Electricity scenarios

In Reinventing Fire, Rocky Mountain Institute investigates the implications of four radically different future electricity scenarios - from a “business-as-usual” case to a network of intelligent microgrids powered largely by distributed renewables.

 

Historic and projected CO2 emissions from the U.S. electric sector, 1990–2050

Rocky Mountain Institute’s four scenarios for the future U.S. electricity system ( detailed here ) all have markedly different projected CO2 emissions over the next 40 years.

 

Cumulative new transmission requirements in four scenarios

Rocky Mountain Institute’s four scenarios for the future U.S. electricity system ( detailed here ) all have very different requirements for an expanded transmission infrastructure.

 

2050 installed capacity by case

The required generating capacity and its breakdown are very different in each of Rocky Mountain Institute’s four scenarios for the future U.S. electricity system (detailed here).

 

2050 generation by case

Each of Rocky Mountain Institute’s four scenarios for the future U.S. electricity system (detailed here) will have a very different electricity generation mix.

 

Present value cost of the U.S. electricity system

While Rocky Mountain Institute’s four scenarios for the future U.S. electricity system ( detailed here ) have profoundly different resource portfolios, grid structures, environmental impacts, and risk, all the scenarios have very similar overall system costs.

 

McKelvey diagram for coal or gas resources

Any electricity future dependent on significant coal or gas resources brings with it the added risk of fuel availability. The McKelvey diagram is a useful visualization for classifying resources by their degrees of geologic assurance and economic recoverability.

 

U.S. nuclear waste stocks, today and projected

RMI’s Migrate scenario explores a U.S. grid relying on nuclear power for 36% of annual generation. The required ramp-up of nuclear power would generate around 160,000 tons of nuclear waste over the next 40 years.

 

Standard practice vs. combined heat and power

Buildings or industrial facilities with both heating loads and electricity demand can typically benefit from combined heat and power (CHP) generation. This technology allows both heat and electricity to be produced at a marginal cost less than that of both produced separately.

 

Cost savings from running CHP

Buildings or industrial facilities that operate combined heat and power (CHP) generators purchase a fuel (typically natural gas) and use it to generate electricity onsite, capturing the waste heat for the facility’s heating demands. Whether or not the operator can generate electricity cheaper than they can buy it is dependent on the current costs of fuel and electricity as well as the efficiency of their unit, and is quantified by the spark spread.

 

results per page 10 20