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.
A.Scott: I’m not a nuclear proponent because right now it’s not politically viable. I do believe that within a hundred it will become our primary energy source, especially if we get our arms around controlled fusion, but I probably won’t live to see it.
That’s Okay though. I’m very happy being a fracking and proppant proponent.
Roger Sowell says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:47 pm
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, you miss the obvious. Onshore power generators must cycle up and down to meet the demand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Uh huh. Which is why the system has to be built with peak capacity in the first place. Since the system is built with peak capacity already provisioned, it makes no sense to leave that capacity unused in order to provide expensive wind power along with expensive storage capacity.
A. Scott and I are discussing the economics based on the facts that you are loath to post in the forum. Says a lot about YOU.
Roger Sowell says:
March 2, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Nope, I distinctly remembered the 2008 press release and its emphasis that it would usher in an era of solar power. (Well, I thought today it was wind power, but I’ve been focused on that lately.) A coworker forwarded it to me when he tried to describe it and I got all fouled up thinking it was an advance in photodisassociation. I still don’t understand why MIT called out PV, I suppose that “renewable electricity” would have been confusing too.
At any rate, one advantage H2 production would have is wind or PV farms could make hydrogen whenever they could and stuff it into a pipeline. No AC phasing, energy storage easily done, no electrical towers further spoiling the view, etc. I assume it’s not done now because of efficiency reasons in creating and using the hydrogen.
A. Scott;
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 …
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The O&M from your chart is for off shore wind, I don’t see anything for the spheres and their attendant infrastructure at all. The spheres have to have a pump each and a turbine and generator each. That’s a lot of gear to be maintained at 1200 feet. Unless you run all the plumbing up to the surface and place the pumps, turbines and generators there. Then you have to deal with a constantly changing distance between the spheres and the gear which will have difficulty with tides, but storm surges would be insane. There’s no way to make something like this economic, and there is no reason to do so. The people that build and maintain the wind farms win, everyone else loses.
@davidmhoffer
I know absolutely nothing about these spheres, but can tell you the Oil & Gas industry has been dealing with deep water maintence, constantly changing distances, tides, and storm surges for decades and is constantly improving the technology to go still deeper.
While I personally think wind power on a large scale is a dumb idea, the solutions to deep water maintenance problems have already been developed.
Bonanzapilot says:
March 2, 2014 at 3:21 pm
@davidmhoffer
I know absolutely nothing about these spheres, but can tell you the Oil & Gas industry has been dealing with deep water maintence,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Completely different economics and completely different engineering problem.
Rud Istvan says:
March 2, 2014 at 6:33 am
Spot-on Rud. I was thinking of writing something like that up but you nailed it very well.
Roger … wind (and solar) power DE-stabilize existing generating plants by removing power demand from the grid which causes the more efficient base load generating plants to operate less efficiently. It also causes a significant share of the power demand to be shifted to inefficient and dirtier “peak load” plants – which, unlike base load plants, can instantaneously react to changing power demands.
Germany has found out that their large scale shift to solar has INCREASED overall emissions because of this shift from base load to peaking load generation. Germany’s overall emissions are up something like 1.5% while the EU overall is down appx 1.3% … a total increase for Germany of appx 2.8% …. at the same time Germany’s electric prices have skyrocketed.
Wind power is NOT a reliable peak load supplier – as it can go days with little or no wind power generated. The sphere storage might conceivably help with peak power demands but if you expend that energy in that way it is no longer available to handle the “operational” intermittency.
And at $12 billion dollars for the equivalent of a “couple hours” output of a single conventional plant it is of very limited value. You cannot possibly charge enough, even in a peak pricing environment, for that small amount of power to offset the massive costs of building the system.
Maybe, but many technologies have cross-industry applications. Anyway the Society of Petroleum Engineers has some pretty good information outside [its] pay wall if anyone is interested.
http://www.spe.org/
If I were using the cost of deep water maintenance to ague for or against the construction of any undersea structure, I might take this course:
http://www.spe.org/training/courses/DDP.php
So, I have a bit of real work to do and return to find a report of a solution to energy needs.
hydrogen
Real soon now, and on utility scale.
Get back to me when this problem is solved — embrittlement
“When tensile stresses are applied to a hydrogen embrittled component it may fail prematurely. Hydrogen embrittlement failures are frequently unexpected and sometimes catastrophic. An externally applied load is not required as the tensile stresses may be due to residual stresses in the material.”
http://metallurgyfordummies.com/hydrogen-embrittlement/
And an update on BPA wind power.
There was an uptick from near Zero near 11:59 PM Feb 28th, then down and another uptick on March 1st. Now near Zero again as it has been since last Monday. Useless.
To Roger Sowell,
If your claim to be an Engineer is to be beleived then your endorsment of a Rube Goldbergian a proposal to sink enormous hollow spheres into the ocean 1200 feet deep and to claim energy on a 24×7 basis as needed is insane.
if you paid tuition to receive your degree, you were cheated.
If they taught you anything of science and technology and and you believe any of this tripe, they had best rescind your degree to save face, for producing such juvenile nonsense.
Perhaps your degree was received from Nocturnal Aviation University and I beg you pardon. You got what you paid for, and they would be proud of their graduate’s perspicacity.
Coincidentally, I also have a process that reversibly produces net energy in both directions, that you might be interested in investing in.
Another major benefit of windturbines: they make nuclear power plants un-economic. With low off-peak prices, when wind produces the most power, nuclear power plants at baseload just cannot compete. The response is to shut down the nuclear power plants.
“Blame it on the wind. “Renewable energy has flooded the wind-rich region, driven by New York’s renewable portfolio standard,” the Morningstar report notes. “Upstate New York off-peak power prices have fallen to $32 per megawatt hour as of mid-2013 from $55/MWh in 2008. Transmission bottlenecks prevent the (nuclear) plants from tapping the state’s eastern markets, where power prices are 30% higher.” “ — refers to the Ginna and Fitzpatrick nuclear power plants, both located in New York State.
http://grist.org/news/the-six-u-s-nuclear-power-plants-most-likely-to-shut-down/ Nov, 2013
Clearly, wind-power plants are an existential threat to nuclear power plants. It is little wonder that pro-nuclear people are so vehemently anti-wind power.
@ur momisugly stas peterson, my degree is quite sound, thank you for mentioning it. I studied nuclear engineering as part of the chemical engineering curriculum at a top university. I hold a bachelor of science in chemical engineering. Major clients in the US and world-wide paid excellent fees for my engineering expertise for more than 20 years, and were quite satisfied. It that is not good enough for you, then that is just your problem.
Please read the MIT article carefully, as it does not say what you wrote just above. The energy production is not claimed as 24/7. The hollow spheres provide several hours of power production.
Roger Sowell;
Clearly, wind-power plants are an existential threat to nuclear power plants. It is little wonder that pro-nuclear people are so vehemently anti-wind power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nonsense. A. Scott is anti-nuclear and I’m pro. We’re both anti-wind for the reasons that you have failed to address upthread. You are demonstrably unable to engage on the facts.
The MIT proposal has spheres for storage, a proper choice for underwater. A sphere minimizes the amount of material required for the volume enclosed, and a sphere is strong to withstand the pressures from seawater.
For those who criticize the lack of power generation, please note that the amount of energy stored can be doubled by increasing the spheres’ diameter from 25 to 32 meters. The properties of spheres allows this while increasing the installed costs only 30 percent, approximately.
For those who criticize the underwater aspect, and increased maintenance costs for the pumps, turbines and generators, it need not be difficult. The mechanical equipment will likely be installed in a room at atmospheric pressure, vented to the atmosphere through the windturbine tower. The room will be adjacent to or on top of the sphere. Workers will have no more difficulty performing maintenance than do workers in a mine at that depth.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, MIT’s facts speak for themselves, if you were to actually read them.
Roger Sowell says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:15 pm
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, MIT’s facts speak for themselves, if you were to actually read them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I did. A. Scott did. Their facts were posted in comments upthread, which you studiously ignored. You’re nothing but a paid shill who trumpets his engineering degree but refuses to explain the facts of his position, and finds one excuse after another to answer the criticism of the very factual material he insists be read. You’re completely hollow, and obviously so.
@ferdberple –
Your example of the rich getting the solar panels and the poor paying for it is a compelling demonstration of how “renewable” energy is an effective device for transferring wealth upward – from poorer to richer.
Now if we can just get folks to understand that ALL schemes for redistributing wealth transfer it upward, not downward.
Roger Sowell says:
March 2, 2014 at 8:12 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You once again avoid the main criticisms upthread. So double the capacity, so what? You STILL have a massive capex that is completely uneconomical, and even with the pumps turbines and generators top side, that is still an additional opex cost that is also uneconomical, just less uneconomical than having them at depth, but still uneconomical. And you STILL have only a few hours of capacity when wind may be out for long periods of time due to storms or calm winds, so you STILL have to build the capacity on shore and then not use it. Which makes no sense at all except in your twisted version of reality.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer, the best thing about windturbines, onshore or offshore, is they reduce off-peak power prices at night. That forces nuclear power plants to shut down because they just cannot compete economically. How do you like that economic reality?
Windturbines make perfect sense. They provide an incentive to build more natural gas-fired power plants to replace the uneconomic nuclear plants.
MIT’s press release gives part of the story, but left out the most important part. With sufficient storage capability, the offshore windturbines can produce power round-the-clock. This provides the double benefit of low off-peak power price to eliminate nuclear power plants, plus production of highly profitable on-peak power to pay for the windturbines.
Economics and windturbines, equals the death of nuclear power.
To the argument made above that windturbines have a low capacity factor:
“Local weather conditions are a plus. Offshore winds tend to pick up in intensity during the late afternoon during summer months when electricity demand is highest. Otherwise, winds off the Northeast coast are steady. A University of Rhode Island study showed that over 25 years, winds measured off Buzzard’s Bay blew at a regular 15 mph clip—a pace that beats wind rates inland.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/alternative_energy/2013/03/east_coast_wind_farms_deepwater_wind_and_cape_wind_are_close_to_construction.html from March 2013
Also, a Stanford study shows that offshore windturbines will have annual capacity factors of 40 to 50 percent.
“The offshore region from Virginia to Maine was found to have the most exceptional overall resource with annual turbine capacity factors (CF) between 40% and 50%, shallow water and low hurricane risk. The best summer resource during peak time, in water of 50 m depth, is found between Long Island, New York and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, due in part to regional upwelling, which often strengthens the sea breeze.”
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Offshore/12DvorakEastCoastWindEn.pdf
Roger Sowell, you argue like you are either:
1. Suffering from impaired cognition (cause unknown);
2. Desperate-to-the-point-of-irrationality to prevent your windmill investment from tanking.
For just ONE example of your weak argumentation:
At 9:13pm, you fill nearly a page with what amounts to:
1) land windmills generate less power than those offshore; and
2) some offshore windmills MIGHT have 40 – 50% cap..
The only conclusion we can draw from that post (and nearly all of the rest of your posts today) is: So what?
Ric Werme, Tucci, David M. Hoffer, and A. Scott (and others) have RESOUNDINGLY (and repeatedly) defeated you. Verdict: For Werme, et. al., Sowell to pay costs and fees and treble damages (since there’s a 40 -50% chance that your misleading the public, here, is a Consumer Protection Act violation, heh, heh).
It soon became clear a loooong time ago that it is pointless to talk to you (you SOUND psychotic — LOL, of COURSE you don’t think so), except to prevent your misleading others (and to just have fun!)…, but,
NO danger of that, lol.
Have fun talking to yourself.
Roger Sowell;
MIT’s press release gives part of the story
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, after insisting that I read the idiot article, you’re now relying on information you admit wasn’t in it. To sum up, your strategy has been:
1. To rely on argument from authority, hoping that no one would actually look at the details.
2.. If they did look at the details, change the subject.
3. If they refuse to allow you to change the subject, introduce new information that wasn’t part of your original claim.
Roger, seriously, you’e made a fool of yourself. If wind power was as economical as you claim, private enterprise would be falling all over themselves proposing new plants. There would be no need for subsidies and feed in tarrifs. It would happen by itself. It isn’t happening and it won’t happen unless, and until, it becomes economical. When that happens, I’ll support it. Until then, you’re just blowing smoke. Your hatred of nuclear has blinded you to the simplest of facts. In your blind hate of nuclear, you clutch at any and every straw to defeat your perceived demon.
What a waste of your talents.