Economics to the Rescue?

Those of us that place great hope on a renewable energy future have been slapped down repeatedly by the “knowledgeable and mature” analysts that tell us that renewables will never supply more than a pittance of the energy our world needs in the foreseeable future, and that we will be very dependent on fossil fuels well into that distant future.  They’re saying, “Get real!”  What were we thinking?  The Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) ‘Annual Energy Outlook for 2014’ predicted that renewables would provide 16% of our energy needs by 2040.  Coming from the same government that tells us that GMO’s are okay, I have to take their numbers with a grain of salt.  Still, I figured that they were somewhat in the ballpark.  I, and many of those knowledgeable people I have been consulting, had always assumed that their basic premise was true:  Renewables alone would never be able to provide the amount of energy our current lifestyle demands. 

Accordingly, I have mentioned here more than once that, in order to make the fossil fuel cuts we need to make to forestall the worst of climate change, we would need to lower our energy use by 80%.   I’ve gone on to say that such a huge change, while possible, would require major lifestyle changes for all of us.  That basic premise, I believe, is still true for a lot of reasons, but perhaps the outlook for renewables is not as bleak as our fossil fuel mentors claim.

In recent years, it seemed to me that renewables were developing faster than anyone had expected, but I have to admit that I was surprised when the actual stats were laid out in a new book by Lester Brown, of the Earth Policy Institute, called The Great Transition: Switching from fossil fuels to wind and solar.   It appears that we are likely to hit 16% renewables by 2018, and, the way technology is developing, probably earlier than that.  As to the perpetual dependence on fossil fuels, that seems likely to prove false as well.

According to Brown, in 2013, Denmark got 62% of its energy from wind alone, Spain and Portugal, likewise, got 20%.  One day in 2014, the State of South Australia’s wind and solar installations exceeded their total demand.  In the US, Iowa and South Dakota provide 26% of their energy from wind.  Iowa could be at 50% by 2018.  These figures would be doubled if we used energy as efficiently as Europeans.

The cost of wind and solar are rapidly decreasing while the technology is dramatically improving.  In parts of Australia, which is experiencing a solar boom, the costs have decreased to the point that coal plants could not compete even if the coal was free! 

In the developing world, where grid infrastructure doesn’t exist, local production of solar energy is the best alternative.  At least where civil unrest doesn’t prevent it, we could see dramatic changes in the next few years in the production of energy in the third world and a corresponding dramatic change in the lives of those that live there.  And, it will happen without a huge debilitating loan from the World Bank for a mega project built by a major corporation, it’s carbon footprint will be nil, the cost of fuel will be zero, and maintenance will be largely within the abilities of local users.
What is holding back progress in this country is the tremendous wealth of the fossil fuel companies that allows them to control both the media and our government, Not only do they receive massive subsidies of our tax dollars, but they can poison the legal and investment environment for renewables.  Such is their power that even people like me that spend considerable time researching these issues have unknowingly accepted some of their projections.

Sooner than later, the facts about what has a profitable future and what does not will become obvious, and smart money will flow more readily towards renewables.  I predict that academic institutions that have a hard time deciding whether to divest from fossil fuels now will see the light shortly, and it will be out of fiduciary responsibility, not just concern about climate.  Nothing stirs the red-blooded American heart more than profit, and it is the alignment of this drive with the need to address climate change that may finally bring the action we so badly need.   

It is ironic that one of our basest drives may save us from climatic oblivion, at least for now.  Until we learn to avoid corrupting ourselves with power and money, we will continue to flounder.  Maybe we will finally learn to distribute power and wealth.  Decentralizing our power production as well as decentralizing our food production will go a long way toward accomplishing that.

Comments?
terry@vashonloop.com