I am glad you lined out how Europe's early leading role in, for example, producing solar energy panels (Germany had such a great subsidy programme under the red/green- coalition) came to a screeching halt.
I hope out there are enough people in key positions who read this, scratching their heads and make decisions to propagandise subsidied research into green technologies (I for instance wonder if we in Europe could work on revolutionising the plastic waste recycling process further or invest in researching "greener" techniques when it comes to packaging products on the state level).
I understand the new coal plants are more efficient than the old coal plants in China. So that is the reason for China building coal plants. Maybe you could look into this further and not just scratch your head? 🙂
The plateauing of demand in the US since the 2010s is significantly a function of the installation of customer/rooftop solar, which is weirdly categorized as a demand side resource. However, regressive policies put in place by California’s Newsom Administration is holding back growth of this resource, contributing to double digit electricity rate increases, and leading to similar moves in other states.
Capacity additions are irrelevant. It is cheap and easy analysis to add up nameplate capacity, but largely irrelevant. As a result your charts are deceiving. Figure solar production at 20-25% of nameplate, wind at 30-40% of nameplate. Even then, much less valuable BECAUSE SOLAR AND WIND PRODUCTION IS NOT DRIVEN BY MEETING DEMAND—IT IS DRIVEN BY SUN AND WIND. Hence often resulting in negative pricing—and negative pricing should be to an economist a signal of value destruction. So, truly not sure what the point of this essay is. Solar and wind aren’t dominant, the consumption of coal is driving the Chinese economy and has grown dramatically. Yes at the margin solar and wind, both of which have significant upfront emission costs, are helping meet power demand, but fossil consumption has not decreased and is not on a path to decrease because of renewables, but because of slowing demand. Unfortunately. We still have no examples of a stable, largely renewable grid—-anywhere.
When the lights go out for 50+ million Iberians, the realities of reliable grid management demands additional base load supply to be brought online. Spain however seems to still be determined to switch off zero-emissions nuclear base load:
"Spain is boosting generation from costlier gas-fired power plants in the wake of a nationwide blackout that raised concerns about the grid’s ability to cope with an abundance of renewable energy.
The output of combined-cycle gas turbines, a more steady generation technology than solar, jumped 37% in the two weeks after the outage, compared with the two weeks prior, data from power grid operator Red Electrica show. Their average share of Spain’s power mix increased to 18% from about 12%."
Hmmm, the investigation hasn't yet been conducted. There is no indication that there was a deficit in renewables generation and that more baseload capacity would have made a difference. If, as some have proposed, the issue was with the ability of power electronics to actively provide grid stability ("inertia"), then that is simply an input into future grid regulation, not an argument for or against renewables.
Catastrophic. Really? I've read your book on Hitler's economy. I don't recall seeing the word catastrophic. Be a bit more gentle in your phraseology, if you please. This avid reader is enjoying our peace and prosperity in the absence of inflation, with our private sector growing and government sector shrinking. What's not to like?
These are opinion pieces or essays - esssay-er's or attempts, to make sense of things within one's own frame of references and reflections, it is not the BBC. And as such, it makes little sense to be more or less "gentle" in phraseology. Disliking Adam's own overt dislike for the current US presidency (to avoid the less gentle "disdain"), expressed in his own opinion pieces, and making such comments public, is facile and self-indulgent.
I am glad you lined out how Europe's early leading role in, for example, producing solar energy panels (Germany had such a great subsidy programme under the red/green- coalition) came to a screeching halt.
I hope out there are enough people in key positions who read this, scratching their heads and make decisions to propagandise subsidied research into green technologies (I for instance wonder if we in Europe could work on revolutionising the plastic waste recycling process further or invest in researching "greener" techniques when it comes to packaging products on the state level).
Thanks, as always, for your great work!
I understand the new coal plants are more efficient than the old coal plants in China. So that is the reason for China building coal plants. Maybe you could look into this further and not just scratch your head? 🙂
The plateauing of demand in the US since the 2010s is significantly a function of the installation of customer/rooftop solar, which is weirdly categorized as a demand side resource. However, regressive policies put in place by California’s Newsom Administration is holding back growth of this resource, contributing to double digit electricity rate increases, and leading to similar moves in other states.
Won't the plateau in US electricity consumption be changed by "electrifying everything"?
Capacity additions are irrelevant. It is cheap and easy analysis to add up nameplate capacity, but largely irrelevant. As a result your charts are deceiving. Figure solar production at 20-25% of nameplate, wind at 30-40% of nameplate. Even then, much less valuable BECAUSE SOLAR AND WIND PRODUCTION IS NOT DRIVEN BY MEETING DEMAND—IT IS DRIVEN BY SUN AND WIND. Hence often resulting in negative pricing—and negative pricing should be to an economist a signal of value destruction. So, truly not sure what the point of this essay is. Solar and wind aren’t dominant, the consumption of coal is driving the Chinese economy and has grown dramatically. Yes at the margin solar and wind, both of which have significant upfront emission costs, are helping meet power demand, but fossil consumption has not decreased and is not on a path to decrease because of renewables, but because of slowing demand. Unfortunately. We still have no examples of a stable, largely renewable grid—-anywhere.
Regarding Table 1 and 2: we all love our tables with lots of data, but we love bar charts, which provide a clearer picture much more.
When the lights go out for 50+ million Iberians, the realities of reliable grid management demands additional base load supply to be brought online. Spain however seems to still be determined to switch off zero-emissions nuclear base load:
"Spain is boosting generation from costlier gas-fired power plants in the wake of a nationwide blackout that raised concerns about the grid’s ability to cope with an abundance of renewable energy.
The output of combined-cycle gas turbines, a more steady generation technology than solar, jumped 37% in the two weeks after the outage, compared with the two weeks prior, data from power grid operator Red Electrica show. Their average share of Spain’s power mix increased to 18% from about 12%."
https://archive.is/qsmpT
Hmmm, the investigation hasn't yet been conducted. There is no indication that there was a deficit in renewables generation and that more baseload capacity would have made a difference. If, as some have proposed, the issue was with the ability of power electronics to actively provide grid stability ("inertia"), then that is simply an input into future grid regulation, not an argument for or against renewables.
Fascinating and a great overview.
Catastrophic. Really? I've read your book on Hitler's economy. I don't recall seeing the word catastrophic. Be a bit more gentle in your phraseology, if you please. This avid reader is enjoying our peace and prosperity in the absence of inflation, with our private sector growing and government sector shrinking. What's not to like?
These are opinion pieces or essays - esssay-er's or attempts, to make sense of things within one's own frame of references and reflections, it is not the BBC. And as such, it makes little sense to be more or less "gentle" in phraseology. Disliking Adam's own overt dislike for the current US presidency (to avoid the less gentle "disdain"), expressed in his own opinion pieces, and making such comments public, is facile and self-indulgent.