[C8]

Norway’s Hydropower Reserves Hit Hard By Drought
By Michael Kern - Jul 07, 2022, 3:30 PM CDT

While Europe scrambles to procure natural gas for winter power generation and heating, Western Europe’s biggest oil and gas producer, Norway, has a whole different power problem this summer—dry weather, which depletes water reservoirs for hydropower, which accounts for 90% of Norwegian power generation.

The remaining around 10% of the electricity supply in Norway comes from wind power.

Although Norway doesn’t use gas for power generation, the gas and energy crisis in Europe is felt there, too. Hydropower producers have been discouraged in recent weeks to tap more water for hydropower generation and save water for the winter. Operators were also asked not to export too much electricity to the rest of Europe as reservoirs are not as full as in previous years, and not to rely on imports from Europe, which is struggling with energy supply.

At the end of last week, Norway’s water reservoirs were 59.2 percent full, below the 20-year average, according to data from the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE).

In comparison, water reservoirs were 67.9 percent full at this time of the year, on average, for the years 2002 through 2021. Central Norway had its reservoirs 82.3 percent full, but southwestern Norway had the lowest water levels at 45.5 percent full at the end of last week.

Some Norwegian utilities, including top electricity producer Statkraft, have followed the plea from transmission system operator Statnet not to produce too much electricity now.

“We now produce considerably less than we would have without the risk of a scenario for a dry year and rationing on the continent,” Statkraft chief executive Christian Rynning-Tønnesen said in an e-mail to Reuters this week.

Meanwhile, Norway’s authorities approved on Monday applications from operators to boost production from several gas fields, the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy said, expecting record gas sales via pipelines to Europe this year. Norway’s decision to allow higher gas production and record gas exports comes as its partners, the EU and the UK, scramble for gas supply ahead of the winter, which could be one of rationing for some industries and even households if Russian pipeline gas supply to Europe stops.

By Michael Kern for Oilprice.com

Somewhat interesting contrast here: those who warn of severe climate change demand that nations switch to renewable energy sources. Yet, in a disrupted climate, it is those sources which become the least reliable. There seems to be a disconnect in logic.

[C8]

Mining Industry Warns Energy Transition Isn’t Sustainable
By Irina Slav - Jul 03, 2022, 4:00 PM CDT

There is a glaring problem in the energy transition that not many people are acknowledging.
It is being built on the back of finite resources, and the mining industry is already warning that there aren’t enough metals for all the batteries the transition will require.
Because of the short supply, prices are on the rise, as are prices across commodity sectors.

The energy transition has been set by politicians as the only way forward for human civilization. Not every country on the planet is on board with it, but those that are have the loudest voices. And even amid the fossil fuel crunch that is beginning to cripple economies, the transition remains a goal. It is no secret that the transition—at the scale its architects and most fervent proponents envisage it—would require massive amounts of metals and minerals. What does not get talked about so much is that most of these metals and minerals are already in short supply. And this is only the start of the transition problems.

Mining industry executives have been warning that there is not enough copper, lithium, cobalt, or nickel for all the EV batteries that the transition would require. And they have not been the only ones, either. Even so, the European Union just this month went ahead and effectively banned the sales of cars with internal combustion engines from 2035.

“Rare earth materials are fundamental building blocks and their applications are very wide across modern life,” a senior VP at MP Minerals, a rare-earth miner, told Fortune this month. He added that “one third of the demand in 2035 is not projected to be satisfied based on investments that are happening now.”

Because of the short supply, prices are on the rise, as are prices across commodity sectors. According to a calculation by Barron’s, the price of a basket of EV battery metals that the service tracks has jumped by 50 percent over the past year as a result of various factors, including Western sanctions against Russia, which is a major supplier of such metals to Europe.

The combination of short supply and rising prices is, of course, making the energy transition even costlier than it has been projected to be. It has also reminded us all that because of these metals and minerals, which are exactly as finite as crude oil and natural gas, the transition is not towards a renewable-energy future. It is towards a lower-carbon future. And this future may perpetuate some of the worst models of the past we want so much to leave behind.

A lot of the battery metals that the energy transition needs are sourced from Africa, a continent fraught with poverty, corruption, and political uncertainty. It is also a continent that is currently threatened by a new sort of colonialism because of the energy transition.

In a recent analysis for Foreign Policy, Cobus van Staden, a China-Africa researcher from the South African Institute of International Affairs, wrote that the dirty secret of the green revolution is its insatiable hunger for resources from Africa and elsewhere that are produced using some of the world’s dirtiest technologies.

More importantly, van Staden added, “What’s more, the accelerated shift to batteries now threatens to replicate one of the most destructive dynamics in global economic history: the systematic extraction of raw commodities from the global south in a way that made developed countries unimaginably rich while leaving a trail of environmental degradation, human rights violations, and semipermanent underdevelopment all across the developing world.”

It is difficult to argue with this forecast if you know the history of resource exploitation in Africa. Sometimes called “the resource curse” and commonly used for oil, it has been in fact, a notable feature of the colonial and post-colonial period. Van Staden notes human rights violations, corruption, and the perpetuation of low labor and environmental standards, and he also notes that pretty much all foreign businesses in Africa’s mining sector are doing all this.

Based on this evidence, it appears that besides non-renewable, the energy transition appears to not be very socially conscious. In other words, the ESG investment movement, which focuses on transition companies, might, in fact, be a movement that rewards companies that are neither very environmentally nor socially friendly. At least not in Africa. And there are no white hats because, as Van Staden says, “The entire logic of the battery metals race is to secure national prosperity at home—not in Africa.”

It could perhaps be argued that unlike the last time—the Industrial Revolution—this time, we have a lot more mechanisms to protect human rights. As true as that may be, there hasn’t been a lot of progress on that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, a huge country that is key for the transition because of its cobalt wealth.

Even with these mechanisms, there is no way to eliminate corruption unless all involved don’t want to eliminate it, which appears not to be the case with mining companies and resource-rich African governments. That’s the problem with corruption; it is hard to uproot. Corruption, in turn, affects environmental standards and fair compensation for workers, and the resource curse keeps its stranglehold on the continent.

The good news is that all these problems with the transition were more or less taboo until recently. Now they are being talked about more and more, and this would hopefully lead to a readjustment of goals or at least timelines to make them more realistic. Maybe, just maybe, the just transition idea will gather speed as well.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

Of course techno-optimists will engage in a lot of hand waving and claim that science can solves anything. People think we are living in a Marvel movie- but, like Hollywood, its all fake.

[kublikhan]

GLOBAL OVERVIEW
Despite the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, renewable energy set a record in new power capacity in 2020 and was the only source of electricity generation to register a net increase in total capacity.

POWER
Installed renewable power capacity grew by more than 256 gigawatts (GW) during the pandemic, the largest ever increase. Continuing a trend dating back to 2012, net additions of renewable power generation capacity outpaced net installations of both fossil fuel and nuclear power capacity combined. At least nine countries generated more than 20% of their electricity from solar PV and wind in 2020.

Solar PV had another record-breaking year, adding as much as an estimated 139 GW, for an estimated total of 760 GW.

The wind power market achieved a record-breaking 93 GW of new installations, bringing total capacity onshore and offshore to nearly 743 GW.

Global hydropower new capacity was an estimated 19.4 GW, raising the total global installed capacity to around 1,170 GW.

The global market for energy storage of all types reached 191.1 GW in 2020. Mechanical storage in the form of pumped hydropower accounted for the vast majority of this capacity, followed by roughly 14.2 GW of electro-mechanical and electrochemical storage, and around 2.9 GW of thermal energy storage. The energy storage industry saw significant cost reductions.

RENEWABLES 2021 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT

[kublikhan]

GLOBAL OVERVIEW
Renewables experienced yet another year of record growth in power capacity, despite aftershocks from the pandemic and a rise in global commodity prices that upset renewable energy supply chains and delayed projects. The role of renewables in improving energy security and sovereignty by replacing fossil fuels became central to discussions, as energy prices increased sharply in late 2021 and as the Russian Federation’s invasion of Ukraine unfolded in early 2022.

Investment in renewable power and fuels rose for the fourth consecutive year, reaching USD 366 billion, and a record increase in global electricity generation led to solar and wind power providing more than 10% of the world’s electricity for the first time ever.

At the same time, diverse factors continued to slow the global shift to renewable-based energy systems. A rebound in worldwide energy demand, which increased an estimated 4% in 2021, was met largely with coal and natural gas and led to record carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite supply chain disruptions, shipping delays, and surging prices for wind and solar energy components, renewable power capacity additions grew 17% in 2021 to reach a new high of more than 314 gigawatts (GW) of added capacity. The total installed renewable power capacity grew 11% to reach around 3,146 GW, although this is far from the deployment needed to keep the world on track to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

During 2021, China became the first country to exceed 1 terawatt of installed renewable energy capacity. Its total installed capacity of renewables increased 136 GW during the year, accounting for around 43% of global additions, with China leading in all technologies except concentrating solar power (CSP).

Renewables generated 28.3% of global electricity in 2021, similar to 2020 levels (28.5%) and up from 20.4% in 2011. Despite the progress of renewables in the power sector, the surge in global energy demand was met mostly with fossil fuels.

Solar PV maintained its record-breaking streak, adding 175 GW of new capacity in 2021 to reach a cumulative total of around 942 GW.

An estimated 102 GW of wind power capacity was installed in 2021, including a record 18.7 GW offshore. Annual additions increased total capacity by 13.5% to more than 845 GW.

The global hydropower market progressed in line with long-term trends in 2021, with new capacity additions of at least 26 GW, raising the total global installed hydropower capacity to around 1,197 GW.

RENEWABLES 2022 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT

For comparisons, here's the global capacity figures for coal & natural gas:

global coal plant capacity grew 18.2 gigawatts to about 2,100 GW

Global coal plant capacity edges up in 2021

Natural gas turbines with a combined power capacity of nearly 1.8 terawatts[1,800 GW] had been installed worldwide as of 2021. This is up from 654 gigawatts, which had been installed in 2000.

Installed natural gas electricity generating capacity worldwide from 2000 to 2021

[AdamB]

Of course techno-optimists will engage in a lot of hand waving and claim that science can solves anything. People think we are living in a Marvel movie- but, like Hollywood, its all fake.

What, exactly, is " all fake" C8? Are you unhappy with what science has given us in terms of life spans, life quality or infant survival stats, or are those okay but science has driven the species to the point of being such an apex predator that we are terraforming the planet to a point we can't bring it back from? The thing you are typing on, transmitting your messages globally in an instant and all the infrastructure required to do that, brought to us by science, isn't fake as you've proven. So what might to core issue be for you, science wise?

[C8]

It is very easy for an energy source to look like it is increasing at a great rate when it starts at such a low level to begin with. But the real problem of course becomes how can it scale? As the chart above shows, renewable energy has made only the slightest gains compared to the overall energy picture- this despite massive government subsidies and endless amounts of publicity. It is one thing to have a few places wired and a few solar cells here and there, it's another to convert an entire nation's energy supply to such a project. What the mining companies are saying simply is this: there is not the material to make it happen. Unfortunately renewable energy has become something of a cult and the people who are its biggest boosters are unwilling to look at the limits to their project.

[C8]

Of course techno-optimists will engage in a lot of hand waving and claim that science can solves anything. People think we are living in a Marvel movie- but, like Hollywood, its all fake.

What, exactly, is " all fake" C8? Are you unhappy with what science has given us in terms of life spans, life quality or infant survival stats, or are those okay but science has driven the species to the point of being such an apex predator that we are terraforming the planet to a point we can't bring it back from? The thing you are typing on, transmitting your messages globally in an instant and all the infrastructure required to do that, brought to us by science, isn't fake as you've proven. So what might to core issue be for you, science wise?

I love science Adam, I just don't like it being confused with science fiction

[kublikhan]

It is very easy for an energy source to look like it is increasing at a great rate when it starts at such a low level to begin with. But the real problem of course becomes how can it scale? As the chart above shows, renewable energy has made only the slightest gains compared to the overall energy picture- this despite massive government subsidies and endless amounts of publicity. It is one thing to have a few places wired and a few solar cells here and there, it's another to convert an entire nation's energy supply to such a project.

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts. By 2026, global renewables are projected to have as much capacity as current levels of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Not bad for something starting from such low levels eh?

By 2026, global renewable electricity capacity is forecast to rise more than 60% from 2020 levels to over 4 800 GW – equivalent to the current total global power capacity of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Renewables are set to account for almost 95% of the increase in global power capacity through 2026, with solar PV alone providing more than half.

Renewable electricity growth is accelerating faster than ever worldwide

And as for subsidies, fossil fuels get more subsidies hands down:

The world’s total, direct energy sector subsidies – including those to fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power – are estimated to have been at least USD 634 billion in 2017. These were dominated by subsidies to fossil fuels, which account for around 70% (USD 447 billion) of the total. Subsidies to renewable power generation technologies account for around 20 % of total energy sector subsidies (USD 128 billion), biofuels for about 6 % (USD 38 billion) and nuclear for at least 3 % (USD 21 billion).

In 2017, the costs of unpriced externalities and the direct subsidies for fossil fuels (USD 3.1 trillion) exceeded subsidies for renewable energy by a factor of 19.

ENERGY SUBSIDIES

What the mining companies are saying simply is this: there is not the material to make it happen. Unfortunately renewable energy has become something of a cult and the people who are its biggest boosters are unwilling to look at the limits to their project.

No, that's not what they said. If you go and read the source article that had the actual quotes from the mining industry it said supply is lagging demand and they are forecasting a near-term metals shortage if investment does not pickup. Hardly the same thing. The actual metals are quite abundant in the Earth's crust. But the cyclical nature of commodities means we are going to see prices rise for some time due to low supply relative to demand. From the article that sourced the mining industry quotes:

The green energy transition relies on mining to produce enough lithium, cobalt, and nickel for the expected boom in solar panels, wind turbines, and electric car batteries over the next decade.

The only problem is that most of those metals are already in short supply. Paltry investments by governments in mining, the complexity of recycling rare metals, and geopolitical trade squabbles are already hampering metal production.

In a recent note to investors, Bank of America analysts warned of a shortage of many critical elements, including rare earth metals that are harder to produce, just as demand is starting to soar.

Many of these metals are abundant in the Earth’s crust, but tend to be in low concentrations and are expensive to separate and refine. And while soaring use of these elements has pushed their prices to record highs, it’s feared that modest increases in mining will be unable to meet the demand.
“Commodity prices have risen, making it more attractive for investors,” Liesbet Grégoir, a metals and mining researcher at Belgian University KU Leuven, told Fortune. “But there is not enough in the pipeline yet. Developing mining projects takes time, and there is a real risk we’re not starting early enough.”

‘A very precarious supply-demand imbalance’
Unless more investment is redirected towards these processes, the production of byproduct metals will fail to keep up with rising demand.

“That investment in the downstream is not being matched by investment in the upstream,” Schloustcher said. “There's a very precarious supply-demand imbalance for the critical minerals that are the inputs that enable these technologies.”

Through 2050, improved recycling of metals could help supply chains stabilize. But that necessary infrastructure is still a long way off, and experts say the critical time to fix the supply-demand imbalance is now.

“By 2050, we might be okay if recycling efforts kick in,” said KU Leuven’s Grégoir. “But the real challenge is the next decade where recycling can’t play a role yet. There is a serious risk that serious efforts to ramp up clean technologies will be hampered by metal shortages.”

Global metal supply lags amid huge demand for electric cars, solar

[mousepad]

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts.

Renewables are about 10% of total power use currently. Nuclear which is not renewable (but low carbon) are about 5%.
Germany, which generates about 50% of it's electricity with renewables still only to manages to achieve less than 20% of its total energy consumption to be renewable. Not to mention that this experiment only works because they can import shortfall electricity from either France's nuclear or eastern european coal plants while exporting their overproduction to switzerland.

By 2026, global renewables are projected to have as much capacity as current levels of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Not bad for something starting from such low levels eh?

You love your forecasts, don't you?

[C8]

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts. By 2026, global renewables are projected to have as much capacity as current levels of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Not bad for something starting from such low levels eh

Not so

https://ourworldindata.org/sources-global-energy

Today the global energy mix is made up of a diverse range of sources: biomass, coal, oil, gas, nuclear and a range of renewables including hydropower, solar and wind.

In 2020, the global primary energy mix was made up of:

Coal: 27.6%
Oil: 31.6%
Gas: 25%
Nuclear: 4.4%
Hydropower: 7%
Wind: 2.6%
Solar: 1.4%
Other renewables: 0.5%

[C8]

I am posting this chart of India's energy consumption because it is so very interesting to the debate. India gets massive amounts of sunshine and really should be well supplied by solar power by this time given how long cheaper solar cells have been in existence. India's government is not very wealthy and doesn't really give much of a subsidy to the solar industry. As such, India makes it perfect example of whether or not solar can survive on its own with lots of sunshine and very little in the way of subsidies. As you can see, India is not very solar. Much of India's renewable energy generation is biomass, which is essentially burning waste or forest- that is not something that is very scalable.

Renewable energy is like a 40 year old child who keeps asking dad for rent because someday he will become wealthy. If we were having this debate in 2005 then there might be causes for optimism. But as it is now 2022, renewable energy has had a very long time sucking at the government tit be able to prove itself and it hasn't. No amount of data will change anything about this- the only thing that really matters now is actual performance.

When coal was introduced, there was no need for subsidies as it was clearly cheaper and better. Oil came and again, there was no need for subsidies. When nuclear came (after the technology was developed) there was no need for subsidies. The endless time that renewable energy needs subsidies is a clear warning sign. This stuff will not scale up anywhere near what we need for the future. The more you make of something, the higher the price goes if some of their ingredients necessary are rare. Whereas most businesses have an economy of scale, due to the rarity of many of the materials in a renewable business there are actually diseconomies of scale.

[JuanP]

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts. By 2026, global renewables are projected to have as much capacity as current levels of fossil fuels and nuclear combined. Not bad for something starting from such low levels eh

Not so

https://ourworldindata.org/sources-global-energy

Today the global energy mix is made up of a diverse range of sources: biomass, coal, oil, gas, nuclear and a range of renewables including hydropower, solar and wind.

In 2020, the global primary energy mix was made up of:

Coal: 27.6%
Oil: 31.6%
Gas: 25%
Nuclear: 4.4%
Hydropower: 7%
Wind: 2.6%
Solar: 1.4%
Other renewables: 0.5%

Apples and oranges, guys! I think K is talking about electricity generation and C8 is talking about total energy consumption. I consider total energy consumption the most important issue, of course, since electricity is but a small part of that.

[AdamB]

It is very easy for an energy source to look like it is increasing at a great rate when it starts at such a low level to begin with. But the real problem of course becomes how can it scale? As the chart above shows, renewable energy has made only the slightest gains compared to the overall energy picture- this despite massive government subsidies and endless amounts of publicity.

Sure. I am aware of the basics of hype, government supported or otherwise, and the math behind growing demand while claiming that both it, and some forced reduction in fossil fuels requires far more buildout than anyone wants to let you know. Because of cost, not on a $/kWh basis, but just the buildout at large.

It is one thing to have a few places wired and a few solar cells here and there, it's another to convert an entire nation's energy supply to such a project. What the mining companies are saying simply is this: there is not the material to make it happen. Unfortunately renewable energy has become something of a cult and the people who are its biggest boosters are unwilling to look at the limits to their project.

So how does infrastructure buildout at less than a rate claimed by its advocates, cause science to be fake?

[AdamB]

So what might to core issue be for you, science wise?

I love science Adam, I just don't like it being confused with science fiction

Politicians lying to you isn't science fiction. It's politicians and advocates doing what they do. And folks telling lies about renewables as saviors aren't any different than peak oilers selling doom 15 years ago, it is just folks pitching a perspective and numbers that they know little to nothing about.

[theluckycountry]

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts.

Quite true, Germany for one buys woodchip from the US to burn in their generating plants. Very renewable lol. You're so gullible kublikhan


Europe's 'renewable' energy plan is actually destroying US forests

Europe imported more than 4 million tons of wood pellets from US forests last year and wrote it all off as renewable energy.
https://www.businessinsider.com/europe- ... 15-12?op=1

It's all a scam

I wonder where these Germans think they will buy their wood?


Germans Fearing Energy Poverty Go Back to Wood-Burning Stoves

THE DEMAND FOR WOOD-BURNING STOVES
A demand for wood-burning stoves “exploded” in Germany after Russia invaded Ukraine, a spokesman for a German association of heating installers said... There is a shortage of stoves now. Even firewood is sold out. Germany is also going back to coal.

https://www.independentsentinel.com/ger ... ng-stoves/

It's all coming unglued, and all the Hopeium lies are coming home to roost. If you haven't got your fossil fuel made solar panels, best get in quick before the planet shuts down all trade and you're left out in the cold. I have a few spares, and recently bought a bunch of LiPOs that I use in various devices. Their price has gone up 30% and they are taking 4 weeks for delivery.

some analysts are suggesting we are on the verge of a systematic breakdown in trade, I don't know if I believe that but the writing is on the wall, 1-year for a new car delivery on many models here, and spare parts from the factory? Forget it.

Limits to Growth

[AdamB]

some analysts are suggesting we are on the verge of a systematic breakdown in trade, I don't know if I believe that but the writing is on the wall, 1-year for a new car delivery on many models here, and spare parts from the factory? Forget it.
Limits to Growth

Slaves in a mining colony of course must wait for spare parts from a factory of course, when the closest to paying work you are qualified for is banana bending. It isn't as though you are smart enough to have any qualified machinists around, let alone a First World manufacturing facility that are sprinkled about in every American town of decent size. Move out of the Chinese mining colony, become comfortable with the developed world, and your perspective won't be as microscopic as your intellectual abilities.

[jato0072]

Let's face it. The world will use all of the energy it can. We are going to burn every bit of fuel we can get our hands on. If Germany decreases fossil fuel use, then another country will burn Germany's share (sooner or later).

[kublikhan]

Renewables are about 10% of total power use currently. Nuclear which is not renewable (but low carbon) are about 5%.
Germany, which generates about 50% of it's electricity with renewables still only to manages to achieve less than 20% of its total energy consumption to be renewable. Not to mention that this experiment only works because they can import shortfall electricity from either France's nuclear or eastern european coal plants while exporting their overproduction to switzerland.

Power generation refers to electricity generation. Energy is electricity + heat + transportation. Those are 2 different categories.

You love your forecasts, don't you?

It's simple math. As of today, renewables have already passed the largest source of fossil fuel capacity: coal. Renewables are adding 300 GW a year of new capacity. At that rate, it will take 3 years before renewables pass all of fossil fuel capacity combined. Even if renewables suddenly have a series of really bad years and their capacity additions slow by half, that simply pushes the number of years it will take renewables to overtake fossil fuel capacity from 3 years to 6.

Not so

Again, power generation refers to electricity generation. Total primary energy consumption is electricity consumption + heat + transportation.

I am posting this chart of India's energy consumption because it is so very interesting to the debate. India gets massive amounts of sunshine and really should be well supplied by solar power by this time given how long cheaper solar cells have been in existence. India's government is not very wealthy and doesn't really give much of a subsidy to the solar industry. As such, India makes it perfect example of whether or not solar can survive on its own with lots of sunshine and very little in the way of subsidies. As you can see, India is not very solar. Much of India's renewable energy generation is biomass, which is essentially burning waste or forest- that is not something that is very scalable.

India has massive amounts of fossil fuel subsidies.

Key Findings
Since 2017, government support for fossil fuels increased by 65 per cent while support for renewables declined by 35 per cent. India’s subsidies to oil, gas and coal are seven times more than the value of subsidies to renewables and electric vehicles.

Mapping India’s Energy Subsidies 2020

Renewable energy is like a 40 year old child who keeps asking dad for rent because someday he will become wealthy. If we were having this debate in 2005 then there might be causes for optimism. But as it is now 2022, renewable energy has had a very long time sucking at the government tit be able to prove itself and it hasn't. No amount of data will change anything about this- the only thing that really matters now is actual performance.

When coal was introduced, there was no need for subsidies as it was clearly cheaper and better. Oil came and again, there was no need for subsidies. When nuclear came (after the technology was developed) there was no need for subsidies. The endless time that renewable energy needs subsidies is a clear warning sign. This stuff will not scale up anywhere near what we need for the future. The more you make of something, the higher the price goes if some of their ingredients necessary are rare. Whereas most businesses have an economy of scale, due to the rarity of many of the materials in a renewable business there are actually diseconomies of scale.

Incorrect. Both fossil fuels and nuclear have been sucking on the tit of government subsidies for decades. And spending on subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear have been much larger than renewables.

U.S. government subsidies for energy are as old as the nation. Pfund and coauthor Ben Healey trace U.S. government energy incentives back to 1789. Using government documents, academic papers, and a mix of other data and reports, Pfund and Healey offer a historical perspective on today’s debate over energy subsidies. Their study finds a paucity of government support for renewable energy sources compared with past government investment in coal, gas, oil, or nuclear energy sources, which helped the country transition to new energy technologies and infrastructures.

Their study, “What Would Jefferson Do? The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America’s Energy Future,” also finds that federal support of renewable energy falls short of the aid the federal government has given to oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy when they were new. In fact, they say, backing for renewable energy is trivial in size.

Coal, Pfund notes, benefits from a host of centuries-old programs that signal a rich history of aid, which is intertwined with the development of the nation. Pfund and Healey also found that some types of government support—particularly tax breaks—don’t go away because they are embedded in the tax code. “These subsidies have been huge, and they are the gift that keeps on giving for many energy sources,” Pfund says. Temporary tax incentives intended to spur exploration or development of fossil fuels have become a permanent part of the country’s economic system, Pfund notes. For example, coal companies can still take advantage of a measure passed in 1950 that originally allowed them to “temporarily” avoid a tax increase enacted to help fund the Korean War, the study says. Similarly, several measures to aid oil companies passed in the early 1900s remain of key importance to the industry. Nuclear power plants also benefit strongly from subsidies.


Oil and gas lead in historical average of annual subsidies.

Long History Of U.S. Energy Subsidies

Renewables now generate more than a quarter of the planet's power. This is not some trick of mathematics, that's the facts.

Quite true, Germany for one buys woodchip from the US to burn in their generating plants. Very renewable lol. You're so gullible kublikhan

Incorrect. Germany is a net exporter of wood pellets. US imports mostly go to the UK. In Germany, Wind and Solar PV alone make up more than a quarter of Germany's electricity generation. Fossil fuels have fallen to less than half.

It all started back in 2014 at the latest: North American groups began charging that the EU’s policy of co-firing wood pellets in coal power stations should be discontinued because more and more forests in the United States in particular were being cut down. As I pointed out 18 months ago, however, Germany is clearly not the problem. The country remains a net exporter of wood pellets, which it largely makes from waste wood sourced locally. Only 0.07% of German electricity comes from fresh timber, most of it in cogeneration units that mainly produce heat—electricity is a byproduct that increases the overall efficiency of the process.

Germany does not import significant quantities of wood pellets from the United States. The UK is the main culprit with its Drax power plant.

The pellet debate gets weird

[AdamB]

You love your forecasts, don't you?

It's simple math. As of today, renewables have already passed the largest source of fossil fuel capacity: coal. Renewables are adding 300 GW a year of new capacity. At that rate, it will take 3 years before renewables pass all of fossil fuel capacity combined.

What might the average dispatch factor be of that 300 GW a year? Because when dealing with intermittent sources, it would seem that whenever intermittency strikes, there would need to be a near instant on load balancing generation of some type. So the next question would be, how much instant on, probably FF based capacity needs to sit idle to make up for any dispatch factor on any given day being less than 1? Potentially, on a given day (versus average dispatch across a year where this 300 GW shows up), needing to provide 100% of whatever that 300 GW was powering? Isn't this an interesting question beyond just assuming how long renewable capacity ( even at an average daily dispatch percentage) can bump off all FF based generation?

[kublikhan]

What might the average dispatch factor be of that 300 GW a year?

The 2021 capacity factors for US Wind is around 35%, 25% for Solar PV, and 37% for Hydro. Solar is adding more capacity so is heavier in the average. So I guess that would be around a 30% average capacity factor. For fossil fuels we have US coal at 49% and gas at 54%. So that's an average of around 52%.

Because when dealing with intermittent sources, it would seem that whenever intermittency strikes, there would need to be a near instant on load balancing generation of some type. So the next question would be, how much instant on, probably FF based capacity needs to sit idle to make up for any dispatch factor on any given day being less than 1? Potentially, on a given day (versus average dispatch across a year where this 300 GW shows up), needing to provide 100% of whatever that 300 GW was powering? Isn't this an interesting question beyond just assuming how long renewable capacity ( even at an average daily dispatch percentage) can bump off all FF based generation?

Yes it is interesting. China already has more non-fossil fuel capacity than fossil fuel capacity. Yet because of the low capacity factors of renewables, China's actual generation of power is heavily in favor of fossil fuels:

Jan 29, 2022 -

China will, by the end of the year, have more renewable and low-carbon power generation capacity than fossil fuel capacity, the country’s Electricity Council has reported.

Reuters reports that China is expected to add 180 GW of new non-fossil fuel power capacity this year, boosting the total to 1,300 GW, running the gamut from nuclear and hydro to wind and solar. This would represent half of the China Electricity Council’s total planned capacity for this year, which stands at 2,600 GW. By the end of the current decade, China has plans to boost wind and solar power capacity alone to 1,600 GW to reduce its pollution levels.

Last year, China built more offshore wind farms than the rest of the world together, Forbes reported recently, connecting some 17 GW to the grid. Now, the country accounts for half of the global offshore wind power total, at 26 GW out of a global 54 GW. China’s total renewable power generation capacity additions for 2021 reached 101 GW.

China Non-Fossil Fuel Power Capacity To Hit Record This Year

Capacity is one thing, actual generation is another. Despite being only around 50% of China's generating capacity, Fossil fuels represent over 70% of China's electricity generation:

China remains as tied as ever to fossil fuels, even as it adds more renewable power than any other nation. Last year, the share of coal and gas in power generation was stuck at 71%, the same as 2020.

The world’s biggest polluter wants to peak its carbon emissions by the end of the decade, and hit net-zero by 2060. But for all of the country’s headway in expanding clean energy capacity, last year’s economic growth of 8.1% basically meant that more output across all of its power sources was required to keep the lights on.

China Remains as Reliant as Ever on Fossil Fuels

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

As for exactly how much more additional reserves are needed because of this intermittency, I think the DOE is still trying to quantify it:

While spinning reserves can respond rapidly to a sudden need for more power, this ability comes at a cost. Running a plant at levels below its maximum optimal operating point in order to provide spinning reserves can cause inefficiency in the provision of energy from individual resources, while increasing costs by requiring more plants to be online. The growing dependence on variable wind and solar power resources make it more necessary to balance reserves to cover minute-to-minute and hour-to-hour variability and uncertainty. Additionally, other power electronic interfaced resources (such as battery storage) and electronically-coupled load also can respond quickly if required after an event. The changing energy landscape, including the increased levels of variable energy resources and other emerging technologies, is driving the need to reconsider the industry’s traditional approach to reserves.

Recent developments in new technologies—such as storage, load management, advanced predictive capability, and the demonstration of new inverter capabilities—have the potential to contribute to spinning and other reserve requirements.

Many ISOs and RTOs have expanded their definitions of reserves to allow some new technologies to provide reserve products that do not meet the historic definition of “spinning.” This allows new ancillary reserve services that complement the UFLS systems. Though reserve requirements may not have been reduced, the effective amount of “spinning” reserves from online resources operating at nonoptimal levels on their heat rate curves is less, and thus the economic efficiency is improved. These policies are inconsistent across the United States, potentially making reserve markets fragmented and less efficient.

Recommendations
EAC Members developed recommendations to the Department of Energy (DOE) based on suggestions from the panelists and opinions of the EAC Members. The higher priority recommendations are provided below.
Recommendation 1: Defining Operating Reserve Requirements
DOE should consider (or expand/prioritize) efforts to quantify uncertainty and variability for the purposes of determining reserves requirements and initiate discussions with NERC regarding the appropriate risk and reserve methodology.

Optimizing Reserves Recommendations for the U.S. Department of Energy

Texas's grid operator commissioned a study on this problem and found a ridiculously low amount of flexible reserve capacity was required to compensate for a large amount of added renewables. According to the study, a measly 18 MW of reserves could compensate for 15,000 MW of wind capacity. I didn't read the study but my gut reaction is that seems too low to me. But even then, that's just for the second by second generation. If there is an hours long or even weeks long country wide shortage of wind/solar you are going to have a problem.

Critics of renewable energy often cite the fact that technologies like wind and solar only produce energy when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. They argue that we can’t effectively utilize renewable energy until appropriate energy storage technology is developed. While the fact that wind and solar don’t produce energy around the clock is certainly a major disadvantage, I find that the problems associated with the intermittent nature of many renewables are often exaggerated, and rarely discussed from a practical perspective. With this post, I’ll introduce a few of the main challenges posed by intermittent energy sources, and then discuss three possible solutions.

Because the grid operator is only concerned with balancing the total amount of renewable generation with the rest of the grid, the Law of Large Numbers causes the amount of reserve capacity required to balance renewables with the grid on a second-by-second basis to be a lot less than intuition suggests. In a study commissioned by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, General Electric calculated how much new reserve capacity will be required as Texas increases the amount of wind energy installed. The report found that an additional 15,000 megawatts of installed wind energy only requires an additional 18 megawatts of new flexible reserve capacity to maintain the stability of the grid. In other words, the spare capacity of one fast-ramping natural gas power plant can compensate for the variability introduced by 5,000 new average-sized wind turbines.

Renewable Energy Intermittency Explained: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities