Is Renewable Energy Replacing the Consumption of Fossil Fuels?
This morning, someone asked me about the importance of energy storage. “Renewables provide intermittent energy. Don’t we need some way to store the energy overnight, to deliver it when it’s needed?” he asked.
“No, not right now, “ I explained. “The penetration of renewables is under 2% in the US. When we get to 15% – 20%, if we live long enough to see it, we’ll need storage. Until that point, the discussion is of academic importance only.”
Here’s another viewpoint on the interplay between renewables and traditional energy sources, in which the author suggests that energy demand is growing so rapidly that clean energy is really not cutting into the consumption of use of fossil fuels at all. Kentucky-based consulting engineer and frequent commenter John Robbins writes:
Craig:
In my region, growth in energy demand is advancing far faster than either conventional energy or renewable energy can keep pace. Electricity use in KY, for example, is down only in industrial sector, due to recession. Commercial and residential electricity use is up, even during the recession, even with record-breaking implementations of efficiency and renewables. Who was it that recently reported that new so-called DVR-type “set-top boxes” atop modern cable TVs have increased electricity use by same as was used annually by the entire state of Maryland only 10 yrs ago?
And a recent poll of electric utility representatives shows they expect a 7% or so increase in electricity use just associated with electric vehicles in the coming decade. Imagine the increase in electricity usage if/when the recession ends! Our new-wave renewable energy sector has dropped the ball carried by its 1st wave predecessors who always included very strong “demand/use less” messages as part of any/all renewable energy conversions.
As example, the director of Green Energy Ohio, who once pushed Ohio as head of Ohio Consumer Council to implement demand-side management (DSM) and efficiency programs to avoid new conventional electricity generation by Ohio utilities, now says absolutely nothing abt that because he’s head of Ohio’s largest renewable energy group. He now measures progress by how much RE is sold and installed. He exemplifies what I now describe to students is the “new wave” of renewable energy, where the goal is more about increasing RE than decreasing conventional.
Is it possible to increase RE at a record-breaking pace while not reducing conventional? You bet! It’s happening right now. ASES and SEIA both admitted on NPR that storage-free grid-tied RE is having little or no effect on coal-fired and nuclear generation. Yet many of us in the first-wave of RE actually sought to move us away from coal-fired and nuclear generation. All our strategies revolved around that goal. Yet new wave advocacy for more storage-free grid-tied RE without reduced electric loads (kW) and less electricity usage (kWh) is causing a situation in which demand for our most hated conventional energy generation (coal and nukes) is actually increasing!
And it cannot be ignored that new electric loads from countless new portable consumer electronics, plug-in electric vehicles, cable-TV set-top boxes and cable phone modems are increasing overall electric demand faster than the implementation rate of RE. Couple that with the part-time nature of most RE and we are heading into an almost certain future of increased demand for more non-RE energy. If only we focused our energy programs and investments on verified reductions in demand (kW) and use (kWh)…
We should be measuring and reporting our progress not by how much RE we can install, but by how much conventional energy we can reduce or avoid. If we at least implemented RE at the same pace as we reduced demand and use, we’d double the % RE compared to total energy.
While many in the world are rejecting, stalling or abandoning nuclear power, what about the U.S.? Why should the U.S. consider abandoning nuclear? What are a number of experts saying about the nuclear industry in the U.S., and its future? That it is problematic, contentious and not well thought-out. The Obama Administration proposed $36 billion in Treasury-backed loan guarantees for new reactors, which is controversial in itself on many fronts.
Occasionally I wonder why I spend so much time blogging on the energy industry — not because I think what I do is inconsequential, but because I come across someone whose message — or level of talent in delivering that message — is so superior to mine that I feel like I’m coming on stage to play rock guitar a few minutes after Jimi Hendrix just sat down.
I want to thank everyone who helped with this month’s survey, in which participants were asked to provide their forecasts for the future of our civilization, given the rise in population and the decline in traditional energy resources. I’ll publish my usual brief report shortly, summarizing the results. But I felt compelled to mention at this early stage something I noticed on the train from New York down to Philadelphia this afternoon, as I was paging through the responses.
