Yergin sounds like he still thinks wind 'farms' and battery 'backup' will be part of a "transition", but I like your take better - that it's dead already in the US - plus my take - that it can't survive much longer in Europe either.
Intermittent solar and wind require some form of backup to "fill in the blanks" when they are unavailable. As long as that is the case, solar and wind are redundant capacity and redundancy costs. Storage might eliminate the redundancy but at a monumental cost. DEFRs might eventually provide the required backup, but solar and wind would still be redundant and thus unnecessary.
Thanks for the article - yes I would hope that renewables would just die a quiet death, but I don't feel so optimistic as you and they will go out the door slowly screaming! The battery front is in high gear and convincing the politicians that they will save the day. Solar and batteries are the way to go is their mantra right now.
Well this is somewhat true - batteries do save solar - to a point, at least for ramping up and down - a little smoothing...but at what cost, but they don't save the grid from any longer term hiccup, nor can they replace peaker plants, both made expensive by the solar they are saving.
just to highlight the transition... it can be seen many ways by many people - but I thought this was hilarious as I read my email this morning.... could just be my humor...
US clean power investors see strong outlook despite gas plant rush - from Reuters
You are welcome, Joanna. I agree that the "renewables" and their supporters will not go quietly but disappear quickly when the subsidies dry up. That process has started in the US but so much money was already out the door and still hidden that it will take a while for the money to be exhausted. For Europe, economic realities will eventually catch up with them, such as BP getting back into the oil and gas business. More companies will follow, and governments will be overthrown. Your comments are always appreciated, Joanne. Ed
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
Just a casual observation, every successful energy transition in history, starting with homo-erectus taming fire, each energy transition has been accompanied by an obvious positive change in the standard of living for the average homo-sapian. This is the first recorded attempt at regressive benefit to the human species, it's not going well.
I have read every book that Yergin has written, and considered "The Prize" to be not only his best work but something of a guide for my career in the oil industry. That said, I no longer agree with Yergin's point of view. As part of S&P I don't believe he has the freedom to say his own opinion and has become a corporate mouthpiece.
There is no true necessity for the "transition" so the only reason there will be one is if one technology or energy resource becomes more economic, more portable, and more useful than another. There are many situations where wind, solar, hydropower, and geothermal make sense, but forcing some of them into a an electrical grid with preferential treatment is not one of those. Nuclear is still the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There is no shortage of oil and gas in the world, and the abundance of natural gas assures that with gas substitution for many uses of oil, the only change with oil and gas is that natural gas may replace some uses of oil. The shale revolution may seem to have failed, but it did not. It is still the reason we don't have $150 oil today. It made fools out of the "peak oil" crowd, and is yet to even be tested or realized in most of the world, suggesting that once political will is favorable, much of the third world could industrialize with resources they already own. I know this because I worked in international exploration during the shale boom. International shale plays outside of U.S.A., Canada and Argentina never really got started due to politics. That may change by necessity some day, and then countries like Colombia that has an Eagle Ford equivalent may discover they have much more than they thought. Even India has shale plays that are largely unexploited. Hungary and Romania have generous amounts. New Zealand has a shale play. South Africa and Saudi Arabia have shales. And Russia, the largest country in the world, has never even started. Plus, what seems to be a quietly kept secret that the planet is still generating oil and gas at rates that could make it "sustainable" is seldom acknowledged due to fear that we might make more carbon dioxide with it. The transition movement has taken one of two approaches to most of the world outside of North America and Europe, either let them live energy-poor lives like they do now and pretend they are happy burning cow dung to cook breakfast, or try to force them into industrial scale solar and wind, which they have no infrastructure to support and does not solve problems at a personal level for anyone. The transition is doomed to fail precisely because most of the world is still deprived of the energy they are being told to transition away from before they even get it. They will adopt oil and gas long before they put solar panels on their shanties.
I agree, carbonates. The energy transition we are in is to use even more oil and natural gas since the world most likely has seemingly unlimited reserves of both. Half of the world's population is undeveloped and needs those oil and gas reserves to develop. Thanks for your comments. Ed
Yergin sounds like he still thinks wind 'farms' and battery 'backup' will be part of a "transition", but I like your take better - that it's dead already in the US - plus my take - that it can't survive much longer in Europe either.
Intermittent solar and wind require some form of backup to "fill in the blanks" when they are unavailable. As long as that is the case, solar and wind are redundant capacity and redundancy costs. Storage might eliminate the redundancy but at a monumental cost. DEFRs might eventually provide the required backup, but solar and wind would still be redundant and thus unnecessary.
Thanks for the article - yes I would hope that renewables would just die a quiet death, but I don't feel so optimistic as you and they will go out the door slowly screaming! The battery front is in high gear and convincing the politicians that they will save the day. Solar and batteries are the way to go is their mantra right now.
Well this is somewhat true - batteries do save solar - to a point, at least for ramping up and down - a little smoothing...but at what cost, but they don't save the grid from any longer term hiccup, nor can they replace peaker plants, both made expensive by the solar they are saving.
just to highlight the transition... it can be seen many ways by many people - but I thought this was hilarious as I read my email this morning.... could just be my humor...
US clean power investors see strong outlook despite gas plant rush - from Reuters
followed by....
The Troubled Energy Transition - from CERA Week
just wanted to give you a little smile too...
You are welcome, Joanna. I agree that the "renewables" and their supporters will not go quietly but disappear quickly when the subsidies dry up. That process has started in the US but so much money was already out the door and still hidden that it will take a while for the money to be exhausted. For Europe, economic realities will eventually catch up with them, such as BP getting back into the oil and gas business. More companies will follow, and governments will be overthrown. Your comments are always appreciated, Joanne. Ed
No ‘green’ solution?
“The problem with both visions of the future – and the spectrum of views between them – is a fundamental misunderstanding of the collapse which has begun to break over us. This is that each assumes the continuation of that part of industrial civilisation which is required to make their version of the future possible, even as the coming collapse wipes away ALL aspects of industrial civilisation. Most obviously, nobody had developed even an embryonic version of the renewable energy supply chain which is the essential first step to turning non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) into the envisioned “renewables” upon which the promised techno-psychotic future is to be built. That is, until it is possible to mine the minerals, build the components, manufacture and transport the technologies without the use of fossil fuels at any stage in the process, then there is no such thing as “renewable energy” in the sense which the term is currently promoted. “
https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2023/07/19/our-predicament-re-stated/?fbclid=IwAR3VlY4z4EV1kM6nTSv2FjmBAmvCEGjqqhiwuc1zQtSn3sIcGDGdqiNaN0Q
Just a casual observation, every successful energy transition in history, starting with homo-erectus taming fire, each energy transition has been accompanied by an obvious positive change in the standard of living for the average homo-sapian. This is the first recorded attempt at regressive benefit to the human species, it's not going well.
I have read every book that Yergin has written, and considered "The Prize" to be not only his best work but something of a guide for my career in the oil industry. That said, I no longer agree with Yergin's point of view. As part of S&P I don't believe he has the freedom to say his own opinion and has become a corporate mouthpiece.
There is no true necessity for the "transition" so the only reason there will be one is if one technology or energy resource becomes more economic, more portable, and more useful than another. There are many situations where wind, solar, hydropower, and geothermal make sense, but forcing some of them into a an electrical grid with preferential treatment is not one of those. Nuclear is still the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. There is no shortage of oil and gas in the world, and the abundance of natural gas assures that with gas substitution for many uses of oil, the only change with oil and gas is that natural gas may replace some uses of oil. The shale revolution may seem to have failed, but it did not. It is still the reason we don't have $150 oil today. It made fools out of the "peak oil" crowd, and is yet to even be tested or realized in most of the world, suggesting that once political will is favorable, much of the third world could industrialize with resources they already own. I know this because I worked in international exploration during the shale boom. International shale plays outside of U.S.A., Canada and Argentina never really got started due to politics. That may change by necessity some day, and then countries like Colombia that has an Eagle Ford equivalent may discover they have much more than they thought. Even India has shale plays that are largely unexploited. Hungary and Romania have generous amounts. New Zealand has a shale play. South Africa and Saudi Arabia have shales. And Russia, the largest country in the world, has never even started. Plus, what seems to be a quietly kept secret that the planet is still generating oil and gas at rates that could make it "sustainable" is seldom acknowledged due to fear that we might make more carbon dioxide with it. The transition movement has taken one of two approaches to most of the world outside of North America and Europe, either let them live energy-poor lives like they do now and pretend they are happy burning cow dung to cook breakfast, or try to force them into industrial scale solar and wind, which they have no infrastructure to support and does not solve problems at a personal level for anyone. The transition is doomed to fail precisely because most of the world is still deprived of the energy they are being told to transition away from before they even get it. They will adopt oil and gas long before they put solar panels on their shanties.
I agree, carbonates. The energy transition we are in is to use even more oil and natural gas since the world most likely has seemingly unlimited reserves of both. Half of the world's population is undeveloped and needs those oil and gas reserves to develop. Thanks for your comments. Ed