Prediction: The Migration To Renewable Energy Will Be Anything But Smooth
Doesn’t everyone love the promise of abundant, inexpensive, and totally clean energy? Actually, no. Those whose profit streams come from dirty, 20th Century energy most certainly don’t. These people are working diligently to delay the onset of renewables as long as possible, and often through overtly dishonest means.
Here’s a story about the voter referendum re: solar PV and net-metering in Florida, advertised as a pro-solar initiative. It reveals how Florida’s largest electric utilities are attempting to deceive voters into supporting restrictions on the expansion of solar by shrouding the bill as an amendment that would promote the use of rooftop solar.
From the Miami Herald:
Sal Nuzzo, a vice president at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, detailed the strategy used by the state’s largest utilities to create and finance Amendment 1 at the State Energy/Environment Leadership Summit in Nashville on Oct. 2. Nuzzo called the amendment, which has received more than $21 million in utility industry financing, “an incredibly savvy maneuver” that “would completely negate anything they (pro-solar interests) would try to do either legislatively or constitutionally down the road.”
It’s fair to predict that the road to clean energy won’t be a short or easy one, but that we’ll eventually get there. The only open question is: How much environmental devastation will we have caused in the meanwhile? Answer: nobody knows.
Yes, it will be anything but smooth. Eventually it will be found that there is a limit to the degree of penetration which can occur before serious problems result and that intermittent renewables cannot come sufficiently close to eliminating the use of fossil fuels. At that point, people will assert, “Well, we thought it would work! Don’t blame us! Our intentions were good!”. Then we will have to begin expanding nuclear power as rapidly as possible but without the funds available which have already been spend on renewables. Meanwhile, global warming will have continued to increase.
Renewables do have their place, but not as a major source of power for most large countries.
Frank, with all respect, I think you are missing the point. It you take the time to look through the literature the reason utilities object to distributed solar has nothing to do with integration. The problem for them is net metering and the loss of revenue and its effect on investors and shareholders.
A study predicted a loss of about 15% in revenue if net metering goes from it’s present .2% of market to about 10%. http://grist.org/climate-energy/rooftop-solar-is-just-the-beginning-utilities-must-innovate-or-go-extinct/ The effect could be the same if homeowners choose to conserve energy and 20% of the customers managed to reduce their bill by 50%. If you can wade through the condescending tone here is a dumbed down version by the same author: http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/
This has brought several reactions. Utilities are continuing to fight against progress. They look at studies that say utility scale solar is cheaper and less polluting than distributed solar: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/07/30/which-is-cheaper-rooftop-solar-or-utility-scale-solar/#3bfa54024f6d
And finally they give in and try to own the distributed solar: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/11/03/utilities-couldn-t-kill-distributed-solar-so-now-they-re-co-opting-business-model
But the idea of intermittency from the utility perspective is not even brought up. It is an old argument. It is brought up and disposed of in the second grist article above. Intermittency makes the job more difficult, it may require more equipment and perhaps expensive storage but all these things would only be factors in rate negotiations not the disruption to the business model posed by conservation or rooftop solar.
Breath,
I an well aware that intermittency is an olde argument. However, I see the age of an argument as irrelevant for just about anything even though it is commonly used. I have read arguments asserting that intermittency objection has been disposed of, but I am not convinced.
Your statement that intermittency may require more equipment and perhaps expensive storage simply is not true. It is absolutely true, certain, sure, and clear that intermittency WILL require more equipment and expensive storage. Very few would question that. Also, currently there are no storage technologies up to the task. I see it as excessively risky to assume that adequate storage technologies will become available. To me it is unreasonable to base such an important matter on assumption.
No doubt I require a higher standard of proof than many people require.
It is unknown when people will finally say, “Well, we though it would work. How could we possibly have known that it wouldn’t work? It was an honest mistake.”. Being able to say, “We told you so.” would be small comfort considering the resulting disaster.
Yes Frank, you are right, the age of an argument is not necessarily dispositive. However when the intermittency objection was raised and didn’t quickly dispose of the argument in this case for renewable energy then it enters the ranks of not being a sufficient objection. It might be a factor but neither the final nail or the death knell.
Intermittency has both a concern of technological feasibility and cost to implement.
Sure the utility is concerned about providing reliable service, but if money were no object today’s batteries could solve the problem. And if a utility were forced to install renewable energy, and some such mandates exist, they then have a legitimate right to ask for increase rates to cover the additional equipment. So we are not in a space were we are saying that renewable energy or even grid sized energy storage is physically impossible. The fact that it exists makes it clear that it is possible. From this purely “what is possible” perspective intermittency is not an issue.
From an environmental perspective we are concerned about efficiency and pollution. But the utility is a business. We can discuss efficiency and pollution, global warming and fossil fuels all we want if it makes us happy. But until it becomes a regulation or an economic inevitability the utility does not care and will not take notice.
What the Utility does care about is their investment dollars and stockholders. And so while intermittency may be somewhere low on their list of concerns. Decreased revenue from net metering and conservation efforts are a much higher priority. This is what is discussed in current literature and this is what is relevant to the discussion.
Now you can argue that the utilities are not paying attention to the right thing. OK, but then you are presenting an argument against the existing system in place today in favor of a wish list. You are certainly entitled but the relevancy of your arguments will suffer and someone may suggest that you have “missed the point.”
Counting only wind and solar, SDG&E now has 35 percent renewables, plus an additional 5% of load is provided by customers solar system, for a total of 40%. It’s a good start.