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.
Continuation of my sentance above:
…which really caused the revolution.
A. Scott;
It would take one thousand 75 foot concrete spheres somehow anchored 1200 feet deep … then connected to and “anchoring” massive wind turbines on the surface … to provide “several hours” of power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not to mention that the work by letting water in and using a turbine to generate electricity. So now you either have a turbine to maintain at 1200 feet, or you’ve got to have the plumbing combing up from 1200 feet to the surface (that works really well with the surface being perturbed by tides and storms, snarc) or you need a mechanism to send it up and down on demand for servicing.
That anyone thinks this is a remotely practical is beyond me.
@ur momisugly A. Scott, you have some valid points. However, offshore wind in the US is much more stable and generally of higher speed than the wind across the land. Below is a link showing the average wind speeds in the US, from NREL, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Note the areas offshore along the West Coast, South Texas, and most of the East Coast.
http://energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-resource-assessment-and-characterization
The major problem with offshore windturbines is storms. However, even during storms, with the turbines shut down for safety, off-peak power from shore generation can be used to pump out the hollow concrete storage tanks. Peak power can be provided the next day from the concrete storage tanks.
Technically all renewable energy is nuclear.
All energy comes from the sun, the sun is a nuclear energy source.
Therefor.
As with us, western canadians, cleaning up the biggest natural oil spill known to man, the alternate energy zealots, remain deluded.
Unfit for the purpose, wind and solar are wonderful in their eyes.
Especially if someone else is paying for it.
The Catastrophic Climate scam,this “alternate” non energy subsidy mining are all of the same ilk.
Robbing the many, to enrich the few.
These attempts to harvest the wind, collect the sun and the half assed storage “solutions” so far have failed to produce the energy wasted in their manufacture and assembly.
Very different from hydroelectric, coal fired plants and nuclear.
Electricity is currently the lifeblood of civilization.
This is the reason the secular anti humanists are deliberately seeking to destroy the electrical infrastructure.
I call it idiocy and treason.
$12 million each x 1,000 = $12 billion dollars, to provide ‘a couple hours’ of power. How ridiculous – that is NO solution. You could build 2 to 6 complete power plants for that cost – that would provide power 24/7/365
Maryland has big plans for off-shore windturbine energy.
“The Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 creates a mechanism to incentivize the development of up to 500 megawatts (MW) of offshore wind capacity, at least ten nautical miles off of Maryland’s coast. A target project size of 200 MW would require the installation an estimated 40 turbines off the coast of Ocean City.”
http://www.governor.maryland.gov/documents/MOWEA2013FactSheetMEA.pdf
Roger Sowell;
However, even during storms, with the turbines shut down for safety, off-peak power from shore generation can be used to pump out the hollow concrete storage tanks. Peak power can be provided the next day from the concrete storage tanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh goodie. We can use on shore power to charge the off shore storage when the off shore wind generators are down due to storms. All we have to do it talk to the storms in advance and make certain that they don’t show up on a time table that is inconvenient, or last for more than a few hours, which would be even more inconvenient. All at a stupendous capex and opex cost.
Hey, I have a brilliant idea. Why not use the lower cost on shore capacity in the first place since you have to build it anyway!
A. Scott;
$12 million each x 1,000 = $12 billion dollars, to provide ‘a couple hours’ of power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not to mention the maintenance cost which would be stupendous. Sowell avoids putting the numbers into the discussion for this precise reason.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, you miss the obvious. Onshore power generators must cycle up and down to meet the demand. Having a demand at off-peak hours and a separate power source for on-peak hours allows the on-shore generating plants to operate in a more stable manner. Plus, the on-peak power from the windturbines’ storage system will be sold at a higher price. The windturbines will be closer to being profitable, perhaps not requiring any subsidy at all.
“Fracking” has such an appealingly evil ring to it though. It would be much harder to start an Anti-Mud-Pulse-Controlled-Mud-Drive-Downhole-Drill-Bit activist movement.
Thanks for the clarification about “goyi,” Mr. DeHavelle (at 6:07am). Who knew? (you!) I thought he or she meant that Israel was doing all that nifty stuff he or she is so proud of with natural gas-powered vehicles, lol. Well, I STILL love the Jews!
***********************************************
“I thought maybe another Happy Hamster Dance video would be appropriate. But … .” (Gary Mount at 4:06am today) — “But” NOTHIN’, Gary! GREAT IDEA!! (actually, I considered and rejected that one, but, thanks to YOU (smile)… here it is to celebrate the
FANTASTIC!
fact that
“GREEN” ENERGY IS DEAD
AND that
(despite the empty assertions of conceited ignoramuses
bellowed with reckless indifference as to their truth)
NUCLEAR POWER IS EFFICIENT AND VIABLE!
The Hamster Dance Song (the “Hampster” version)
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeee haaaawwww!
(go “yankees” — heh)
#(:))
Brought to you by…. Your Friendly (yankee) Investment Advisor
Okay. We ALL know that there are GREAT science achievements from ALL OVER THE ENTIRE WORLD. In the interests of restoring any the lost bon homme (except for a certain frothing-at-the-mouth gas bag above) amongst all of us WUWT friends …
THE SMOOTH RUFFLED FEATHERS PROJECT
Installment #1 — The British Are SUPER SMART
“Rule, Britannia!”
Installment #2 — The Scots Are SUPER SMART
“Scotland the Brave”
Billy Liar says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm
John F. Hultquist says:
March 1, 2014 at 10:34 pm
On March 17, 1949, Halliburton performed the first two commercial hydraulic fracturing treatments …
Since Erle P Halliburton was born in Tennessee I wouldn’t say that fracking was ‘Yankee’ ingenuity. 🙂
_________________________
Good point, and since he decided to build his business in Oklahoma, it proves he was a man of good sense.
Installment #3 — Canadians are SUPER SMART
“O Canada”
Installment #4 — Australians are SUPER SMART
“Waltzing Mathilda”
Nice one Janice
It is quite apparent that SOME of the WUWT crowd have joyfully adopted the CAGW-believers’ practices and policies regarding their fervent belief in nuclear power: they stay in lock-step with the nuclear-proponents, never question the dogma, and totally ignore the facts that nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous.
At 2:09 PM on 2 March, Roger Sowell had asserted:
Hrm. After reading The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear (1976), I began a long snail-mail correspondence with the author, Dr. Petr Beckmann (1924-1993), who was by then an emeritus professor of electrical engineering (University of Colorado) and publishing his Access to Energy newsletter.
Y’know; one of those samizdat print-on-paper things that guys used to do before we got Web logs. Later, he also ran a direct-dial bulletin board system (BBS) called “Fort Freedom” from his home computer.
In 1981, Dr. Beckmann was the guy who first drew to my attention the great “man-made global warming” bletcherosity, mailing me copies of some clippings he’d harvested and asking my opinion. I told him that these idiots were overstating the greenhouse gas effect of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 by at least three orders of magnitude. They had their heads hideously wedged as regards their fantasies about the alleged mechanism of action supposedly associated with the undeniable (see Keeling et al) increase in the fraction of this trace gas which was the result of the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels.
In The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, Dr. Beckmann provided a detailed examination of the known health risks associated with all existing forms of electrical power generation, including wind turbines and earth-surface solar panels, calculating by way of robustly reliable standard-of-practice engineering methods the benefits, viability, and risks (both proximal and remote) associated with “infrastructure” as well as operations in each category, including waste handling and disposition methods in use and under consideration.
He determined that the uranium fuel cycle, for all it’s well-understood and cold-bloodedly acknowledged liabilities, was still intrinsically safer than any other method of baseload electrical power generation suitable for the function of a technological civilization’s industrial economy. Safer than hydroelectric, and safer than the coal cycle by far.
Including the release of radiation incidental to the coal cycle.
Given that Roger Sowell‘s assertion that “nuclear power is too expensive and too dangerous” is offered without any support whatsoever, and Dr. Beckmann’s observations and analyses in The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear still stand without refutation even 37 years after their publication (and bearing in mind that Dr. Beckmann was continuing his consideration of new data and his conclusions on the subject of electrical power generation by way of his newsletter, Access to Energy, and in his exchanges with various scientifically literate correspondents until he succumbed to cancer in 1993), there’s no reason whatsoever to cede credibility to Roger Sowell on this “too expensive and too dangerous” claim.
—————————————————-
Installment #5 — Nederlanders Are SUPER SMART
“The Wilhelmus”
Installment #6 — New Zealanders Are SUPER SMART
“God Defend New Zealand”
{Okay, last one since this is a SCIENCE SITE #(:))}
Installment #7 — Italians Are SUPER SMART
“O Sole Mio”
(they are also excellent musicians, hence, the bel canto song)
Installment #8 — Danes Are SUPER SMART
“Der Er En Yndigt Land”
And the FRENCH ARE SUPER SMART…
And the GERMANS ARE SUPER SMART…
And the ASIANS OF EVERY LAND ARE SUPER SMART…
AND ON AND ON!! (big smile)
If you do not see your country’s anthem,
you can feel very proud
because…
you are so smart that you did not need your anthem posted.
#(;))
Saint-Gobain, a French company and arguably the world leader in the development of proppant technology (proppants are used to keep a fracked fomation from collapsing) seems to need help from us Yankees to keep its edge.
http://tees.tamu.edu/news/2013/12/20/saint-gobain-proppants-and-texas-am-energy-institute-announce-collaboration/
Thanks, Rrrrrobert of Ottawa. (glad you could get a word in edgewise)
And… ALAN! Hi. #(:))
A “couple hours” of power for the equivalent of one typical conventional power plant (a million or less homes) – could be provided – at a cost in the billions. And that does not include the costs of the wind turbines – appx $4 million each for a 2 MW ground based model – which would I’m sure be dramatically more in this open ocean setting.
UPDATE: The “offshore” wind cost increases from appx $4.4 billion per 2,000 MW of onshore wind, to over $12 billion per 2,000 MW for “offshore” wind generation.
The MIT PR says:
If they are 2 MW nameplate capacity each, 1000 turbines would total 2,000 MW nameplate capacity – but wind turbines at most are going to see an appx 25% capacity factor – they only provide power appx 25% of the time on average …
So appx $24 billion dollars ($12 billion for 2,000MW of offshore wind turbines plus appx $12 billion for offshore “sphere” storage) … $24 billion to provide 2,000 MW, but only available appx 25% of the time – when the wind blows … plus appx 2 hours extra. And you STILL need 2,000 MW of fossil fueled backup generation, from dirtier, less efficient peaking load plants, for the appx 75% of the time the wind isn’t generating.
Why the heck would we ever spend $24 billion (plus the cost of backup generation – add one of below) for 2,000 MW power provided appx 25% of the time (plus an extra 2 hours with the sphere storage) when we can spend appx:
$9.5 billion for 2,000 MW power from a Dual Unit Advanced PC with CCS plant (Coal)
$4,2 billion for 2,000 MW power from a Advanced CC with CCS plant (NatGas)
$5.5 billion for 2,000 MW power from a Dual Unit Nuclear plant
All of which provide 2,000 MW power essentially full time with no need for backup generation.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/xls/table1.xls
Roger … I think we have other viable solutions besides nuclear. Nuclear is very good until it is not – until there is a problem, and until we have to deal with fuel disposal. We have other options including clean coal and better yet Natural gas generation with its lower emissions and significantly lower costs. And we have plenty of Nat Gas – its in strong supply.
For those reasons I do not support nuclear, despite its advantages. Like you I think we should use renewables to the extent they are commercially viable and sustainable – but not where they are dramatically more expensive and have worse emissions profiles.
I support ethanol, as it meets all those – renewable, sustainable, reduced emissions etc. Yet huge numbers of people attack ethanol – with reasons that are easily disproved – yet actual facts make little difference to those with a fervent belief.
We SHOULD support use of renewables. Even if fossil fuels are not in immediate short supply, they ARE a finite resource … any solution that reduces their use extend the supply. But it is simply stupid to use technology that is not viable or sustainable, that leaves the citizenry and environment worse off, in doing so.
Roger Sowell says:
March 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm
The thing about nuclear power, and for that matter, fossil fuel power, is that it doesn’t require any workarounds to provide plentiful reliable power. Nor does it require a huge and unwieldy grid distribution system because there are many, many fewer supply nodes in the network.
You seem especially frightened of radiation, considering you live surrounded by a myriad sources of the same and you wouldn’t hesitate to fly in an airplane which substantially increases your exposure. Nor, I suspect, would you turn down any of the medical uses of radiation. You probably need to learn more about it:
http://www.nuceng.ca/canteachmirror/cnsc.html
Try Week 3 01.
Actually not true … the fixed and variable O&M – at least according to the EIA (see link in post above) are no dramatically different between Coal, NatGas, Nuclear and even offshore wind generators. O&M on the spheres is unknown but I imagine small due to minimal operating parts… that said when maint IS required – at 1200 to 2,200 foot depths – maintenance WILL eb a real issue …
Press Release for MIT sphere storage tech:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/wind-power-even-without-the-wind-0425.html
EIA Plant costs and O&M link:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/
EIA costs spreadsheet:
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/xls/table1.xls