Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
News hot off the presses, the madness spreads …
UN calls for doubling renewable energy by 2030
(AFP) – 1 day ago
WASHINGTON — UN chief Ban Ki-moon made a call to double global consumption of renewable energy over the next two decades in order to ensure sustainable economic development.
“It’s possible if we show political leadership,” Ban said. … “We have to be very austere in using energy… We have to completely change our behavior, at home, at the office.”
Figure 1. US energy use, 2008. Click on image for larger view. SOURCE: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories
Double our consumption of renewable energy by 2030 … what’s not to like?
Well, the first thing not to like is that renewable energy is intermittent. That means that if we add a million kilowatts of renewable energy generation, we also have to add a million kilowatts of conventional generators.
Second thing not to like is that renewable energy is expensive, typically around three times as expensive as fossil fuel. These first two things conspire to push the cost of power up, way up. Prices of electricity in California are double the prices in neighboring states because of this push for “renewables”.
More to the point, however, is the ludicrous size of what the Chief plans to do. Bear in mind that, as in California, the CO2 alarmists don’t see large-scale hydropower as “renewable” … don’t ask me why, I don’t understand it, but it’s supposed to be teh eeevil regarding CO2 … and as a result, few large hydro plants are under construction anywhere. So they’re not talking about doubling hydropower, that would be a crime in their world.
So the real reason not to like this plan is that we only get a trivial amount of energy from renewables. In the US, we get a tenth of one percent of our energy from solar, half a percent from wind, and a third of a percent from geothermal. Finally, we get 3.9% of our energy from biomass, mostly in industries that generate said biomass as a waste product. Total? A whacking great 4.8% of our energy comes from renewables.
If we double that over the next 18 years, we’ll increase the solar share to a resounding two tenths of a percent … and wind energy will go up to 1% …
Gosh, if we continue at that rate, with solar energy increasing by 0.09% every 18 years, solar will provide ten percent of the US energy by … let’s see, divide by 2, carry the 1 … well, by the year 4012.
10% solar energy by 4012 … that’s some goal there, Chief.
My main problem with the Moon Unit and his bizarro plans is that they are based on the idea that we need to decrease energy use by increasing the price of energy. They are doing that in Britain already, it’s called “fuel poverty”, and it causes old folks to shiver in the winter because they can’t afford to heat their houses. The fact that the Chief is advocating more expensive energy and thinks that reduced energy use is a path to “economic development” is just plain sick.
The opposite is true. We need to increase energy use, and to do that we need less expensive energy, particularly for the poor. Inexpensive energy is the best friend that the poor ever had. The UN’s Chief Moon-ki wants to increase energy prices. That increases prices for all products and services, because from food to clothing to medicine, everything contains energy. The Chief pretends to be a friend to the poor, but his actions do nothing but shackle the poor to a lifetime of energy poverty.
w.
PS—There are a some countries and societies (e.g. the Solomon Islands) that use 50% or more renewable energy, in the form of burning wood, sticks, twigs, and cattle dung for cooking and heating. This leads to indoor and outdoor pollution, lung disease, and eye problems, particularly affecting women. Having been in a number of those countries, I can assure you that the poor people living there would like nothing more than to get OFF of renewable energy … and Mr. Ki-moon is being willfully and criminally blind if he does not know that.
The child with the behavior problem is Ban Ki. He needs a time-out. Sit in the corner and think about it, Ban Ki. Then when you’re ready to apologize for your misbehavior, maybe you can go out and play.
Steve from Rockwood says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:34 am
Cite for “the poor states have the lower rates and the rich states have the higher rates”?
Cite for “some poor states are investing proportionally more into renewable energy”?
Steve, California has agreed to buy solar and wind power at very expensive rates. Your uncited claim, that buying power at expensive rates doesn’t drive up the cost to the consumer, doesn’t even pass the laugh test.
w.
I feel sorry for California Public Utilities Commission Mike Florio. Unlike the uncertainty in the climate models as to the sensitivity of CO2, Commission Florio has to address the certainties of our mitigation efforts out here in CA in regards to how much our electrical prices need to go up to cover the costs of the RE programs we have approved: that are up and running and that are in the pipeline. “It just worries me that if we sign too many of these contracts, it’s going to make the program look bad just when it’s being successful,” Florio said
“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/23/MNLV1M1CET.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1elvov450
“Commissioner Mike Florio, however, voted against the agreement”- noted in the reference. “He said the possibility of steep electricity rate hikes triggered by renewable contracts keeps him awake at night.” Commissioner Florio has the unfortunate task of allocating these higher costs to the different classes of customers. As noted elsewhere 20 to 25 years PPA contracts were put in place to get the utility scale RE projects built to meet CA’s 20%RES. Those contracts have Time of Delivery factors built into them. What this means is that the large PV projects recently in the news (that PG&E is associated with) will yield the investors who bought the projects about $.23 a kwh for the generation out of the plants during the summer at peak times. Gail noted a few of the utility scale projects above- “To back that up are the 2011 California Evictions and The ugly battle between rural residents and alternative energy mandates in California (WUWT) ”
As Commissioner Florio knows the electrons from these 20 to 25 year RE GENERATION PPA’s are some what useless until you can transmit and distribute them to someone. I am not an expert on what it costs to do these activities, but I know a few people who are. They will figure an average line loss for those electrons to figure out how many of them will be available to do work and then add in their costs for those activities. I wonder what the marginal cost of a delivered kwh to a customer would be when the generation costs is $.23?
Inquiring minds, like Steve Mosher’s, might want to ask how effective these RE projects are in terms of the ultimate objective of CO2 mitigation? I think it might be best not to ask that question as it would bring into question what leadership means from my perspective vs the secretary generals.
Robbie says:
April 22, 2012 at 4:38 am
Thanks, Robbie. I don’t write to him because I consider him a lost cause. Please feel free to do so, however, since you think it’s a good idea, and report back what you find out.
w.
Don K says:
April 22, 2012 at 5:16 am
Oh, please, please, please, folks, don’t just repeat urban legends. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Google is your friend. From the National Renewable Energy Laboratory:
Charming. They also say (emphasis mine):
Yeah, that sounds like a huge success … not. The power plant that you think has done so well is in such bad shape that the owners are agitating for special legislation to force people in Vermont to buy their power … call me crazy, but I don’t want that kind of nonsense “expanded some in the US”.
As my dad used to say, “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
w.
Steve from Rockwood: California has high electricity rates because it is a rich state.
For decades California underinvested in electricity: while electricicity production was approximately constant, the population doubled and California bought increasing amounts of electricity from other states. Now California has banned the importation of electricity from power plants that would be illegal in-state (e.g. coal-fired), further restricting our supply. That has more to do with the high rates than the fact that California is “rich”.
@Gail Combs:
It is important to realize that many folks, when speaking of Thorium, talk of a “new path” via molten salt reactors and treat it as a New Tech (with all the attendant higher costs of a start up tech). Yet the reality is quite different.
Thorium is quite usable in ALL our present nuclear reactors, if we so desired. (Yes, it involves new fuel bundles and new licensing of those bundles, so largely isn’t done). It has also been done already:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
(Scroll down to ‘reactors able to use Thorium’ where you find pretty much every kind listed).
and some history:
Note that the U-233 used in Shippingport is made from Thorium.
There is also a company currently doing the licensing work for a replacement fuel bundle using Thorium and has some in burnup testing in some Russian design reactors.
http://ltbridge.com/technologyservices/fueltechnology/thoriumbasedseedandblanketfuel
So it’s important to realize that when folks talk about “Thorium Reactors” they are often talking about their favorite New Whiz-Bang Design (that can cost a lot and has a lot of technical work yet to be done) and not so much about “Just stick it in the ones we’ve got”.
We could easily start running Thorium in our present reactors if we cared to do so. India is presently doing most of the work as they have more Thorium than anyone else (in easy to mine deposits) and not so much Uranium. That’s why they show up a lot in the Thorium use history and literature.
It’s mostly a matter of how cheap Uranium is, not any technical issue with Thorium or any expensive reactor design to use it.
Don K says:
April 22, 2012 at 6:04 am
No, let’s not do it, it would be very foolish.
It is absolutely economically questionable, what planet are you living on. There is NOWHERE that grid-scale solar power makes economic sense, and wind is much worse. See “The Dark Future of Solar Electricity“.
DirkH says:
April 22, 2012 at 6:24 am
Since they’ve been making that exact same claim since solar started to be subsidized in the 1970s, that any day now solar would be competitive, by now I would have thought everyone would have noticed that’s just another urban legend.
Even if the cells were totally free it wouldn’t be competitive. See “The Dark Future of Solar Electricity“. Your claim is nothing but green hype.
w.
K says:
April 22, 2012 at 6:48 am
Not true at all. See my previous two comments.
In other words, you want to take my money and use it to support a technology that’s not ready for the market.
Why is it that folks like you always want to use my money for that? If it’s such a brilliant plan, how about you use your money to push it forwards, and take your grabby hands out of my wallet?
Sheesh … always, you guys want me to pay for your pathetic green fantasies … when renewables make sense, the market will accept them.
w.
Dena says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:05 am
I regret to say this, Dena, but that’s entirely wrong.
The “rejected energy” is regarding the efficiency of the conversion from the energy source (coal, oil, etc.) to the usable energy (movement of cars, electricity generation, etc.) Many of these conversions are not very efficient. So only about a quarter of the energy that goes into the power plants comes out as electricity, because the turbines are only about 25% efficient. The rest of the energy is “rejected” up the smokestack as heat, it doesn’t do useful work.
w.
Jim Cripwell says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:33 am
Call me when it actually works. Until then, it’s just another green pipe dream. As for your claim that the plant is funded with “private money”, that’s absolute nonsense:
and
and
In other words, the project COULDN’T GET PRIVATE FUNDING without President Obama and Secretary Chu putting up my tax money to guarantee the loan, the DOE has given the project $100 million dollars in grants, the State of Iowa is putting in $5.25 million in grants … and you are trying to claim it’s “private money”??? Go try to fool someone less credible, that won’t work here.
I say again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. You are spouting nonsense, it doesn’t do your reputation any good.
w.
Gail Combs says:
April 22, 2012 at 8:00 am
Thank you most kindly for a very important comment, Gail. The same applies to the “cellulosic ethanol” that Jim Cripwell is hyping above. The cellulosic feedstock (corn cobs and stalks) needs to be returned to the soil, not turned into alcohol.
w.
Gail Combs says:
April 22, 2012 at 9:56AM
Great comment as usual Gail. I installed a ground source heat pump this year and with an EER of 27 and COP of 5 it really has saved some money on utility bills. Probably one of the only true green energy sources. One word of caution for anyone interested in purchasing the technology, those on a fixed retirement income who don’t normally owe any tax will not receive any of the 30% tax credit offered by the government.
Jim
Matthew R Marler says:
April 22, 2012 at 9:41 am
Absolutely untrue, it’s a government regulation, not just a bad idea of the “most active environmentalists”. Only “small-scale hydro” is counted as renewable energy by the State Government. This restriction is written into the Renewable Portfolio Standard law that requires 30% renewables by 2020. There is a bill (AB1771) in the Assembly now to revise that, but it hasn’t come up for a vote. The new bill is described here:
DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
w.
Gail Combs and Allan MacRea have both left very excellent comments. Thank you both. It’s enjoyable to read common sense and fact-based logic.
I favor passive solar for specific applications. You can heat or pre-heat water with these systems and homes built to take advantage of optimal siting can save a lot on energy expense. Geothermal is also a good option but is probably best suited for installation in new homes being built rather than retrofitting to existing structures. I can’t understand the love affair with PV solar (and I live in the Southwest @ur momisugly 7,000 ft). If one were to calculate the hours of peak sunshine over the course of a year, this technology doesn’t look all that attractive. The liefespan of the typical PV panel is said to be about 20 years at which time they muct be replaced Then there is the question of disposing of them or reconditioning them. They must also be kept clean, clear of dust, grime and bird poop as this significantly diminishes their efficiency. There is also the need for inverters (lossy) and step-up transformers (also lossy). For commercial applications they take up a lot of real estate. In the pevious comments I read a recurring theme about the price coming down. Don’t count on it. Prices now are low because China over-produced and they’re dumping product. PV panels are not like home computers. It is unrealistic to expect them to become better, more efficient and less expensive as time goes by.
Wind power is similarly impractical. They have to huge to even approach an acceptable output. They only function when the wind is blowing not too slow and not too fast. They are exorbitantly expensive and they are rather complex pieces of mechanical machinery that require regular maintenance (like oil changes). The “green job” worker who has to affect repair on these things has to climb up a 400 ft. ladder. Can you imagine the temperature inside one of those towers on a hot summer day? Aside from the obvious intermittent and diffuse nature of the electricity generated, there is the not insignificant expense in transmission infrastructure, the need for spinning back up, the noise, the damage to wildlife, etc.
Biofuels are simply stupid – especially ethanol. I think we should end all subsidies and mandated use and see how these technologies fare in the free market. If a technology cannot survive without subsidies (or even worse) mandated use, it is not, by definition a viable technology.
Matthew R Marler says:
April 22, 2012 at 11:08 am
No, they’re not. If the demand for electricity goes up by say a 1,000 megawatts, and you meet that increased demand with say solar, the backup is not in place. That’s why you had to add the solar, because your total generating capacity was short by 1,000 megawatts. And if the solar fails, you need conventional generators to supply that 1,000 megawatts, but they are not available, that’s why you installed the solar, duh … which means there are no backup generators in place.
w.
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm
“In other words, you want to take my money and use it to support a technology that’s not ready for the market.
Why is it that folks like you always want to use my money for that? If it’s such a brilliant plan, how about you use your money to push it forwards, and take your grabby hands out of my wallet?
Sheesh … always, you guys want me to pay for your pathetic green fantasies … when renewables make sense, the market will accept them.”
w.
===============
Someone had to say it, and very well said.
E.M.Smith says: @ur momisugly April 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm
It is important to realize that many folks, when speaking of Thorium, talk of a “new path” via molten salt reactors and treat it as a New Tech (with all the attendant higher costs of a start up tech). Yet the reality is quite different.
Thorium is quite usable in ALL our present nuclear reactors, if we so desired….
_______________________________
Oh Thank You, I was wondering about that.
A couple of the articles I read seemed to indicate Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (the “new” technology) could be used to “use up” nuclear waste.
MOLTEN SALT REACTORS FOR BURNING DISMANTLED WEAPONS FUEL
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-can-use-lftrs-to-consume-nuclear-waste/
Enviromentalists [sic] want humans to stop interfering the “natural environment”. The greatest effect on the environment by man is caused by agriculture. Are there enviros who want to shut down farming?
Willis Eschenbach: which means there are no backup generators in place.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that you meant generators to generate electricity when the sun wasn’t shining.
Absolutely untrue, it’s a government regulation, not just a bad idea of the “most active environmentalists”.
You might be right, but we have a lot of government regulations that are not supported by a majority of people. The laws are written to give authority to some agency to develop regulations, and among the regulations appear some that are truly unpopular and take a long time to reverse. Nationwide we see that with the EPA regulation of CO2 from smokestacks, and I think the same applies to decisions by the CA govt to classify large scale hydro as not renewable. Some of my reading at this site is to alert me to what to pay more attention to next time, and I’ll put that on my list.
This bill would revise the definition of an eligible renewable energy resource for the purposes of the California renewables portfolio standard program to include a hydroelectric generation facility of any size, as specified, and make conforming changes
Is the bill popular? If it is popular among the public, then its popularity supports my point. It is possible that it will be defeated by popularly elected representatives, even though it in particular is popular. We get a lot of that sort of contrariness in life, even in democracy and in republics.
In other words, you want to take my money and use it to support a technology that’s not ready for the market.
If you buy a drug that is under patent, that is exactly what you do; and you benefit from the laboratory science that some tax payers other than you financed. If you have flown in an aircraft built recently by Boeing, then you have paid a part of the development cost of an aircraft that you will never fly in; just as your predecessors contributed to the development of aircraft that you have flown in and that they did not. And you benefit from radar paid for out of taxes paid by people who never benefited at all. As you wrote it, that sentence is too superficial. Some of the things you use regularly were developed in private industry, some in government labs, and most in some sort of government/commercial combination. In ancient days, governments financed canals; then railroads and railroad stations; then aircraft and airline terminals; and then large hydropower projects. Now PV development. Then as now, some subsidized companies went bankrupt; now as then, some government projects pay off better than others.
PV power increased 18% from 2010 to 2011, world wide. It increased at a higher rate than that in the US, but most new PV power was installed outside the US. At recent rates, PV power world wide will double in about 5 years. PV installed costs fell almost 60% in a little over a year. That exact rate of price decline will almost for sure not be maintained, but all the evidence supports the idea that prices willl continue to decline, and more and more places will find PV power to be price competitive against alternatives. PV power is cheaper now than a year ago when you and I had almost exactly this same discussion. And, as I wrote, there are about 24GW more installed PV power than there were then. If present trends continue, there will be about 29GW more installed by the time we talk about it again next year, and it will be about 20% cheaper.
Gail Combs says @April 22, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Canada’s CANDU (yes, awful pun) reactors need negligible modification to burn this fuel.
Willis Eschenbach: when renewables make sense, the market will accept them.
Some leniency in thought accompanies your word “accept”. The market “accepted” the internet, but development costs were paid for by the government. The market “accepted” the Boeing 707 and DC 8, but the development costs were mostly born by the government, for the aircraft and for the engines.
As the PV panels make better and better sense for more and more people, we see the market accepting them more and more.
Matthew R Marler says:
April 22, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Don’t buy what you just said. You couldn’t accomplish what you want with just PV panels. They will help out during the day but at night, when it is the coldest, they wouldn’t do a thing. Your grid tied electricity would be doing most of the work for heating. The same would hold true for A/C during the summer months. You might get more payback for that than heating..
Damn.
I keep seeing this repeated .. PROVE IT!
.