Renewables Can’t Keep Up with the Growth in Coal Use Worldwide

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/513821/renewables-cant-keep-up-with-the-growth-in-coal-use-worldwide/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Renewables Can’t Keep Up with the Growth in Coal Use Worldwide[/font]

[font size=4]An International Energy Agency report calls for more research, carbon price, to help renewables compete.[/font]

By Kevin Bullis on April 17, 2013

[font size=3]Despite remarkable growth, solar and wind power aren’t making a dent in carbon emissions, says a new report http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2013/april/name,36789,en.html from the International Energy Agency. Coal consumption is growing too fast to offset any gains from renewables.

According to the report, solar power capacity increased by 42 percent, and wind increased 19 percent during 2012. In comparison, coal only grew by 6 percent over the last two years. But because the total installed capacity of coal power was already huge, the amount of coal capacity added was much larger than that of solar and wind power. Even the increase in natural gas consumption hasn’t decreased the use of coal worldwide (see “Coal Demand Falls in the U.S., Rises Everywhere Else”).

Renewable energy can’t keep up with coal, let alone decrease its use. From 2001 to 2010, the amount of electricity generated with coal increased by 2,700 terawatt hours. Over the same period, electricity from non-fossil sources—including wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and nuclear—increased by less than half that amount: or 1,300 terawatt hours.

Worldwide, more coal power is being installed because it’s inexpensive, reliable, and easy to incorporate into the grid. Before countries decide to stop building new coal plants, wind and solar and other low-carbon alternatives need to get cheaper, says Matthew Stepp, a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

…[/font][/font]

[bloomington-lib]

1. Someday they will

[NickB79]

5. And by that "someday", we'll be locked into 3-4C of warming

IE, we'll be utterly fucked.

[pscot]

2. That's the game then, isn't it.

[wtmusic]

3. EIA: nuclear needs to expand at a rate of at least 16 GWe capacity per year

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_World_has_stalled_on_clean_energy_1704131.html

[NickB79]

4. I'm gonna need a big bag of this for when kris shows up

Anyone else want some?

[GliderGuider]

6. Pass it over here. I'll take some.

Thanks, man. That's really good - is your microwave nuclear or coal-powered?

[cprise]

8. Induction, not microwave!

[XemaSab]

9. Gimme that bag!

[FBaggins]

11. He wouldn't have a hard time with it.

Simply point out the difference between "haven't" and "can't".

The first is irrefutable... the second hasn't been demonstrated (yet it's the title of the piece).

[cprise]

7. Neither could nuclear

interestingly enough. Oligarchs insist on commanding all the concentrated power they can get.

[FBaggins]

10. Together they could

Figure out the externalized cost of fossil generation and add it as a real carbon tax... then let the market sort it out.

[cprise]

12. I think you're misconstruing the report

Its not a physical inability to keep up with coal, its a problem of finance and motivation. Adding the drawbacks of nuclear to renewables would probably hinder progress.


If it is mainly oligarchs that are going to own and run nuclear power stations, then we are giving them power to run roughshod over any/all of society's concerns... it compounds the disparity of wealth and political power in our society and that is no recipe for retiring an entrenched fossil fuel business.

One base of highly-concentrated power reinforces the other.

[wtmusic]

13. Yeah man. Power to the people.

What a pantload.

Utilities are the most highly regulated industry in the country, and you want to give power to all the upper-middle class people who can afford solar panels - and drive up costs for people who can't.

Funny, in other industries they call that "privatization".

[cprise]

14. LOL, there aren't enough upper-middle class people

...to bring that about, even if it was all about solar which it isn't.

And 80% of generation is already privatized. Going nuclear will not reduce that figure because politicians cannot take the heat.

[wtmusic]

15. Ah, so 80% of generation is privatized by "green" oligarchs

They must be special.

[cprise]

16. When you see solar panels and turbines, you see oligarchs??

LOL

[wtmusic]

17. LOL no solar & wind generation utilities are run by elves

who work only to make the world a better place. Iddn't he cute?

How naive.

[cprise]

18. Well, which is it...

Is there too much distributed energy in places like Germany and California, causing problems for large-scale generators?

Or not enough to shift political and economic power away from oligarchs?

I don't see how you can have it both ways, and if anything I'd be naive to let the nuclear lobby have it that way.

[wtmusic]

19. IMO it is both ways.

First of all, wind will always be a utility instrument as it's too expensive for individuals. So you might as well be talking about coal, nuclear or gas - all run by industry (or "oligarchs" if you prefer, although you may want to look that one up).

Distributed solar will never stand on its own because it needs an infrastructure. Even with storage, there will be times when the storage runs out. At those times no one, you nor I included, will be willing to turn off their lights, computers, and refrigerators. Utilities don't really care about distributed energy - they will just raise everyone else's rates to compensate. For them the only issue is the unpredictability it creates for their bottom line. Most investors buy utilities as a safe haven type of investment, and they'll bail for treasuries or top-rated bonds if they don't see a steady return.

The idea that legions of dedicated solar enthusiasts will somehow shift power away from utilities is a bit um, farfetched. For right now everyone is indulging them by paying more to incorporate their unpredictable supply of power. When it gets too expensive to integrate into the grid other ratepayers are going to say enough, solar subsidies will go bye-bye, and tons of unprofitable solar junk will find a new home in landfills.

[cprise]

20. Not true about wind

It does require larger turbines to be effective, but single turbines can be purchased by small towns, co-ops, union locals and medium size businesses (I have seen all of the above). It doesn't have to be just as distributable as solar, only far lower capital cost to be a good distributed renewable.

Its nice that you bothered to put oligarchs in scare quotes, though I would suggest you pay more attention to the news that gets posted here on DU.

Also, solar isn't unpredictable. You are spewing false propaganda there. Average insolation can be easily predicted with satellite and radar data, especially for region sizes typically covered by an electrical grid. But then devotees of RW rhetoric (or Jetsons futurism, which IMHO is actually the same thing) like to behave as if most people have been living under a rock for the past 30 years.

The idea that legions of dedicated solar enthusiasts will somehow shift power away from utilities is a bit um, farfetched.

Demonstrably untrue: Installation and liability costs would have to skyrocket for small solar to become nonviable. And not only did personal computer enthusiasts shift power away from the utility mainframe world, but the result was the transformation of the proprietary info services and ARPAnet into the Internet we use today.

The phone system was in upheaval for decades partly due to that transformation... What you are seeing in the power/grid utilities now are just placid ripples. The common factor is a market driven by commodity electronics manufacturers and not rentiers.

-

At one point, the nuclear industry and its establishment proponents were large and influential enough to have fossil fuel advocates tarred, feathered and run out of Washington on a rail. But they had internalized the same attitudes toward the environment that the fossil fuel majors did, and then they "got it" too late (waaay after 2000). One can look at that history as a fluke, or as a part of something more complex involving the kind of business culture that would seek to rob people blind and worse.

[wtmusic]

21. Small solar already is nonviable.

It's the most highly subsidized energy source, per kWh, in the world. Take away the rebates, take away the utility feed-in, and it's a non-starter.

Are you off the grid, or 100% dependent on the utilities you rail against? That's what I thought. If it's so viable, why not?

[cprise]

22. Planned subsidies are better than

...unplanned cost overruns of 1000%. And better by far than liability exemptions bestowed by government. That is a corrupt racket and investors know it.

Those solar subsidies have created plummeting costs from increased economy of scale.

What's nuclear's excuse for increasing costs?

Are you off the grid, or 100% dependent on the utilities you rail against? That's what I thought.

Clearly, you are not arguing in good faith. Are you moving to China or Russia, where the nuclear renaissance is underway?

[wtmusic]

23. That "expensive nuclear" nonsense has been debunked ad infinitum

but here you go again, from the Energy Information Agency of the DOE. Levelized cost, meaning no Church of Renewables prayers/hocus pocus/antinuke speciousness allowed.

Take a look, and let me know which form of energy will be the most expensive through 2018. Bar none.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/electricity_generation.cfm

[kristopher]

24. The actual report lists nuclear power as a market failure

And it says that in contrast to nuclear, renewables are deploying just fine. The misleading headline is just what I've come to expect from MIT, the #1 academic cheerleader for nuclear; they have completely thrown away the concept of integrity in their writings on that topic.

The question the report raises is not how to force nuclear onto a world that doesn't want it, but how do we clear the road of distractions and false paths - like nuclear or carbon capture - in order to accelerate the rate of deployment for renewables to one that can save the planet.

[NickB79]

25. They're lumping nuclear in WITH renewables

From the OP:

Renewable energy can’t keep up with coal, let alone decrease its use. From 2001 to 2010, the amount of electricity generated with coal increased by 2,700 terawatt hours. Over the same period, electricity from non-fossil sources—including wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and nuclear—increased by less than half that amount: or 1,300 terawatt hours.

Worldwide, more coal power is being installed because it’s inexpensive, reliable, and easy to incorporate into the grid. Before countries decide to stop building new coal plants, wind and solar and other low-carbon alternatives need to get cheaper, says Matthew Stepp, a senior analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

So, if you discount nuclear, you're in an even DEEPER hole WRT renewables vs. coal than even the OP suggests. It means coal has been kicking renewables ass at a rate of 3:1 instead of "only" 2:1.

Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck whether we end up powering the future with nuclear, wind, solar, or magical fairy farts. The ultimate goal is stopping carbon emissions. And if you think "renewables are deploying just fine", you're either a) not living in the real world, or b) still not fully aware of the incredible danger the planet's ecosystems are in due to climate change that is occurring NOW, not 50 or 100 years from now.

[kristopher]

26. Nuclear isn't a renewable source of energy.

As much as it's lovers would like it to be. As to your supposed open-mindedness, that's bullshit. You are, and have been for years, a dyed-in-the-wool nuke booster.

While the headline is from the paragraph you pulled, it actually relates to the discussion in the previous paragraph which specifically discussed renewables - wind and solar - and their relative pace of deployment related to coal. It's bad writing/editing that you seem to have overlooked.

Apparently you can't read very well for meaning since I made it very clear that we need to increase the rate of renewable deployment. However, I'm sure if you check my post again with that in mind you'll find it. ETA-It's also very clear that the "renewables are doing just fine" comment refers to the evaluation of the writers of the paper. That what the "it says" part of "it says that in contrast to nuclear, renewables are deploying just fine" means, in case you have trouble parsing that also.

The nuclear power industry wants to EXPAND global energy use, not shrink it. They are a key enabler of the economics that support the coal industry. There is more than ample evidence to support that thesis, so, if you actually do have climate change as your first priority, you'd stop your anti-renewable, pronuclear antics and focus on the obvious solution to the problem - getting rid of centralized thermal energy systems and replacing them with distributed renewables.

One of the most important messages of the paper isn't that renewable energy is failing to meet their projections - it isn't. It is that nuclear power is a MARKET FAILURE that is sandbagging the effort to address climate change.

ETA:

Renewables Investment Seen Tripling Amid Supply Glut
By Louise Downing and Alex Morales, Bloomberg
April 22, 2013



LONDON -- The plunge in the cost of wind and solar power that bankrupted more than two dozen manufacturers is forecast to spur a tripling of investment in renewables by 2030 and to reduce the grip fossil fuels have on world energy supply.

Annual spending on clean-energy projects that don’t add to greenhouse-gas pollution may rise to $630 billion at the end of the next decade from $190 billion last year, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said in a report today. That’s 37 percent more than estimated in November 2011 and means renewables would account for half of all generation capacity by 2030.

The findings contrast with production gluts that made most solar and wind manufacturers unprofitable last year, tipping a unit of Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) into bankruptcy and Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) into record losses. While suppliers are suffering, lower equipment prices are making more projects profitable to develop and advancing the day when renewables can rival coal and oil on cost.

“The apocalyptic views about what it will cost to shift the world to renewable energy simply aren’t true,” Michael Liebreich, chief executive officer of New Energy Finance, said in an interview. “Three years ago, we thought wind and solar would be cheap as chips, and they’ve even gone below that.”...

More at: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/04/renewables-investment-seen-tripling-amid-supply-glut?cmpid=SolarNL-Tuesday-April23-2013