Renewable Energy Hypesterism: A Convenient List
It is true that renewable energy advancements in wind,
solar, and storage will continue to increase efficiency and decrease costs.
However, many of those improvements are small, incremental. It is uncertain when
or even if these renewables will really be able to compete with fossil fuels on
a cost per unit of energy basis. The massive amount of comments and
declarations that these technologies are competitively now is simply wishful
thinking, or more likely, hype. Promoting the hype is a way to lend legitimacy
to the arguments of hardcore renewables advocates.
1 – Solar employs way more people than coal or oil and gas
per energy produced. Yes this is true. It is true because it takes more people
to produce a similar amount of energy. This is because solar is far less
profitable! Thus what is depicted as a boost to the economy is actually a drain
on the economy. That is like saying people with shovels plowing land can employ
more people than plowing with tractors. In general the solar jobs do not pay as
well as coal, oil, or gas jobs. Solar jobs simply do not produce as much energy
nor do they create as much wealth as fossil fuel jobs.
2 – Burning wood and biomass is renewable and sustainable. Technically
burning wood is renewable but obviously it takes quite a long time to grow a
large tree relative to the time it takes to burn the logs. The recent
‘milestone’ of the UK going without coal (for a 24-hour period) for the first
time since the Industrial Age began is technically correct but misleading since
much of the coal burned has been replaced by densified wood biomass (ie. wood
pellets) shipped form the U.S. and Canada, some of which comes from logged
trees, both fast-growing pines and hardwoods. Wood biomass produces as much or more
CO2 and more pollutants than coal per unit of energy produced. Burning wood and
solid waste biomass can also be subsidized – yes something worse than coal per
unit of energy produced can be directly subsidized as renewable.
3 – Wind and solar are cost competitive with fossil fuels.
Some even say they are cost competitive without subsidies. What they typically
don’t say is they are only cost competitive during peak generation times, that
they typically require back-up power from quick-start gas ‘peaker’ plants that
are forced to run inefficiently and sometimes those inefficient gas plants are
counted (quite unfairly) in comparisons of renewables and gas, particularly in
capacity factor comparisons. Such hype is of course, blatantly misleading or
dishonest. They may even be competitive without subsidies in some places,
mainly those that have a carbon tax, which is technically a disincentive, or a
reverse-subsidy for fossil fuels.
4 – While % renewables may suggest and imply wind and solar,
they also includes hydro and biomass, including wood and solid waste biomass
(which have similar ghg and pollution profiles to coal). Hydro and especially
biomass are often the largest renewable sources (as in the U.S.)
5 – New solar, wind, and storage technologies are being
touted all the time. Although there have been efficiency improvements in all
three and there is significant ongoing research, much of these ‘discoveries’
are over-hyped.
6 – Headlines are often the worst sources of misleading
ideas. See reference below about gigafactories. The gigafactories don’t power
anything. The lithium that is drilled for and mined is the power source. Is
there even enough lithium available in predicted reserves to power the world?
7 – Sweden and other Scandinavian countries claimed to have
superb recycling and are importing trash from other countries. They burn it in
incinerators, something that has been proven toxic to air with much backlash in
American communities. They may well have higher recycling rates and better
commitment to sustainable practices but there is much debate about recycling,
landfilling, and incineration.
8 – There are sometimes ridiculous notions perpetuated that
better power sources are available now and simply being oppressed by the
powers-that-be, ie. fossil fuel interests. If better energy sources were
available and economic they would find their way to use. It is as simple as
that.
These are a few examples. There are likely many more.
Differing accounting of capacity factors when comparing generating capacity of
intermittent sources like wind and solar is a big one.
Differing accounting of ‘levelized
cost of energy’ (LCOE) is another source of hype. Comparisons of renewable
energy subsidies versus fossil fuel subsidies and comparisons of taxation of
energy production and consumption are other sources of hype. Such hype needs to
be kept in mind and exposed when appropriate so that misrepresentations do not
become more widespread than they currently are. I think such hype is a
disservice not only to the fossil fuel industries but also to the renewable
energy industries.
What the wind and solar advocates should point out is that
solar and wind typically do not require buying fuel so that there are little to
no continuing costs after installation, that they are relatively carbon and
pollution-free compared to fossil fuel sources, and that there is little energy
wasted in distributed energy sources like rooftop solar compared to sources
that require transmission through power lines.
References:
Elon Musk: 100 Tesla Gigafactories Could Power the Entire World – by
Chelsea Gohd, in Futurism, April 16, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment