Why Renewables Can't Save the Climate

[airdvr 210]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/04/why-renewables-cant-save-the-climate/#43a9e9203526

But around the world, renewables are in crisis because they are making electricity more expensive, subsidies are expiring, and projects are being blocked by wildlife conservationists and local communities.

[billvon 2,990]

32 minutes ago, airdvr said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/04/why-renewables-cant-save-the-climate/#43a9e9203526

But around the world, renewables are in crisis because they are making electricity more expensive, subsidies are expiring, and projects are being blocked by wildlife conservationists and local communities.

From AAAS:

=================

Solar plus batteries is now cheaper than fossil power

Robert F. Service

Science  12 Jul 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6449, pp. 108

Summary

This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw—its dependence on sunshine. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel. The deal is being driven by steady price declines in solar power and utility-scale batteries, the latter of which have dropped in cost by 76% since 2012, according to one recent analysis.

==================

However, if you elect to pay more for power from, say, nuclear, I think you should have that right.

 

[kallend 2,026]

Perhaps electricity should be more expensive if making it cheaply results in  shitting up our only home planet.

[airdvr 210]

I can afford more expensive juice...so can you.  What about those who can't?

To be clear this isn't about AGW or whether we need to address it, it's about the costs.

Thanks to the heavy deployment of renewables, electricity prices in California between 2011 and 2018 rose seven times more (28%) than they did in the rest of the country (5%), while electricity prices have risen 50% in Germany since 2006.

Not difficult to be less expensive than really expensive.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Perhaps electricity should be more expensive if making it cheaply results in  shitting up our only home planet.

Why do you hate poor people?

[brenthutch 444]

My favorite line,

"“While I am an advocate for renewable energy, my motivation is driven by economics, not by warm and fuzzy feelings,” a renewable industry leader emailed me recently to say."

 

[DJL 235]

4 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I can afford more expensive juice...so can you.  What about those who can't?

To be clear this isn't about AGW or whether we need to address it, it's about the costs.

Thanks to the heavy deployment of renewables, electricity prices in California between 2011 and 2018 rose seven times more (28%) than they did in the rest of the country (5%), while electricity prices have risen 50% in Germany since 2006.

Not difficult to be less expensive than really expensive.

Aside from the people shitting on the sidewalks I haven't heard much of Californians having trouble paying their electricity bill.

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, DJL said:

Aside from the people shitting on the sidewalks I haven't heard much of Californians having trouble paying their electricity bill.

The homeless don't use a lot of electricity 

[DJL 235]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

The homeless don't use a lot of electricity 

They're just virtue signalling their carbon footprint.

[brenthutch 444]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

From AAAS:

=================

Solar plus batteries is now cheaper than fossil power

Robert F. Service

Science  12 Jul 2019:
Vol. 365, Issue 6449, pp. 108

Summary

This month, officials in Los Angeles, California, are expected to approve a deal that would make solar power cheaper than ever while also addressing its chief flaw—its dependence on sunshine. The deal calls for a huge solar farm backed up by one of the world's largest batteries. It would provide 7% of the city's electricity beginning in 2023 at a cost of 1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery. That's cheaper than any power generated with fossil fuel. The deal is being driven by steady price declines in solar power and utility-scale batteries, the latter of which have dropped in cost by 76% since 2012, according to one recent analys

 

Looks a lot like this:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/texas-town-future-renewable-energy-180968410/

And we all know how that turned out,

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190223/why-georgetowns-green-energy-gamble-didnt-pay-off

[DJL 235]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Looks a lot like this:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/texas-town-future-renewable-energy-180968410/

And we all know how that turned out,

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190223/why-georgetowns-green-energy-gamble-didnt-pay-off

Bringing that one up again?  Do you know that they're in this situation because they made a deal that they would be locked into a fixed rate (which is now higher than the state average) and also be on the hook for the repayment of the capital investment?  As I replied when you brought this up previously, I'm surprised a Republican led city didn't learn from Venezueala to let the energy market stay in the open market.  If they did then they're be paying the same lower-than-national-rate that the rest of Texas is (using renewables) instead of trying to broker a $60 million deal to get out of the agreement.

Edited September 5, 2019 by DJL

[DJL 235]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

I can afford more expensive juice...so can you.  What about those who can't?

To be clear this isn't about AGW or whether we need to address it, it's about the costs.

Thanks to the heavy deployment of renewables, electricity prices in California between 2011 and 2018 rose seven times more (28%) than they did in the rest of the country (5%), while electricity prices have risen 50% in Germany since 2006.

Not difficult to be less expensive than really expensive.

By the way, while they did see an increase from before, their average household electricity bill is about $97.  In the US it's $115.  So if it's about the cost then their move to renewables is still better than what we're doing.

Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-households-pay-power

USA: https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/

Edited September 5, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,990]

2 hours ago, airdvr said:

I can afford more expensive juice...so can you.  What about those who can't?

To be clear this isn't about AGW or whether we need to address it, it's about the costs.

Thanks to the heavy deployment of renewables, electricity prices in California between 2011 and 2018 rose seven times more (28%) than they did in the rest of the country (5%), while electricity prices have risen 50% in Germany since 2006.

Not difficult to be less expensive than really expensive.

Yes, I've heard Shellenberger's TED talk.  He's wrong.

There was almost no solar in California in 2011.  Certainly not enough to affect energy prices at all.  Shellenberger got it exactly backwards - solar was installed BECAUSE power was expensive, and it was a cheaper alternative.  People did the math.  It was not installed in places where power was cheap because the payback time was much longer.  Again, math.

Why was California power expensive?  Several reasons.  The big one over that time frame was San Onofre, which was shut down in 2012.  That meant that a $10 billion dollar investment turned into a $5 billion dollar liability overnight - and they lost 2GW of generation overnight.

Let's compare that to solar.  In 2012, about 1GW of solar was installed in California.  That's about $3 billion worth of solar.

Which do you think had more effect in terms of increasing power costs - a ratepayer loss of $15 billion and loss of 2GW generation, or a cost of $3 billion and addition of 1GW generation?  Do the math.

 

[brenthutch 444]

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Do the math.

 

Let me try

20.87 > 13.34*

How's that? 

* California vs US cents per kWh

Edited September 5, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,990]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let me try

20.87 > 13.34*

How's that? 

* California vs US cents per kWh

I'll do the same!

$5 < $95  (my monthly power bill vs average CA monthly power bill)

$95 < $113 (Average CA monthly power bill vs average US monthly power bill)

What do you pay for power every month?

[brenthutch 444]

So now we are discussing the merits of energy policy based on your electric bill?

[billvon 2,990]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

So now we are discussing the merits of energy policy based on your electric bill?

I figure it's as valid as "energy is expensive somewhere so it must be renewables doing that."

So what do you pay for power every month?

[brenthutch 444]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

I figure it's as valid as "energy is expensive somewhere so it must be renewables doing that."

So what do you pay for power every month?

Low to mid hundreds, but then again my carbon footprint is HUGE.  My tank alone, takes more electricity than the average household.

[billvon 2,990]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Low to mid hundreds, but then again my carbon footprint is HUGE.  My tank alone, takes more electricity than the average household.

Mine is $5 a month.  And I use a lot more electricity than a typical house as well - we have two EV's.  But I generate it myself.

[Rick 67]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Mine is $5 a month.  And I use a lot more electricity than a typical house as well - we have two EV's.  But I generate it myself.

Does that mean it's more efficient on a smaller scale? The Texas town experiment looks like it did not work out how they expected. 

It seems that large scale distribution and storage are the expensive/complicated parts of the equation.

[billvon 2,990]

Just now, Rick said:

Does that mean it's more efficient on a smaller scale? The Texas town experiment looks like it did not work out how they expected. 

 

Solar (and wind) are actually more efficient on a larger scale. 

The problem with Georgetown is that the guy in charge of the project put long term contracts out there for power - 20 years or so.  Then the town's population didn't grow as fast as he thought it would, but he still has to pay all these contracts - which means that he's on the hook for power he's not going to use.  That caused rates to go up.  But that would be a problem whether the power was coming from coal or solar.

Distribution isn't too much of a problem - the technical details of getting power to the grid are pretty well known, and since solar / wind are distributed rather than centralized, much of the power is used where it's generated.  Storage is the big problem right now, specifically getting enough of it.  However, battery prices are falling fast, and even now solar+storage is on a par with natural gas, and is cheaper than coal or nuclear.

[Rick 67]

Thanks Bill. I know battery technology is getting better and better. I can see that on a small scale in the tools we use everyday. We used to have to lug around a gernator now we have drills that will wofk all day on a couple of batteries.

[airdvr 210]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Yes, I've heard Shellenberger's TED talk.  He's wrong.

 

Wow...you know more about the subject than Snellenberger?  You're going to need a wheelbarrow to carry that ego around.

[billvon 2,990]

12 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Wow...you know more about the subject than Snellenberger?

Nope.  I merely think he's wrong.  I think other people are wrong, too, even though they know more than me about many things.  I am sure you are exactly the same.

BTW it doesn't help your attempted slam when you can't even spell the guy's name right.  Apparently I know more about him than you do, at least.

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, DJL said:

their average household electricity bill is about $97.  In the US it's $115.

Yet our per capita consumption is almost double that of the Germans - and that's what all this really about, isn't it?  Raising prices to reduce consumption. 

 

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Mine is $5 a month.  And I use a lot more electricity than a typical house as well

That's awesome!  How can those living in poverty get in on that deal?