Summed in in one graph that says it all.
Roger Andrews writes:
If decarbonization is to be achieved by expanding renewables the expansion will have to come in wind, solar and biomass. So let’s take hydro out and see how far growth in wind, solar and biomass has carried us along the decarbonization path so far:
Clearly they still have a long way to go.
Source: http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/
Ray, the hydro is out because the Greenies are already calling for removal of many existing hydro plants and absolutely oppose any new hydro. So, it’s out. Blame the Greenies, not us rationalists.
Jake J, what is your proposed method of micro-storage that doesn’t have all of the materials/safety/cost realities that preclude such a thing now? What is there that even has a realistic development horizon?
It’s an awesome wish-dream, but nothing more than that unless I’m ignorant of some amazing new tech I’ve missed over the past decade.
How am I wrong?
that graph can’t be right….
….we’ve spent way more than that
Re: This bit of wishful thinking by Jake J(1:13pm): “…it took another decade for manufacturing scale economies to kick in.”:
There are NO known manufacturing efficiencies
TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE
to the farthest horizons of the most optimistic view
of the foreseeable future
which can bring solar meaningfully close
to supplying the world’s energy needs.
NONE.
[5:25 – 6:22 ] Solar Cells cost per KWH does NOT go down over life of installed cells – this is an illusory claim {a.k.a. “false advertising”}:
(1) taxpayers or customers of other types of power are paying the bulk of solar’s costs;
and
(2) [6:00] That the costs of some of the raw materials which comprise small amounts of solar’s total cost-of-production are going down, e. g., polysilicon (less than 5% of total), will never reduce cost of production to break-even.
{Source: This Ozzie Zehner lecture at referenced times above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–OqCMP5nPI
— Note: not all of this lecture is helpful; lots of Zehner’s personal anti-consumerism philosophy (not based on science, just his belief — and that’s okay, but, that isn’t the useful part of his lecture)}
Wind and solar will never meet our energy needs. The eco-freaks know this. That is why there is a wing of the environmental movement that is pushing for massive “degrowth” as the only way of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 as a number of European countries have pledged to do. My back of the envelope calculations puts that at a 30 per cent drop in GDP. To put that in perspective, the last time we saw a drop that steep in GDP was during the Great Depression, which saw 27 per cent unemployment. There is not a single country in the West that could afford to keep people on welfare and also pay for health and defences. In the U.S., for example, welfare costs some $360 billion with an unemployment rate of 6.3 per cent. The U.S. government is already running a deficit that is more than twice as large and has an accumulated debt of $17 trillion. Every Western country is carrying massive debts as well. Degrowthers are quite mad, yet they are gaining momentum.
The true irony is that CO2 can be used as a feedstock for so many things — fish food, glucose and even synthetic gas. Governments would be so much better off working at encouraging co-production at existing power plants. But that sensible approach doesn’t quite jive with the worldview of the environmental movement which seeks to vilify oil and natural gas. More’s the pity.
I think I’m with Jake on distributed storage. Our PUD neighborhood suffers from alphabet block architecture, but we managed to get a small (c. 2KW) solar installation on part of our roof. It went into service 3 years ago last month, and over the ensuing time, it has produced over 500KWH more than we have used.
We get credited kwh for kwr on the daily in-and-out usage. But we get stuck with state energy tax,
local utility tax, power coast adjustment, and electric user tax on whatever comes in through that meter, even though we replace it the next day. The actual cost is more than fair for the use of the grid as a virtual battery, even though it is a crazy way to collect it. Even so, I would cut loose from the grid tomorrow if the economics of battery storage made sense.
One big advantage of solar is the potential for distributed generation. Eliminate the transmission lines running across the countryside, save the energy losses in transformers and line resistance, etc. But utility level transmission/storage simply throws away this potential. I wonder if we might see totally independent residential power develop over time in stages, with the first move to battery buffered grid connections. Right now, a modest amount of battery storage in my garage (no more than 20KWH) would bring my draw from the grid to nearly zero and almost totally eliminate the above mentioned taxes. But current battery costs and limited battery life make it un-economic for the present.
But hey, a guy can dream….
We have two populated islands that are off the grid….they all have wind and solar
…and a diesel generator….diesel is delivered by barge
There is not one engineer who can build a building with an intermittent worthless power source, and claim that a back up will be developed later, who would not lose his license and be disbarred from practicing.
The cost of these future back ups and the effectiveness is not calculable, and therefore, all progressive scientists hawking renewables and talking about sustainability are grey foxes making false promises to the unfortunate young people who listen to them. These young hipsters would be totally shocked by products that are extremely expensive or that don’t work, which used to be plentiful and reliable. They would be shocked by shortages and black outs.
But Boomers would love to claim their one percent power source is fine (or will be), or that organic agriculture, which also happens to only provide one percent of our food, would support our country. But as places like Vermont get more worthless wind turbines strung across the hills and mountains, even the deep thinking progressives can figure out that coal is really not emitting much! and the country would be littered with them in order to provide more than 1% of the electricity.
You’ll get insects in your cans of food, toxins from mildews in your juice, and soy replacing your beef if you do not pay attention to what that other one percent of the economy, the organic growers, are also doing to the rest of the commercial growers. It is a stark and striking parallel with the renewables activists shutting down coal.
For those interested in costs, worldwide investment in renewable energy in the ten-year period from 2004 through 2013 amounted to $1.66 trillion.
http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/gtr-2014
“Contrition” sounds more likely.
A fifth downside of wind is its distributed generating points, and their distance from power lines. That requires expensive wiring. Further, there are power loses in transmission from those power lines to the places where the power is consumed.
For those of you not politically tuned, Mr. obama’s EPA just released a proposed rule regarding existing fossil fueled power plants. Says he wants a 30% cut in CO2 emissions by 2030. The skinny is this: his plan is to do away with the industry standard of “economic dispatch” and replace it with an “environmental dispatch” ala Europe. This means “affordability” is secondary.
The man said he would use his pen and phone and he has.
Go to “Tellepa.com” and comment.
My apologies, Anthony, but the reality is the EPA is moving forward despite the science and lack of warming.
Cheers.
Correction: organic growers provide 1% of the food grown – not 1% of the economy.
Yes and like renewables receiving the almighty government waiver, organic growers also get waivers from laws protecting workers from bending over to weed. And like renewables, they are extremely loud and obnoxious and ubiquitous activists, but produce much much less yield at much greater cost.
Break like the wind,
Wind, Solar, and Biomass are all just Solar energy in one form or another. So-called ‘green tech’ is simply an attempt to replace the Battery (stored solar energy in the form of fossil fuels), with the trickle-charger for that battery. It is never going to work to maintain the RATE of energy use required by current civilization. And, the fossil fuel battery is running out. That’s what all of this ridiculous CAGW nonsense is aimed at~ the Peak Energy Resource Extraction Rate. The Rate is the important factor, not how much is potentially recoverable. Those pushing CAGW from the top are attempting to mitigate the inevitable decline in energy production by scaring the populace into using less, while attempting to condition the populace to accept legislation that would legally limit energy consumption~ all in the heroic quest to ‘save the planet’. I don’t think ‘they’ will win, because their science charade is falling apart, but the underlying reason for their deception is firmly rooted in reality. Their form of mitigation is geared toward keeping themselves at the top while civilization continues on its downward slope (the standard of living in my country, which can be otherwise stated as energy per capita in the US, has been dropping steadily since the early 1970’s, when US domestic oil production peaked). Our civilization IS going to fall because the battery will exhaust itself~ or rather, the extraction rate will fall too low to maintain living standards and necessary infrastructure. A strange ‘package deal’ has emerged among those on the Internet. Those that agree that ‘peak oil’ is real (it’s really peak energy extraction rate of a finite high density energy source) also tend to agree that CAGW is real. This point of view is entirely nonsensical, because CAGW is a political campaign pushing a false idea with the aim to keep the remaining energy production focussed within the richer nations, and towards the elite of those nations~ so logically, agreeing with both is to agree with a truth and a falsehood simultaneously, without realizing that the two are intimately connected. The parsimonious connection between the two is absurdly simple, yet out of reach for many supposed intelligent people. The other side of the ‘package deal’, is that both ‘peak oil’ (peak extraction rate of a finite high density energy source) and CAGW are hoaxes. The general feeling in this crowd is that CAGW pushers are just communists/collectivists vying for power over the population for its own sake, and that ‘Big Oil’ is trying to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up oil prices. This group makes more sense than the former, superficially, but is still coupling a truth with a falsehood. An energy producer may restrict production in order to raise prices, but that would only reduce the ability of the population to buy energy, because the energy is more expensive. There is evidence that energy producers are shutting in some production, but that is evidence in favor of peak energy extraction rate rather than a simple game to try and increase profits. Higher energy prices contract the economy overall. The energy extraction rate powers the modern economy, and is the foundation of the so-called fiat currencies~ primarily the Dollar. When the extraction rate of energy drops, the value of currency drops, because currency must then be created faster than the energy extraction rate in order to cover interest within a debt based economy. Debt-based systems are exquisite frauds to be sure, but can only exist when energy extraction rates continuously increase. If energy extraction rates start to go flat (which they are by any measure), the debt-based system will start to collapse, which is exactly what is going on right now. In conclusion to my ramble, ever look for parsimonious relations between seemingly disparate ideas, because the ‘package deals’ of belief circulating currently are completely erroneous. CAGW is completely false, but the general idea of Peak Oil is true (given my more accurate description). And, the only legitimate, or parsimonious place to stand, is one that unites the two ideas, because they are intimately connected. In short, the supposed elites are trying to drag us down just as the shit hits the fan, but they are just ordinary people, and probably won’t survive what is coming. They are simply trying to maintain some semblance of power, and are now trying to start a war to hide the failures of their economic system. I tend to ramble, but I am right.
Jake J, what is your proposed method of micro-storage that doesn’t have all of the materials/safety/cost realities that preclude such a thing now? What is there that even has a realistic development horizon?
I will write the three rarest words ever seen on the Internet: I don’t know.
I live in Seattle, which has absurd subsidies for solar panels, a technology unsuited for these parts. If I lived in the Southwest, I’d investigate it in detail to see whether it’d make sense there. I’m not sure it would. I have read, from time to time, that some people use lead-acid batteries, and that others use lithium-ion batteries that have degraded too much for use in EVs.
Maybe, over time, smaller-scale forms of molten-metal or salt-transfer batteries will work at the household level. Whether any of that makes sense, well, “I don’t know.” Hell, given the uncertain reliability of the grid where I am, if I could buy a battery that would store a week’s worth of juice for, say, $5,000, I’d do it. A whole-house natural gas generator costs $15,000.
To me, it would be entirely a cost-benefit calculation. If the numbers worked, I’d do it. If not, I wouldn’t. I’m not any kind of evangelist for any of it. I have an EV, but I have it because I got a screaming good deal in a bankruptcy close-out. It’s a great city car for my purposes, and gets a yea-’round average on last calculation of 106 mpg-e. But the savings are trivial.
Ray, the hydro is out because the Greenies are already calling for removal of many existing hydro plants and absolutely oppose any new hydro. So, it’s out. Blame the Greenies, not us rationalists.
There’s one part legit environmentalism and nine parts politics on this. Some dams produce so little power that there’s really no justification for reuining this or that river. As these dams reach the end of their useful lives, I’ve got no problem with pulling them out. But the campaign among some of the whack-job environmentalists — believe me, we have a large surplus of these Smugista Posers where I am — to remove the big dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers is another kettle of unendangered salmon.
A fifth downside of wind is its distributed generating points, and their distance from power lines. That requires expensive wiring. Further, there are power loses in transmission from those power lines to the places where the power is consumed.
That particular devil is truly in the details. Transmission losses in the grid are 6-1/2% nationally. The utility in the suburbs of Seattle, Puget Sound Energy, gets 1/3 of its juice from a coal plant in Montana that’s 900 miles away, and a whole bunch of power from the Columbia goes more than 1,000 miles to Los Angeles.
On the Columbia, at certain times of year, the windmills and dams have to be throttled back because the power can’t be used. This genuinely baffles me, and seems like an opportunity for grid-level storage if — and only if — it can be cost-effective. Definitely a big “if.” This doesn’t exist now, but hell, even this blog has featured items about that subject.
Being doubtful of the AGW hypothesis doesn’t mean — to me, anyway — having some knee-jerk aversion to technological advances on the renewables front. If they can be cost-effectively integrated into the system, what’s not to like?
One big advantage of solar is the potential for distributed generation. Eliminate the transmission lines running across the countryside, save the energy losses in transformers and line resistance, etc. But utility level transmission/storage simply throws away this potential. I wonder if we might see totally independent residential power develop over time in stages, with the first move to battery buffered grid connections.
This is the sort of millenialist eco-evangelism that drives me up a wall.
First off, no one is going to “eliminate the transmission lines.” It’s complete horseshit to even suggest that this will happen in the next 100 years and probably a lot longer. The idea that each user will have their own power source is crap. With cost-effective storage, it could work in some places, for some users. It can be a part of the future system, if the technology gods are smiling.
Secondly, the larger idea of “totally independent” anything is horseshit. We live in an advanced industrial economy that is based, among other things, on specialization and trade. (See Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, for more detail.) We are linked together in myriad ways. It makes us collectively more efficient, and improves countless individual lives in countless ways.
Yes, if it made economic sense, I’d be happy to unhook from the power grid. Not to be “independent,” but to save money that could be deployed in other ways. And remember what all money actually is: a claim on labor. When you “save money,” you are saving labor, which then can be put to more productive use. Money is merely the medium of exchange, and a score-keeping mechanism.
For those of you not politically tuned, Mr. obama’s EPA just released a proposed rule regarding existing fossil fueled power plants. Says he wants a 30% cut in CO2 emissions by 2030. The skinny is this: his plan is to do away with the industry standard of “economic dispatch” and replace it with an “environmental dispatch” ala Europe. This means “affordability” is secondary.
Stay tuned on that one. In practical effect, I think the major impact will be to shift from coal to natural gas. This makes me laugh at the Eco-Smugistas who praised Obama’s order. These are the same people who oppose fracking. Idiots!
CAGW is completely false, but the general idea of Peak Oil is true (given my more accurate description). And, the only legitimate, or parsimonious place to stand, is one that unites the two ideas, because they are intimately connected. In short, the supposed elites are trying to drag us down just as the shit hits the fan, but they are just ordinary people, and probably won’t survive what is coming. They are simply trying to maintain some semblance of power, and are now trying to start a war to hide the failures of their economic system. I tend to ramble
Yes, you do tend to ramble. And like so many ramblers, you do it all in one paragraph. Tell us, were you staring out the window that day in the fifth grade?
Seems to me that you are in most need of power during weather emergencies. Considering the blizzard I went through in Michigan last January, I would like to know how much power I would get from wind turbines encased in ice in sub-zero F temperatures, and solar panels covered with two feet of ice and snow. Go to Google Images and search “solar panels snow,” and contemplate clearing panels of snow and ice in sub-freezing temps and gale-force winds. Then consider what happens to a turbine when its blades become unbalanced from ice build-up. Finally, check out what happens to battery efficiencies when subjected to very low temps.
Solar and wind are such a non-starter in a large part of the world that you have to wonder about the mentality of those who say those technologies will replace fossil fuels.
Wind and solar will never meet our energy needs. The eco-freaks know this. That is why there is a wing of the environmental movement that is pushing for massive “degrowth” as the only way of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 as a number of European countries have pledged to do.
To quote my dear departed father, who had his smart moments: Never say never.
But that much said, I don’t think the Germans will hit their goal, at least not without economical grid-scale storage, or massive price increases beyond what they’ve already implemented. If there’s one place other than the U.K. where solar is a joke …
Considering the blizzard I went through in Michigan last January, I would like to know how much power I would get from wind turbines encased in ice in sub-zero F temperatures, and solar panels covered with two feet of ice and snow. Go to Google Images and search “solar panels snow,” and contemplate clearing panels of snow and ice in sub-freezing temps and gale-force winds. Then consider what happens to a turbine when its blades become unbalanced from ice build-up. Finally, check out what happens to battery efficiencies when subjected to very low temps.
All of this is true enough, which is why renewables are a long-term proposition to be integrated on the basis of cost efficiency. Anyone who thinks the whole grid will go to renewables any time soon has spent too much time shopping at the medical marijuana store.
p.s.: I sure wish this site had a comment preview feature so I’d be able to catch my coding mistakes.
Well, thank you for the honest answer, Jake. Refreshing. And no animosity. 🙂
If you figure out the storage thing, you’ll make billions. Until then, drill baby drill and kill all subsidies for all this stuff other than very basic stuff, such as fusion, materials research, etc.
Cheers Jake.
Whenever a “new” energy source requires a subsidy up front, and/or a subsidized cash flow to equal the cost per KWH of a “traditional” source, then wealth has simply been destroyed in an amount equal to the present value of those required subsidies (and lets just not consider the additional potential financial risks which are unknown and unknowable with any new technology).
Perhaps one day it will not be the case, but for now almost every green energy installation is an engine of wealth destruction. Small-scale roll-outs to help develop and refine the technologies are one thing, but massive implementation is a loser’s game. One cannot make up a loss on every transaction by increasing volume!
Jake J: First off, no one is going to “eliminate the transmission lines.
Quite true, I should be more explicit when I write. I have in mind specifically the new lines that are being constructed to serve utility scale projects. Come on down to S. Calif and I’ll show you around. You can see for yourself the huge new lines that are cutting across the cities of the San Gabriel Valley to bring wind power in from Tehachapi. We can drive out to Desert Center and look at the brand new lines being constructed to bring in power from the ranch sized solar installations that are levelling our deserts. On the way, we can enjoy the Banning Pass wind farms, which have created an instant industrial slum just north of Palm Springs.
This is the sort of millenialist eco-evangelism that drives me up a wall.
Well, no, the millenium isn’t here yet. But our little installation is producing more power than we use. My electric bill last month was $5.60. I would be undiplomatic to suggest that yours was higher. So I won’t.
Yes, if it made economic sense, I’d be happy to unhook from the power grid.
Agreed. And stipulated that it does not currently make economic sense. But for some of us who see the risks of blind collectivism, there is intrinsic value in being independent. When the ground shakes, the wind blows, the chaparral burns down the side of the mountain…you don’t necessarily want to have to rely on Azusa Light and Water….
: > )
Hydro, once installed, is (more or less) forever. Sadly we aren’t building new hydro and are busy ripping out what we have. Possibly this will change some day.
The cost of solar and wind continues to come down, much faster than previously anticipated. Neither provides base load energy, but the energy they do provide is energy that doesn’t have to come from burning fossil fuels. Just as energy intensive industry relocated to be near hydro plants, over the long term energy intensive industry will move to where solar or wind is best generated, and will adapt to it’s intermittent nature.
Lighting technology is rapidly switching from incandescent technology (60 watts for a typical bulb) to LED (9 watts typical), an amazing reduction. And the cost for LED bulbs continues to drop.
The 1 MFLOP CDC 6400 supercomputer of the 1960s used 30kw of power. Today an Apple iPad-2, also 1 MFLOP, uses 10w, and only when charging.
Today I can put $8k of 21% efficient solar panels on the roof of my 120 sq ft shed out back and $2k or so of other hardware and generate enough power to cover all my energy usage, if I use LED lighting, efficient appliances, and power devices only when actually needed. And efficiency will continue to go up, and costs down.
The point is that technology is giving us options that we never had before. Yes, we will likely need to adjust how and when we use energy, but many of us do that already. Technology will continue to improve, costs will continue to go down. No one item is the solution, but each element is piece of the solution: Hydro, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, colocation, adapting time of energy use to availability, implementing base-load power and peaking plants where needed,
Some say solar only generates 0.85% of the electricity demand on the planet. True, but today that is 139 GW, or roughly 139 nuclear or fossil fuel plants that didn’t have to be built. We’re making progress, we have some work to do on the technology, but we’re getting there…
If you figure out the storage thing, you’ll make billions. Until then, drill baby drill and kill all subsidies for all this stuff other than very basic stuff, such as fusion, materials research, etc.
The subsidy issue is a toughie. Look, the U.S. has a long history of subsidizing new technology, starting with turnpikes and canals. It’s always been complex and highly debatable, and subject to political manipulation, crass and subtle.
Generally speaking, though, it’s worked out pretty well over time. I differ with some subsidies, be it for solar panels in Seattle and Maine, or for ethanol. But I’m okay with the current EV subsidies, even if a spiff for the buyer of a Tesla Model S makes me grind my molars.
I think that, insofar as wind is concerned, the issue is storage. That, I’d consider certain subsidies, at least for technologies that can come down the cost curve — as opposed to, say, pumped storage, which I see as a dead end.
I don’t worry about carbon emissions. The more I look, the less I see, threat-wise. But there are definitely other, much more negative effects from burning mined coal, methane, petroleum, and uranium. It’s what we’ve got to do now, but if we can cost effectively go to “renewables” in increasing prportions over time, as it becomes more feasible, then in principle I think it’s a winner all the way around.
I doubt I’ll be Warren Buffett from it, but if M.I.T. or some lone inventor in East Dogshit, Tennessee cracks the code, let him or them have the house on the hill. We will all benefit. Skepticism about bthe AGW hypothesis should not, in my view, congeal into opposition to a fundamental engine of economic growth and therefore human progress — technical improvement.
Done right, subsidies are not evil. I’m a huge believer in market forces, but you’d have to be blind to think that the market is the answer to everything, all the time, everywhere. It’s not all-or-nothing. There are judgment calls along the way. We’ve made them before, and hopefully we’ll make them again.
@Jake J – “Canals” and “Turnpikes” are not subsidized. They are paid for. As that is the role of government. The infrastructure that benefits many, but is hard to extract payment for before being used is one of the prime reasons for government. Picking and choosing winners in a market place however is NOT the role of government.