6 ms·

Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts

Lots of assumptions baked in here. Chief among them is that renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. If you look at the charts, this is pretty unlikely since the renewables trend is a consistent exponential increase year over year while the demand curve is very lumpy and mostly linear when averaged. Next is the assumption that renewables have to be deployed at grid scale, with the materials and transmission costs associated with that. This is also not true - solar + battery is a perfect use case for distributed deployment by homeowners, businesses, parking lots, etc. in any sunny location, and trends in non-grid installed solar reflect this where non-utility accounts for over a third of new installs per year. Next is the questionable bundling of global statistics rather than breaking out by country. If you break it out by country, the trends are a lot different. For example, most of the west already reached effective peak energy demand (or close to it), and renewables deployments are offsetting dirtier production methods at a decent pace, mostly due to economics. The "bad" trends the author points are are specific to developing locations. There's more, but this is already a long comment. Edit: Another one... solar panels don't last "a few years more" [than turbines], they last a decade or more longer. Current estimate is 25-30 years with proper maintenance before performance is significantly degraded, and even at that point they still work just fine. It's not like you don't have to replace or overhaul major power plant components every few decades for other energy sources...

goatlover 7y ago
However, the developing locations have the much larger populations.
- wpasc 7y ago
  But as they are still developing (with less lock in/sunk costs) perhaps they will be able to avoid some really poor emissions pitfalls and move into renewables more easily when the economics make more sense
- pvaldes 7y ago
  I would talk also about different ecosystems. Some are more exigent in therms of energy than other. If you run short of energy in january in many boreal areas (like Moscow or Bismark), and suddenly can't heat your home, you could face a serious danger of death. Gaz and electricity are a must. Same for Mojave or Death Valley if you can't use electricity to keep the temperature in acceptable limits. There is a limit on how much the developped countries could lower their "lifestyle" (needs of energy) to get closer to the energy requirements of developping countries, just because winter here can be really harsh. Hot areas (in developping and developped countries) will face the same problem but many developping countries in tropical areas would not have this problem (even if they could have other serious problems to solve, like the monsoon period) The energy requirements can be very different in the different periods of the year also. If we talk about average requirements of energy that would be wrong.
irq11 7y ago
That’s not the demand curve. That’s the increase in demand curve. The increase in fossil fuel demand, however “lumpy”, is more than current total renewable output. (Who is downvoting? this is a statement of fact, from the article.)
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Good point, but I don't see why that matters. Exponential output increase will overcome linear demand increase in pretty short order.
  - Gladdyu 7y ago
    Unfortunately true exponential growth of a physical system cannot exist - it'll always be some sort of logistic model that looks exponential near x=0.
    - richk449 7y ago
      I’m intrigued. Why cant true exponential growth of a physical system exist? Do you mean it can’t be maintained forever? I can think of lots of physical processes that have exponential behavior for some amount of time.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
    If it is exponential. There are a lot of curves that look exponential at the base of the curve and then turns out not to be exponential
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yodsanklai 7y ago
> renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. Does renewable deployment cover new energy demand as well as the fossil fuels we are supposed not to use anymore? > renewables deployments are offsetting dirtier production methods Renewables take their toll on the environment too. Batteries and solar panels need fossil fuels for their production, and the mining of rare metals is an extremely polluting industry (and often delocalized in countries with little regulations). > If you look at the charts The charts I looked at suggested that there will be both an energy and an environmental crisis. It's very hard to argue over this topic as all we can do is cite experts. Maybe I'm attracted to the most pessimistic authors? where to look to have the scientific consensus on this matter?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  And, of course, to build significant acreages of solar farms, you need to destroy ecosystems already existing there. Consider, for example, the case of the desert tortoises that were blocking the construction of the Ivanpah Solar Plant. The company building it had to spend over $20 million to have people literally walk over the area to find and relocate every desert tortoise living there. This was in the middle of the desert a few dozen miles south of Las Vegas.
xyzzyz 7y ago
This is also not true - solar + battery is a perfect use case for distributed deployment This is simply not feasible. Do the math. To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, you need to build $50 trillion worth of batteries. If you assume that the battery installation lifetime is 20 years, and amortize it over that period, you’re looking at over 10% of US GDP spent just on building and installing the batteries. Seriously, do the math.
- jhayward 7y ago
  > To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?
    - eranimo 7y ago
      The wind is always blowing somewhere.
      - heavyset_go 7y ago
        What are the transmission power losses over large stretches of land?
        xyzzyz 7y ago
        2/3rds of the electricity produced in the US is lost in transmission: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ EDIT: this is actually wrong, I misinterpreted the diagram, see the comment below.
        7y ago
strainer 7y ago
> solar panels don't last "a few years more" [than turbines] This is not a point against solar, but the "lifetime" of wind turbine installations is misrepresented in the article. It states "the life expectancy of a wind turbine may be less than 15 years." and it links one 7 year old article to support that idea, which is known to be false except in the sly sense that for sure a windturbine may need repairs at any time. Modern windfarms are commonly financed to be built and make a profit from investment by selling electricity for 15 years. After that contract is up, however much they require new blades and/or refurbished or modernized generators - extending their life is due to be much cheaper than putting entirely new ones in their foundations. The relatively short supply contracts are very desirable to investors, not a sign of unreliability.[1] [1] https://www.intechopen.com/books/stability-control-and-reliable-performance-of-wind-turbines/reliability-analysis-of-wind-turbines#F10 https://www.intechopen.com/books/stability-control-and-relia...
omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
Even 25-30 years is starting to look pessimistic. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirty-year-old-photovoltaic-module https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirt... https://global.kyocera.com/news-archive/2009/0805_jeao.html https://global.kyocera.com/news-archive/2009/0805_jeao.html My feeling is that most significant degradation comes from problems with assembly weather sealing, connectors, and/or electronic components. The cells themselves should last for a long time with modest degradation. Inverters on the other hand seem to be closer to consumables in PV installs, but even those should last 10-20 years depending on the model, and refurbishment is possible.
rayiner 7y ago
Breaking out energy demand by country doesn’t work, because the climate doesn’t care whether a ton of CO2 is emitted by an American or a newly middle class Indian. There is no strategy based on renewables and conservation that even plausibly allows the third world to reach the development of the first world while averting climate change.

goatlover 7y ago

However, the developing locations have the much larger populations.

wpasc 7y ago
But as they are still developing (with less lock in/sunk costs) perhaps they will be able to avoid some really poor emissions pitfalls and move into renewables more easily when the economics make more sense
pvaldes 7y ago
I would talk also about different ecosystems. Some are more exigent in therms of energy than other. If you run short of energy in january in many boreal areas (like Moscow or Bismark), and suddenly can't heat your home, you could face a serious danger of death. Gaz and electricity are a must. Same for Mojave or Death Valley if you can't use electricity to keep the temperature in acceptable limits. There is a limit on how much the developped countries could lower their "lifestyle" (needs of energy) to get closer to the energy requirements of developping countries, just because winter here can be really harsh. Hot areas (in developping and developped countries) will face the same problem but many developping countries in tropical areas would not have this problem (even if they could have other serious problems to solve, like the monsoon period) The energy requirements can be very different in the different periods of the year also. If we talk about average requirements of energy that would be wrong.

irq11 7y ago

That’s not the demand curve. That’s the increase in demand curve. The increase in fossil fuel demand, however “lumpy”, is more than current total renewable output. (Who is downvoting? this is a statement of fact, from the article.)

mdorazio 7y ago
Good point, but I don't see why that matters. Exponential output increase will overcome linear demand increase in pretty short order.
- Gladdyu 7y ago
  Unfortunately true exponential growth of a physical system cannot exist - it'll always be some sort of logistic model that looks exponential near x=0.
  - richk449 7y ago
    I’m intrigued. Why cant true exponential growth of a physical system exist? Do you mean it can’t be maintained forever? I can think of lots of physical processes that have exponential behavior for some amount of time.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  If it is exponential. There are a lot of curves that look exponential at the base of the curve and then turns out not to be exponential

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yodsanklai 7y ago

> renewables deployment will continue to be slower than new energy demand. Does renewable deployment cover new energy demand as well as the fossil fuels we are supposed not to use anymore? > renewables deployments are offsetting dirtier production methods Renewables take their toll on the environment too. Batteries and solar panels need fossil fuels for their production, and the mining of rare metals is an extremely polluting industry (and often delocalized in countries with little regulations). > If you look at the charts The charts I looked at suggested that there will be both an energy and an environmental crisis. It's very hard to argue over this topic as all we can do is cite experts. Maybe I'm attracted to the most pessimistic authors? where to look to have the scientific consensus on this matter?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz 7y ago
And, of course, to build significant acreages of solar farms, you need to destroy ecosystems already existing there. Consider, for example, the case of the desert tortoises that were blocking the construction of the Ivanpah Solar Plant. The company building it had to spend over $20 million to have people literally walk over the area to find and relocate every desert tortoise living there. This was in the middle of the desert a few dozen miles south of Las Vegas.

xyzzyz 7y ago

This is also not true - solar + battery is a perfect use case for distributed deployment This is simply not feasible. Do the math. To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, you need to build $50 trillion worth of batteries. If you assume that the battery installation lifetime is 20 years, and amortize it over that period, you’re looking at over 10% of US GDP spent just on building and installing the batteries. Seriously, do the math.

jhayward 7y ago
> To store 3 days worth of current US energy use, There is absolutely no need, of any kind, to store 3 days of US energy use. It's a complete strawman.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  So where do we get energy from in case we get a windless week in winter, if not fossil fuels or nuclear?
  - eranimo 7y ago
    The wind is always blowing somewhere.
    - heavyset_go 7y ago
      What are the transmission power losses over large stretches of land?
      - xyzzyz 7y ago
        2/3rds of the electricity produced in the US is lost in transmission: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained//us-energy-facts/ EDIT: this is actually wrong, I misinterpreted the diagram, see the comment below.
        7y ago

strainer 7y ago

> solar panels don't last "a few years more" [than turbines] This is not a point against solar, but the "lifetime" of wind turbine installations is misrepresented in the article. It states "the life expectancy of a wind turbine may be less than 15 years." and it links one 7 year old article to support that idea, which is known to be false except in the sly sense that for sure a windturbine may need repairs at any time. Modern windfarms are commonly financed to be built and make a profit from investment by selling electricity for 15 years. After that contract is up, however much they require new blades and/or refurbished or modernized generators - extending their life is due to be much cheaper than putting entirely new ones in their foundations. The relatively short supply contracts are very desirable to investors, not a sign of unreliability.[1] [1] https://www.intechopen.com/books/stability-control-and-reliable-performance-of-wind-turbines/reliability-analysis-of-wind-turbines#F10 https://www.intechopen.com/books/stability-control-and-relia...

omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago

Even 25-30 years is starting to look pessimistic. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirty-year-old-photovoltaic-module https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirt... https://global.kyocera.com/news-archive/2009/0805_jeao.html https://global.kyocera.com/news-archive/2009/0805_jeao.html My feeling is that most significant degradation comes from problems with assembly weather sealing, connectors, and/or electronic components. The cells themselves should last for a long time with modest degradation. Inverters on the other hand seem to be closer to consumables in PV installs, but even those should last 10-20 years depending on the model, and refurbishment is possible.

rayiner 7y ago

Breaking out energy demand by country doesn’t work, because the climate doesn’t care whether a ton of CO2 is emitted by an American or a newly middle class Indian. There is no strategy based on renewables and conservation that even plausibly allows the third world to reach the development of the first world while averting climate change.