Report: Renewable Sources Will Power 80% Of Electricity Generation By 2050

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

According to the latest DNV-GL Energy Transition Outlook 2018: Power Supply and Use report, renewable energy will power approximately 80% of electricity generation by 2050, with the majority of that surge coming from wind and solar.

As prices for the technology continue to drop, DNV0-GL is predicting that 40% of all electricity generation will come from solar sources, while 29% will come from wind.

[wds id=”3″]

What’s more, the report suggests rapid electrification will continue to become a higher percentage of energy use, reaching 45% by 2050, with particular increases occurring in the transportation, building and manufacturing sectors of the economy. It also forecasts that 50% of all new vehicles sold in Europe within the next decade will be electric vehicles (EVs), significantly increasing the need for electricity production. When you dovetail the two predictions, you can see that solar and wind production increases will shape the economic future of not just Europe but the rest of the world as well.

What that will necessitate – no matter how much free market mavens don’t want to hear this – is greater regulation. Higher use of solar and wind is going to force governments to shift how their populations use electricity through using market mechanisms and changes to the electricity market fundamentals. And governments are going to have to intervene. In parallel, market-based price signals are essential to foster innovation and develop economically efficient flexibility options.

You might think the expansion of high-capital-cost renewables and electricity networks would drive prices up, but DMV-GL predicts the exact opposite. For example, the report suggests the total cost of energy expenditure, as a share of global GDP, will fall from 5.5% to 3.1%, a drop by 44%. Absolute energy expenditure will still grow by 30% over the forecast period, to 6 Tn$/yr. DNV GL foresees a shift in costs, from operational expenditure, principally fuel, to capital expenditure. From 2030, more capital expenditures will go into electricity grids and wind and solar than into fossil-fuel projects.

Arizona Rejects Tucson Electric Power’s Grid Access Fee For Solar Customers

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

It’s not often that I get to write something positive about the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). For those of you who have followed my work over the years, we’ve had a…contentious relationships at best. Typically, I’m writing about something I view as skullduggery, and the commissoners (particularly on Twitter) have felt compelled to take on a writer from a little-known solar trade publication.

But today is not one of those days. Today, I’m taking my hat off to the ACC for rejecting a grid access charge proposed in 2015 by Tucson Electric Power (TEP) that would have penalized Arizona residents for installing solar energy.

It was another attempt to persuade the ACC that the “cost shift” is a thing, whereby non-solar customers are somehow damaged by solar customers because (say it with me now) “solar customers don’t pay their fair share of grid upkeep.”

Which, as we’ve discussed before, is nonsense. National studies have concluded that the cost shift only happens when 10% of all electricity in a state is generated by solar power, and that is currently only true in five states. And even IN those five states, the cost shift turns out to be fractions of a penny on the dollar.

[wds id=”3″]

(If I seem a little testy, it’s because I have spent the better part of the last three years battling what I refer to as “the zombie lie” of the cost shift, and it wears on a fellow having to write a similar story for several different states because state stakeholders don’t seem to get that the cost shift is a complete myth.

But in any case…kudos to the ACC for seeing through the argument and rejecting the Grid Access Charge. With its ally Earthjustice, Vote Solar has been fighting this Grid Access Charge since 2015. In their release celebrating the decision, Briana Kobor, regulatory director at Vote Solar, had this to say:

Arizona’s families and businesses should be able to meet their own energy needs with the state’s plentiful sunshine if they so choose. Solar is an investment that supports local jobs, improves energy security and helps build a competitive new energy economy in the state. We commend the decision to avoid further penalizing solar customers with additional fees.

Since TEP was trying to bolster the cost-shift myth and make it uneconomical for people to install rooftop solar, I personally am taking the win. Congratulations to Vote Solar and Earthjustice for the win – and use tonight to celebrate. Then get back to the grindstone tomorrow. That cost-shift myth won’t bust itself.

California Governor Must Sign SB 700 To Make SB 100 A Reality

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

Something magical happened in California yesterday. Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 100, which takes the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to 100% by 2045.

Imagine that. The world’s fifth-largest economy is now on its way to getting 100% of its electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources within the next 30 years. If you had suggested such a thing even seven years ago, when I first joined the solar industry, people would have called you insane (or worse).

But now that it’s done, it’s time to complete the circle and get the governor’s signature on SB 700, the companion bill to SB 100 that extends the incentive program for energy storage.

[wds id=”3″]

Governor Brown himself appears to recognize that the two bills are inextricably intertwined, saying at yesterday’s signing ceremony that the 100% by 2045 goal couldn’t be reached without a significant increase in storage.

“To get to 100% clean energy in a manner that ensures reliability and reduces cost, we must use a variety of strategies,” Brown said in his signing statement. “Energy storage, increased efficiency and adjusting energy use to the time of day when we have the most power will all help with the transition.”

So what’s staying your hand, governor? Get on this and sign SB 700 already.

When SB 700 passed a couple of weeks ago, Bernadette Del Chiaro, executive director of the California Solar & Storage Association, said this:

SB 700 will do for storage what SB 1 did for solar over a decade ago, namely create a mainstream market by driving up demand and driving down costs all while creating jobs and clean energy choices for consumers.

From SB 1 we got to SB 100, and it’s time for California to lead on storage as well as it has lead on solar energy. After all, as California goes, so goes the rest of the country – and the rest of the country has a lot of catching up to do.

More:

SB 700 Passes California Assembly – SGIP Program Extended Five Years

New Study: Forget About Carbon Capture. Let’s Clean Up Solar Manufacturing

By Frank Andorka, Senior Correspondent

To continue powering the United States with coal without adding any adverse climatalogical effects, 89% of the United States would have to be covered in forest, according to a new study from the Michigan Technological Institute.

The study compared that route – interesting but ultimately futile – with the idea of shifting electricity generation to solar power (now you’re talking) and figuring out how to sequester the carbon produced in the solar manufacturing process instead (a much more manageable task).

[wds id=”3″]

(Kudos to the press release writer who put this subhead into the press release on the study: “The Giving Tree Won’t Give Enough for Carbon Neutral Coal.” Anyone with kids or parents both chuckled and teared-up at the reference.)

The study’s authors write:

Coal-fired power plants require 13 times more land to be carbon neutral than the manufacturing of solar panels. We’d have to use a minimum of 62% of U.S. land covered by optimal crops or cover 89 percent of the U.S. with average forests to do it.

One gets the sense that calculations like this are not going into the decision-making process of the federal bureaucrats currently trying to figure out how to save economically failing coal and nuclear plants. And that realization had at least one researcher shaking his head.

“We know that climate change is a reality, but we don’t want to live like cavemen,” says Joshua Pearce, professor of material sciences and electrical engineering at Michigan Tech, said in the release. “We need a method to make carbon neutral electricity. It just makes no sense whatsoever to use coal when you have solar available, especially with this data.”

The study recommended that instead of focusing on saving coal plants, innovations should instead focus on making the solar manufacturing process less carbon intensive. That way, you’re producing the best-of-all worlds – taking carbon-heavy coal plants out of generation and replacing them with more carbon-neutral solar manufacturing, leading the way to solar farms that require no carbon offset. The study says that would use 13 times less land than continuing to burn coal and trying to offset the carbon pollution used by it.

The killer stat is that to offset a 1 GW coal plant, you’d need to plant a forest the size of Maryland to capture its carbon output. You can see where that is not only not feasible, but frankly untenable.

Thanks to the Michigan Technological Institute, we now have even more stats to back up the contention that saving the coal plants is an insane idea. Quick, someone get Rick Perry on the line.