Last October, Rystad Energy warned that inflation could freeze as much as half of the planned global solar power capacity additions this year. In September the same year, the Wall Street Journal’s Rochelle Toplensky
The reason solar and wind appear to be relatively cheap is that the costs of storage are not taken into account (by not existing). Currently, traditional energy production jumps in when solar and wind do not produce enough energy. Were this capacity to be replaced by batteries costs would jump, a lot. We are looking at 5x - 10x a country’s GDP.
That’s if one ignores that the materials necessary do not exist in sufficient quantity on this planet and that batteries do not hold their charge very well.
Dear Irina, you are raising some very interesting questions - as always. The reason the IEA might be still very optimistic for this year's renewables is that the final investment decisions for the wind and solar plants coming online were taken years ago. The projects should by now be close to completion, COVID's over so there's hardly anything to jeopardize the glowing headlines. Of course, China will probably lead in wind/solar additions but also Europe might be performing well.
The situation, I think, will drastically change from 2023-24 because the companies building the wind and solar farms (like Siemens Gamesa) will be less then enthusiastic in bidding for new projects. There's competition, there's profitability problems and there's significant price increases in the materials they need to build: cement, steel, aluminum, copper, magnets, silicon wafer etc. you name it.
Here we come to the 2nd point - why solar? When dependence on China is all too obvious? Well, that's probably part of the answer - China still has cheap energy (coal, Russian oil, no ETS to speak of) and can make cheap solar panels for Europe. Installing and connecting those panels requires much less of material than offshore wind farms. And - with new permiting rules - it will also be easier.
And the 3rd point - there's precious little talk of technologies/investments needed to enable the RES to function. That's the grid and the energy storage solutions. If I was an EU regulator or the Commission, I would not allow new RES project that don't integrate a form of storage solution, be it battery, pumped hydro, hydrogen etc. This would take care of the energy security problem (partially) while at the same time pushing the cost of these projects much higher.
Probably that's the main reason this isn't a topic du jour on global or EU level.
May 25, 2022·edited May 25, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
This mandated and over regulated, energy transition will no doubt go down in history as one giant fuck up after another...which is pretty much what happens every time the "big brains" in government decide they know better (even though scientific literacy is not part of the politician tool kit). It seems they still need to figure out that their desired transition cannot fuel itself into existence and that a faster, speedy, more efficient transition needs MORE not less fossil fuels and nuclear (a lot more nuclear!!!)
Human progress has always been about uncoupling the human experience from the inherent limitations placed on it by Mother Nature: We don't have the claws of a lion or the speed of a cheetah? Let's invent a spear but no way we're not eating meat just because. No rain this year huh? Well, the other animals can starve we humans are going to dig and create an irrigation system. This field is not that fertile huh? Give me some fertilizer, but no way we are not eating just because...and now after millennia of human progress you want to be a slave to whether or not the Sun shines? whether or not the wind blows?
I thought that company was run by serious people... I'm really starting to wonder now.
And if that weren't enough - Starace was recently quoted as saying that "the use of natural gas for home heating and electrical power generation is stupid."
I didn't bother responding to his post at this point... But perhaps you could entertain a well articulated rebuttal.
As usual I look forward to your articles and the informative as well as entertaining BAB chat.👍
Living as I do in the Socialist State of Taxifornia under Emperor Pretty Boy Gavin the more Renewables that are added the more my home power pricing goes up. The big guys (Apple, Google, FB, IKEA etc) all get cheap Renewables power by signing PPAs with the generators, but us regular Joes and Jills do not. As to the USA solar import reviews it will be interesting how they allow the imports from Vietnam, Cambodia etc. knowing the feed sticks and panels are coming from China. Even more notable will be how the woke left ignores the knowledge that poly silicone and other feedstock come from Ethnic Uyghur slave labor In Xinjiang. The hypocrisy of the woke will stand out on that one. That hits me hard because my SIL is an Ethnic Uyghur China adoptee to the USA and my two grandsons are 1/2 Uyghur.
Grant's Interest Rate Observer edition of 27 May (out today) contained an article discussing the economics of solar in the US and mentioned the fact that Chinese solar panels are tariffed at a rather high rate and some of the US distributors have possibly (?) been cheating. Now there is a move to retroactively collect those rather high tariffs and the supposed non-cheaters have tattled on the alleged cheaters to equalize their business prospects. The whole mess hardly incentivizes residential solar adoption which is the big prize, even if it were practical. Nobody buys it without a government subsidy.
How relying on China as opposed to Russia improves our energy security is beyond me. In the 1980s I remember CND which was a failed political movement (I doubt if Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they hadn't disarmed). I do wonder if we are trying to move into an arena of disasterous Unilateral Energy Disarmament.
The only "storage" solution that makes sense to me is pumping water uphill with excess green energy, and then "harvesting" this stored energy when needed by releasing the water, letting gravity and a water wheel do the electricity generation work.
"“Cutting red tape, accelerating permitting and providing the right incentives for faster deployment of renewables are some of the most important actions governments can take to address today’s energy security and market challenges, while keeping alive the possibility of reaching our international climate goals.”"
If nuclear received the subsidies, grid preferences and special regulatory treatment that wind and solar get, no one would ever build anything but nuclear....
May 29, 2022·edited May 30, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
BTW Irina - are you by any chance following the renewable energy scene in Scotland? Lately they keep making the grandiose claim that they produced 90% of their electrical energy with renewable technologies. However I'm struggling to find a breakdown of their installed capacity - I am interested in knowing if they are in the same condition as Germany where essentially the renewable capacity is duplicated by the conventional fossil fuel capacity
I understand that Scotland has a few nuclear power plants that they intend to close in the not too distant future and that they are closing down many thermal power plants. In any event since they are the poster child for renewable energy in Europe it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them to see how their situation evolves. In an article that appeared on the Scotland Herald the institution of engineers of Scotland voiced their concern that the thermal production capacity is being reduced too drastically.
The reason solar and wind appear to be relatively cheap is that the costs of storage are not taken into account (by not existing). Currently, traditional energy production jumps in when solar and wind do not produce enough energy. Were this capacity to be replaced by batteries costs would jump, a lot. We are looking at 5x - 10x a country’s GDP.
That’s if one ignores that the materials necessary do not exist in sufficient quantity on this planet and that batteries do not hold their charge very well.
It is a mirage.
Nice article
I wonder when they will start talk about recycling of all those nice solar panels and massive Turbine blades.
Because if I recall correctly, one of the big red flags of the Nuclear was the storage of the fuel.
Again, Europe is heading to the verge and it's unable to stop. It's incredible.
Dear Irina, you are raising some very interesting questions - as always. The reason the IEA might be still very optimistic for this year's renewables is that the final investment decisions for the wind and solar plants coming online were taken years ago. The projects should by now be close to completion, COVID's over so there's hardly anything to jeopardize the glowing headlines. Of course, China will probably lead in wind/solar additions but also Europe might be performing well.
The situation, I think, will drastically change from 2023-24 because the companies building the wind and solar farms (like Siemens Gamesa) will be less then enthusiastic in bidding for new projects. There's competition, there's profitability problems and there's significant price increases in the materials they need to build: cement, steel, aluminum, copper, magnets, silicon wafer etc. you name it.
Here we come to the 2nd point - why solar? When dependence on China is all too obvious? Well, that's probably part of the answer - China still has cheap energy (coal, Russian oil, no ETS to speak of) and can make cheap solar panels for Europe. Installing and connecting those panels requires much less of material than offshore wind farms. And - with new permiting rules - it will also be easier.
And the 3rd point - there's precious little talk of technologies/investments needed to enable the RES to function. That's the grid and the energy storage solutions. If I was an EU regulator or the Commission, I would not allow new RES project that don't integrate a form of storage solution, be it battery, pumped hydro, hydrogen etc. This would take care of the energy security problem (partially) while at the same time pushing the cost of these projects much higher.
Probably that's the main reason this isn't a topic du jour on global or EU level.
This mandated and over regulated, energy transition will no doubt go down in history as one giant fuck up after another...which is pretty much what happens every time the "big brains" in government decide they know better (even though scientific literacy is not part of the politician tool kit). It seems they still need to figure out that their desired transition cannot fuel itself into existence and that a faster, speedy, more efficient transition needs MORE not less fossil fuels and nuclear (a lot more nuclear!!!)
Human progress has always been about uncoupling the human experience from the inherent limitations placed on it by Mother Nature: We don't have the claws of a lion or the speed of a cheetah? Let's invent a spear but no way we're not eating meat just because. No rain this year huh? Well, the other animals can starve we humans are going to dig and create an irrigation system. This field is not that fertile huh? Give me some fertilizer, but no way we are not eating just because...and now after millennia of human progress you want to be a slave to whether or not the Sun shines? whether or not the wind blows?
Irina - did you see this nonsense posted by Starace (ENEL)?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/francesco-starace_renewable-energy-that-uses-recycled-energy-activity-6935253360849641473-9eU9?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=android_app
I thought that company was run by serious people... I'm really starting to wonder now.
And if that weren't enough - Starace was recently quoted as saying that "the use of natural gas for home heating and electrical power generation is stupid."
I didn't bother responding to his post at this point... But perhaps you could entertain a well articulated rebuttal.
As usual I look forward to your articles and the informative as well as entertaining BAB chat.👍
Living as I do in the Socialist State of Taxifornia under Emperor Pretty Boy Gavin the more Renewables that are added the more my home power pricing goes up. The big guys (Apple, Google, FB, IKEA etc) all get cheap Renewables power by signing PPAs with the generators, but us regular Joes and Jills do not. As to the USA solar import reviews it will be interesting how they allow the imports from Vietnam, Cambodia etc. knowing the feed sticks and panels are coming from China. Even more notable will be how the woke left ignores the knowledge that poly silicone and other feedstock come from Ethnic Uyghur slave labor In Xinjiang. The hypocrisy of the woke will stand out on that one. That hits me hard because my SIL is an Ethnic Uyghur China adoptee to the USA and my two grandsons are 1/2 Uyghur.
Grant's Interest Rate Observer edition of 27 May (out today) contained an article discussing the economics of solar in the US and mentioned the fact that Chinese solar panels are tariffed at a rather high rate and some of the US distributors have possibly (?) been cheating. Now there is a move to retroactively collect those rather high tariffs and the supposed non-cheaters have tattled on the alleged cheaters to equalize their business prospects. The whole mess hardly incentivizes residential solar adoption which is the big prize, even if it were practical. Nobody buys it without a government subsidy.
How relying on China as opposed to Russia improves our energy security is beyond me. In the 1980s I remember CND which was a failed political movement (I doubt if Russia would have invaded Ukraine if they hadn't disarmed). I do wonder if we are trying to move into an arena of disasterous Unilateral Energy Disarmament.
The only "storage" solution that makes sense to me is pumping water uphill with excess green energy, and then "harvesting" this stored energy when needed by releasing the water, letting gravity and a water wheel do the electricity generation work.
"“Cutting red tape, accelerating permitting and providing the right incentives for faster deployment of renewables are some of the most important actions governments can take to address today’s energy security and market challenges, while keeping alive the possibility of reaching our international climate goals.”"
If nuclear received the subsidies, grid preferences and special regulatory treatment that wind and solar get, no one would ever build anything but nuclear....
BTW Irina - are you by any chance following the renewable energy scene in Scotland? Lately they keep making the grandiose claim that they produced 90% of their electrical energy with renewable technologies. However I'm struggling to find a breakdown of their installed capacity - I am interested in knowing if they are in the same condition as Germany where essentially the renewable capacity is duplicated by the conventional fossil fuel capacity
I understand that Scotland has a few nuclear power plants that they intend to close in the not too distant future and that they are closing down many thermal power plants. In any event since they are the poster child for renewable energy in Europe it would be a good idea to keep an eye on them to see how their situation evolves. In an article that appeared on the Scotland Herald the institution of engineers of Scotland voiced their concern that the thermal production capacity is being reduced too drastically.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19321643.tilting-windmills-engineers-accuse-ministers-relying-much-renewables/