Close examination of past power industry options and choices suggests that load growth can be met with just over half the fossil fuel and pollution associated with
conventional central generation.
Although most power is produced in
large central generation plants, the demand for small «distributed» generation plants has reached unprecedented levels.
The Reference Case assumes that the energy policies of each government in 2002 continue without change, a modest evolution of technology, and continued reliance
on central generation of electric power, which is consistent with most existing policies and regulations.
Furthermore, the previously wasted heat can be recycled from these decentralized generation plants to displace boiler fuel and essentially cut the fuel for electric generation in half, compared to remote or
central generation of the same power.
Certainly, it is going to be needed to some degree, we have substantial amounts of coal and nuclear and natural gas —
central generation currently in this country — but because of the distributed generation from wind, solar, geothermal and hydrokinetic, I think we are going to have to develop a different grid that can accommodate that in a much more efficient way.
«Microgrids have several advantages for the electricity grid; for example, they can provide electricity during peak - usage hours and therefore forestall the need for expensive upgrades
in central generation, transmission, and distribution systems.
You still have power lines and transformers and, mostly, central generation [power plants].
According to him, Brattle fails to consider all benefits to the grid of distributed solar and costs
from central generation.
Solar photovoltaic panels on individual buildings or local windmills are distributed generation, while large hydro and wind farms are
central generation requiring transmission and distribution (T&D).
We calculated what price per KWh would be required for each of four
central generation technologies, built in each year, to provide a fair return on capital.5
* Meeting global load growth with decentralized energy can save $ 5 trillion of capital, lower the cost of incremental power by 35 - 40 percent, and reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent versus the
IEA central generation dominated reference case.
We have attempted to frame the consequences of meeting energy load growth with
conventional central generation or deploying decentralized generation that recycles waste energy.
The model assumes
new central generation will require 100 percent new transmission and distribution and new decentralized generation will require new T&D equal to 10 percent of added generating capacity.
Local generation that recycles energy improves every important outcome versus full reliance
on central generation.
So,
the central generation — traditional generation — will still play a part, will still play a role in the future, but I think that role will be much different one and it will be a diminished one as more and more of these renewable resources come on line.
Although the future surely includes some mix of central and decentralized generation, the model calculates the extreme cases of meeting all load growth with
central generation, or meeting all growth with decentralized generation.
The IEA projections assume that
central generation is the optimal approach, given todays technology.
Power industry regulations largely derive from the unquestioned belief that
central generation is optimal.
These conditions prevailed from 1910 through 1960, and everyone in the power industry and government came to assume that remote,
central generation was optimal, that it would deliver power at the lowest cost versus other alternatives.
Meeting the world's growing appetite for electric power with conventional
central generation will severely tax capital markets, fossil fuel markets, and the global environment.