Have We Already Won the Renewables Revolution?

[kristopher]

Have We Already Won the Renewables Revolution?
Tam Hunt looks at the clear—and not-so-clear—trajectories for renewables, efficiency and electric vehicles.

Could we have already reached a point where current trajectories for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative transportation are clear enough that we can reasonably suggest that a revolution has occurred?

Yes. For the most part, the game is indeed won. We are on the path to renewable energy ubiquity -- and it’s unlikely to be derailed even if policy support falters for these technologies.

There are still some uncertainties, but let’s start by examining the clearer trajectories.


Renewable energy is trending rapidly toward ubiquity

<snip 6 para>

Source: REN21 Global Status Report 2016

The world is inevitably becoming more energy-efficient

<snip 3 para>

FIGURE 2: EIA’s Energy Intensity Projections

Electric car adoption is growing rapidly, but still not trending toward ubiquity

<snip 1 para>

A recent Goldman Sachs report estimates that about 50 percent of all new car sales will be EVs by 2025. Under this trend, we’ll see almost all new cars become electric by around 2030. With an average vehicle lifetime of 10 to 15 years, it is possible that our entire passenger car fleet will become electric by around 2045 or so. This is encouraging.

FIGURE 3: EV, Solar and LED Sales Estimates for 2025

https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Goldman_Sachs_solar,_EV_and_LEDs.png

Source: Goldman Sachs

<snip 6 para>

FIGURE 4: Battery Energy Density and Costs, Historical and Targeted



Source: IEA Global EV Outlook 2016

<snip 3 para>

What could derail the revolution?

<snip 8 para wrap up>

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/have-we-already-won-the-renewables-revolution

[Dr.Jones]

1. Ethanol

I'm a fan of corn based ethanol vs biomass. At least in regard to field production.

[kristopher]

4. The numbers might change your view...

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n3/full/nclimate2488.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201503

Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America
Daniel L. Sanchez, James H. Nelson, Josiah Johnston, Ana Mileva & Daniel M. Kammen

Nature Climate Change 5, 230–234 (2015)
doi:10.1038/nclimate2488

I think the carbon negative part is pretty important.

And if you're focused on transportation:

Biofuels vs. Biomass Electricity
Findings show that turning biomass into electricity is more beneficial than turning it into transportation fuels.
FRIDAY, MAY 8, 2009 BY TYLER HAMILTON

A study published today in Science concludes that, on average, using biomass to produce electricity is 80 percent more efficient than transforming the biomass into biofuel. In addition, the electricity option would be twice as effective at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The results imply that investment in an ethanol infrastructure, even if based on more efficient cellulosic processes, may prove misguided. The study was done by a collaboration between researchers at Stanford University, the Carnegie Institute of Science, and the University of California, Merced.

There's also the potential, according to the study, of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that use switchgrass, wood chips, and other biomass materials as fuel--an option that doesn't exist for burning ethanol. Biomass, even though it releases CO2 when burned, overall produces less carbon dioxide than do fossil fuels because plants grown to replenish the resource are assumed to reabsorb those emissions. Capture those combustion emissions instead and sequester them underground, and it would "result in a carbon-negative energy source that removes CO2 from the atmosphere," according to the study.

The researchers based their findings on scenarios developed under the Biofuel Analysis Meta-Model (EBAMM) created at the University of California, Berkeley. The analysis covered a range of harvested crops, including corn and switchgrass, and a number of different energy-conversion technologies. Data collected were applied to electric and combustion-engine versions of four vehicle types--small car, midsize car, small SUV, and large SUV--and their operating efficiencies during city and highway driving.

The study accounted for the energy required to convert the biomass into ethanol and electricity, as well as for the energy intensiveness of manufacturing and disposing of each vehicle type. Bioelectricity far outperformed ethanol under most scenarios, although the two did achieve similar distances when the electric vehicles--specifically the small car and large SUV--weren't designed for efficient highway driving.

The potential is even greater for the bioelectricity option because under the EBAMM model, "we did not account for heat as a [usable] by-product...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413406/biofuels-vs-biomass-electricity/

[Dr.Jones]

5. Fertilization?

When I refer to biomass vs ethanol I'm referring to corn vs something like switchgrass to be converted into ethanol. The biggest problem is replacing the nutrients that are removed when you harvest a crop such as switchgrass. To replace those nutrients with a manufactured product defeats the purpose. Corn ethanol on the other hand leaves plenty of nutrient rich stover in the field. Not to mention the fact that corn serves two purposes. The ethanol is made from the starch while leaving the protein intact to be fed to livestock.

[kristopher]

6. That's a comparison of two methods for producing (bio)fuels for ICEs

The move away from corn ethanol to switchgrass hasn't happened as anticipated, so it might be that you're right on that score. In the larger picture though, the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine is forcing the personal transportation sector towards electric drive. Producing electricity (with a side order of usable heat) with farmed wood products is the thrust of the two articles I offered; and, if you read them, you'll see that the advantages of using electricity as an energy carrier in the personal transportation sector are significant.

Biomass is a probable carbon neutral or carbon negative replacement for natural gas one the grid. Together with other energy strategies we need far less than most people realize of the load balancing, fill-in-the-cracks type energy compliments to wind and solar. Biomass is an important part of the overall renewable energy solution to climate change.

Of course, some mobility problems are better addressed with the high energy density and portability of liquid hydrocarbon fuels. These demands are largely in the 'heavy lift' sector, such as aviation, agriculture, construction, or hauling freight. But even there, ethanol isn't generally thought of as a good candidate when compared to much higher energy density biodiesel products.

[Dr.Jones]

7. Robbing Peter to pay Paul

There's no doubt about the accuracy of the raw data in those studies, but as I said they don't account for the effect of replacing the nutrients contained in the removed corn stover or switchgrass. They don't account for the irreplaceable nature of the protein that would be lost in their process. They don't account for the value of the DDG's which carry 3x the protein per lb that whole corn does, which also saves on emissions when it's shipped to those needing the feed. They also don't account for the fact that electric cars, even though they run super efficient, are still little more than a novelty item.

[kristopher]

9. Actually they do consider the nature and role of the feedstocks....

But you'd need to examine the papers to know that.

[Dr.Jones]

11. Ummmm...

I don't see where the articles you posted reference nitrogen replacement any way shape or form.

[kristopher]

12. Ummmmm....

From Sanchez pg 1:

Western North America contains biomass resources from forestry, wastes, agricultural residues and dedicated energy crops, although supply is limited by land and sustainability practices (Fig. 1)13 . In total, we identify 1.9 × 109 MMBtu (2,000 PJ) of economically recoverable bioenergy available annually from solid biomass by the year 2030, sufficient for ?7–9% of modelled demand for electricity in 2050. Our estimates for availability in California are smaller than other studies, which tend to focus on ‘technical potential’ rather than ‘economically recoverable’ resources14,15. Although barriers to biomass recovery exist even for economically recoverable resources, we choose these resources as a reasonable approximationof biomass potential.

[Dr.Jones]

13. Maybe you grabbed the wrong link?

I don't see anything about how they intend to replace the nitrogen in your post.

[kristopher]

14. So you aren't referencing sustainability practices ...

...that affect the amount of biomass available from corn stover?

[Dr.Jones]

15. ?

I'm not sure what you're talking about...

[kristopher]

16. It isn't complicated

Your objection has no merit as a criticism of either the topic or the paper. It's a minor footnote to the OP topic and a third order variable to a small subset of data in the paper.

[Dr.Jones]

17. DOA

As I said, I'm not objecting to the data presented, just to the fact that implementation would be impractical. The additional manufacturing of fertilizer would eat up much if not all of the benefits, without even touching the food vs . fuel implications.

[kristopher]

18. You are making the unwarranted assumption that it isn't included.

It's the form of objection a great number of specious criticisms take. Select a minor piece of second or third order data that has no reasonable expectation of being included in a word limited journal article and pretend that the absence is significant even though the authors have included the category in the text.

It isn't clever ruse, it's an obvious churlish action.

[Dr.Jones]

19. Biology 101

Last edited Fri Oct 28, 2016, 03:33 PM - Edit history (1)

You understand that every living organism requires nutrients to survive? You understand that when that organism dies that there is a tremendous amount of nutrients that are left there to decompose? To trivialize this concept in the way that you are would suggest that it's a little above your pay grade.

There are a number of different methods of providing nutrients to a plant. Everything from a manufactured dry granular or a liquid that may or may not have a mechanism to tie up the nutrients for a slower release, requiring less fertilizer, to natural fertilizers such as manure, chicken/turkey litter, or even liquefied fish guts. Each of these having vastly different environmental effects. To assume that this is accounted for is absurd.

In a positive note, if you keep digging yourself a hole here, you'll have better first hand experience on how nutrients work.

[kristopher]

20. Which has nothing at all to do with the specious nature of the criticism.

NNope. NNothing.

[Dr.Jones]

21. WTF?

How could the single largest factor(nutrients) in generating the cellulose needed to be converted into energy have "nothing to do with it"?

[kristopher]

22. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1228&pid=49514

http://www.democraticunderground.com/122849496#post18

[Dr.Jones]

23. Food vs. Fuel

Since you're hell bent on playing stupid on the input side of the equation, what do you think about the fact that all that protein would go to waste, vs ethanol? Or is that factored in as well?

[kristopher]

24. "Since you're hell bent on playing stupid..."

Now you're engaging in projection.

Dr.Jones wrote: "Since you're hell bent on playing stupid on the input side of the equation, what do you think about the fact that all that protein would go to waste, vs ethanol? Or is that factored in as well?"

[Dr.Jones]

25. Food vs. Fuel....again

And you're changing the subject.

[kristopher]

26. Subject

Have We Already Won the Renewables Revolution?
Tam Hunt looks at the clear—and not-so-clear—trajectories for renewables, efficiency and electric vehicles.

Could we have already reached a point where current trajectories for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative transportation are clear enough that we can reasonably suggest that a revolution has occurred?

Yes. For the most part, the game is indeed won. We are on the path to renewable energy ubiquity -- and it’s unlikely to be derailed even if policy support falters for these technologies.

There are still some uncertainties, but let’s start by examining the clearer trajectories.


Renewable energy is trending rapidly toward ubiquity

<snip 6 para>

Source: REN21 Global Status Report 2016

The world is inevitably becoming more energy-efficient

<snip 3 para>

FIGURE 2: EIA’s Energy Intensity Projections

Electric car adoption is growing rapidly, but still not trending toward ubiquity

<snip 1 para>

A recent Goldman Sachs report estimates that about 50 percent of all new car sales will be EVs by 2025. Under this trend, we’ll see almost all new cars become electric by around 2030. With an average vehicle lifetime of 10 to 15 years, it is possible that our entire passenger car fleet will become electric by around 2045 or so. This is encouraging.

FIGURE 3: EV, Solar and LED Sales Estimates for 2025

https://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/content/images/articles/Goldman_Sachs_solar,_EV_and_LEDs.png

Source: Goldman Sachs

<snip 6 para>

FIGURE 4: Battery Energy Density and Costs, Historical and Targeted



Source: IEA Global EV Outlook 2016

<snip 3 para>

What could derail the revolution?

<snip 8 para wrap up>

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/have-we-already-won-the-renewables-revolution

[Dr.Jones]

27. Food vs. Fuel.....take 3

So the fact that your grand plan would deplete the food supply instead of increase it like ethanol does is just a small detail as well, like the fact that the nutrient issues would end it before it even started?

[kristopher]

28. The fact that you think you're offering cogent criticism is astounding.

Dr.Jones wrote, "So the fact that your grand plan would deplete the food supply instead of increase it like ethanol does is just a small detail as well, like the fact that the nutrient issues would end it before it even started?"

[Dr.Jones]

29. Food vs. Fuel.....take IV

So you're not going to answer my question?

[kristopher]

30. If you want to have a discussion about ethanol start another thread.

[Dr.Jones]

31. My bad.

I thought this thread was about renewable fuel.

[kristopher]

32. Yes, it is.

And obviously it is a deliberately bad act.

[tonyt53]

52. My F150 gets about 4 mpg less with E85 than E10. When I pull my trailer is goes to about 5.5 less.

I do run E85 about every 6th or 7th tank to keep the injectors clean though. With the next tank of E10 i get about 1.5 mpg better than before.

[msongs]

2. e-cars just shift the dirt around if powered by coal generated electricity instead of petroleum nt

[kristopher]

3. I don't think that's accurate, but...

hit us with some numbers and let's see. There are two points I see as relevant: 1) coal is steady becoming a smaller part of the mix and 2) even with the higher proportion of coal 10 years ago, an EV produced markedly less CO2 than the fleet average ICE.

But the sentiment you express is accurate: the quicker we get away from fossil, the better off we'll be.

[progressoid]

8. Have we won?

No.

[kristopher]

10. Good to know.

[NickB79]

33. "What could derail the revolution?"

Well, since we're on track to blow past 2C of warming by mid-century.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-study-10336406.html

Dr Aled Jones, the Director of the Global Sustainability Institute, told Insurge Intelligence: "We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends — that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend.

"The results show that based on plausible climate trends, and a total failure to change course, the global food supply system would face catastrophic losses, and an unprecedented epidemic of food riots.

"In this scenario, global society essentially collapses as food production falls permanently short of consumption."

[kristopher]

34. Saying it will fail because it will fail is a fail in itself.

The evidence in the OP show that the circumstances the model is predicated on are not in place. The OP clearly outlines - with solid evidence - a completely disruptive technological revolution that is anything but "'do nothing' trends" in a "business-as-usual" environment.

Your remark is a tautology that amounts to total disregard of the the evidence instead of a reasoned examination of what the technological and economic situation is vis-a-vis the move away from carbon.

We ran the model forward to the year 2040, along a business-as-usual trajectory based on ‘do-nothing’ trends — that is, without any feedback loops that would change the underlying trend.

[NickB79]

39. Yeah, I'm sure things will work out just fine for us

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1127105803

Nearly three-fifths of all animals with a backbone — fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals — have been wiped out since 1970 by human appetites and activity, according to a grim study released on Thursday.

Global populations of vertebrates — mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish — have declined by 58 percent between 1970 and 2012, states a new report from World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Animals living in the world’s lakes, rivers, and freshwater systems have experienced the most dramatic population declines, at 81 percent. Because of human activity, the report states that without immediate intervention global wildlife populations could drop two-thirds by 2020.

[kristopher]

40. How is that related to the OP?

Last edited Sun Oct 30, 2016, 07:13 AM - Edit history (1)

If there is a connection, it would be that the transition to a less energy intensive approach to life will aid in reducing our impact on wildlife. No one said it was the answer to all the ills of the world, but as positive things go, it's a huge step in the right direction.

On another front I have to admit I'm fascinated by your decision to raise this issue in the context of renewable energy when, as I recall from long term association with your views on EE, you are a proponent of nuclear power. Since nuclear is one of the cornerstones of the energy intensive, resource eating value system we presently embrace, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that you actually care about the issue on its merits.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. The idea of a 'trajectory' implies 'momentum' or 'inertia'

which are really not concepts you can just assume exist in commerce. There is no justification for assuming that rapid growth from a tiny start implies such growth rates will continue.

[kristopher]

36. That's an interesting thought...

But neither is there justification for ignoring mountains of evidence saying aggressive growth rates will continue either. I mean, just because you can make a true statement about a hypothetical set of assumptions based on no evidence doesn't mean that all sets of assumptions in the social and economic realm fit that mold. The issue isn't whether or not you can accurately use the word trajectory in commerce, because you can; and that is a simple fact of our language. The real issue I see you raising actually concerns the number of variables that are recognizable and whether those variables are controllable or not.

What I see is that we, as a species, have been working deliberately for about 40 years to bring these new technologies and the economic forces they represent to the point where we are now in the area of energy. We didn't just suddenly find ourselves in a world where the growth of investment in renewables and energy efficiency materialized by chance. This position and the change that is taking place are planned events over known landscape and set of oppositional and friendly forces.

To go further would be easier if you were more specific.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. I don't see at all that "we as a species" have deliberately chosen renewables

A small subset have; but the vast majority of the species just want cheap energy, and have taken that. A series of pieces of luck have helped us; the Soviet bloc collapsed around 1990, and that helped decrease the use of dirty coal (at the cost of a precarious standard of living for many in those countries for a few years), and cut some CO2 emissions. But that was not "deliberate work".

In the 90s, several developed countries switched from coal to nuclear or natural gas, but for cost/energy independence/anti-union reasons, rather than climate reasons. Once Kyoto happened, a significant part of the developed world, the major emitters, did start to think about CO2 emissions, but by no means all of it (eg the USA), and pretty half-heartedly. You can look at the figures you gave to see we've used very little renewables so far. Political and economic reasons kept the use of fossil fuels still pretty high, and that has been more important to governments and electorates (especially economic for the latter) than climate change. Meanwhile, developing countries massively grew their energy consumption by the cheapest means available. There was no 'planning' for renewables - we still use very little, and the existing plans for it are still small.

Growth rates don't belong to the renewable technologies themselves - a technology is chosen by users who want it, and people still want whatever's cheapest. They don't say "we see there's a growth in solar, therefore we demand more of it", they say "how can I heat my house cheaply?" (and very few are using renewables for that; those are making small inroads into electricity production, but gas, oil and coal still do the vast amount of heating in the world).

The apathy about climate is obvious in the US elections - do you see people complaining that climate change is not discussed at all? Democrats nod to it, and Republicans deny its very existence. And the same goes in other countries, more or less.

[kristopher]

38. It sounds like you're describing the inertia of the existing fossil system.

I'd define the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 as the moment when the collective leaders of "we as a species" made a conscious choice to move away from fossil fuels. The scientific contingent's consensus was that the most viable alternative was to be found in renewable resources* - beginning a period of intense focus on bringing the costs of the required technologies to a point where they would be economically preferable to the existing system of fossil and nuclear.

But my timeline goes back even further to the efforts initiated by Carter in response to the oil embargoes of the 70s. That decade laid the foundation for a strong public sense of unease about our dependence on petroleum specifically and monopolistically controllable energy resources generally. Even though the associated initial research efforts produced little of substance, the core research on renewables that would be gathered for Rio was initiated.

Kyoto and now Paris have continued to affirm the commitment to change which began in Rio.

Over the course of that time has the change been visible? Yes and no.

The research into lowering costs continued; first it focused mostly on ways to improve technologies for harvesting the identified energy resources. But then it began to spread to the area of improving manufacturing techniques. We are now in the third mass production stage where marginal costs are driven down by the cycle of increased demand leading to more investment in manufacturing. At this point, looking at the market globally and including the billions of people in severe energy poverty, the drivers for that cycle of increasing demand-investment-cost reduction-increasing demand quite literally cannot be broken by any foreseeable economic force the existing energy system owners can bring to bear.



*'Renewable Energy: Sources for Fuels and Electricity' published in 1993 by Island Press

[kristopher]

42. I'd like to cover one point I neglected to address earlier

Growth rates don't belong to the renewable technologies themselves - a technology is chosen by users who want it, and people still want whatever's cheapest. They don't say "we see there's a growth in solar, therefore we demand more of it", they say "how can I heat my house cheaply?" (and very few are using renewables for that; those are making small inroads into electricity production, but gas, oil and coal still do the vast amount of heating in the world).

I believe you are going to find that the heating and cooling problem actually favors renewable deployment and microgrids since a very good way to address the variable production schedule of wind and solar is to use thermal storage as a buffer. Everyday stone makes an excellent and inexpensive medium for storage and the heat exchange systems are not a tech challenge. This works in residential, commercial and industrial environments.
Additionally, as new buildings gradually replace older ones, there is every expectation that net-zero construction will become the norm. I can't tell you how disappointed I was when the Obama proposal to standardize and rate all buildings by their energy needs in a manner similar to automobile window stickers was shot down. Putting that kind of information in the hands of buyers would be a great incentive for net-zero building.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Shot down because as a whole, people don't care enough about it

Same thing happened here in the UK - a government proposal to make all homes net-zero construction was made, and then quietly binned a few years later, after many people had said the extra building cost was too much.

Stone is a very expensive building material. And in some circumstances the thermal inertia of it is useful, in others it's a pain, making it harder to heat up a space previously unused, for instance.

[kristopher]

45. I'm sorry but "the same thing" did not happen in the UK.

Idea's float around in different iterations; some of them find a window of opportunity, some of them don't. In the UK's case you say people didn't care enough about net zero to pay for it; but what happens when that flips and the economics favor net zero (which they already do when lifetime saving are considered).

Yes, people respond to economic incentives so the challenge is to make that work in the direction for desired change. As I noted last post there is an extremely simple policy tool to bring the economics into line with the goal of carbon reduction for this situation - mandate a standardized building efficiency labeling for all buildings be part of the picture when they are sold.


"Stone is an expensive building material" also doesn't fly in this context. Forcing air through a bin of large stones isn't nearly as expensive as most heating/cooling systems in use today - even when combined with a good fresh air heat exchange system. And if you don't like stone, that's fine - there are a wide range of alternatives with varying properties that are also waiting to be commercialized when the market is established.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. "the challenge is to make that work" - you were saying the revolution was already won

"what happens when that flips" - that's the point. It has to 'flip'. I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm saying that it has not yet happened.

[kristopher]

47. I'm sorry, but are you equating a single minor battle with an entire war?

That is an absurd position. I mean, it literally is meaningless as a functional thought.

I was coming back to ask what, specifically, you were referring to with the reference to the program in the UK. Because if it was the energy efficiency program aimed at residential building upgrades, I'd love to discuss the particulars.

The UK's residential program was a stellar success for a number of years until the pronuclear bloc took control of government and sabotaged it by changing the design of the program.

The reasons for the sabotage are found in the numbers laid out in a 2008 Citigroup report on investment in nuclear.

What the market should not take for granted

GDP impact on demand and load factors

Consensus view is that electricity demand in the wide European region will grow by 1.5% p.a. over the next couple of decades. This is a view shared by UCTE in its latest System Adequacy Report. Although it is virtually impossible to produce irrefutable electricity demand forecast we are tempted to argue that the risks are on the downside since:

1. During the boom years of 2003-07, when GDP growth was strong and infrastructure investment high on the back of very liquid debt markets and due to the convergence of the new EU joiners, electricity consumption grew by 2.1% p.a.

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

As a result, we would expect electricity demand growth to be in the 0-1% range for at least the next 5 years, before returning to more normal pace of 1.5-2%. We therefore see scope for an extra 346TWh of electricity that needs to be covered by 2020 vs. 2008 levels.

Should EU countries go half way towards meeting their renewables target of 20% by 2020 that would be an extra ca. 440TWh. Even if EU went only half way, which by all means is a very conservative estimate, that would still be ca. 220TWh of additional generation. Under its conservative ‘scenario A’ forecast, UCTE expects 28GW of net new fossil fuel capacity to be constructed by 2020. On an average load factor of 45% for those plants that’s an extra 110TWh.

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.
Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

Such a reduction is actually already underway, with load factors for nuclear plants in Europe falling from 85% on average during the beginning of the decade to below 80% as renewables increase their share in the fuel mix. In our opinion a slow down or fall in demand could have an even bigger effect, substantially affecting the economics of new plants.

Citigroup European Nuclear Generation
2 December 2008

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. Here's what I was referring to

UK scraps zero carbon homes plan

The zero carbon homes policy was first announced in 2006 by the then-chancellor Gordon Brown, who said Britain was the first country to make such a commitment.

It would have ensured that all new dwellings from 2016 would generate as much energy on-site – through renewable sources, such as wind or solar power – as they would use in heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation. This was to be supported by tighter energy efficiency standards that would come into force in 2016, and a scheme which would allow housebuilders to deliver equivalent carbon savings off site.

However, both regulations were axed by the government on Friday, in a move Julie Hirigoyen, chief executive of the UK Green Building Council, said was “the death knell” for the zero carbon homes policy.

“It is short-sighted, unnecessary, retrograde and damaging to the house-building industry, which has invested heavily in delivering energy-efficient homes,” Hirigoyen said. “Britain needs more housing but there is no justification for building homes with a permanent legacy of high energy bills.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/10/uk-scraps-zero-carbon-home-target

Your OP was about "the entire war" - the revolution. The article says that victory is inevitable. It's wrong. No revolution has happened yet, and there is a tiny amount of interest in it. Politically, it practically never comes up. There's the Paris targets, but how they'll be achieved is still anyone's guess. So far, it's lip service.

[kristopher]

49. "The article says that victory is inevitable. It's wrong."

Well, that is an opinion. So far, the support you've offered for your belief is extremely wide of the target. You have explicitly agreed that economics is the primary determinant of the path forward.

Have you any evidence that the economics as outlined in the OP aren't accurate or on point?

What mechanism do you posit that will change the economics that are driving the global investment cycle expanding the role of renewables?

As for the cancelation of the net-zero program: just as with the sabotaged residential efficiency program, that seems to be a forced political move to support nuclear. And as widely unpopular as the UK's nuclear build program already is, just wait until the voters see continued declining energy costs throughout the rest of the world - attributable directly to renewable energy - while they are faced with locked in sky high rates for the next 80 years.

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. The support is the figures. We have fuck all renewables so far.

Those figures are in your OP.

And, as I said, there is no 'inertia' in economics. That's wishful thinking.

Whatever you think is to blame for the cancellation of the program (a moment ago you'd never heard of it, now you're an expert on it ...), it happened. Because the political ans social will to stop using fossil fuels, let alone nuclear, isn't here yet.

[kristopher]

51. "And, as I said, there is no 'inertia' in economics. That's wishful thinking."

That is a completely lame claim by someone unable to muster a legitimate argument. You aren't even internally consistent with yourself.

You assert "inertia" in economics to support your position, but deny it in regard to the much, much more abundant evidence in the OP.
"...the vast majority of the species just want cheap energy..."
"a technology is chosen by users who want it, and people still want whatever's cheapest."
- muriel_volestrangler

Also, "a moment ago you'd never heard of it, now you're an expert on it".

Actually yes, I am. As a policy scientist who's an expert on the transition away from carbon, when I encounter a tidbit I haven't heard about I'm usually able to fit it into the broader matrix of relevant information. That, in turn. will usually allow me to appreciate it's significance. The cancellation of the net-zero initiative is of a kind, both in timing and substance, with the sabotage of residential energy efficiency program. You on the other hand, simply say some people are complaining about the expense (again invoking an inertia you deny).

I think the substance of our disagreement boils down to this. You wrote, "I'm saying that it has not yet happened".

If your metric is a completed transition, then no, it hasn't happened.

If your metric is a system that is superior both materially, functionally and economically, then it has "happened" in the sense that a tipping point has been passed where the transition can't be stopped.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. No, I'm not claming inertia there

"...the vast majority of the species just want cheap energy..." - no, that's a statement of what people want, not that they want to change at a constant rate.

"a technology is chosen by users who want it, and people still want whatever's cheapest." - no, that's a statement of what people want, not that they want to change at a constant rate.

"Also, "a moment ago you'd never heard of it, now you're an expert on it".

Actually yes, I am. "

No, we know you're not an expert on it, because you had not heard of it. I had to explain it to you, and you then just asserted, without evidence, that it's really about nuclear. You're literally making this up as you go along. If you're a "policy scientist", we're fucked. We need "policy scientists" who know what's going on, and don't leap to conclusions to support their existing ideas.

[kristopher]

54. You haven't made a single legitimate argument yet.

"that's a statement of what people want, not that they want to change at a constant rate"

"no, that's a statement of what people want, not that they want to change at a constant rate"

Trying to pretend that the issue is "constant rate" is hooey.

As for attacking me because I actually know more than you do, well...

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. No, you've misread that. I attacked you for knowing *less*

I had to explain the UK zero-carbon homes policy to you, remember? I said you don't know enough to be a 'policy scientist'.

Inertia is something that resists a change in rate. That's the definition. It's hard to change the speed of something that has a lot of inertia. I know you don't claim to be a physicist, but it's not that uncommon a term.

[kristopher]

56. Nope.

You are framing your attack that way because you can't respond to the substance of what I wrote with anything other than slander.

And you most definitely are claiming the present system has economic inertia since people and what they want are the system. As I've been trying to explain, your own argument goes much further proving you wrong than it does to support your state of denial. The number of economic winners involved in the change to a distributed renewable energy system now vastly outnumber those who will lose economically by the change. That is the tipping point in social system change.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Your complacency is worrying

Even more worrying if you really are a "policy scientist" that anyone listens to. You think there's no more work to be done to ensure a switch to renewables, despite their minuscule use so far. Polyanna had nothing on you.

[kristopher]

58. Great way to "win" by false framing.

Nowhere in what I've written is there evidence of complacency. I'm realistic about the forces at work and that includes the oppositional forces (like the nuclear industry) which make the change such an ongoing effort. Time is, after all, of the essence. Part of the calculus is the dedication of the people what ARE working for change instead of just crying "woe is me" and, wringing their hands and blaming humans for being human. Hint hint.

[kristopher]

60. UK drops to new low in global renewable energy league table

Brexit sees UK drop to new low in global renewable energy league table
The Government’s decisions to scrap the Department for Energy and Climate Change and approve a new nuclear station at Hinkley Point also hit investor confidence in green energy

Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent Thursday 27 October 2016


The UK has fallen to its lowest position on an international league table of the best countries to invest in renewable energy following Brexit and Theresa May’s decision to scrap the Energy and Climate Change Department.

Analysts EY, part of financial giant Ernst & Young Global, put Britain, normally a regular in the top 10, in 14th place on the Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index, just behind Morocco.

The UK energy industry has complained that numerous and sudden changes in Government policy are putting off potential investors in any kind of electricity generation, threatening what could be a “golden age” of cheap and green power.

In a report, EY said: “Uncertainty caused by Brexit, the closure of the Department of Energy & Climate Change and the approval of [nuclear power plant] Hinkley Point C all dealt a sizeable blow to the UK renewables sector....

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/brexit-renewable-energy-investment-uk-nuclear-power-department-energy-climate-change-a7382686.html


READ MORE
Sweden on target to run 'entirely on renewable energy by 2040
Renewables surpass fossil fuel in record year for green energy
MPs accuse Government of preferring ‘dirty diesel’ to renewables
Government tinkering 'threatens golden age of cheap and green power'

[kristopher]

59. Inertia and trajectory

Kenya: Taste of Solar Power Builds Appetite for More in Kenya, Survey Finds
By Maina Waruru

Nairobi — Fuel-seller Nancy Kaisa has for years used solar power to light her premises at the Entasopia shopping centre in Kajiado, in southern Kenya. But recently she's started using energy from a solar mini-grid system to operate her fuel pumps and meet her other energy needs, ditching her diesel generator.

"I now serve more customers a day than before because (the pump) dispenses fuel faster than it used to before, when it was hand-operated," Kaisa said.

In Kenya, one of the countries leading Africa's push toward solar energy use, experimentation with solar lighting is fast expanding into broader use of renewable power for business, energy experts say.

A survey of just under 200 users of pioneering rural solar mini-grid systems found that at least 10 percent who bought basic solar lighting and electricity now wanted to move up the "energy ladder" and begin using clean energy to make their businesses or farms more profitable, according to the mini-grid company and a philanthropic investment group.

In particular, people already using and familiar with solar energy products such as solar lanterns and solar panel home systems were most eager to try to expand their businesses using mini-grid clean energy ...

http://allafrica.com/stories/201611010494.html

[Victor_c3]

41. I believe big oil has realized it

Big oil has realized it is on a he losing side and is doing everything it can to slow growth.

As oil prices rise more and more renewable energy options become economically viable. When a piece of renewable infrastructure is built, it doesn't matter what the price of crude is - it is already in place and reducing the demand for oil.

All the oil companies can do is flood the market and keep oils prices low so that renewable energy growth can be slowed. I believe this is exactly why OPEC is turning out as much volume as it has recently. As we need their oil less and less, oil rich nations will lose a portion of their influence and relevance in international matters. Many of the regimes in the Middle East are held up by their ability to secure protection from the US.

What do you thing would happen to the Saudi ruling family if their oil wasn't needed anymore?

[kristopher]

43. It hasn't been OPEC so much as it's been Saudi Arabia.

They set the standard and OPEC had to capitulate. I agree. I think they're pumping it while they still can.