By Steve Goreham
Originally published in Communities Digital News.
The global energy outlook has changed radically in just six years. President Obama was elected in 2008 by voters who believed we were running out of oil and gas, that climate change needed to be halted, and that renewables were the energy source of the near future. But an unexpected transformation of energy markets and politics may instead make 2014 the year of peak renewables.
In December of 2007, former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on man-made climate change, leading an international crusade to halt global warming. In June, 2008 after securing a majority of primary delegates, candidate Barack Obama stated, “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…” Climate activists looked to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference as the next major step to control greenhouse gas emissions.
The price of crude oil hit $145 per barrel in June, 2008. The International Energy Agency and other organizations declared that we were at peak oil, forecasting a decline in global production. Many claimed that the world was running out of hydrocarbon energy.
Driven by the twin demons of global warming and peak oil, world governments clamored to support renewables. Twenty years of subsidies, tax-breaks, feed-in tariffs, and mandates resulted in an explosion of renewable energy installations. The Renewable Energy Index (RENIXX) of the world’s 30 top renewable energy companies soared to over 1,800.
Tens of thousands of wind turbine towers were installed, totaling more than 200,000 windmills worldwide by the end of 2012. Germany led the world with more than one million rooftop solar installations. Forty percent of the US corn crop was converted to ethanol vehicle fuel.
But at the same time, an unexpected energy revolution was underway. Using good old Yankee ingenuity, the US oil and gas industry discovered how to produce oil and natural gas from shale. With hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, vast quantities of hydrocarbon resources became available from shale fields in Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
From 2008 to 2013, US petroleum production soared 50 percent. US natural gas production rose 34 percent from a 2005 low. Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, and more than ten nations in Europe began issuing permits for hydraulic fracturing. The dragon of peak oil and gas was slain.
In 2009, the ideology of Climatism, the belief that humans were causing dangerous global warming, came under serious attack. In November, emails were released from top climate scientists at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, an incident christened Climategate. The communications showed bias, manipulation of data, avoidance of freedom of information requests, and efforts to subvert the peer-review process, all to further the cause of man-made climate change.
One month later, the Copenhagen Climate Conference failed to agree on a successor climate treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Failures at United Nations conferences at Cancun (2010), Durban (2011), Doha (2012), and Warsaw (2013) followed. Canada, Japan, Russia, and the United States announced that they would not participate in an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.
Major climate legislation faltered across the world. Cap and trade failed in Congress in 2009, with growing opposition from the Republican Party. The price of carbon permits in the European Emissions Trading System crashed in April 2013 when the European Union voted not to support the permit price. Australia elected Prime Minister Tony Abbott in the fall of 2013 on a platform of scrapping the nation’s carbon tax.
Europeans discovered that subsidy support for renewables was unsustainable. Subsidy obligations soared in Germany to over $140 billion and in Spain to over $34 billion by 2013. Renewable subsidies produced the world’s highest electricity rates in Denmark and Germany. Electricity and natural gas prices in Europe rose to double those of the United States.
Worried about bloated budgets, declining industrial competitiveness, and citizen backlash, European nations have been retreating from green energy for the last four years. Spain slashed solar subsidies in 2009 and photovoltaic sales fell 80 percent in a single year. Germany cut subsidies in 2011 and 2012 and the number of jobs in the German solar industry dropped by 50 percent. Renewable subsidy cuts in the Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom added to the cascade. The RENIXX Renewable Energy Index fell below 200 in 2012, down 90 percent from the 2008 peak.
Once a climate change leader, Germany turned to coal after the 2012 decision to close nuclear power plants. Coal now provides more than 50 percent of Germany’s electricity and 23 new coal-fired power plants are planned. Global energy from coal has grown by 4.4 percent per year over the last ten years.
Spending on renewables is in decline. From a record $318 billion in 2011, world renewable energy spending fell to $280 billion in 2012 and then fell again to $254 billion in 2013, according to Bloomberg. The biggest drop occurred in Europe, where investment plummeted 41 percent last year. The 2013 expiration of the US Production Tax Credit for wind energy will continue the downward momentum.
Today, wind and solar provide less than one percent of global energy. While these sources will continue to grow, it’s likely they will deliver only a tiny amount of the world’s energy for decades to come. Renewable energy output may have peaked, at least as a percentage of global energy production.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Allow me to add to the list of reasons why wind turbines are not worth our time, effort and money.
It is my understanding that these contraptions require a rare earth element (REE) known as neodymium. Besides the fact that mining REEs are polluting, neodymium is obviously a finite resource because we extract it from the ground much the same as fossil fuels. So if a raw material needed for the manufacture of wind turbines comes from the ground and is not recyclable, how can tapping into wind power be considered sustainable and renewable?
The neodymium (I would guess) is depleted of its magnetic properties at the end of the turbine’s life making it toxic waste as well. Do we have the means for disposing of that waste in a environmentally friendly way? And then of course there is the issue of the birds and bats that they kill…..
All of this leaves one contemplating whether the green left is even capable of thinking in a logical, rational and scientific manner that involves the facts. Way to much daydreaming I guess.
KILL WIND TURBINES, NOT AVIAN WILDLIFE.
Since there are comments about hydraulic fracturing(I don’t use the term “fracking” which was invented by the Marxists to be a metaphorical term with another word that starts with “F” and ends with “K”) I was impelled to comment.So everyone understands the expansion of hydraulic fracturing, which is not new technology is based upon economics as a hypothetical example for an 8 stage (eight fractures in a horizontal wellbore)i as follows:
Each fracture should produce a similar amount.
Cost to drill & fracture 1 vertical well- $2,000,000
Gas produced from 1 vertical well- $2,000,000
Net Income=0
Cost to drill 1 horizontal well with 8 stage (8 hydraulic fractures)- $10,000,000
Gas produced from 1 horizontal well=$16,000,000
Net Income=$6,000,000
Of course these numbers are based upon natural gas prices higher than $8/mmbtu. At current gas prices the process is nominally economic.
That worldview, along with skirting some tax laws, will qualify you as a Senior White House Adviser for President Obama? By chance have you ever been a card-carrying socialist, Marxist or communist? Are you a 9/11-truther? Don’t misunderstand, those things will help you get the job.
That’s one decline they can’t hide.
cnxtim says:
March 1, 2014 at 10:06 pm
Please, “Using good old Yankee ingenuity” enough of the jingoistic drivel. engineers from all over the world have known about the ‘next mile’ extraction of carbon reserves for decades.
The fact that the USA is just waking up to clean coal, gas, shale and fracking extraction is good to see, but the USA woefully lags the rest of the world in this regard, but I suspect with yankee enthusiasm for the job at hand, not for much longer.
It is a good thing – welcome Americans to the 21st century and beyond to the real world of affordable, clean, diverse and abundant fuel ”
I think you have discovered to your chagrin that this isn’t a light discussion group that lets ignorance just slide. Upside? You get an education and learn to substantiate what you say, especially when you are posturing and putting people down.
Not only did the US invent fracking, they invented offshore drilling, most production methods of the oil and gas industry, and indeed invented th oil and gas industry itself (although Canada began drilling for oil about the same time). The world owes a great debt to the free-enterprise system of the US. And that’s why there are entire institutions, like the UN, etc. whose ideological purpose is to promote anti-Americanism.
The National Audubon Society and The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds must – excuse me – be crowing at the oncoming demise of the wind turbine threat. 🙂
My cat was pretty happy too when I told him. He’s about to regain his status as the bird apex predator.
Col Mosby says:
March 2, 2014 at 6:28 am
Environmentalists apparently always expect their neighbors to pay for a good portion of their electricity. They are, you know, welfare queens. Only in this case, they think they are doing their neighbors a favor.
============
When the government pays you $10,000 subsidy to install solar on your roof, who pays the $10,000? Certainly not the government. The $10,000 comes from your neighbors that cannot afford to install solar even with the $10,000 subsidy.
So, in the end, it is those with money that get the $10,000, while those without money end up paying the $10,000.
So, if solar is such a good idea, why doesn’t the government simply install solar on everyone’s roof for free? Think of all the green jobs that would be created, manufacturing panels and installing them. In that way the subsidy and benefits would be fairly distributed to all.
Otherwise, if you can’t make the subsidy fair, why should it benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor? The subsidy is simply Robbin Hood in Reverse. Stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
CD (@CD153) says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:09 am
“The neodymium (I would guess) is depleted of its magnetic properties at the end of the turbine’s life making it toxic waste as well. ”
Why should that be so? It’s not found in nature in the form of small shiny magnetic balls. If the permanent magnets made from it lose their magnetization they can still be reworked and remagnetized.
Don’t know if they get recycled, or if the price of Neodymium makes it worthwhile. Lithium from Li Ion batteries is , for instance, currently not recycled. At 6000 USD a ton it’s too cheap / recycling is more expensive than that. Lithium prices are rising since 2000 though, with rising demand.
Yankee ingenuity is dead. What this was was Texas ingenuity, the first comment in this thread notwithstanding. From Wiki:
The technology was around for a long time. Mitchell took it to the higher level.
China and the EC agreed to put a floor price on solar imports, ending the price war that was ruining solar mfg. profits. Meanwhile, China stopped subsidizing many smaller solar mfgrs. and made them merge with bigger ones–probably the latter were the ones in TAN’s portfolio.
The UK people have shown courage in adversity before
Only when lead by the nose, otherwise known as politicians.
Bell was born in Scotland but invented the telephone in Ontario, Canada where the patent was first filed. The first transatlantic radio transmission was sent from Canada by an Italian, was it not?
The computer and TV were British as was the first really popular microcomputer (does anyone remember that far back?). The smartphone originated here in Waterloo but the secure transmission method for the internet comes from Ottawa and South Africa. The OS for all those nuclear and coal fired power stations and the smart grid, QNX, guaranteeing reliable juice for the whole communications shebang comes from Mississauga, Ontario but is now owned by BlackBerry.
There is plenty of credit for good ol’ human ingenuity GOHI to do round. Wasn’t alternating current promoted successful by that Croat? Against the wishes of Edison? In the end we needed both.
Fracturing the ground to increase the flow from a ‘tight’ source was practiced on water wells long before oil, at least the principles are identical. When I started in the groundwater industry boreholes were not ‘bored’ at all. They. Were pounded into rock using something called a cable rig and involved not boring at all. A bit was pounded into the rock to promote fracturing of the surrounding region to greatly increase the flow rate available from low permeability ground.
After the hole reached final depth it was ‘developed’ which involved pounding a water column into the fractures and lifting [out] sand produced during the fracturing. The equipment we used in the 70’s was ancient and British. It was also successful.
The much faster “down the hole hammer” makes for quicker work but doesn’t fracture much at all. Hence “borehole”. Boreholes need tracking.
Boreholes need fracking…
Crispin in Waterloo seems to like to think that everything good was born in England I see.
Unfortunately, it still takes an American to derive the true of economic potential dem gizmos he so waxes idyllically about.
Like most Europeans he still is stuck in the past…..
What has England done for the world – lately?
Interesting that so many commenters bash subsidies for renewable power technologies.
Then, they praise nuclear power plants, which are also subsidized.
It is quite instructive that men with the money (e.g. Warren Buffet) will not invest in a new nuclear power plant in the USA. Buffet could easily write a check for the entire cost, and eliminate the financing costs. But, he is far too smart for that.
Commenters above maintain Renewable subsidies, bad. Nuclear subsidies, good. Double standard?
Oh, and if three nuclear plants can be built for $15 billion in the USA, that is certainly big news. The two reactors under construction at Vogtle are at this time expected to cost a bit more than $17 billion. That will certainly increase as construction delays occur. Final cost will almost certainly be more than $20 billion.
Nuclear is nuts.
wws
Thanks for your information.
Re: George Mitchell
One of my oldest memories (about age 5 or 6) is walking with an uncle across a hillside from tank to tank to drain the water and prepare the oil for the tank truck that would soon come to haul it to a refinery. This was in north central Pennsylvania near the town of Duke Center. Another uncle had been one of the drillers in that area but never took me to one of his sites. He died before I was old enough to go along. Anyway, for the above reasons (and more), I always pay attention to the stories of folks from such industries. I did not have time earlier to go looking for this:
When George Mitchell died last year his exploits were widely reported. This one in the Wall Street Journal has a photo and also mentions “The Woodlands” north of Houston.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323971204578630274272119006
July 26, 2013 by Tom Fowler
That’s seriously insulting to those who fought through the last world war and lost loved ones in that war and in other conflict area’s since then.
A. Scott says:
March 2, 2014 at 3:58 am
I’m surprised no one has brought up Iceland …
You should mention to your greenie friends that geologically unique Iceland, which sits atop a “hot spot” on a spreading ocean ridge, is the only place in the world where you can take geothermal energy in significant quantities without depleting the thermal source. Everywhere else, you are simply mining heat, and the mine will be exhausted just as if you were pulling up minerals.
And, there are a whole 300,000 people in Iceland, with a low population density.
@roger Sowell – “Nuclear is nuts”
Is it really? The nuclear plant is cheaper than coal and about 7x cheaper than solar thermal, and takes up less than 60x the space for the same yearly energy output.
Compare Palo Verde to Solana…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell. “Nuclear is nuts”.
It’s not really double standards, renewables are simply not viable and the energy storage to enable any serious use of renewables has yet to be invented. Nuclear will be providing baseload long after all the wind turbines have rusted away, and the world is finally out of coal, oil and gas.
How much energy does it take to mine, smelt. manufacture, transport, install, maintain and proveide backup power and dispose of those bird choppers, more than they produce over their lifetime ?
Wind turbines are nuts.
Roger Sowell
RE:Nuclear is nuts.
Sure wish you had not stop at that.
Some folks like wind. Not too sure that will work:
http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
Note the green line.
Solar. Not today.
02 March 2014 Sun 1745 UTC GOES-WEST Visible Satellite Imagery
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/cgi-bin/latest.cgi?vis1km
Utility scale storage? Waiting.
Your ideas are?
An American, an Englishman and a Canadian were having a drink in a bar when the American suddenly started to blink his eyes rapidly from behind his eye glasses.
“What are you doing” asked the Englishman.
“Sorry, I’m just answering an email” said the American.
A few minutes later the Englishman started making vigorous tapping noises on his wristwatch.
“What are you doing” asked the American.
“Sorry, I just unlocked the door to let my kids into the house after school using my wrist computer” said the Englishman.
As the Canadian looked on he realized that he didn’t have any special technology and, feeling a bit put out, went to the washroom and stuffed two feet of toilet paper into the crack of his bum, then came out and sat back down in his chair.
A few minutes later the American started blinking his eyes rapidly and the Englishman started tapping his wristwatch vigorously so the Canadian stood up, pulled down his pants, started pulling the toilet paper out of his bum and yelled “Hey, I’m getting a fax”.
Crispin in Waterloo: Wasn’t alternating current promoted successful by that Croat? Against the wishes of Edison? In the end we needed both.
I assume you refer to Charles Steinmetz. He was actually born in Germany. Makes no difference to your point though. Good science knows no national boundaries.
That’s seriously insulting to those who fought through the last world war and lost loved ones in that war and in other conflict area’s since then
You are conflating now with 1939. The population of the UK has changed and changed fundamentally since the ’50s and ’60s. Education standards have fallen massively. When I was 7 I was learning maths they do at 10 now and when I was 10 I was doing maths they do at 14 now. At 14 I was studying calculus they do that at 17 and 18 now. The spoken English in England is appalling.
Education ‘ or the lack of ) is the key to all the problems we see across europe and the UK.