|
|
Musings Report 2023-46 11-11-23 "Cheap" Solar Isn't Cheap--and Neither Is Any Other Energy Source
You are receiving this email/post because you are a subscriber/patron of Of Two Minds / Charles Hugh Smith.
"Cheap" Solar Isn't Cheap--and Neither Is Any Other Energy Source
No-strings-attached prosperity has always been an easy sell: "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage" worked for Herbert Hoover in 1928, somewhat ironically given the nation cascaded into the Great Depression in late 1929.
The reality is prosperity always comes with strings, i.e. tradeoffs: something must be set aside or sacrificed to fund the investment that we hope will yield prosperity. This is called opportunity cost: there is always some other opportunity that must be set aside in order to invest in the opportunity of choice. No matter how confident we might be in this being the best decision, there is always some risk that this investment won't pay off as planned.
We all understand politicians win elections with inspirational promises of prosperity without the uncertainties of risk and opportunity costs.
Setting aside the hyperbole of election campaigns, it seems that we're losing the ability to deal with complex issues in a realistic manner: everything must be sugar-coated, from breakfast cereals to energy policies.
The fear seems to be that if it isn't sugar-coated, we might not buy it.
In the case of energy, the sugar-coated no-strings-attached prosperity claim is that solar power is getting so cheap that it will soon be practically free. This certainly sounds wonderful, but we scrape away the sugar-coating, there's nothing left.
A good starting point is to talk to a senior employee of an electrical-power utility which actually has substantial solar/wind capacity: solar panels on private homes and buildings, commercial solar plants and wind farms.
The reality being sugar-coated is that solar panels represent a very small percentage of the total costs of operating a utility. The panels could be free but that would not change the immense costs of providing 24/7 power via a complex infrastructure.
Claiming solar panels are so cheap that electricity will soon be nearly free is somewhat like claiming sugar is now free so our food will soon cost almost nothing.
Let's assemble a best-case scenario and play it out. Let's say every home and enterprise has solar panels that generate 75% of all electrical power consumed. The utility only needs to provide batteries to store the excess electricity generated during the day and some other means to generate electricity 24/7 during cloudy days when the panels only generate a fraction of their theoretical capacity.
In the sugar-coated story, the abundance of electricity on sunny days means electricity should be cheap. Each homeowner is contributing power to the grid so their cost for electricity should be proportionate to what they buy from the utility--in our example, 25% of their total consumption.
What's being overlooked is the utility needs an immense income from somewhere to maintain the entire electrical grid, repair damage due to storms and high winds, and maintain the capacity to generate enough power to serve all customers when solar panels are generating a fraction of total consumption (not to mention zero at night).
In most utilities, the backup power source is natural gas-fired turbines, akin to jet engines.
Even if solar panels generate 75% of the total electrical power consumed, the costs of maintaining the grid. battery storage and gas-fired turbines that can power 100% of consumer demand don't drop 75%.
Let's say it costs $50 per month per customer just to maintain the grid (power poles, transformers, power lines, trim overhanging trees, repair downed lines, etc.) and the backup generation capacity. Even if the customer generates 100% of their own consumption, unless they provide their own massive battery storage capacity, they still need the utility to maintain the grid and provide their electricity during the night.
Battery storage is costly and despite the sugar-coated claims, it will remain costly. Solid-state batteries will not be cheap. Battery storage is limited, and the turbines have to fired up once they're drained. Like the grid, the turbines have to be maintained and ready to go at all times, even if they're only used to generate 25% of the total electricity consumed.
There are many equivalently sugar-coated claims about fusion and nuclear power becoming cheap. But the physics of nuclear power remain costly. Controlling super-heated plasma (fusion) is non-trivial, and despite claims that "it's already working," there is no confirmed evidence that fusion experiments have actually generated net power (i.e. above and beyond what the fusion device consumes to control the plasma).
The hype about modular nuclear reactors being the future of safe, cheap electricity has been deafening for years. Yet in the real world, high costs have already sunk one promising project:
NuScale ends Utah project, in blow to US nuclear power ambitions.
The same problem plagues wind power:
There Is A Financial Crisis Brewing In Offshore Wind Energy.
Another highly touted energy solution, hydrogen, has also run aground on the shoals of costs and real-world limits:
Renewable Energy Meltdown Spreads: Plug Power Crashes After 'Going Concern' Warning.
Utilities with outdated infrastructure and limited grid connectivity to other utilities are facing billions of dollars of investment to bury hazardous power lines and increase grid capacity. These billions will have to be paid by customers, as there is no one else to pay other than taxpayers.
Another problem those touting nearly free solar panels carefully avoid is the cost of recycling or safely disposing of the millions of obsolete solar panels. The panels are composites of numerous refined materials, many of which are toxic, and so they don't lend themselves to recycling. It's not at all certain that panels can ever be recycled in bulk at costs anyone is willing to pay.
And speaking of costs--who's going to pay for the recycling and / or disposal? No one seems willing to discuss this rather painfully obvious reality: somebody will have to pay, and the costs will not be trivial.
Lastly, let's keep in mind that solar and wind currently supply a trivial percentage of total global consumption of energy. Stupendous investments of scarce capital will have to be diverted from consumption to fund the expansion of these energy sources from their current level around 4%-5% to even 25%.
Personally, I don't understand the reluctance to be realistic about costs and technical limits. It is abundantly clear that energy will remain expensive and may become even more expensive, as the cost of moving away from a reliance on hydrocarbons will cost more, not less. The transition is necessary and the costs must be paid.
Common sense suggests that localizing energy production via whatever is most appropriate--wind, solar, geothermal--and developing multiple sources of energy is a better strategy than depending on one primary source, especially if it is sourced overseas and dependent on long global supply chains.
When things cost more, we start paying attention to our consumption and efficiency. Any reduction in consumption would be beneficial, as the lower the capacity that must be maintained, the lower the systemic investment and maintenance costs. Rather than sugar-coat costs, wouldn't it be more realistic and beneficial to accept the higher costs and focus on ways to do more with less via higher efficiencies and lower consumption?
Highlights of the Blog
The Invisible Court's Verdict: You Are Hereby Exiled to Digital Siberia 11/9/23
Who's Wealth Will Get "Clawed Back" First? 11/6/23
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
A rare double-rainbow:
Another view:
From Left Field
NOTE TO NEW READERS: This list is not comprised of articles I agree with or that I judge to be correct or of the highest quality. It is representative of the content I find interesting as reflections of the current zeitgeist. The list is intended to be perused with an open, critical, occasionally amused mind.
Many links are behind paywalls. Most paywalled sites allow a few free articles per month if you register. It's the New Normal.
Studying Acquired Savant Syndrome May Increase Understanding of Creativity
5 People Whose Brain Injuries Gave Them New Abilities
How a Baseball Injury Made A Genius (Savant Syndrome) (8:48 min)
Here, there and everywhere: why the world is still crazy about the Beatles
A wall or a road? A remote sensing-based investigation of fortifications on Rome's eastern frontier -- 1960s spy satellite images declassified, revealing hundreds of Roman forts....
An AI smoothie shop opened in San Francisco with much hype. Why is it closed already?
China’s billionaires looking to move their cash, and themselves, out
Burnout may be changing your brain. Here’s what to do
At least 14% of Americans have long COVID, research suggests (via Tom D.)
"I'm An Autopsy Tech": People Who Make Good Money Without A Degree Are Sharing What They Do, And Some Of Them Are Surprising (via Cheryl A.) -- no bloggers or social media influencers....
‘On the brink of extinction’: a food historian’s hunt for ingredients vanishing from US plates
I Quit Social Media Thanks to This Book
"The same intense pain often occurs at the social level when large groups of people find themselves cut off from autonomy, relatedness, trust, and meaning. This is social dislocation which, along with personal trauma, is a potent source of mental dysfunction, despair, addictions, and physical illness." Gabor Mate
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
