Renewable Energy: The Winners Are Winning and the Losers Have Lost
Someone asked the other day why I seemed wedded to solar and wind as the ultimate winners in 21st Century energy. This wasn’t a casual question, but rather an accusation, as if I had some fixed idea or vested interest.
The answer is that solar and wind have developed huge leads on the other flavors of renewables (geothermal, hydrokinetics and biomass). This was not the case when 2GreenEnergy opened its doors (almost exactly) nine years ago, but it certainly is now. And, as tends to be the case with technology, once standards are set and scale is achieved, it’s ferociously difficult for other entrants in the race. Ethernet/WIFI is the telecomm standard; do not expect to see a competitor in this space.
In truth, renewable energy is a problem that’s well on its way to being solved. Yes, it could be obsoleted by advanced nuclear when and if that comes along, but the cost of solar and wind continue to fall and the effectiveness continues to climb.
No one is trying to invent a new paradigm in nail clippers. The solution to the problem already exists. The same is essentially the case in clean energy.
Btw, here’s a story on Goldman Sachs’ acquisition of $350 million of solar PV assets on the East Coast. It’s happening.
Craig,
It seems that I have the rare opportunity to drop a friendly comment in before the idiot troll arrives to flood the thread, so I’m taking it.
I think that you have a strong point with respect to offshore wind vs wave – which I believe is the conversation that you are alluding to. But there are regions where more work is needed. If a region has no handy access to significant elevation shifts (needed for grid-level energy storage), then wind energy is going to have serious trouble penetrating more than ~30%.
Many regions don’t have good insolation. With current solar panel costs it’s hard to compete if regional insolation averages less than ~4.5 kWh/m2/day. (Some places don’t even average 3).
There are still headwinds to come, and still reasons to continue research. This is especially true of advanced geothermal. There is also reason to continue advocating for large-scale hydropower, dam uprating, and dam upgrading.
And of course the coasts still need to build out desal as fast as they possibly can, which means concentrated power loads along the coasts of every country should be built out. With the exception of areas near fault lines, this means nuclear would be the best fit.
And of course there is always room for growth in biomass.
We still need it all and more. We’re against the clock on the biggest challenge in the history of mankind, and we have only really developed 4 tools to fight it so far (nuclear, dammed hydro, wind, and solar). We need more, and then we need more still.
That said, there is no reason – at all – to fund deployment level funding on research projects that have yet to prove their viability. For now, wave is uncertain and wind is cost-effective… we spend some small amounts of research money trying to clarify the viability of wave while spending large amounts subsidizing wind deployment. The same is true of geothermal (research) vs solar (deployment), etc..
All while spending a large and growing amount on accommodation (things like massive desal projects and urbanizing food production).
That’s how we get where we need to go.
Craig,
Your summation that (excluding hydro)Wind and solar has become the dominant and most viable of renewable energy technologies is correct.
Solar is well entrenched largely because of the technologies versatility of scale. The wide variety of uses and applications for small scale solar ensures a long term future often where no other technology is viable.
The future of Wind is becoming less certain. Questions are beginning to emerge about efficiency and durability which cast doubt upon the economic benefits of Wind as a major generator of industrial power.
While the principle of a technology becoming dominant and deterring new opposition has some merit, that can be an illusion ! History is littered with examples of once dominant technologies that looked so solid and “solved” problems only to be quickly superseded or forced to share the market.
Your assertion, “the cost of solar and wind continue to fall and the effectiveness continues to climb”, isn’t really accurate. Obviously, all new technologies start with very high establishment costs, reducing with refining and mass production.
However, at some point costs begin to rise, often due to unforeseeable factors. Some costs increases are natural consequences of maturing technology or reduction of artificial market conditions such as government subsidies etc.
Advanced nuclear clearly has advantages and development will continue. The long term benefits of Thorium based mini reactors will sooner of later become irresistible.
I think it’s a mistake to become so besotted with Wind and Solar as “solutions”, while ignoring the obvious inadequacies and defects preventing the generationof reliable large scale Wind and Solar industrial “power on demand” .
The traditional sources of energy, hydro, coal and nuclear gas have been neglected in recent decades in the rush to fund ” renewable technologies”.
The drive to find alternative energy began in the early seventies as a result of OPEC’s then strangle hold on oil and a consensus of scientific opinion confirming M. King Hubbert’s “Peak Oil” theory.
The incentive to develop alternate fuel technologies gained further impetus by the widespread acceptance of Climate Change and the need for clean(er) technology.
In the rush to develop new technologies, older fuels were neglected (in the case of the US and Europe deliberately phased out by government policies).
Nuclear, oil, natural gas, and coal were all designated as dangerous polluters and investment discouraged. Unfortunately, investment in emission mitigation technology was also discouraged.
Neglecting emission mitigation technology only makes sense if an economically viable superior technology is available to replace the generating capacity of older technologies.
That’s where the problems began. So much passion, idealism and political-ideological commitment became intertwined with the various technologies to the point where decisions on energy generation was no longer decided on the merits of the technology, but “moral” and philosophical perspectives became dominant.
The development of new technologies in oil and natural gas production were initially bitterly opposed by “green’ ideologues, but have proved so successful oil and gas are now relatively cheap and plentiful. (an global oil and gas glut was unimaginable only a decade ago).
Doubts about the accuracy of claims made by the Wind Industry and manufacturers in several major studies, may expose major concerns about the industries economic viability. These problems are emerging at a time when long neglected coal fired technology, is beginning to resolve emission problems.
Early indication reveal the feasibility of not only “mitigating” the pollution from coal fired generation, but turn what was once environmentally harmful emissions into valuable environmentally friendly by products !
This will provide a challenge for the Wind industry. The recent rise in Coal prices is a double-edged sword. Rising prices brings more investment but further erodes the competitiveness of coal against gas.
To those with a passionate commitment to any technology, I would counsel studying history. Technology has no “moral” or philosophic dimension. The success or failure of any technology simply relies upon fulfilling consumer need and convenience.
No matter how passionate you may feel about the benefits of canal transport, the great days of rail travel or even the romance of crossing the Atlantic on a great liner, those days have gone.
That’s why I don’t have a passionate loyalty to any technology, but base my investments on objective analysis.