Skip to main content

Renewable Parity

The topic of parity between renewables and fossil fuels has come up fairly regularly in the various sustainability activities in which I've participated. Relatively small, isolated markets like Hawaii passed that threshold some time ago. The focus on cost is understandable but it misses two important issues that are touched on in this article:
First, it appears that the volatility of fossil fuel prices and supplies will only continue to increase. Exposure to that risk isn't good for anyone's bottom line. Second, it is hard to get your head around the implications of solar and wind behaving as technologies. TVs might be a good example. We paid $1,200 for a mid-range 42" plasma TV in 2007. The most similar model I could find on Fry's is listed for $196 and uses less power. For solar, it means the last price you heard is probably high by at least 10%. The remote geography of wind and large-scale solar has hidden this transition from most of us, but it is happening nonetheless. The most intriguing statement comes at the end of the article, from scientist David Fridley:
Yes, we can have a renewable world, but it’s not really going to look like the world we have today,” says Fridley. “It could be a better world to live in, it could be a much worse world to live in, depending on many of the decisions we make in the next decade or two.
I'd revise this slightly to say we will have a renewable world, and fairly soon, but it will be very different. Batteries tend to disappoint and breakthroughs in other forms of energy storage and next-generation nuclear are decades away from being ready for large-scale deployment (assuming government research expenditures continue near current levels). In the meantime, we may have to live within the power envelope that can be provided by wind and solar, only relying on fossil fuels when the dips threaten life safety. During those dips, your building will be your power plant. Only organizations that have invested in highly efficient facilities with on-site generation will be able to ensure continuous operations. They will also need a deep understanding of how and why they use energy. It takes years to construct or renovate buildings. It takes even longer to change organizational behavior. Those investments need to occur soon if they are to be ready to respond to this challenge when it arises.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Urban Play

Looking at this proposal for Atlanta , I can't help thinking there is something inherently elitist about urban recreation spaces that don't include playgrounds or sports courts and fields. The abstract, curvilinear forms that are fashionable today are almost completely irreconcilable with activities like basketball or soccer or softball. Those activities are pushed to second-class parks that receive virtually no programming effort and minimal maintenance. Add to that the sometimes stark racial and cultural divides between participants in these various sports and I can see why it is convenient for city staff to think that a "nice" park doesn't have sports facilities, perhaps only subconsciously. Designs with swooping paths and undulating terrain help conceal that prejudice. It isn't an entirely fair criticism of this particular project as they appear to be trying to add something public, green and walkable to what might otherwise be entirely vehicle oriented.  ...
1 comment
Read more

Bloomberg Surveillance

I was watching a little Bloomberg this morning. An interesting moment occurred when Tom Keene was discussing the talks  going on in Paris. I wish I had the exact phrasing, but he said something like, “We really need to wait until we see the impacts [of climate change] before we can try to prevent them.” His tone sort of trailed off at the end as if the contradiction of that statement occurred to him mid-sentence. His point was, I believe, that it would be irresponsible to spend big money trying to prevent something that might not happen. They then moved on to the massive smog alert  going on in Beijing and how the health impacts of burning coal have brought the Chinese government to the table sooner than anyone had imagined possible. Unfortunately, he and his fellow commentators failed to put these two ideas together:   If we wait until we see the impacts, it will be too late to avoid them. When inaction risks many lives, the only prudent thing to do is act now.* ...
1 comment
Read more

The Value of Pop Economics?

A friend recently posted a meme about rising income inequality to Facebook. One of the comments was a link to a piece from Economics Explained with the provocative title " How The Dutch Economy Shows We Can't Reduce Wealth Inequality With Taxes " I'm starting to see a pattern in these sorts of economics articles: 1. Make a pointed and contrarian claim about the power of economics to address a major issue in contemporary society (taxes won't fix inequality). 2. Compare related economics concepts that have much narrower definitions than the ones that drew in the reader (GINI vs income & wealth inequality vs a few specific aspects of Dutch taxes and culture). 3. Add some artfully selected facts to keep people interested (Heineken family info). 4. Also artfully avoid saying explicitly that the narrow comparison proves or disproves anything specific about the broader societal problem. 5. Make a generally agreeable statement about the world: Inequality doesn't ...
Post a Comment
Read more