage station I placed this URL into the Auxiliary Reading section: http://www.gdfsuezna.com/northfield-mountain You could prepare a slide or two, summarizing this station (since it is in the reading) or water else you can easily find about pumped water energy storage solutions

11. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 11 Here is Q3: The reading emphasizes the potential for energy efficiency to play an increasingly important role, in the transition of society towards reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. In a few sentences, describe what is stated about energy efficiency and also express an opinion as to whether or not you believe the statement: energy efficiency is the “alternative energy source” with the “greatest potential” (for societal benefit) is correct. There is no correct answer here. IMHO, often the fossil fuel folks use this as a “cop out” but, on the other hand, Md’s RGGI program does provide financial benefit to homeowners who decide to conduct a home energy audit and improve the air tightness of their homes. However, there have been some hugely successful programs, including one I had helped lead that was part of this effort http://energy.gov/eere/better-buildings-neighborhood- program/accomplishmentshttp://energy.gov/eere/better-buildings-neighborhood- program/accomplishments No need to go to the above website. I would appreciate a brief focus on this question, that will hopefully elicit a range of opinions. Again, no right answer here!

12. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 12 Here is Q4: The reading emphasizes rather strongly that “directing the bulk of energy subsidies toward fossil fuels tilts the playing field in their favor” and provides numerical estimates for the subsidies directed towards the fossil fuel industry. a) State the dollar amounts given in the reading, for the subsidies directed towards fossil fuels b) The reading provides no detail as to what these subsidies entail. Pick a fossil fuel sector (i.e., electricity, transportation, heating fuel, etc) and, based on your own quick research, succinctly provide the missing detail. c) explain the conundrum that the dollar amount of subsidies directed towards the fossil fuel industry is so large, while at the same time the cent per kilowatt-hour benefit enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry is so much less than the same benefit provided to the renewable energy industry I am keenly interested in what folks come up for, in response to b). I’m sure I will learn a lot as honestly, I do not know much of the details. If you are having any trouble with c) (IMHO the answer is clear), let’s chat

13. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. 13 Here is Q5: The phrase internalizing externalities seems like an oxymoron. Yet this might be the best hope for avoiding catastrophic climate change due to societal dependence on fossil fuels. Provide a brief essay explaining this phrase and either support, or refute, the view that internalizing externalities is indeed is our best hope for avoiding catastrophic climate change. Can spend plenty of time on this, should you so desire. OR … you can spend a little time one this and segue into one or more of the Discussion Questions given on page 42 of the reading Please note this website: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/RenewableEnergy.ppt contains all of the figures in the reading … can use as many as you’d like One item kind of left on the “cutting room floor” was Figure 5 and the “equimarginal principle”. Perfectly fine if you’d like to use Figure 5 and spend time having students explain in there words what this means … or perfectly fine to not use. Your call!

14. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. Table 3. Net Energy Ratios for Various Energy Sources Adapted from Murphy and Hall (2010) Energy SourceNet Energy RatioReference Oil (global)35 (Yandle, Bhattarai and Vijayaraghavan 2004) Natural gas10 (Hall 2008) Coal80 (Cleveland 2005) Shale oil5 (Hall 2008) Nuclear5-15 (Lenzen 2008; Murphy and Hall 2010) Hydropower>100 (Hall 2008) Wind18 (Kubiszewski, Cleveland and Endres 2010) Photovoltaic cells6.8 (Battisti and Corrado 2005) Ethanol (sugarcane)0.8 – 10 (Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann 1986),(Goldemberg 2007) Ethanol (corn-based)0.8 – 1.6 (Farrell, Pelvin and Turner 2006) Biodiesel1.3 (Hall, Cleveland and Kaufmann 1986) Farmed willow chips55 (Keoleian and Volk 2005)

15. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. Nominal Capacity (MW) Capital Cost ($/kW) Assumed Capacity Factor Capital $/Expected kW Natural gas: combined cycle620$91790%$1,019 Coal: advanced pulverized fuel650$3,24690%$3,607 Hydroelectric: conventional500$2,93675%$3,915 Nuclear: dual unit2,234$5,53090%$6,144 Wind: onshore100$2,21325%$8,852 Biomass combined cycle20$8,18090%$9,089 Wind: offshore400$6,23035%$17,800 Solar: photovoltaic150$3,87320%$19,365 Solar: thermal electric100$5,06720%$25,335 15 Table 4. Capital Cost of Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Sources Adapted from EIA (2013) Note: For comparing sources with different capacity factors, the authors have defined $ / Expected kW to be ($/kW) / (capacity factor), or “the capital cost to produce the same amount of electricity as one kW of capacity running continuously” Finally, I am preserving originals of the 3 versions of Table 4, in case we find a mistake and want to edit

16. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. Nominal Capacity (MW) Capital Cost ($/kW) Assumed Capacity Factor Capital $/Expected kW Natural gas: combined cycle620$91790%$1,019 Coal: advanced pulverized fuel650$3,24690%$3,607 Hydroelectric: conventional500$2,93675%$3,915 Nuclear: dual unit2,234$5,53090%$6,144 Wind: onshore100$2,21325%$8,852 Biomass combined cycle20$8,18090%$9,089 Wind: offshore400$6,23035%$17,800 Solar: photovoltaic150$3,87320%$19,365 Solar: thermal electric100$5,06720%$25,335 16 Table 4. Capital Cost of Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Sources Adapted from EIA (2013) Note: For comparing sources with different capacity factors, the authors have defined $ / Expected kW to be ($/kW) / (capacity factor), or “the capital cost to produce the same amount of electricity as one kW of capacity running continuously” Finally, I am preserving originals of the 3 versions of Table 4, in case we find a mistake and want to edit

17. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland. This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. Nominal Capacity (MW) Capital Cost ($/kW) Assumed Capacity Factor Capital $/Expected kW Natural gas: combined cycle620$91790%$917 Coal: advanced pulverized fuel650$3,24690%$3,246 Hydroelectric: conventional500$2,93675%$2,936 Nuclear: dual unit2,234$5,53090%$5,530 Wind: onshore100$2,21325%$2,213 Biomass combined cycle20$8,18090%$8,180 Wind: offshore400$6,23035%$6,230 Solar: photovoltaic150$3,87320%$3,873 Solar: thermal electric100$5,06720%$5,067 17 Table 4. Capital Cost of Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Sources Here last column has been multiplied by the Assumed Capacity Factor. Adapted from EIA (2013) Note: Here we have simply multiplied the numbers in the table, from the reading, by the capacity factor … to in effect remove capacity factor from the ledger.

18. Copyright © 2015 University of Maryland This material may not be reproduced or redistributed, in whole or in part, without written permission from Ross Salawitch. Nominal Capacity (MW) Capital Cost ($/kW) Assumed Capacity Factor Capital $/Actual Output Natural gas: combined cycle620$91790%$917 Wind: onshore100$2,21325%$2,213 Hydroelectric: conventional500$2,93675%$2,936 Coal: advanced pulverized fuel650$3,24690%$3,246 Solar: photovoltaic150$3,87320%$3,873 Solar: thermal electric100$5,06720%$5,067 Nuclear: dual unit2,234$5,53090%$5,530 Wind: offshore400$6,23035%$6,230 Biomass combined cycle20$8,18090%$8,180 18 Table 4. Capital Cost of Renewable and Non-Renewable Electricity Sources Adapted from EIA (2013) Note: Here we have simply multiplied the numbers in the table, from the reading, by the capacity factor … to in effect remove capacity factor from the ledger. Items-reordered