Slashdot Mirror
Renewable Energy Policies Actually Work (arstechnica.com)
Renewable energy use and reduced energy use overall have helped carbon emissions remain flat or below average as the global economy continued to grow over the years. But, as new research has found, government policy also appears to play a large role. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Ars Technica: The researchers started by identifying countries that show a "peak and decline" pattern of carbon emissions since the 1990s. They came up with 18, all but one of them in Europe -- the exception is the United States. For comparison, they created two different control groups of 30 countries, neither of which has seen emissions decline. One group saw high GDP growth, while the second saw moderate economic growth; in the past, these would have been associated with corresponding changes in emissions. Within each country, the researchers looked into whether there were government energy policies that could influence the trajectory of emissions. They also examined four items that could drive changes in emissions: total energy use, share of energy provided by fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the overall energy mix, and efficiency (as measured by energy losses during use). On average, emissions in the decline group dropped by 2.4 percent over the decade between 2005 and 2015.
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
Half of this drop came from lowering the percentage of fossil fuels used, with renewables making a large contribution; another 35 percent came from a drop in energy use. But the most significant factor varied from country to country. Austria, Finland, and Sweden saw a drop in the share of fossil fuels within their energy mix. In contrast, a drop in total energy use was the biggest factor for France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. was an odd one out, with all four possible factors playing significant roles in causing emissions to drop. For the two control groups, however, there was a single dominant factor: total energy use counted for 75 and 80 percent of the change in the low- and high-economic growth groups, respectively. But there was considerably more variability in the low-economic growth group. All of the high-growth group saw increased energy use contribute 60 percent of the growth in emissions or more. In contrast, some of the low-growth group actually saw their energy use drop. So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions? Part of it is likely to be economic growth, but the biggest reason may have to do with government policies. "By 2015, the countries in the group that saw declining emissions had an average of 35 policies that promoted renewable energy and another 23 that promoted energy efficiency," reports Ars Technica. "Both of those numbers are significantly higher than the averages for the control groups. And there's evidence that these policies are effective. The number of pro-efficiency policies correlated with the drop in energy use, while the number of renewable policies correlated with the drop in the share of fossil fuels."
Georgetown, Texas tried to go the renewables route. They ended up paying more and getting less.
Thanks to renewables, Australia ended up paying $500 a day per family for electricity.
America, the country that didn't sign the Paris accord, dropped CO2 emissions more than anyone else.
It's currently technologically impossible for renewables to provide baseload power at a competitive, or even reasonable, price, and will not do so anytime in the near future no matter how much religious environmentalists claim otherwise.
Firstly, here is some background on your source:
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) is a conservative think tank based in Austin, Texas. ... In 2015, TPPF had total revenue of $10.8 million. Donors to the organisation include energy companies Chevron, ExxonMobil, and other fossil fuel interests.
That place is as likely to deliver an unbiased assessment of whatever went on in Georgetown Texas as mice re likely to give an unbiased assessment of cats. From what I can gather about Georgetown Texas from other sources, their problem seems to have been that they made some really badly advised long term fixed price contracts for renewable energy. That is too bad for Georgetown Texas but hardly a reason for the rest of us to write off wind and solar power and grid storage because a bunch of useful idiots at a conservative think tank funded by oil companies says so.
I think the Slashdot leadership is based on the West Coast, where this shit is treated as gospel. They can't understand why their readership isn't buying it, so they keep trying to get us to see the light and repeat our SJW/liberal cachism like good little boys and girls.
Obviously not written by someone who lives in Australia:
--- Our coal plants fail during peak demand, like our hottest-on-record January this year. Congrats coal, you fail at the definition of baseload.
--- The conservative coalition promised a saving of $500 when our experiment at a carbon price was axed. Surprising nobody, we didn't! I believe these figures more than the nonsense from that Borepatch site, a site that's keen to list externalities like the cost of food when power goes up, but not when we burn the Earth's densest carbon sinks.
--- There's a phrase in Australia: gold-plated power grid. Different states privatised their energy grids, and their new owners went on a spending spree which was passed on to us. The cost is significantly higher than the glorified rounding error in that Borepatch article.
--- Victoria has some of the dirtiest coal in the world. Hazelwood, the power station listed in that article, was the least efficient and most greenhouse-pollution generating station in Australia, and needed to go.
--- AGL, Australia's largest electricity retailer, has said they're not investing in new coal plants because its not economical. The private sector, which conservatarians always tell us works best because they have a profit motive, doesn't want more Australian coal.
I can see where you're coming from. The only way we're going to make the significant and immediate reductions to carbon we need to mitigate or limit climate issues (we're past the point of avoiding) is investment in nuclear.
Cheers, ~ Ruben
The link reckons the Australian electricity costs from the peak rather than average costs, which determine what consumers actually pay. Furthermore, a decision by a judge to prevent the opening of a new coal mine could not possibly effect electricity prices two days later.
The other thing links to an unsourced powerpoint that combines just plain gobbledygook bullet points ("No pure electrons"), with dubious, unsourced figures, e.g. "return on investment" in solar being "$775/MWh" which of course is not an ROI figure at all. It's just the total subsidy figure divided by the amount of electricity generated, which of course is really low for coal because (a) the huge installed base of coal plants and (b) nobody in his right mind would pour money into coal.
Why?
The LCOE for wind has been lower than coal since around 2010. The LCOE for newly constructed photovoltaic plants has been dropping every year, and by some calculations the LCOE for new photovoltaic plants is already less than for new coal plants. So, yeah. Money isn't pouring into coal plant construction, either private or public.
That said, natural gas kicks the crap out of everything when it comes levelized cost.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Look, you can try the "but look...people funding" it's EEEEVVVVVVIIIIILLLLL. On the other hand, I can look from my own damn backyard and see the gigantic clusterfuck that "renewables" did to Ontario.
Right wing news? Sure. Centerist? That's not a problem either. How about far-left wing? Oh well what the fuck. How about the CBC? Well damn this is just great. This "unbiased assessment" from multiple media outlets here in Canada is pretty good at explaining just how much the entire thing "broke" Ontario's electrical system. This is the same bullshit now going on in multiple US states, the exact same shit. FiT(Feed in Tariff) programs, paying extremely high rates, with very specific companies who have/had an interest, causing the electricity price to go right through the roof. Oh and those "green energy jobs" that progressives, environmentalists and leftist cow on about? They don't appear. But boy oh boy do businesses flee. And of course Ontario isn't a on-off either, there's Germany, and Greece, and Spain, and Italy, and, and, and, and...
~10 years years ago, if you lived in the most populous place in Canada(between Windsor and Ottawa), you payed between 0.045 and 0.085kWh. Today you pay between 0.085 and 0.185kWh. Businesses fled. People fled. The electricity rate is so out of reach for the poor that they had to mandate under law no winter electrical disconnection just to make sure people wouldn't freeze to death. These rates for electricity hit the poor so bad, that a few years ago that charities ran out of money in December to cover heating costs. The winter period in Southern Ontario is generally late-October to as late as the end of May, you'll find that most people don't consider spring starting until the May 24 weekend, even then seeing 4C daytime highs happens often enough.
Look. Believe whatever you want about useful idiots, "because oil." Then dig your head out of your ass and then look to British Columbia. Same bullshit. Then look to Alberta under the NDP, same bullshit. Then look back to Ontario. 'Hey boys what happened to the Liberal Party of Ontario that held a majority status from 2003 to 2017?' Oh, they are no longer a recognized political party, and can fit in a 1986 Dodge Minivan? Well hot shit.
Om, nomnomnom...
Here's the truth about Georgetown (I live nearby so caught the local news about it):
"City Manager David Morgan said the power cost adjustment increase is because they leaned on forecasts back in 2012 and 2013 that predicted a shortage of power and a significant rise in energy prices.
"Ultimately, we selected wind and solar because we could lock in at competitive prices long-term,” Morgan said.
Morgan said the cost increase has nothing to do with the renewable energy sources.
"The reality is if we would have had those similar kinds of contracts, but they were with gas or coal. And we priced those out, we took bids from different types of energy sources. If we had those same types of contracts, we'd be in the same position today,” Morgan said."
https://www.kvue.com/article/m...
So why are some countries so successful at dropping their emissions?
Because they export their polluting industries to the 3rd world like the US did to Mexico? This is an excellent example of an intentionally misleading analysis. CO2 emissions in CA and Germany have increased from 2010 till today. This is the period when we actually had a renewable energy policy, and the increase in CO2 was mostly due to bad renewable energy policy and doesn't count the extra emissions from methane we had during that same period.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
In the case of BC, it was a right wing government balancing the books by demanding hydro pay billions in dividends to the Province. As well as deciding to build a massive dam without doing due diligence and forcing twinning of some power lines as they might be needed in the future.
Now I understand that you're against hydro as it is renewable and figure we should all be burning coal but here in BC, we've been using hydro for over a hundred years and that is the source of 99% of our energy. (There's some remote communities burn diesel for power).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Insightful"?
Bullshit. It's a strawman. The countries that are reducing their carbon output have done none of the things that the parent suggests are required to reduce CO2 emissions.
Again, bullshit!
China has been investing heavily in renewable energy sources and, guess what, the USA emits more CO2 than India, and of course, on a per-capita basis, the USA's CO2 output is far greater than any other country.
On this path, the USA is going to have the world's most expensive energy and is going to be a huge competitive disadvantage.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's just a shell game. The fundamental trend over the time period in question has been to move all industrial production to China. Global CO2 increased because industrial activity increased. But the LOCATION of the production shifted to China. So if the laws are working, all they are doing is helping speed the catastrophic decline of the West's industrial base, and boosting China's GDP.
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Ignore my last comment, you deserve a proper response: To go down a list of points:
1. Electricity grid mismanagement and renewable policies are not the same thing. There are places with bigger price rises in electricity happily burning more coal than they did in the past. There are places with far more green energy where prices have fallen. You are complaining about one thing and using it as evidence against another.
2. 0.185kWh isn't an insanely high cost of electricity. It's normal once you get away from your fantasy prices funded by the destruction of your own health. People shouldn't flee those prices they should adapt. The fact that they flee rather than actually reduce your ridiculously inefficient living (Canada is outdone by very few in energy consumption per household) is more of a poor reflection on those people than anything else. We'll welcome them with open arms here, but they'll need to open their wallets (0.22/kWh and we have shithouse green policies here and just opened a new coal fired power station 2 years ago to boot)
3. WTF are you doing that is breaking the bank heating houses with electricity. Don't tell me you are using turn of the previous century era bar heaters.
4. BC has used hydro power for a long time. So thanks for pointing me towards them, it further reinforces that green power has nothing to do with the problems you describe.
5. Just because a political party suffers the wrath of a population doesn't mean that what they were doing didn't make sense (or was even related to green energy for that matter). We too relegated one of our major parties to a minority party. They proceeded to win the immediate following election. Turns out they weren't as bad as people thought.