The Boom in Renewable Energy
It will be seven years this summer that we’ve been covering the rapid migration from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Here’s yet another article that underscores exactly how profound this shift is, and how quickly it’s occurring.
Meanwhile, US coal production has dropped to a 30-year low.
Such a wonderful feeling to be able to offer good news.
Craig,
I agree it’s very good news to see coal fired generation being made redundant.
But the articles you quoted are at best naively inaccurate, or at worst blatant propaganda by the giant corporations behind Wind and Solar.
The demise of US coal fired generation is largely created by competition from US Natural Gas production. The complicated system by which US utilities generate, purchase and distribute power is so complex even insiders find it difficult to analyze with accuracy.
When combined with even more complex State and Federal regulations, the system becomes a labyrinth of misunderstandings.
Articles like these either don’t understand,( or don’t want to understand )instead seize the opportunity to portray a distorted, but highly optimistic scenario to eager Wind and Solar supporters. (and investors).
All grids, no matter the location, simply “dump” excess generation. Anticipating demand sounds easy, but in reality it’s very difficult in an industrialized economy. Nor does electricity travel easily. Even with the most expensive and sophisticated transmission technology losses remain substantial.
I realize that Wind and Solar enthusiasts will decry all but the most optimistic appraisal of their chosen technology, but the the basic flaw of Wind and Solar is intermittent generation.
This doesn’t mean the technologies are valueless, but it does mean any analysis must devoid of bias to be useful.
A common error by Wind and Solar advocates is the assumption that equipment performs to the maximum efficiency as stated by the manufacturer when newly installed. (This is particularly true of transmission equipment).
Another omission is how government regulations, subsides and incentives skew assessments. To use a simple example, a Power Utility is required to preference “renewable” energy, however a large portion of the renewable energy is generated as excess, the Utility “dumps’ or earths excess power to protect from dangerous surges and overload. Following regulatory guidelines, or in order to achieve incentives, the Utility reports only the dumping of conventional power generation. Figures for Solar and Wind power are usually distorted by calculating total generation, not “usable” power.
This kind of practice has caused the dramatic rise in Germany’s power costs. Costs for the grid an associated equipment to receive incompatible generation from Solar and Wind is only starting to be realized and calculated.
On a more positive note, huge advances are being developed for distribution efficiency due to advanced technology capable of mitigating some of the disadvantages of intermittent generation.
Despite all the hype, and well intentioned advocacy and massive investment, the difficulty with large scale Wind and Solar remains the old problem of fitting a square peg into a round hole.
With a lot of economic cost, secondary technology and reorganization of industry, it an illusion can achieved but the question must be asked, why bother ?
The answer always provided is that reduction of carbon generation is such a pressing necessity that any sacrifice is worth the trouble.
That may be a valid argument, but it still raises the question, is Solar and Wind the best technology to achieve this requirement, or are they just very seductive blind cul de sac’s, like so many technologies have proved to be over the years, and will also be rendered obsolete by less attractive, but more compatible technologies ?
I guess time will tell….
I’m done with refuting your arguments; I no longer have the strength. Most of this is totally incorrect. Our grid dumps very little power, largely because operators’ prediction of demand is extremely precise. I’m similarly done with arguing about variability; I’ve written my last comment on the subject to you and Frank Eggers.
Assuming there is some attempt at sincerity and honesty in what you’re writing, I would urge you to do some research on these subjects.
Craig,
I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s understandable given your commitment and enthusiasm for Wind and Solar.
You accuse any alternate analysis being ill-founded, not researched and inaccurate, while dismissing criticism with observations such as, ” Our grid dumps very little power, largely because operators’ prediction of demand is extremely precise”. raises questions.
What do you mean by “Our Grid” ? Do you mean your local grid on the US grid ? If you mean the “US grid”, well no such thing really exists. Each state and region has it own complex set of rules and quite widely diverse technology in varying states of repair and antiquity.
Even federal policy initiatives such as The Energy Policy Act of 2005 only requires “state electricity regulators to consider (but not necessarily implement) rules that mandate public electric utilities make available upon request net metering to their customers “.
If you had read my comment more carefully, I gave credit to advances in technology and policy incentives contributing to predictability of demand making renewable power more compatible, coupled with the ability of base load generation to react faster in restricting generation.
On reflection, perhaps the term “dumping” was too simplistic. Different base load generators can restrict generation by different methods. (restricting flow, Venting etc).
However, it doesn’t alter the fact that both Wind and Solar generate power when it’s available, not on demand. Yes, we can change and adapt many aspects to make wind and solar more compatible, but the question remains why bother ?
Enthusiastic advocates for these technologies, backed by huge companies with massive investments to protect, argue Wind and Solar as a panacea to future power generation. The justification is always based on climate change being so urgent that no real appraisal is necessary.
But not all in the Wind and Solar Industry is as rosy as the RFA would have us believe:
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/08/solar-installation-in-british-homes-falls-by-three-quarters-after-s]
[http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2016/04/13/europes_energy_crisis_poses_warning_for_the_us]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/12156171/Revealed-the-great-wind-farm-tax-con.html]
[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601482/peek-inside-tri-alpha-energy-a-company-pursuing-the-ideal-power-source/]
[http://www.investors.com/news/technology/nevada-puc-contortionist-act-will-kill-rooftop-solar-sunrun/]
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2015/06/24/after-decade-of-decline-solar-panel-prices-are-rising-in-worlds-biggest-solar-market]
[http://elpais.com/elpais/2015/06/15/inenglish/1434365532_423180.html ]
These are just a few examples articles supporting a growing call for greater analysis into the effect of uncritical acceptance of taxpayer/consumer support for Wind and Solar power Industries.
What if all those critics are correct ? What if by spending hundreds (even thousands) of $ billions, we have just once again wasted time and money on technologies with a fundamental flaw ?
What if by doing so, we have once again allowed the development of the wrong technology, but are no stuck with of huge industries, very difficult to dismantle, and blocking the development of superior technologies ?
Isn’t that just recreating the folly of Ethanol, or dependence on fossil fuels?
Isn’t it fair to ask, if we devoting too much support for technologies that may turn out to be a vast waste of resources while ignoring better more compatible technologies ?
The Latin phrase “Festina Lente” (the more haste, the less speed) may be applicable.
I don’t think Frank or I are “advocating” merely questioning.