Renewables: Another Perspective on Energy

Though the U.S. appears to be marching towards its green future without much debate so far, that doesn’t mean that a few other parts of the world aren’t having a bit of reconsideration. A couple interesting stories have emerged from Europe — arguably far ahead of us in terms of implementation and perhaps wisdom born of experience. Interestingly, both concern renewables, a favorite of the Obama administration.

EDF (EDFEY.PK) of France and E.On (EONGY.PK) of Germany, both major electric utility companies, have said that the goal of 35% electricity generation by renewables is too high and would cause them to build additional carbon-emitting plants in lieu of new nuclear plants. From Guardian.co.uk:

“The deployment of high levels of intermittent renewables for electricity generation will require the construction of additional carbon-emitting plant as back-up for when renewables are not available to meet demand,” EDF argued. “This is likely to be predominantly gas-fired and will therefore undermine efforts to reduce dependence on non-domestic fuel sources.”

“A 25% electricity target will provide the best platform for further decarbonisation of electricity generation in the period beyond 2020, through a combination of further renewables, new nuclear and coal and gas with carbon capture and storage.”

Naturally, the environmental movement is furious.

“The National Grid shows that there is capacity to take well over 30% percent of our electricity from renewables. EDF are trying to block efforts to deliver on the most important technology to the UK to tackle climate change and keeps the light on in order to protect their own vested nuclear interests.”

Friends of the Earth agreed. “The UK is the windiest country in Europe with the best wave and tidal resources,” said Andy Atkins, the group’s executive director. “We should be maximising renewables and harnessing as much of that clean, safe energy as we possibly can – not propping up the French nuclear industry.

“Nuclear power is no green alternative – it leaves a legacy of deadly radioactive waste that remains dangerous for tens of thousands of years. And nuclear power plants simply cannot be built in time to deliver the cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that science says are needed.”

Kind of like a renewables energy system or nothing at all. I can appreciate the problems with nuclear, but the fact is they don’t produce all of the time. Backups are necessary, and if those simply dump more carbon into the air, what’s the point?

Separately, Shell (RDS.A) announced that it would no longer invest in renewable technologies and instead would focus on biofuels. It said that it did not consider renewables economically viable. Shell has been a major investor in wind power.

The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said: “If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it.”

Once again, the environmentalists are unhappy.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) criticised Shell for freezing investment in renewables such as wind in favour of biofuels. “Shell is backing the wrong horse when it comes to renewable energy– biofuels often lead to more emissions than the petrol and diesel they replace,” the campaign group said.

Note the FoE reply does not attempt to refute the issue of profitability. It recites the mantra that releasing emissions is bad and renewables are good. At some point, economics do matter.

I put this post up not necessarily to criticize the green movement but to highlight the fact that there are more sides to this issue than are currently being presented in either the MSM or the blogosphere. Plans are afoot here to spend a great deal of money on green energy and it seems to me that is increasingly being defined as energy derived exclusively from renewable sources. I think we need a big, broad talk about that.

Right now I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that the nuclear reactor on the edge of Phoenix is going to be providing my electricity when it’s 115 degrees this summer than I would were I counting on some whirling turbines in North Dakota.

More: here and here

Comments

[iceemaster:]

Why not think about wave energy being developed by OPTT or geothermal energy being developed by HTM?

Mar 18 02:23 PM

[NEGRININVEST:]

Shell no longer invest in renewable technologies and instead would focus on biofuels. It said that it did not consider renewables economically viable. Shell strategy is right the only investment can generate ROI is biofuels. See gnegrini.com

Mar 18 02:30 PM

[aquaculture:]

Well, we know of 3 oil companies which business they'll be in post peak-oil OR at carbon-neutrality (whichever comes first):

Chevron: geothermal (according to MIT the U.S. has enough for 30.000 years)

Bp: silicon PV solar (silicon is as abundant as sand and dirt cheap if produced from waterglass)

Shell: biofuels, bioplastics, specialty biochemicals (from algae)

No surprises here.

Of course this means lots of work. Lots of drilling and drilling tech fights. Lots of engineering and factories to be build. Thousands of algae species need to be identified or modified. Millions of man-years of software code needs written.
But hey work is fun!

The other oil companies will probably liquidate.

As for nuclear technology: its history.
But enjoy it while it lasts...

Mar 18 04:45 PM

[La Marque:]

The main point of EDF and E.ON seems to be that they will need to have backup when the wind is not blowing, etc. So what? Right now they provide carbon based backup in case of normal shutdowns, etc.

As far as Shell is concerned, profits matter and they should be doing what is in their core compententcy which would be biofuels, etc. Shell has many years of experience with PV and other types of AE, but if you can't make money in it, then you should get out. Good for Shell.

Mar 19 10:03 AM

[dan-d:]

To maintain dependence on foreign sources of energy is lunacy. It will only lead to more political/economic manipulation. The real fear is not ROI but loss of total control of the political process and the power over others inherent in the current system. Cheap renewable energy = freedom from tyrannical dictators, who love the money sent to them and use it to finance their idiotic, maglomaniacal projects instead of for the general good of all. The cost in environmental degradation, wars for control, plus the fact that fossils are not a limitless energy source make it critical, at this juncture in history, to push forward with the developement and utilization of renewables to supply the worlds' insatiable need for energy.

Mar 19 10:09 AM

[c300man:]

I'm glad to see Shell state so clearly that they don't consider alternative technologies to be attractive investment alternatives. I think Exxon is in that same camp.

There will be a day when we truly enjoy and capture all of the energy nuclear energy has to offer. We've enjoyed the benefits chemical energy has offered and will for a long time to come but I think a greater transition to nuclear will occur. The waste issue is not a problem to the engineering and scientific community only to the politicians and environmental extremists.

Mar 19 10:19 AM

[Will Deliver:]

Increasing the amount of wind, tidal and solar electrical generation capacity will raise the percentage of renewable energy, which inversely, reduces the percentage of non-renewable, carbon based generation. Also, the more renewable sources we have from more decentralized plants, the more overlap in generation there will be. Currently the carbon based electrical generation is a higher percentage, compared to renewables, including hydropower. If we increase renewable generation more, we will change that dynamic so that the carbon based generating plants will then become the back-up systems for a renewable energy grid.

Mar 19 01:02 PM

[Ferdinand E...:]

An excellent presentation. As I informed a gentleman early today, the anti-nuclear people in Sweden do not want 'less' nuclear. They want nuclear completely out of the picture. You suggest that a broad discussion might be useful. Tell me, how do you hold a discussion with ignoramuses?

Mar 19 01:28 PM

[John Petersen:]

One word - "STORAGE"

Mar 20 05:37 AM