This is the snippet of the Scientific American article on “energy apartheid” that caught my eye:
World Bank President Jim Kim warned that while countries with disposable income and billionaire investors are betting big on the technologies of the future, the rest of the world isn’t waiting, particularly the billions of people who are starved for electrons and Btus, counting on cheap fuels to help them claw out of poverty.
“Right now, people are making choices around their energy mix, and it’s crazy for us to have committed to [keeping global warming below] 1.5 degrees Celsius and not to be moving at lightning speed to try to create huge and demanding markets [for clean energy],†Kim said. “I still don’t think that market forces are aligned to get us to the less-than-2-degree [warming target].â€
He called the divide in energy access between wealthy and poor nations “energy apartheid†and said many low- and middle-income countries need strong incentives and subsidies to push them in the right direction on climate change. Otherwise, these massive and growing energy appetites will undermine progress in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The “rest of the world” isn’t trying to power suburban homes. They’re trying to industrialize and the sad reality is that fossil fuels remain the only workable energy solution for industrial purposes and it will remain that way for the foreseeable future. In the developed world nuclear is another alternative but, considering that even Japan can’t keep its nuclear reactors maintained, do you really think that Zambia can?
Today solar and wind are being heavily subsidized. Without those subsidies they are not competitive with fossil fuels. Carbon taxes are not a good solution for the developing world.
We should be focusing our attention on amelioration. Prevention is out of reach.
One good outcome from the coming China economic meltdown is that the CO2 levels will not diverge as much from the mathematical models. In a few years or so, this AGW thing could be beat, and the AGW industry will celebrate their unemployment.
“Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It’s the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.1”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef
Steve
Although fine for low intensity purposes, wind power is unsuitable for industrial use. Do you shut the factory down when the wind isn’t blowing?
Also, see this paper. The best candidates for the use of wind power are the United States, Canada, Australia, and Russia. The developing countries of Africa and Asia are among the worst.
The way the trick works is you use a new wind or solar plant vs. an old coal plant. Then, you forget that the coal plant is going to last at least twice as long and require less maintenance. Then, we add on all the regulatory and tax costs to coal, and voila, coal plants cost more than wind or solar.
As with Keynesian economics, we will put it to the reality test. If it can work in the US, it can work anywhere. We should see Venezuela, China, Cuba, Nigeria, and Greece building solar and wind plants like they were giving them away, but alas, they are not.
As with economic nonsense, there will be the inevitable reasons why it can only be applicable in certain places at certain times under certain conditions. I do not care how many economists, physicists, puppeteers, banjo players, or organ grinders to wail and weep. If The poor ain’t buying your fabulously priced product, it ain’t fabulously priced. Come back when it is.
Dave–Your author clearly says low and middle intone countries need energy. That would certainly include India and China I think. They certainly have lots of people. Your paper says wind power could supply all of their electricity, by a wide margin. It could do so with a larger margin in the US. (Assuming way the grid and transmission issues, but then you have that to some extent in the poor countries also.)
What do you do when the wind doesn’t blow? Gas, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, batteries, whatever. This is an older paper so they wouldn’t know (I would think you would) what they are doing in Colorado. They have gotten good enough at understanding and predicting wind patterns that they shut off the more expensive coal and gas plants when wind output is high. Run them when it is low. For countries with limited resources, a combo plan makes a lot of sense. Time industrial usage to high wind output times and save lots of money.
Also, as I recall, solar is already the cheapest option for many rural areas. Solves lots of transmission issues.
Steve
Since you asked TB.
“By Daniel Cusick, ClimateWire on February 2, 2016
©iStock.com
China solidified its standing as the world’s wind energy behemoth in 2015, adding almost as much wind power capacity in one year as the total installed capacity of the three largest U.S. wind-producing states: Texas, Iowa and California.
New data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance show China installed just under 29 gigawatts of new wind energy capacity in 2015, surpassing its previous record of roughly 21 GW set in 2014. The country also accounted for more than 46 percent of all wind power installed globally for the year, eclipsing the next largest market, the United States, which added 8.6 GW (ClimateWire, Jan. 28).
Amy Grace, head of wind insight at BNEF, said the Chinese growth figure was the biggest surprise of 2015 and roughly 4 GW higher than analysts predicted. After China and the United States, the world’s largest markets for new wind power in 2015 were Germany, India and Brazil, with gross installs of 3.7, 2.6 and 2.6 GW, respectively.”
Oh, what the heck. It is from a green energy site, but too much to resist.
“As global wind energy growth stabilizes, China’s growth is set to triple by 2025, reaching an estimated 347.2 GW by 2025, says GlobalData.
Research and consulting firm GlobalData forecast in a report from earlier this year that China’s installed wind capacity will grow from 115.6 GW in 2014 to a whopping 347.2 GW by 2025. China’s growth will take place alongside a global stabilization towards the end of the forecast period, with annual installations peaking at 56.8 GW in 2022.
China’s Longyuan Power Launches World’s Highest Wind Farm In TibetInterestingly, unlike other wind power giants like the UK, China’s wind capacity will be dominated by onshore wind, which is expected to account for over 96% of all installations, or around 334.7 GW — that leaves just 12.4 GW for offshore wind.
Despite these impressive figures, analysts still believe that China is encountering a bottleneck.
“The slowdown has been caused by the inability of China’s underdeveloped electrical grid to accommodate the increasing number of wind turbines in remote areas,†said Harshavardhan Reddy Nagatham, GlobalData’s Analyst covering Renewable Energy. “Although recent government efforts have supported the expansion and upgrade of the grid, future annual wind installations will not grow as much as before and will range between 20 GW and 22 GW each year during the next decade.â€
China’s wind energy sector grew nearly twenty-fold between 2007 and 2014, growing from 5.9 GW to 115.6 GW, so it makes sense that analysts are calling China’s future growth “slow.†Nevertheless, it will emerge as one of the global wind energy leaders.
Globally, wind installations are expected to reach 962.6 GW by the end of 2025, a figure GlobalData believes will be primarily driven by the Asia-Pacific region.
“There will be sustainable future growth in India, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, and Taiwan, as APAC wind installations are forecast to increase from 148.2 GW in 2014 to 437.8 GW by 2025, accounting for approximately 45.5% of the global total,†explains Nagatham. “Wind installations will also gain momentum in South and Central America, with countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico adding up to 45.6 GW during the forecast period. The Middle East and Africa region, which is presently at a nascent stage of wind market development, will be the other significant contributor to capacity additions.â€
Anyway, does increasing your wind supply by a factor of 20 over 7 years count as, how did you say that? “building solar and wind plants like they were giving them away”
Steve
@steve
More numbers by people justifying a position. Let us review: Population Bomb – fail, New Ice Age – fail, Peak Oil- fail, AGW – fail, Keynesian economics – fail.
When coal plants around the world shut down, give me a call. Until then, it is like the electric car. A rich man’s toy.
Tasty:
I’m pretty sure rich people are not driving the Nissan Leaf.
Steve schooled you, dude, you should have the grace to admit it.
@michael reynolds
Honestly, you have no knowledge about the subject matter, and therefore, you have no objective method of determining whether I have been schooled or not. That is the problem with your “science based” thinking. There is no science, and there is no modern scientific methodology (objective). You rely upon pre-Galilean or Medieval scientific methodology (subjective).
I have been “schooled” for years on the the subject matters I listed, and the schoolers have been wrong. It is easy to make a plausible case when the uncomfortable numbers are wished away, but reality is not so accommodating.
Many of these schemes work when there are a limited number of players, but with a larger number of players the game goes the other way.
The Saudis thought they could use Peak Oil to control the market, but there turned out to be a lot more oil available at a lot cheaper costs than they could possibly imagine. They may have lost the kingdom on their stupidity.
The world has built an entire economy on fractional reserve yuan to an order of magnitude beyond comprehension, and now that Keynesian economics is about to collapse, the central banks are willing to impose negative interest rates rather than admit failure. There is no telling what the end result will be, but a major war is not unlikely.
Now we are at the tail end of a worldwide credit induced buying madness. Now, expensive toys purchased using money backed by a Ponzi scheme of leveraged credit may not seem like such a good idea, but it may take a while to sink into the thicker skulls.
China is imploding, and the emerging countries are about to be dragged down. Their credit based money will never be able to weather the fiasco. If your financial adviser or your conscience is urging you to invest in alternate energy in these places, by all means do so. I am sure somebody will make a fortune, and I am sure you will be whining for regulations about your being scammed.
(For the record: 9 + 1 = A. Anybody who cannot grasp that simple arithmetic is not “schooling” me either.)
Also, as I recall, solar is already the cheapest option for many rural areas.
The problem with solar in rural areas is that there is little price competition, making a professional installation very expensive. If you are off the grid, installing a system with a few panels yourself, then it makes fiscal “cents.”
Dave – I agree with you that there needs to be way more research on amelioration, as it may very well be too late to prevent significant climate change. But your skepticism about renewables seems outdated at this point. They are increasingly competitive with fossil fuels, even before subsidies:
https://www.lazard.com/media/2390/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-90.pdf
Storage too is improving very rapidly now, not accounting for DARPA-E’s latest announcement (which should draw some skepticism until we see more data):
http://rameznaam.com/2015/04/14/energy-storage-about-to-get-big-and-cheap/
Yes, there are a lot of challenges remaining with transitioning to a new energy economy, especially for developing nations. It would help if some of them eliminated the tariffs on it, as Kim mentions below your cut of the article. That’s likely to be a lagging indicator, though. But overall, there’s good reason to think the change is coming, and sooner than you think.
Turn back to the subject of the linked article. Its claim is that investment in renewables in the U. S. will result in reduced fossil fuel use in the developing world. I see little evidence for that.
India, for example, is moving ahead with coal-fired power plant construction. Indian officials say it’s their only choice. Despite the slowdown in China’s coal industry and the increases in wind and solar that steve notes, it’s still building coal-fired power plants at a ferocious rate.
TB- Your last rant has little to do with energy. The fact remains that wind power is exploding in China. It is doing much the same in India, but is not as far along. I can give the numbers of solar also, which are progressing rapidly. By your own metric, it is a real thing. It is not sufficient to do away with all fossil fuel plants, but since it is cheaper, using mix makes sense.
Dave- India should move ahead with coal or gas plants. Even though they are more expensive than wind, the need them so they can have electricity whenever they want. Even in Colorado where they have gotten pretty sophisticated about wind, they still use fossil fuel also. I am not sure why you are insisting upon an either/or situation. India and China are taking the “both”path, which makes the most sense. And, since they are using wind, it follows that they will also use lesser amounts of fossil fuels.
Steve
Because time, money, and talent are limited resources. Most of the countries under discussion don’t have the time, money, or talent to do both/and.
I also don’t think that you understand what the Chinese have done. Like the Soviet Union before it, it’s enormously capable of pouring money down the drain on non-productive investments.
@steve
In the US, coal has been crippled by the CO2 recapture nonsense. This makes it more costly. If solar and wind were able to compete on a level basis, they would not need to cripple the competition or have cheerleaders.
Let me help you out with the rest. Cheap money allows poorer countries to waste money in inefficient products to make rich liberals feel good. Nuclear power would be better for them, but the upkeep is prohibitive.
This is another instance where I only have to wait. Time is my friend. There is a reason the anti-vaccine crowd has to provide studies. After over 50 (100?) of use, they cannot produce the hordes of people killed and maimed.
The only thing that would stop solar or wind from being the dominant energy sources is cost, and they do not need your cheerleading for that. What they need is for coal and gas to be artificially increased, and to do that, your cheerleading is helpful. I guess you think we are too stupid to figure it out.
The most effective, cheapest, and most permanent way to lower YOUR carbon footprint is to self terminate. It’s you or the PLANET. It’s too late for talk, you must act, or the planet dies.
Here is a proposal to help the US and help alternative energy as a byproduct. Nationalize the transmission power lines (plant to sub-stations), and then, upgrade them. Upgrades would include hardening them against EMP events (natural or man-made), interconnecting them, securing them, and providing breakaway capability to prevent cascade failures.
The distribution lines (sub-stations to endpoints – houses, etc.) should be local or state owned, and they should receive the same treatment. This would require federal money, but so be it. The haters can piss off, and that includes me. These are public infrastructure and should be treated as roads or water lines.
Additional transmission lines should be laid-in to areas where there is the potential for power plants to be built or a request is made. This will require some process to ensure minimal abuse, and the FDIC model may be useful.
The transmission and distribution lines would operate similar to long distance lines or oil & gas pipelines. Electricity is dumped in one end, and it is withdrawn out the other. The electrons going in (not really) are not the same being withdrawn, but they are all same. It is simply an accounting problem.
There would need to be coordination to ensure there is proper load balancing, but this can be done by the federal government. The government would have research facilities to make the various parts more efficient in addition to other aspects, and all of this intellectual property would be open source for use by US companies in the US.
Small or medium sized alternate energy producers will have a substantial portion of their costs covered. They will be able to locate in remote areas without the transmission issues, and they will not need R&D facilities or just smaller ones.
These producers could charge a higher price, but they could be used by more affluent people or businesses. With common transmission and distribution power lines, not every person in an area needs to purchase the alternate energy, and with nationalized and interconnected power lines, customers would not be limited to any specific area. A wind farm in California, could have customers across the country.
Next, NASA should become a space exploration entity again. Space travel requires small and efficient power sources, but it also requires much more. DARPA should be increased. The military needs small efficient power sources. The government could establish research facilities for general purposes, and some of this would be for alternate energy related projects.
The outcome from this would be US public intellectual property that could be used to startup small businesses which would initially produce niche products. It would also allow the alternate energy business a better chance to grow without crippling the competition.
One large provision of all this would be the explicit exemption of all of these workers from joining any unions.
There would be an outcry from the usual suspects – big deal. Outsourcing to the private sector means the “free market” uses “free trade” to have China do any work that needs to be done. A lot of people have not bought into the Sen. Sanders or even Hillary Clinton worldview, but they are fed up with the establishment Republican bullshit.
The government is not your friend, but if configured properly, it does not have to be your enemy.
“Cheap money allows poorer countries to waste money in inefficient products to make rich liberals feel good.”
China and India are building wind power at rapid rates just to make liberals happy? Wow! Stop and listen to yourself. You said that would be proof it was financially viable. When shown they are building like it is being given away, it is to make liberals happy.
Query–If India and China think they need to spend billions to make liberals happy, why don’t we just always tell them it will make liberals happy whenever we want them to change whatever they are doing? Dave says they are manipulating their currency. Let’s just tell them it will make George Clooney or Leonard DiCaprio happy if they stop that. This is going to be great. Wonder if it will work on Russia?
Steve