Clean energy stagnation: Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, this stagnation suggests how policies employed to accelerate rates of decarbonization of the global economy have been largely ineffective.
Clean energy stagnation: Despite the rhetoric around the rise of renewable energy, this stagnation suggests how policies employed to accelerate rates of decarbonization of the global economy have been largely ineffective.
The political push to the build more and more renewable power with today’s solar and wind technology guarantees that renewables will never gain on fossil fuels. The reason: every MW of this intermittent power must be backed up by conventional sources – primarily coal and gas. It’s like bragging about driving a Prius while having your husband follow you around town in his half ton truck just because your batteries randomly fail.
I can’t imagine any rational economist could look at the waste involved in this energy reality and not shake their head in disgust. Though, oddly, most economists do not seem to understand the economic value of cheap,reliable energy for people and business. For that matter, most do not seem to understand how little environmental benefit would be achieved even if the renewable energy push was successful – it’s pennies of benefit per dollar spent, if I remember correctly.
The smart countries are the ones who are building conventional, reliable, affordable power. In about 20 years, which I predict is the lag time between going Green and really feeling the pain of high energy costs, they’ll have all the industries that require affordable power and the healthy economy that comes with it. The Green countries will be price fixing energy costs to prevent riots and desperately hunting for the elusive creative and knowledge economy unicorns they promised would replace the dirty, knuckle-dragger economy.
LC, it’s because the answer to their claimed problem was already underway. In Pielke’s graphs, more than 90 per cent of the new clean energy between 1965 and 1990 was nuclear. It supplied the vast bulk of all the new electricity demand during that period, displacing fuel oil almost entirely out of the electricity generation mix.
Problem was the Greens hate nuclear, hence they rejected the solution that worked for their claimed problem in the interest of renewable solutions which didn’t.
No one ever believed Cassandra’s dire warnings – until they turned out to be true
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/10539509/So-many-of-my-predictions-about-the-EU-and-energy-have-been-correct.html
Yes, the irrational fear of nuclear power is unfortunate. The economics of nuclear power is not an area I am very familiar with but I hear arguments about its cost problems. If I was a gambler, I’d bet on a new generation of cheaper, smaller nuclear power as the breakthrough that will compete with fossil fuel electricity.
LC, the costs of nuclear power are a very complex subject. To generalize broadly, nuclear has had a large overburden of regulation placed upon it, some of it misplaced. To a large degree, nuclear has been forced to absorb costs properly belonging to national defence, specifically in the areas of security and non-proliferation. Nuclear has been forced to internalize waste disposal and decommissioning costs that no other energy source has been forced to absorb.
And finally, nuclear is capital intensive during an economic era when the only real rewards these days are in investments and projects which provide quick return on capital. In its costing structure, like hydraulic, nuclear requires long term certainty with respect to demand for its electricity which the current, disaggregated utility model is unable to supply.
Each of these sentences needs at least a full essay with data to demonstrate them properly. However, real world evidence is better than generalizations. Bruce Power has invested about $4 billion in renovating its four Bruce A reactors for an additional service life of 25 years. And it has done so on a profit making basis to produce power costing Ontario ratepayers less than 7.5 cents/kWh. And had the Province of Ontario not inserted utterly ridiculous conditions into its nuclear tender in 2007, there would be new reactors under construction in Ontario today.
Oh, and you are right about small modular technology. A significant problem with nuclear is too much original design and too much unique engineering going into large facilities. The nuclear industry will be truly a mature industry when it produces reactors like Toyota produces Camrys, a standardized product that comes off the production line.
Thanks, cgh. It does not surprise me at all that government interference is at the heart of the problem regarding new nuclear plants.
I read that the UK is attempting to guarantee profits for new nuclear plants but it looks kind of dodgy. I expect that has to do with how badly the government has mangled the energy market and, of course, the usual amount of crony capitalism.
Windpower equals a commitment toward’s 3rd world status. Someone tell Ontario.
Well Ontario isnt listening.. Just spent almost 4 days in the dark because there is no money to harden the grid for a ice storm..
But all the money in the world for windmills..
I think this has some relevance here!
http://youtu.be/qLk46BZfEMs
It is long but all you will need is the first 5mins please watch it’s very cool!
Sounds like this could well be the future if common sense ever made a comeback.
Yes I am currently looking to invest, and become very involves in this thing this is the future.
The left’s longtime hate-affair with nuclear power is as inexplicable as it is irrational. As we speak Ont is deriving 86% of its electricity from nuclear and hydro.A good political operative would be able to put a positive spin on this, perhaps by coining a new catchy phrase like “renewable” that would include these two green, clean sources. Instead Ont Liberals trump fantasy plans to generate x% of power from renewable over the next twenty years. Wind turbines have zero effect on Co2 emissions and can never deliver reliable cost effective power, and anyway Ont has surplus electricity. They remain the answer to exactly what problem?
Spending billions to promote wind and solar modes while ignoring unglamorous updates to line and infrastructure is a sure recipe
for energy disaster, Ont should have learned this from the 98 ice storm, but appears to have to relearn it in 2013.