TRUE
GRID
No, not my misspelling the title of the John
Wayne classic that somehow came to mind
when recently prompted by a survey in the UK Renewable Energy Installer magazine to respond to the question:
“Solar experts predict the UK could achieve PV grid parity as early as 2014. Do
you agree – Yes/No?” After I recorded
my Yes, the poll return after 100 votes was 26% Ayes against 74% Noes. I had expected more optimism.
However, that survey question created some
unrest among my grey matter and made me look closer at the meaning of grid
parity. Wikipedia (WP) was the usual
starting point:
“Grid parity occurs when an alternative
energy source can generate electricity at a levelized cost that is less
than or equal to the price of purchasing power from the electricity grid. Reaching grid parity
is considered to be an important point in the development of new sources of
power. It is the point at which an alternative energy source becomes a
contender for widespread development without subsidies or government support.The term is most commonly used
when discussing renewable energy sources,
notably solar
power and wind power. It is widely
believed that a wholesale shift in generation to these forms of energy will
take place when they reach grid parity.”
Alternative energies in the UK, as
elsewhere, are financially assisted to promote their adoption, most often by
feed-in-tariffs (FITs). WP defines FITs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff as “… a policy mechanism designed to accelerate
investment in renewable
energy technologies. It achieves this by offering long-term
contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of
generation of each technology.”
As to the
funding of FITs, a UK web site http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/principles/funding/ makes things plain:
“The money
doesn't come from the Government, but from the energy market…. Although the
FITs are established in law, rather than coming from the government, the
tariffs are actually paid by the energy suppliers… Where does the money come
from?
It comes out of
the pockets of the supply companies because they are really nice guys!
No seriously...
The suppliers pass on the cost of the Feed-In
Tariffs scheme to all their electricity customers.
... so the bottom line
is that people who don't install renewable energy systems pay for those who
do!”
At the consumer end, this is obviously seen as making
electricity more expensive; the undoubted general economic benefit, while far
outweighing the cost of FITs, remains, however, less individually visible than
electricity bills. FIT and similar schemes in various countries to engender
renewable energy installations differ in method and kind, but I think all claim
that they are not a subsidy (even the Court of European Justice said so about
the German variety) since they are not funded out of general taxation
income. BTW, I detest phrases like
‘funded by the government’ which means nothing less than paid for out of our
taxes. But since FITs apply to all
consumers of electricity (and who isn’t) they do amount to ‘taxation’ albeit via an accounting system kept separate – by legislation
– from general taxation so as to justify the notion that it ‘does not distort
competition in a free market’.
Let me start by looking at the German situation which, being
the widely accepted FIT model, is also the most realistically documented. The German FIT for renewable energies (EEG is
the acronym for the actual German law for it) is, of course, not the only kind
of state enshrined support of energy creation, but provides a good starter to
explain things. The German situation looks
like this:
Source: Was Strom wirklich kostet. Studie im Auftrag
von Greenpeace Energy EG und BWE E.V.
The real cost of electricity. Study prepared for
Greenpeace Energy EG and BWE (Federal Wind Energy Association). August 2012.
The cumulative total support of 54 billion Euros [100%] for
renewables compares to the combined total of the other quoted sources of 429
billion Euros [794%]. The Greenpeace/BWE
study estimates that for the total period of 1970-2012 renewables received, on
average, support to the tune of 3.4 EuroCent/kWh (GBP 0.0275/kWh, USD 0.0438/kWh).
I would be facile to say that non-renewables received, in round terms, eight
times as much financial support as renewables, since unlike FITs, the
non-renewable support does not all go for making electricity, nor would such a
simplified approach reflect the respective amounts of electricity produced by their
respective means. Taking these considerations
into account, the report estimates a total of 8.9 EuroCent/kWh (GBP 0.072/kWh,
USD 0.115/kWh) as average subsidies for non-renewables over the period, or 262%
of FITs.
So it appears that the question to be asked really should
be: “Could non-renewable energies ever
achieve ‘grid parity’ with renewable sources, given a level accounting
system?”
I have found nothing comparable to this German ‘The Real Cost of Energy’ report for
other countries, but I am sure it is globally descriptive in principle. The US
situation is usefully described in an article titled
‘The Federal Energy Subsidy Scorecard: How Renewables Stack Up’ available at http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/the-federal-energy-subsidy-scorecard-how-renewables-stack-up
from which I would like to quote:
“How Do
Subsidies for Renewables Rank?
Evaluating federal energy subsidies is something akin to alchemy. The
myriad of ways in which
they are funded, managed, and monitored, and year-to-year changes in
legislation and
budgets make an exact accounting difficult. This said, the Environmental
Law Institute (ELI)
recently completed a study for the period 2002 through 2008 in
conjunction with the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars which, coupled with the MISI
study, illuminates how
federal energy subsidies affect renewables and other competing fuels.
These studies confirm conventional wisdom that fossil fuels have been
the primary beneficiary
of federal energy subsidies. Oil and gas garnered 60 percent of an
estimated total of $725
billion in federal assistance between 1950 and 2003, with oil alone
taking 46% of the total.
Coal took 13 percent. Next was hydroelectric at 11 percent and nuclear
at 9 percent, not
counting the liability cap subsidy which is an implicit avoided cost
and impossible to quantify. At
the back of the pack are wind, solar, geothermal, and bio-fuels,
recipients of only 6 percent of
total energy sector spending during this period.
Given the recent vintage of renewable technologies, use of a 1950
baseline for breaking down
how federal energy subsidies have been parceled out may not paint a
fair picture. However,
the more recent 2002 – 2008 period continues to show fossil fuels as
dominant. According to
ELI, subsidies to fossil fuels totaled $72 billion, with most going to
oil and then gas.
Support for coal-carbon capture and storage received $2.3 billion of
this total. Fossil fuels took
almost two-and-a-half times more in subsidies than renewables, which
received $29 billion.
Furthermore of this $29 billion, $16.8 billion went to corn-based
ethanol whose climate friendly
credentials are increasingly open to question.
Only $12.2 billion, or 16.6 percent of what fossil fuels received went
for wind, solar,
geothermal, hydropower, and non-corn based biofuels and biomass. This
is better than in
preceding years but much less than what is needed in the face of global
warming, a point
understated by ELI Senior Attorney John Pendergrass when he introduced
the ELI study’s
results by saying “These figures raise the pressing question of whether
scarce government
funds might be better allocated to move the United States towards a
low-carbon economy.”
That is a ratio of 5:1 in favour of fossil fuel subsidies
over renewables – not much different to the German ratio of 8:1 when counting,
as in the US example, all uses of energy and not only electricity generation.
A special mention must be made of nuclear energy for
electricity generation. Both the German
and US examples quoted compare only direct fiscal subsidies. There are, of course, additional ‘subsidies’
for nuclear energy.
Nuclear power has never been safe, and never will be, it
appears – their risks just cannot be insured. The Times [09.09.09.] reports a
notional Public Liability premium cover requirement of £620 million per power
station, any excess falling on the taxpayer in addition to risks from waste
storage and health and life losses. The world’s largest re-insurance company –
Munich Re – is reported [oekonews.at / sonnenseite.de, 23.03.11] to have
declared that it is impossible to say how high an insurance premium should be
in the absence of state guarantees, because there is no known modelling
method on which to base a risk assessment.
And then there is the unresolved (unresolvable?) problem of
what to do with nuclear waste. A short
summary by, of course, Wikipedia will suffice here:
“The use of nuclear
technology requires a radioactive fuel. Uranium ore is
present in the ground at relatively low concentrations and mined in 19 countries.[2] This mined uranium is used to fuel energy-generating nuclear
reactors with fissionableuranium-238 which generates heat that is ultimately used to power turbines to generate
electricity.[3]
Nuclear power provides about 6% of the
world's energy and 13–14% of the world's electricity.[4] The expense of the nuclear industry remains predominantly reliant
on subsidies and indirect
insurance subsidies to
continue.[5][6] Nuclear energy production is associated with potentially
dangerous radioactive
contamination as it relies
upon unstable elements. In particular, nuclear power facilities produce about
200,000 metric tons of low
and intermediate level waste (LILW)
and 10,000 metric tons of high level waste (HLW) (including spent fuel designated as waste) each year
worldwide.[7]
The use of nuclear fuel and the high-level radioactive waste the nuclear industry
generates is highly
hazardous to people and
wildlife. Radiocontaminants in the environment can enter the food chain and become bioaccumulated.[8] Internal or external exposure can cause mutagenic DNA breakage producing teratogenic generational birth defects, cancers and other
damage. The United Nations (UNSCEAR) estimated in 2008 that average annual human radiation exposure
includes 0.01 mSv (milli-Sievert) from the legacy of past atmospheric
nuclear testing plus the Chernobyl
disaster and the nuclear
fuel cycle, along with 2.0 mSv from natural radioisotopes and 0.4 mSv
from cosmic rays; all exposures vary by
location.[9] Some radioisotopes in nuclear waste emit harmful radiation for the prolonged period of 4.5 billion
years or more,[10] and storage has risks
of containment. The storage of
waste, health implications and dangers of radioactive fuel continue to be a
topic of debate, resulting in a controversial
and unresolved industry.”
A specific example comes from an article in Clean Technica news, at
“Nuclear waste stored in run-down facilities poses an “intolerable
risk;” long-term planning has faced “historic neglect” and decommissioning
costs have spiralled out of control.
That’s the damning conclusion of a report by the National Audit Office into the Sellafield nuclear power
station, the largest and oldest in the UK.
…Nearly 20 million gallons of nuclear waste are stored on the site in
ponds and silos for the 50-year period needed for nuclear waste to cool down.
Many of these are themselves over 50 years old and have “deteriorated so much
that their contents pose significant risks to people and the environment”.
There have been many plans to improve the facilities, the latest of
which came to a halt last year because it was “unrealistic,” with 85% of the
improvements attempted failing to achieve what they were meant to achieve.
…The estimated cost of decommissioning the
entire site by 2120 has risen by over 40% in just 3 years, and currently stands
at $107 billion.”
There currently are 19
operational nuclear power plants in the UK (another eight are planned to be
built by 2025). World-wide there are 435
plants in operation (62 under
construction, and more planned). That makes multitrillion dollars just for
intermediate waste storage (never mind the long-term problem for anything between
10,000 and millions of years).
The world’s nuclear power
plants produce a net output of 370,003 MW. Considering that 3.2 litre of clean
water are needed for every kWh produced … but I leave that to you to figure out the implications in an idle moment.
The industrial
revolution, of course, needed huge amounts of energy, provided by king coal,
steam, and Tesla’s alternating current – as best available solutions. But with currently available technologies,
progress no longer lies with supercharged gargantuan steam engines.
Photovoltaics might be
said to have achieved true-grid parity
with fossils and nuclear ever since Becquerel first observed it in 1839; and wind
since a few thousand years earlier.
And those two energy
sources – PV and onshore wind – are the only renewables that satisfy all criteria
for ranking as Clean Energy (and the
hydrogen/fuel cell combination will no doubt solve all intermittency problems
and provide all fuel needs):
The WORLD DESIGN PROBLEM: DEFINITION, TIME FRAME AND METHOD
As to WHY and HOW, some suggestions are at
No comments:
Post a Comment