Green Energy Revolution Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

I suppose you could have a mix of intermittent sources like solar and wind, complemented by a whole bunch of gas powered peaker plants.

Problem is that peaker plants are inefficient on both cost and environmental impact,

[jimmy olsen]

Man, the stats are so good, but we're still going to get 2.5 C of warming at this rate.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/renewable-energy-growth-is-still-not-enough-to-meet-climate-goals

Renewables Are Expanding at an Astounding Pace. But It's Still Not Enough to Meet Climate Goals
Even the coming "critical watershed" in energy won't meet Paris Agreement targets.

by Emma Foehringer Merchant
September 14, 2017

Even the coming "critical watershed" in energy won't meet Paris Agreement targets.

by Emma Foehringer Merchant
September 14, 2017   

The pieces of a renewable-forward future are falling into place. Wind, solar, and storage are accelerating. Plummeting costs and greater security in investment mean countries are increasingly looking to renewable technologies as a safe bet. And prices for offshore wind and battery storage are dropping faster than expected.
One hitch, though: That renewable future still won't mean the globe reaches its climate goals.

New reports from Moody's Investors Service and energy consulting firm DNV GL outline the unstoppable momentum behind renewables. But even what DNV GL calls a "critical watershed" in the electricity industry doesn't appear to move the needle fast enough on the Paris climate agreement.

Moody's report finds that the falling costs of renewables will make it easier for countries to meet their individual Paris goals. But according to DNV GL's analysis, the world will still be on track for 2.5 degrees of warming, half a degree higher than the agreement's temperature target to prevent the most dangerous consequences of climate change.

Aside from that large problem, the granular business trends laid out in the reports should come as yet more positive news for renewable energy companies and advocates.

DNV GL's model predicts that oil use will peak in the next 10 years and gas use in the next 20. By 2050, fossil fuels will decline from 81 percent of the globe's current energy mix to just 52 percent. Oil and gas will become the world's largest energy source in 2034, but solar, hydropower, and onshore and offshore wind will account for 85 percent of global electricity production in 2050.

"By the end of our forecast period in 2050, the electricity system, its culture and its personnel will be unrecognizable," DNV GL's report reads.

Moody's tells a similar story. Levelized cost of energy (LCOE) has dropped substantially since 2010. Costs for solar and wind have fallen drastically, making both more globally competitive with traditional fuel sources.



Both reports describe recent shifts in country subsidy programs, from guaranteed technology-specific rates to more technology-neutral auctions. Under auctions, wind and solar have been able to compete on price with incumbent fossil fuels. For example, new auctions for offshore wind have brought record-low prices that rival nuclear in the U.K.

A May 2017 solar bid in India that was 18 percent below the average price for coal projects set a record low tariff there. Moody's also cites record-setting prices for offshore wind in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands; onshore wind in Mexico; and solar in Chile and South Africa.

By 2050, DNV GL predicts solar generation will increase 85-fold, with China and India at the helm. Solar installs will near 600,000 megawatts by the end of 2019.

Wind prices have already reached lows not expected until 2020. DNV GL predicts onshore wind will continue to dominate offshore. China will be a leader here, too, with a third of the world's capacity by 2050. Per Moody's, the world will have nearly 700,000 megawatts in wind capacity by the end of 2019.

There's more: Battery costs, too, have tumbled 75 percent since 2009. As prices fall and efficiency increases, batteries will stake out an even more important position in allowing flexibility in the deployment of more renewables faster.

The only question remaining is how big of an impact these technologies will have on our changing climate.

Moody's analysis suggests that the U.S. exit from the Paris Agreement will not have a significant negative effect on global emissions, although it will make further global cooperation harder to achieve. And DNL GV posits there are ways to improve climate scenarios: essentially by deploying more of what's already being deployed, but at a speedier clip.

"This report model, it wasn't a low scenario or a medium scenario or a high scenario. It modeled our best view," says Ray Hudson, global solar segment leader at DNV GL. "Certainly there are ways to go faster with more renewables more quickly."

[Admiral Yi]

Clearly the answer is to set more goals.

[jimmy olsen]

Clearly the answer is to set more goals.

If the goals are enforced, then yes, that would be a good idea.

[mongers]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

[grumbler]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

Yeah, fuck the science!  PANIX NOW!

[Eddie Teach]

Why am I so tempted to  at Tim?  it's my environment too.

[mongers]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

Yeah, fuck the science!  PANIX NOW!

Troll away old man, do continue to troll, it's what we 'love' about you.

[Valmy]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

You have been banging this drum for awhile. We'll see. We can only do the best we can.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

The effects may not be strictly linear, but it's probably closer to that than a hard tipping point.
There is considerable uncertainty in either direction about the total impact of GG accumulation.
Bottom line is that every quantum matters, both up and down. 

[grumbler]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

You have been banging this drum for awhile. We'll see. We can only do the best we can.

The old man has to troll away on that drum, because its the only drum he has.  But, if he stopped trolling and left, we'd have to take turns playing the village idiot. 

[grumbler]

The effects may not be strictly linear, but it's probably closer to that than a hard tipping point.
There is considerable uncertainty in either direction about the total impact of GG accumulation.
Bottom line is that every quantum matters, both up and down.

Exactly.  The apocalyptic view that we are already at the tipping point just allows further emissions on the grounds that it is too late to stop, so we should just leave the mitigation problem for the future to solve,

[mongers]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

You have been banging this drum for awhile. We'll see. We can only do the best we can.

Have I?

I do agree we have to do our best, but is that all that we can do, because if each of us examines our own cumulative lifetime GG contributions who near are we to moving to a zero carbon lifestyle? 

My own opinion base on my behaviour and nearly all others I know is we 'enjoy' an incredible energy intensive existence. If we happen to move towards a zero carbon electricity supply, that'll be what 10-20% of our energy footprint?

[mongers]

Thirty-Forty years time is far too late, we're at or near to a tipping point now.

The effects may not be strictly linear, but it's probably closer to that than a hard tipping point.
There is considerable uncertainty in either direction about the total impact of GG accumulation.
Bottom line is that every quantum matters, both up and down.

A tipping point in this context is largely a political statement of intent, both by me and perhaps by those politicians who're thinking beyond tomorrow's headline or thoughts of being re-elected in 2-4 years time. 

You're right in two or three decades time we'll still not be able to stab at a point on the graph and say there was when things seriously worsened. However people on the sharp end of say increasingly routine difficult hurricane season well have their own yardsticks to judge these things by.

Given we have the politicians others elect, I foresee enough being done, so think we should start lobbying for active climate management, huge investment in carbon sequestration technologies in addition to current carbon emissions reductions plans. 

[jimmy olsen]

Now this is something that could slow the transition in America in a major way.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-solar-tariffs-20170922-story.html

Trump positioned to impose potentially crushing tariffs on solar industry

by Evan HalperContact Reporter

U S. trade officials on Friday empowered President Trump to impose tariffs that could cut off the solar energy industry from the cheap foreign-made panels that have driven its explosive growth and helped create tens of thousands of jobs in California.

The tariffs under consideration are meant to protect a small number of American solar-panel manufacturers reeling in the face of cheap imports. The U.S. International Trade Commission voted to enable Trump to impose them at the behest of two distressed firms that warned the American panel manufacturing industry is in a state of collapse.

The commission ruled that the cheap foreign panels are "being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat of serious injury, to the domestic industry."

But most of the solar industry fiercely opposes the levies, which independent analysts warn would drive up consumer prices and cause the number of annual solar installations in the U.S. to plunge. Only a fraction of American solar companies make the panels. Most rely on imports to keep prices competitive with other forms of electricity. More than 90% of solar installations in the U.S. use imported panels.

Some 16,000 California jobs could disappear if the heavy tariffs being sought by the distressed manufacturers are imposed, according to an estimate from the Solar Energy Industries Assn. That is more than a quarter of the solar jobs in California. Nationwide, the association projects 88,000 jobs would vanish.

The governors of Nevada, Colorado, Massachusetts and North Carolina had implored the trade commission not to authorize tariffs in a last-ditch lobbying effort Thursday. Their letter warned of a "devastating blow on our states' solar industries" and "unprecedented job loss, at steep cost to our states' economies." In California, which would get hit with more job losses than any state, the governor's office has also been closely watching the situation.

Congress also weighed in, with 69 Republicans and Democrats urging commissioners against greenlighting the tariffs. Several think tanks on the right that have long tangled with the solar industry also lobbied against the tariffs, warning they would be an affront to free trade.

Now the matter is in Trump's hands. The president has been eager to use tariffs in a bid to revive flagging U.S. manufacturing industries, and the commission vote will test his resolve as a protectionist. The White House was noncommittal following the 4-0 vote at the commission. "The President will examine the facts and make a determination that reflects the best interests of the United States," said its statement. But the White House signaled it sympathizes with the distressed companies, saying their corner of the solar industry "contributes to our energy security and economic prosperity."

Commissioners will take the next few weeks to consider how steep the tariffs should be and make a recommendation to the White House. Trump is not obligated to follow their advice.

Solar companies worry the administration will heed the request of the firms that brought the action and hit foreign manufacturers with a tariff that will raise the price of their panels from 35 cents per watt to 78 cents, which is around the cost of the American product.

Analysts project such a price hike would quickly cut in half the number of annual solar power systems installed in the U.S.

The action was filed by Georgia-based Suniva, a firm that is in bankruptcy. Joining Suniva in requesting the levies was Oregon-based SolarWorld Americas, a struggling subsidiary of the bankrupt German firm SolarWorld AG.

"We welcome this important step toward securing relief from a surge of imports that has idled and shuttered dozens of factories, leaving thousands of workers without jobs," said Juergen Stein, CEO and president of SolarWorld Americas. The company said 30 solar manufacturers shut down operations between 2012 and 2016 as foreign imports quintupled.

The case was filed under a rarely exercised provision of trade law called Section 201, which enables the president to broadly impose tariffs if the commission finds such a drastic move is needed to protect an American industry from a deluge of foreign imports. It hasn't been exercised since 2001, when George W. Bush invoked it in an effort to protect the U.S. steel industry from Mexican and Canadian imports. The move sparked retaliation, and the World Trade Organization ultimately voided the steel levies two years later.

Other tariffs imposed by the U.S. under the so-called "safeguard" provision being invoked in the solar case have run into trouble at the WTO. The international body applies a high standard for proving that imports actually caused the injury to domestic producers, and not other factors. Yet an appeal to the WTO would take time, and the Trump administration does not have to wait for its ruling. Officials can assess the duties immediately upon presidential action, which is expected by January.

Solar industry officials are now focusing their efforts on persuading U.S. trade officials and the White House to pursue the least disruptive "remedy" possible for addressing the grievances of Suniva and SolarWorld. That could be a negligible tariff or possibly even some other form of light sanction on the manufacturers of the cheap imports. Tom Werner, CEO of the large California-based solar firm SunPower, warned in a blog post Friday that anything else "could undermine an American industry that has been experiencing exponential growth and creating jobs at an unprecedented rate."

He expressed hope that Trump would come to see that steep tariffs would give foreign competitors an advantage, pushing innovation in the industry abroad. Others have pointed out that most of the jobs that would be lost to high tariffs belong to installers who do not need a college degree, the exact group of voters Trump is promising to help.

But the president has been eager to impose exactly the type of tariff that the commission has now put on the table to strike a symbolic blow against cheap foreign imports that have been a scourge of U.S. manufacturing jobs. He talked about invoking Section 201 during the campaign, and a trade agenda his administration presented to Congress signaled that Trump intended to be far more aggressive than his predecessors in using it to slow imports.

Anxiously awaiting the president's move are the directors of big solar projects, like utilities in the Southeast, which have plans to add more than 4,000 megawatts of solar in their region. It all adds up to a roughly $4-billion investment in the local economies, according to Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

"All those jobs, property values and clean energy opportunities are now at serious risk," he said.