Biden presidency could decarbonize US power sector by 2035, Trump win would delay past 2050: Woodmac
By: Emma Penrod (Utility Dive)
How do we convert to solar energy if we don't produce solar panels? How do we convert to wind energy if we don't produce wind turbines?
We've seen this type of magical thinking during the pandemic. We've seen politicians demand more ventilators, masks, and hospital beds. We've seen politicians spew spittle about an inadequate stockpile. But those items have to be produced before they can be used. What have politicians done to maintain the industrial infrastructure that is necessary to produce what they demand?
Policy isn't enough. If there is a need then the first step is to produce what is needed. Making policy while ignoring what is necessary to achieve policy goals is only magical thinking.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The question of who wins the presidential election this fall may not change the final destination, but it could influence how soon the U.S. electric industry achieves decarbonization — and how many jobs are created in the process, according to multiple researchers.
At the current pace, U.S. electric generation will reach 87% clean energy by 2050, according to Wood Mackenzie.
"That's a much longer horizon," said Dan Shreve, head of global wind energy research for Wood Mackenzie. "And I think everyone is well aware that the cumulative impact of carbon in the atmosphere is a significant concern, and as a consequence the earlier you begin the journey the better."
While the Trump administration has not hindered the adoption of renewable energy, it hasn't taken direct action to foster it either, Shreve said. The absence of nationwide clean energy targets has resulted in market uncertainty that has slowed the adoption of clean energy and may have long-term consequences for U.S. industry, Shreve said.
"There's a clear need for central policy that enables" the creation of energy policies that support the adoption of renewable energy, Shreve said. "Working from the other direction creates a fragmented approach that isn't lined up to national interests."
If the U.S. maintains its current slow but steady demand for renewable energy, related supply chains will be built elsewhere, and "the U.S. will remain a strategic importer of renewable energy components." Thus, the future of the renewable industry in the U.S. could hinge on the outcome of this November's election.
But Heather Reams, executive director of right-of-center group Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, said the Wood Mackenzie report seems to overestimate the power the president has over U.S. energy policy.
The immediate needs in the renewable energy industry include creating stability around tax credits, providing funding for research and reducing regulatory red tape slowing the adoption of multiple renewable resources, including wind and solar — areas ripe for bipartisan collaboration, Reams said.
"There is Congress. Also, the governors have a lot of impact," Reams said. "And we're also forgetting what the utilities are doing, with so many pledging to go net-zero. And it's not because of a government plan or mandate. It's because the consumers want it."
While bipartisan cooperation or action by the states could result in the creation of policies that benefit renewable energy, Shreve said there is no indication that the Trump administration would create the kind of national climate goals he believes would be necessary to accelerate renewable energy adoption in the U.S.
Still, a separate report from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California Berkeley suggests the U.S. is on track to reach 50% zero-emission renewable energy generation by 2035, according to David Wooley, executive director of Berkeley's Center for Environmental Public Policy. Getting to 95% renewable energy by 2035 should be possible, even with minimal or no additional cost, if Biden were able to establish a national clean energy standard, according to Wooley.
An accelerated adoption of clean energy could reduce carbon emissions by some 1.3 billion tons, Wooley said, but the greater impact could be economic. According to the Goldman School report, a national clean energy standard could drive the creation of 500,000 full-time jobs in the U.S. The increased certainty, Wooley said, could also lessen the impact of the transition on fossil fuels.
"It gives them certainty going forward and allows them, because these policies kick in gradually, time to adjust," Wooley said. "I think the generation industry likes certainty, and we're currently in a period of uncertainty. So if you're planning to build a gas plant for example, you must be asking yourself if that's a good idea or not. And once it's clear we're moving toward deep decarbonization, that choice becomes a lot easier and you avoid the risk of assets that get stranded."
Tags
Who is online
74 visitors
If hiden Biden wins ..... with his handlers proposed "Green agenda" he'll get a new nickname.
Blackout Biden
Blackouts galore, indeed. The climate change crazies forget about the North Hemisphere winters. Long nights, low sun angles, a lot less wind.
There is simply no way that alternative sources can supply the needed power demand, whether now or in the future.
Plus...fossil fuel power plants will need to remain online as backups
Michigander here... agreed. Couldn't imagine Alaska would bode well with solar panels in the winter months either.
Just add a few more panels...
When there's NO SUN for months, solar panels are just hunks of plastic collecting snow and ice. More panels is not going to do shit without sun.
So add LOTS of panels. Today's panels don't need bright sunshine. Grey haze suffices... if there are enough...
I don't have that much roof or yard! I live in a house built in 1906... it's not made for that weight either!
And before you add, that I should reinforce the home... you got $50,000 I could have?
So... let's do nothing!
Let's party!
What? Whatever.
Have fun with your solar panels and geothermal and biomass. Glad you have the money and space to do it.
A person who always has criticism, and never a suggestion... is kinda sorta saying that nothing can be done. So....
Let's party!
You always come to that conclusion when it comes to what I say. That's funny. I have no problems with trying something... if I can afford it and it's feasible. I'm criticizing the flaws in these "green" products, but you're really good at criticizing me personally in every thread that I comment on by alluding to me saying that nothing can be done, when in fact I've never said any such thing. Just because it can't be done to my home reasonably, doesn't mean it can't be to yours. So, as I stated before, have fun with your solar panels, geothermal heating / cooling, and your biomass.
There can be no bystanders as the planet burns.
Either a person wants to see an end to global warming, and is at least willing to participate in constructive discussion of solutions... or they're passive accomplices in the destruction of the planet.
How do you propose I do such things when I live in a house built in 1906 with a very small yard? Oh... and no money.
I'm suggesting that you think about solutions for our planet, beyond your own personal case. There are surely millions in your situation. The nation... the world... cannot accept immobilism.
The United States is the richest country in the history of the world. It is unacceptable that solutions should depend on John Doe's bank account. Shifting the nation to renewables requires investment. If homeowners don't have the means, then they must get long-term, low-interest loans... or outright grants.
There ya go again trying to fix a nation with loans that some / many would never qualify for; hey, why not refinance that mortgage and spend $50,000 you don't really have and pay more money to people that have tons. I know I'm not the only one in that situation. You can't finance expansion of property where there is none available. I think you just like to poke. I'm done. I'm no longer in the mood to deal with this silliness.
Nailing $2 trillion to residential roofs won't accomplish much. The amount of public money being thrown around is less important than what that money is used for.
We simply cannot convert to solar and wind energy without producing solar panels and wind turbines. Decarbonizing the energy supply is going to depend upon factories. There isn't any magical way to skip that necessary first step.
Who is proposing this?
For anyone who truly understand "Power" which is few if any politicians spewing "Green" rhetoric, the real problem is "Power Demand." Renewable sources like solar and wind are not available 24/7 like fossil fuel sources. Therefore to meet peak demand when it occurs one has to have storage (huge battery banks) to store the power required to satisfy demand or have a backup source which is available 24/7 like Nuclear or Fossil Fuel. This obviously assumes enough renewable capacity is installed to satisfy demand when the sun is shining and/or wind blowing
This is the main reason Calikakistan had rolling blackouts this summer and people cooked because of it.
Folks like AOC don't have the slightest idea of what they are talking about on this topic.
It's not possible to distribute electricity from any source without manufacturing. Political speeches and government policy won't produce electricity.
Joe Biden is advocating policy that focuses attention on consumption. But it is impossible to consume anything that is not produced. Policy can't skip the manufacturing step.
You can manufacture and install all the solar panels and wind turbines you want but if you don't have the backup to meet demand when it's required, you've got jack shit.
What are solar panels made out of again?
And who's going to store the excess energy if everyone in the US goes solar?
Where are wind turbines going to be erected?
I know .... details, details. I starting trying to advise a local jurisdiction near me that was trying to go 100% renewable. I'd had professional dealings with the Mayor and she knew i was an Engineer who might be able to help. They (the county the board) didn't think my comments were realistic and went ahead with their hair-brained schedule anyway.
All them are already voted out but unfortunately replaced with another group of know it all's that read an article about Green Energy in a magazine once.
What is your specialty?
Not electrical but part of my job for over ten years was designing and maintaining power distribution for the company i worked for. My boss was an EE and i learned a ton from him.
How about you. What's your specialty [[delete]?]
None. I don't pretend to know stuff that I don't in fact know.
I don't make shit up.
find expertise, and cite that.
Yeah, I already knew that
That is correct. It is called base-load. In order for all load to be met at any given time by available and ready to dispatch generation, there must be solid resources that can be ready at all times. "Renewables" are currently not base-load generators unless they are coupled with some sort of stored energy system (very expensive). Base load generation is typically a hydro plant, clean coal plant, natural gas plant or nuclear power plant that is dispatchable at a moments notice.
There are two pitfalls with renewable energy systems at this point in time that require honest consideration:
1. Due to the variability of renewable resource output, it is often necessary to build base-load generation capability in addition to the renewable resources to account for the need to serve all the load when renewables are not available or not outputting sufficiently. So society must pay for the building of two sets of power sources to feed the same load.
2. As mentioned above, there are many material resources and much energy expended to both build and later dispose of "renewable" technologies. What do we do with all of those PV panels when they reach end of life, as they are not easily/cost-effectively recyclable? What about battery disposal in cases where storage is implemented? And the processing of the raw materials and the energy required often requires a base-load power source like hydro, coal, gas or nuclear. Such considerations and costs are typically not figured into the analysis of the cost of implementing "renewable" resources, nor the impact on the environment to build and later dispose of such resources.
Having said that, I think that attempts to supplement fossil fuel or nuclear energy with PV or wind to reduce carbon output and greenhouse gases is still a worthy endeavor, but we need to be more honest about how much of a dent it really puts in those environmental concerns, and what other environmental concerns it might actually end up creating.
So... let's do nothing!
Let's party!
Really? That's what you took from my comments? You a scientist Bob? Engineer? Interested at all in how things really work? Interested in understanding all the aspects of the science so that good policy can be built from it? Or are you content with just winging it and making fun of, or dismissing, anyone who deviates in the slightest from your world view? Oh....and spam much Bob?
Criticism is easy. Finding solutions is hard.
The planet is burning, so quibblers are only a bit less odious than outright pyromaniacs.
Offer solutions, next time.
So we should rush into the fire without a solid plan or thinking it all the way through? Great suggestion Bob! Nobody is quibbling. We are only suggesting that the reality of the situation be assessed as far as resources that can cover base-load requirements, and that the resources and energy that go into building and disposing of such "renewables" are taken into consideration. Otherwise we risk making the situation worse rather than better environmentally and economically.
That is the solution I am offering. A more honest approach to the whole situation. Certainly cleaning up the current base-load generation technologies like gas, coal and nuclear are a solution. Certainly energy conservation to reduce the amount of base load that needs to be served by the various generating sources is another huge factor. I am very active in designing/engineering energy saving lighting and control solutions. The LED light source has been a tremendous factor. Advances in energy efficient heating and cooling systems is another.
Our tremendous appetite for cell phones and unlimited data storage is one thing driving up the need for electrical power generation, so we need to work on energy saving solutions in that arena. Where do you think electricity on demand 24 hours a day comes from? Electric cars are great but somewhere, somehow there needs to be base load generation running at all times to charge those vehicles which offsets to a degree the environmental advantage of the electric vehicle, not to mention the environmental impact of producing and later disposing of the batteries. All I am saying is that all of this needs to be considered before we plow ahead with policies that don't take these things into consideration. One of the things I have been keenly interested in are electric vehicles that can trickle charge themselves by virtue of a PV skin. There is research underway that could prove promising in this regard.
I'm sorry if "quibbling" upset you. But the planet is burning. We cannot waste time discussing. We must act.
There are no-brainers. Reduce Big Oil subsidies ten percent per year. Raise pump prices five cents per gallon per month for at least ten years. That would generate the money needed for massive improvements in production, stockage, and distribution of renewable energy.
This is certainly a case where endless discussion will kill us all.
If more money is needed, raise taxes.
I am not competent to even discuss particular technologies. That's not a problem. There are plenty of experts. Genuine experts, rather than amateur wannabees.
What we do not have is time. Nor the will.
Base load is a grid-based concern. Thomas Edison encountered that problem after constructing the first electric grid - in the nineteenth century.
While it's true that solar and wind can't provide consistent generation to meet base load demand, that points to a weakness with grid-based distribution. Grid-based electricity distribution is also vulnerable to disruptions other than generation. The existing grid is suffering from deferred maintenance and is approaching limits on capacity. Simply switching to a different type of generation won't overcome deficiencies in the grid.
We also need to be asking ourselves if grid-based electricity distribution will continue to be viable. The viability of grid distribution doesn't depend upon what type of generation supplies the grid. Our arguments over generation seems to be diverting our attention away from other pressing questions.
All good points. Microgrids are also making a comeback in the industry where the load and generation are uniquely matched and controlled with modern technology.
The biggest advantage of solar and wind is the ability to generate electricity at point of use. That's the same advantage provided by batteries in mobile devices. Utility scale deployment of solar and wind gives up the technical advantage while doing nothing to address the disadvantages of grid distribution.
Not only is the United States failing to manufacture solar and wind equipment, our political policy makings are planning to deploy solar and wind equipment in a disadvantageous manner. So far, the United States approach to addressing climate change has chosen the wrong approach.
Yeah...it is a problem. When you pressure elected officials to force policies that will hurt the poor and middle class by continually raising the cost of fuel, goods and services with which they already struggle to keep up, that is a problem. When you insist that officials push ahead with policies that don't take into account the environmental and economic impacts of both creating/processing and then disposing of spent PV panels and batteries, that is a problem. You risk creating a larger problem than the one you think you are solving. So not being competent about such matters is most certainly a problem. Go ahead, ask the experts HERE , HERE , HERE and HERE . Experts like these have concluded, among other things, that:
The last two paragraphs especially high-lighting what happens when we rush in too fast without proper regulatory guidelines based on science and industry standards with an eye to the future.
No argument from me on that my friend. Policy-making in the US is always the same, and not just in the case of climate change. A knee-jerk, compartmentalized reaction to a real (or often exaggerated) problem without proper and complete scientific analysis of the long term consequences of the policies enacted. Why? Because the concern in the here and now is re-election, long-term consequences occurring after the policy-maker(s) has(have) retired be damned. That's my cynical side talking of course. (-:
BTW, I agree that microgrids may be the best compromise that could incorporate small scale methane powered turbines (in the near term) to provide consistency in supply. IMO transitioning away from mega-grid scale distribution would provide more flexibility and allow for new technologies as they are developed. What we know today may not be the best options available in the not too distant future. The technology is evolving faster than we can deploy it at a utility scale and that will become an obstacle for innovation.
Politics and cynicism are compatible bedfellows. Maybe that's why so many feel they've been screwed by politicians?
Absolutely.
And if we don't act soon and massively, our grandchildren die.
So let's discuss... very quickly. The deadline is near. Deadline.
The gop is a drag on progress. Delay delay delay. SMH
How much public money will Joe Biden invest in building factories?
I'm still trying to determine his policy on fracking - the no way policy he expressed in the primaries or the allowing of fracking on private lands he expressed in Pittsburgh on Monday?
Europe has been "no way", and bas proved that it's a viable choice.
Not a cent. Congress controls the purse.
So, Biden believes in miracles? Of course Congress controls the purse, so Biden promising to spend $2 trillion really doesn't mean anything. Technically Biden is just spewing hot air; making promises he can't keep because Congress controls the purse.
Since the House will certainly be Democratic, it will depend on the Senate. I find it hard to imagine that, having seen the disastrous consequences of Obama’s passivity, that Biden won't force McConnell's hand.
We need to get our institutions moving.
I very much doubt that fracking will be a significant subject in this election...
How will magical thinking get our institutions moving?
The point is that Joe Biden's proposals are little more than magical thinking. Biden isn't proposing to establish an industrial infrastructure to accomplish what he advocates.
Joe Biden is proposing to do little more than nailing $2 trillion to residential roofs.
You may want to read it again. I wasn't bringing fracking into the conversation. I was using his contradicting statements on it as an example of not being able to depend on anything he says. Right now he is not talking to democrats like you. He is talking to moderates.
Yeah, for example about 75% of Frances power production is Nuclear right now. This was largely because they have little in the way of fossil fuel resources in country and clearly not primarily because of some altruistic logic
So you believe what he said to the left during the primary is his real policy?
I have no idea. I hope there'll be a ban, but who knows what Big Oil can do.
What "magical thinking"?
[removed]
So long as you can buy oil, or steal it, from others it is a viable choice. Tell us how did Libya turn out. The French and British got their oil development contracts by US(mostly)/NATO removing Qaddaffi; but the fallout from the shit hole they turned the country into doing it. Tell me that was worth it.
The country can't afford what the Dems call progress.
The country can't afford the financial scams that Republicans call success, either. That hasn't stopped Republican stupidity any more than it will stop Democrat stupidity.
What are we now? $23 Trillion in debt? And they talk of enormous new energy programs.
Pity 'bout the trillions in tax-cuts the Republicans gave to the already-rich.
Middle class tax cuts didn't amount to much of that.
A war by George W Bush accounted for some of the $10.626 trillion on the tab when he left office. The radical Obama quickly added another $ 9 trillion, more than any other president. Congress has never taken on that debt, other than to pay the interest. Along came the pandemic and we had to add to that. I don't see any more room for new programs.
Of course not. The Republicans don't give a shit about the middle class. (They don't actively hate the middle class, as they do the poor.)
I said "the trillions in tax-cuts the Republicans gave to the already-rich."
I think you may have missed it, Bob, but there has been a realignment of the parties. The democrats are now the party of special interests & identity politics. The Republican party is now home to all those middle class & blue collar voters your party has been shedding left and right!
Too bad you have a pathological liar and a general all around asshole as your candidate. You coulda been a contender !
Yup. I definitely missed that....
Too bad so many hate!
You found out my secret Vic. I dont want a pathologically lying world class asshole leading our country.
So you've said ad nauseam. You need to learn that there is a time and place for everything and calling people names reflects more on you than them.
Its always time to say Donald Trump is an asshole. The more people say it the sooner he will be gone.
I could say the same about progressives. It doesn't influence people the way you think.
Enjoy yourself John, this discussion is beneath me.
Donald Trump is not fit to hold office. Not even dogcatcher. He is completely dishonest and corrupt. The funny part is, everyone knows this. But the 30 -35% that is his base dont care. Thats why they are known as deplorables. By the way it has nothing to do with China.
Okay, Trump ain't fit to hold office. Now what?
The enemy of your enemy ain't necessarily your friend. The replacement could be worse, ya know. Are you prepared for that?
Sorry to hear it. Here's a little game for ya. Start noticing how many Trump stickers are on pickup trucks and vans. You may note, at the same time, all the Biden stickers on the Audi's and Lexus's.
I'm willing to roll those dice.
"But the 30-35% that is his base don't care."
Make that 20%.
Your assimilations are interesting.
Sure you could... but that would be a meaningless generalization.
When John calls Trump an asshole, he is being specific. Readers can remember all Trump's asshole actions and asshole speech... and nod... Yup, Trump is indeed an asshole!
No, I don't think do.
Trump is actively undermining America's democracy. He is actively taking steps to create a police state.
I do not see what could be worse.
Trump is trying to create a police state? In case you haven't noticed, the police state calls itself the Resistance.
Seems to me that people don't understand what they are demanding. When people demand that a strong government fix their problems for them and demand the government take care of them then those people are demanding that the government become a paternalistic benefactor.
Joe Biden isn't promising to govern in a democratic fashion. If you read the seeded article with a more objective eye, Biden is proposing an authoritarian future imposed onto the country by the Federal government. Biden cannot achieve his stated goals without a bureaucratic police state. Biden isn't proposing to eliminate regulations, isn't proposing to allow states a greater role in policy making, and isn't promising people will have more choices.
The danger is that Joe Biden could become Republican overnight. Biden is known as a great compromiser, after all. Biden's desire for bipartisan support will, of necessity, require Republican inclusion. But based on Biden's history that will be a neo-liberal compromise. We could experience deja vu all over again. And Biden will be guided, manipulated, and controlled by a bureaucratic police state.
It may be a roll of the dice but the dice are loaded. Are you prepared for that?
How much more will the average family pay for energy from all green sources? Just looking at CA the average family pays what, 30% higher electric costs? And a lot of people are not in a position where they can trade in their current car for an electric car. While moving the energy grid to cleaner energy is a good thing what is the economic cost to the average person, how able are they to handle it. Doing this in the next 10 years just seems to be too large a chunk for the average person to be able to afford, especially since we are still coming out of the recession brought about by Covid.
Cost is a purely political choice. If Big Oil wasn't the most subsidized industry, gasoline would cost something between ten and fifteen dollars per gallon.
The cost of electric cars is whatever we decide it must be
Yep, deferred maintenance, hefty fines, and multi-billion dollar litigation didn't have anything to do with it. All the costs are caused by generation. The electric grid is a freebie, after all.
No one is going to drive any kind of car if it isn't manufactured. No one is going to run a car on gasoline, diesel, or electricity if those aren't produced. Skipping the manufacturing step is magical thinking.
China produces solar panels. Joe loves China. 2 trillion US dollars heading China's way ASAP. Joe's plan is to "Make China dominant again".
Swift-boat!!
Good article.
I agree completely that we must master the entire conception / production process for several technologies. Whether we like it or not, we'll have to steal a few pages from China's playbook.
And whether we like it or not, we'll have to put a BIG bundle of greenbacks on the table.
Whether we like it or not, we'll have to make the difficult decision to favorise renewables over oil. If Big Oil's lobbyists are allowed to block the renewables project, China wins another round...
It's not China's playbook. China adopted American industrial practices; America really did invent mass production. America lost its leadership role in manufacturing when the country's economy was gifted to the financial sector.
How that BIG bundle of greenbacks is used will determine the outcome. If it's just spent at Walmart then the result won't be sustainable; the country will just be perpetually bleeding money. If it's spent on phony financial gimmicks (carbon credits are very much like bitcoin) then the solution won't solve anything.
We are going to have to manufacture our way out of climate change. It's not possible to skip manufacturing unless we return to a subsistence economy. Cave men didn't cause global climate change.
You're quoting from China's playbook.
That's kinda true but it is now their playbook. They just stole it from the US
You want to rewrite history, that's your choice. China's playbook has been to achieve social progress with an industrial economy. China has created jobs by building factories. China has increased incomes with manufacturing. China has achieved economic progress and dominance in export markets with a blue collar work force.
China can address climate change by producing solar panels and wind turbines. The United States isn't doing it's part to address climate change because the United States can't produce what is needed. Joe Biden doesn't have an industrial base that can decarbonize the United States. Biden's proposals may make fossil fuels more expensive but Biden will still have to buy what is needed from foreign suppliers.
Yes. Those are the pages we must copy.
True. But it must be created. This is "jobs and environment". BIG bucks. Either we do it, or we can start learning Mandarin.
Would Biden ban woodstoves?
Depends on what he's instructed to say.
"Would Biden ban woodstoves?"
I'm sure he would just like tRumpturd said Joe Biden would be getting rid of windows.
Is this really the kind of policy question that you believe to be important today?
Yes, it is very important.
I think Biden and his group will try to take away any things in the name of green things. Examples like this will show what they really will try to do. .
Of course he will!
Where is the eye roll emoji?
How the hell could he ban wood stoves?
What? You made something up... and you say it shows what someone else will do??
How does that work?
I don't know. How did they do it in 2014?....................
" It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80 percent of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West"
NO I asked a legitimate question and Biden will have someone else with him, all politicians do
same way they try to ban other things
So that proves what?
Blaming Biden for something that is already in place?
Got it!
Here was your question..............
And, once again, answered. It proves it can be done and, it has nothing to do with, nor was anyone blaming Biden. It's merely suggesting it wouldn't take much. And it was 2014. Not sure how we have progressed an whether or not the "ban" is still viable.
Your MO seems to be ask a question. Get an answer. Deflect because you don't like it. And then go off on a tangent. Grow the hell up and if you don't want an answer, don't ask the question. Get that? It's pretty easy.
Nope, blaming Biden, plain and simple.
Whatever...
Sorry to put the whole thing but it was short. Some are saying that these don't pose the risk old fashion reactors do. Some even go as far as saying there could be no meltdown.
I think it looks promising and there are others working on similar things. Some designs don't even use water.