Guest post by David Middleton
In order to search for the 3% Renewable Energy ‘Tipping Point’, we must ascertain a definition of the phrase…
Definition of tipping point
: the critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place
Let’s see if we can find a “critical point in a situation, process, or system beyond which a significant and often unstoppable effect or change takes place” anywhere in this pile of greenschist…
COMMENTARY > THE MONITOR’S VIEW
Renewable energy at a ‘tipping point’
A SHIFT IN THOUGHT Washington may be showing less interest in alternative fuels, but the worldwide picture is dramatically different.
The Monitor’s Editorial Board
JUNE 26, 2017 —Should the world promote economic growth or fight climate change? That model of “either/or” thinking may be losing its validity faster than even some experts have imagined.
While fossil fuels – coal, oil, gas – still generate roughly 85 percent of the world’s energy supply, it’s clearer than ever that the future belongs to renewable sources such as wind and solar.
The move to renewables is picking up momentum around the world: They now account for more than half of new power sources going on line.
[…]
“While fossil fuels – coal, oil, gas – still generate roughly 85 percent of the world’s energy supply,” it’s clear that wind (1.6%) and solar (0.6%) are part of the “other renewables” that accounted for 3% of global primary energy consumption in 2016.
Now there does seem to be a ‘tipping point’ in this passage, a logical ‘tipping point’:
President Trump has underlined fossil fuels – especially coal – as the path to economic growth. In a recent speech in Iowa, a state he won easily in 2016, he dismissed wind power as an unreliable energy source.
But that message did not play well with many in the Hawkeye State, where wind turbines dot the fields and provide 36 percent of the state’s electricity generation – and where tech giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google are being attracted by the availability of clean energy to power their data centers.
If “that message did not play well with many in the Hawkeye State,” how did Trump “easily” win Iowa? Could it be that many in the Hawkeye State are also fond of coal-fired electricity because it’s cheap?
QUICK FACTS
- Iowa, the largest producer of ethanol in the United States, had 25.9% of the nation’s fuel ethanol manufacturing capacity in 2016.
- Iowa ranked third among the states in consumption of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) in 2014, in part because of heavy use of LPG in the industrial sector for such as activities as drying corn crops and in the residential sector for heating.
- Coal’s share of net electricity generation in Iowa declined from 76% in 2008 to 47% in 2016, but coal is still the state’s largest source of net electricity generation.
- In 2016, Iowa ranked second among the states in net electricity generation from wind and third in net electricity generation from all nonhydroelectric renewable energy resources.
- Wind provided 36.6% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2016, a larger share than in any other state. Wind was second only to coal as an energy source for electricity generation in the state.
Last Updated: March 16, 2017
I wonder how the “tech giants such as Facebook, Microsoft, and Google” will power their Iowa data centers with “clean energy,” when nearly half of it comes from coal?
The question “what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine?” has provided a quick put-down for skeptics. But a boost in the storage capacity of batteries, and a dramatic drop in their cost, is making their ability to keep power flowing around the clock more likely.
And Santa Claus is coming to town. We’ll put batteries in the speculative future ‘tipping point’ category. With an up-front price $200/kWh, batteries need a much deeper “drop in their cost” because the “ability to keep power flowing around the clock” needs to actually be certain, not just “more likely.”
Is it just an inability to conjugate verbs with these people?
The advance is driven in part by vehicle manufacturers, who are placing big bets on battery-powered electric vehicles. Although electric cars are still a rarity on roads in 2017, this massive investment could change the picture rapidly in coming years. China, whose cities are choked by air pollution, may lead the way.
“Renewables have reached a tipping point globally,” sums up Simon Virley, who studies the world’s energy markets for the international accounting firm KPMG.
“Could change the picture rapidly in coming years” does not equate to having “reached a tipping point globally.” Furthermore, “battery-powered electric vehicles” aren’t going to put a significant dent in oil consumption for two reasons:
- Growth in oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation, freight and maritime use will dwarf any savings in passenger cars, buildings and power generation.
- The growth in electric vehicle sales has been spectacularly linear with no indications of acceleration.
2012-2016 US, 2014-2016 World PEV Sales
Even ARS Technica is starting to catch on:
According to a recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), 2016 was a record year for electric vehicle (EV) sales. More than 750,000 EVs were sold worldwide last year, compared to 547,220 sold in 2015.
But the gains are overshadowed by the distance that electric cars still have to go—although more than 2 million EVs now travel the world’s roads, they only make up 0.2 percent of the total light-duty passenger vehicle share around the world. And the growth of the number of electric cars on the roads actually slowed in 2016 compared to 2015 (60 percent in 2016 versus 77 percent in 2015), leaving policy makers and sustainable growth advocates wondering how to continue to grow the global fleet to meet climate change mitigation goals.
It’s estimated that 600 million EV’s will be needed by 2040…
Still, electric vehicles only made up 0.2% of total passenger light-duty vehicles in circulation in 2016. They have a long way to go before reaching numbers capable of making a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In order to limit temperature increases to below 2°C by the end of the century, the number of electric cars will need to reach 600 million by 2040, according to IEA’s Energy Technology Perspectives. Strong policy support will be necessary to keep EVs on track.
The average U.S. vehicle is driven 15,000 miles per year. The average PEV consumes 30 kWh per 100 miles. This works out to 4,500 kWh/yr per PEV. 600 million PEV’s would consume 2.7 million GWh/yr of electricity. This is equivalent to 62% of the average total U.S. electricity generation from 2010-2016. There are about 263.6 passenger vehicles in the U.S. If the entire U.S. fleet was converted to PEV’s, it would consume the equivalent of 27% of our current annual electricity generation:
| PEV% of Pass. Cars | PEV’s | PEV (GWh) | % US GWh |
| 1% | 2,636,000 | 11,862 | 0.3% |
| 2% | 5,272,000 | 23,724 | 0.5% |
| 4% | 10,544,000 | 47,448 | 1.1% |
| 8% | 21,088,000 | 94,896 | 2.2% |
| 16% | 42,176,000 | 189,792 | 4.4% |
| 32% | 84,352,000 | 379,584 | 8.7% |
| 64% | 168,704,000 | 759,168 | 17.4% |
| 100% | 263,600,000 | 1,186,200 | 27.3% |
Adding 27% to the load while degrading the reliability of the grid… You literally can’t make this up.
While there’s a long way to go, the trend lines for renewables are spiking. The the pace of change in energy sources appears to be speeding up – perhaps just in time to have a meaningful effect in slowing climate change.
“The trend lines for renewables are spiking”… Where?
Even if a plot a logarithmic y-axis, “the pace of change” doesn’t appear “to be speeding up.”
Having failed to find anything resembling a ‘tipping point’ in the CSM article, I expanded my research horizon and found the answer… I was using the wrong definition of ‘tipping point’.
‘Tipping point’ is apparently just a journalistic cliche.
Opinions
200 journalism cliches — and counting
By Carlos Lozada February 27, 2014
Identifying journalistic cliches has become a favorite Washington parlor game. But might it not also open a rare window onto the struggles of writers and editors trying to think outside the box?
Over the past few years, some colleagues at The Washington Post and I have played our own parlor game, assembling a list of verbal crutches, stock phrases, filler words, cliches and perpetually misused expressions that we should avoid in The Post’s Sunday Outlook section — or at least think hard about before using. The initial list received some attention last year on the media blog Romenesko, triggering many more nominations.
Below is the latest, expanded version, which reached 200 entries on July 10, 2014. Feel free to suggest new entries (or arguments for why something should be taken off the list) in the comments section, or tweet at us: @CarlosLozadaWP or @PostOutlook. We’ll keep adding to it.
And believe me — this is not your father’s list of journalism cliches.
The Outlook List of Things We Do Not Say
[…]
Hastily convened
Much ballyhooed
ill-advised
Shrouded in secrecy
Since time immemorial
Tipping point
Inflection point
Point of no return
The [anything] community
If history is any guide
If past is prologue
The devil is in the details
[…]
As usual, any and all sarcasm was purely intentional.
Be sure to tune in next week for…
Here in South Australia many folks have finally reached their tipping point-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/south-australia-will-have-highest-power-prices-in-the-world-after-july-1-increases/news-story/876f9f6cefce23c62395085c6fe0fd9f
and our Groupthink watermelon overlords who hitched their star to these unreliables are looking increasingly desperate and panicky.
As the price of electricity goes up, people will use less, raising the price further which will again decrease the use. After a while, people will pay a lot of money to support the unused infrastructure and the new stone age begins. But the lights will be on in the government buildings.
Have seen this in several jurisdictions already. Incentives to improve efficiency that lowers demand and forces price increases to pay the cost of maintaining the service at an acceptable level. It’s a real thing.
It’s California.
Rather than looking at this as 3% of all energy across the globe, look at those countries which have been rolling out renewables longest and actively supporting the move to renewable energy.
Germany, Spain, the UK are all well past the tipping point, Australia is at it.
Griff, my friend, you have found the true “tipping point”…
But what you haven’t asked is: how much of it do they use? what’s their average bill?
and how many consumers have their own renewables?
and there may be change on the way in terms of prices…
I don’t have to ask. If I had to pay $0.20 to $0.40/kWh, I’d use less electricity or move.
I prefer not to do either because in Texas, the more electricity I use, the less it costs per kWh. I can afford a large house, with multiple AC units, a pool and lots of other gadgets on a 1 acre lot within 10 miles of downtown Dallas. I couldn’t afford the same thing within 100 miles of downtown San Francisco… much less pay for the electricity.
It gives me brain-ache just thinking about the muppetry going on here – this is not a situation where you get Tipping Points.
They are using the words simply to sound intelligent, educated & caring and in doing so just indicate how spectacularly dumb they are. Or desperate for a shag.
Maybe renewable energy is getting less expensive but with 2 epic provisos.
1. Its done on the back of very cheap Chinese labour & energy
2. Its done with a Governmentally Guaranteed market (price) for every paltry Joule these shiny new toys produce.
Without those 2 things, RE is a joke.
Government subsidy (tax payer’s $$$) is what’s doing the ‘tipping’ and they are lying (actually or by omission) if they don’t acknowledge that.
Now, what could go wrong there………….
There is a lot of arguments for and against these electric cars. I think that we will see a radical change in car ownership before they become a seriously viable mode of transportation.
The new generation do not seem to be buying anywhere near as many cars, often opting for public transport. Once we accept the idea of auto-driven cars, and make it work (and we can if we want to) I predict that we’ll be hiring cars like taxis, ie when we need them. The problem of charging them, or more likely exchange of batteries, will be solved easily by companies selling these services.
The free market economy will win again, with no need for government intervention!
Apart from the disappointing dispute between Mr Darby and Mr Menicholas this was an interesting thread. Electric cars are great and I would be happy to have one but the drawbacks as noted here make them of limited use. Perhaps one day we will have the ability to store, use and recharge a battery within a time frame that imitates the ice and petrol tank, but to date we are far from that goal. Thanks to all who contributed.
If I had $150k to spend on a toy, the Tesla Model S P100D would rank at least 10th on my list.
Love to see the other 9 items!
In no particular order…
http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2013/03/Mercedes-Benz-G63-AMG-6×6-front-three-quarters-dirt-drift-close-up1.jpg
Anything from AEV… https://www.aev-conversions.com/
http://www.allpar.com/photos/dodge/trucks/power-wagon/power-wagon.jpg
http://rods-classics.com/sites/default/files/102/drivertop.jpg
http://dannywhitfield.com/images/ITEM_69-SB-3_1969_DODGE_SUPER_BEE-_HEMI_ORANGE2.jpg
http://www.pickuptrucks.com/trucks/IMAGES/2004/dodge/ram/ramsrt10/intro.jpg
My dad used to drive a Dodge Powerwagon (surplus from WWII) when he was in high school.
Hmm – we have a very different taste in cars!
I like the 46 dodge though.
I’d like a convertible Triumph vitesse…
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=triumph+vitesse+convertible&tbm=isch&imgil=pCvS3nZYp0Wm6M%253A%253BjGZot4eTqlzIHM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.hagertyinsurance.co.uk%25252Fprice-guide%25252F1968-Triumph-Vitesse&source=iu&pf=m&fir=pCvS3nZYp0Wm6M%253A%252CjGZot4eTqlzIHM%252C_&usg=__4ifXKRaRKkqST4jdWsTSGcnGEOo%3D&biw=1473&bih=692&ved=0ahUKEwiktLnU1-LUAhWrKcAKHZjVDT8QyjcIOg&ei=x8BUWeS0B6vTgAaYq7f4Aw#imgrc=pCvS3nZYp0Wm6M:&spf=1498726604768
If… I excluded 4-wheel drive and/or BIG V-8 engines… I could add this to my list:
I always liked the look of the Triumph Spitfire, particularly the Mk III.
I have an electric car. Best damned drive I’ve ever had and serves 100% of my uses. What I’ve not driven is not worth a mention..
The small fact over 1.5 KWh of electricity is required to produce every single litre of “gas”=(9.556 KWh) from crude is always avoided. (15% of the total energy)
This changes everything you assumed.
The average mpg(US) towards a like-for-like car consumes say 10 miles/litre and “the average EV” uses 3KWh for 10 miles (I’m @ur momisugly 2 KWh). The gas car used 1.5KWh of electricity.
When it comes to the pricing of crude vs. electricity vs. vehicle efficiency v.s. the quality of the drive. I pity the fuel trolls.
Here in the UK, fuel is £1.16/litre, (16p/mile) & electricity is £0.10/KWh, (2~3p/mile). It’s a freaking no-brainer.
My car is 4yr’s old & 40K miles, Savings over gas: £0.13*40,000 = £5,200. Paid servicing is £100/yr. Extras: A set of tyres. It cost me £16,500 new in 2013.
Yes, I will buy another. This one is paying for it.
In 2015, U.S. petroleum refineries consumed 46,860 million kWh…
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm
And produced 4,269,058,000 bbl of refined petroleum products, including 586,056,000 bbl of motor gasoline…
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp2_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
That works out to 0.26 kWh per gallon of refined product… Or 0.07 kWh per liter of refined product.
I just filled up my Jeep for $2.19/gal ($0.58/l, €0.51/l, £0.45/l)… This includes $0.38/gal in Federal and State taxes.
I pay an average $0.11/kWh for electricity (€0.10/kWh, £0.09/kWh) including taxes and fees.
1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.4 kWh. That works out to $3.67/gal at $0.11/kWh ($0.97/l, €0.85/l, £0.76/l).
The PEV loses right there. It’s a no brainer… And the PEV goes downhill from there.
My Jeep has an 18 gallon gas tank. I can drive 340-360 miles on one tank of gas on the highway. I drive back and forth from Dallas to Houston almost every week. There are dozens of gas stations between Dallas and Houston. There are maybe 4 EV charging stations, two of which are in trailer parks.
A typical PEV consumes 30 kWh/100mi. Let’s assume that every PEV sold in the U.S. from 2011-2016 is still on the road and driving 10,000 mi/yr (1/3 less than the average passenger car).
PEV’s 564,989
PEV*miles 5,649,890,000
That works out to 1,695 million kWh.
There are about 263,600,000 passenger vehicles in the U.S.
U.S. refineries produce almost all of the motor fuels for the ~263,035,011 vehicles that aren’t PEV’s, plus most of the heavy duty trucks and other vehicles that are on the road.
So… 0.2% of US light duty vehicles consume 1,695 million kWh/yr. While refineries consume 46,860 million kWh/yr producing the fuel for the other 99.8% of passenger vehicles and most heavy trucks, etc.
46,860/1,695 = 28
A 28-fold increase in PEV’s would consume as much electricity as all of the petroleum refineries in the USA. 15,620,000 PEV’s would consume 46,860 million kWh/yr.
15,620,000 is 6% of 263,600,000. A 6% PEV market penetration would consume as much electricity as the combined total of U.S. petroleum refineries.
£1.16/litre = £4.39/gal ($4.99/gal)
1 gal = 33.4 kWh
If your total electricity price is actually £0.10/kWh, your gasoline-equivalent cost is £3.34/gal. If £0.10/kWh is exclusive of taxes and other charges, your gasoline-equivalent cost is probably significantly higher.
Your EV’s economic advantage is entirely due to your gasoline taxes (>$3.00/gal).
You are ignoring the fact that you lose up to half the energy from electricity before it ever gets to your battery.
You are correct that electricity is cheaper than gas. Considering that in UK, about 90% of the cost of that gas is taxes.
In real life, electric vehicles use more than 300Wh per mile. Even little hatchbacks are more like 400Wh. The general mix of personal vehicles when you include SUVs and trucks will be over 500Wh/mi. A truck with mud tires and a lifted suspension that gets about 8mpg today will take over 1kWh/mi. Ten cents a mile is still a pretty good deal. The tires probably cost more than that.
And it is hard to imagine a future where passenger vehicles are electric but commercial and industrial vehicles aren’t.
Add these in and the increase in electricity consumption is probably over 40%. Then replace most air travel with hyperloops and that gives you a few more percent.
Replace all gas and oil space heating with electric and you increase electric load by another big chunk.
Because these loads can be scheduled to some extent, they will make it easier to integrate more renewables. Some utilities already have programs demonstrating the concept. They determine the cost of electricity to your vehicle in real time and your vehicle decides when to charge. Sounds complicated, but the user interface is very simple. Saves money for the vehicle owner and for the grid. “Demand response” schemes like this are much cheaper than using standalone batteries owned by the utility.
There will still be times of the year when all renewable output is low for weeks at a time. The easiest solution to this is likely to slowly transition the natural gas system to hydrogen. The existing geologic gas storage system can hold about a month worth of energy. Gas turbines can be made that burn any mix of gas and hydrogen.
Doing all of this today is possible, but would be expensive. As technology improves, the costs will go down.
Areas currently with a high level of renewables don’t have periods of weeks with low resource… days at most and not many of them.
For example the number of days in Germany which are cold, low wind and cloudy averages 8 per year… and Germany is connected to most of western Europe, including Norway’s hydro resources very soon.
but yes, UK and Germany are looking at power to gas…
google, facebook and Microsoft either purchase renewable energy equivalent to what they use or build renewable energy resource for their use.
Here’s the information:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/06/google-powered-100-renewable-energy-2017
https://www.microsoft.com/about/csr/environment/renewable_energy/
https://sustainability.fb.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/dec/06/google-renewable-energy-target-solar-wind-power
Major problem is that the wind turbines produce AC at varying frequency and voltages. This cannot be fed directly into the mains. So it is rectified to DC and then inverters turn it into
AC at the correct frequency and voltage, so it can be fed into the mains. If you use battery back up, you will also have to have inverters to do the same.
But if you use a DC grid, the energy can be fed into the grid more directly straight from the rectified AC, if at the correct voltage. And the energy from the batteries, ditto. Substantial reduction in energy losses with all the inversions, and no inductive losses in the HV power lines.
Edison was right, the USA should have stayed with DC. Perhaps with the marvels of modern “science”, all the household gadgets could be converted to run on DC? Solves a lot of problems, no tipping points.
The DC stuff I’ve seen for distribution is ultra high voltage to cut down on resistive losses. This one on the West Coast is 500,000 vdc:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
Perhaps I should have added “sarc”?
Well, at some point we should recognize that electric vehicles will have to become a growing percentage, no question. It doesn’t mean that we need high cost, unreliable renewables to electrify transportation, though, and indeed it is a mathematical certainty that we will, before too long, need go to the atom for our energy, no question. However, it is the nature of post normal argument that we are perversely and vehemently attracted to alternatives to ‘no question’ positions.
A good start to a realistic analysis would be to try to make our best estimate of what volumes (years’ worth) and at what prices fossil fuels would be available for transportation. Will they be available under acceptable conditions in 2075, say. As David points out we will need then for other uses, too.
Next, do we honestly have to do an analysis to determine the viability of solar/wind renewables in terms of cost, reliability and land resources required to feed the transportation needs? Well this again would be arguing against a ‘no question’ situation.
I can see localized uses for solar/wind/battery applications – maybe small clusters along certain highways with few towns for recharging EVs. Base-load, no way.
I wonder how much of an acceration in sales of electric vehicles we could get if we eliminated the subsidies.
Not just the subsidy in the purchase price, but fix the fact that electrics aren’t being taxed to help build the roads they use.
PS: Electric cars, being heavier, do more damage to the roads than do fossil fuel powered cars.
Getting rid of EV subsidies and taxing them just like their fossil fuel cousins would cause the bottom to drop out of EV sales. This has already been observed. Most people aren’t willing to virtue signal if it costs them real money.
Who is Tanya Zwick and why is she posting nonsense? I’ve seen her all over the site lately.
The same kind of nonsense post happened a few weeks ago on WUWT, but it was under a different name. They just copy and past a portion of the text of the article, with no comment. Strange. No method to this madness that I can see.
Speaking of tipping points, this may be the beginning of one:
First, we see that Oklahoma taxpayers got screwed royally over the deal that was made to encourage the construction of windmills in the state.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/frank-keating-i-signed-wind-industry-tax-breaks-and-i/article_3d48e13b-a64e-53e6-a53a-b12c932dea80.html
But it looks like Oklahoma has taken steps to stop this insanity in the future (see below), although the subsidies already contracted for are still going to cost Oklahoma taxpayers dearly. Oklahoma had no need to subsidize and build windmills. It all came about because of the CAGW lie.
http://newsok.com/article/5546357
“The Windfall Coalition campaign comes the same week [Oklahoma] Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law House Bill 2298, which stops the zero-emissions tax credit for new wind projects July 1. Projects before then will still be able to qualify for the 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit. The credit can be carried forward up to 10 years and is refundable at 85 percent of its value.
The Windfall Coalition wants lawmakers to put a tax on wind generation, saying wind generation in the state should be treated like taxation on oil and gas. Fallin proposed a 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour tax on wind generation in her executive budget, but the proposal hasn’t picked up much support at the Legislature.
The coalition’s campaign comes after a national pro-wind group, American Wind Action, had a direct-mail campaign on the benefits of wind energy in the state.”
end excerpt
What a huge fraud these renewables are!
I’ve noticed that American Wind Action has been buying advertisement time on Fox News in the last week or two. Maybe the windmill industry is feeling some heat from somewhere.
I think she is hotlinking directly to WUWT from whichever social media she is using. Sucking up bandwidth