Wind and solar are doing very well around the world as costs fall, and look like doing even better, with, for example, a recent study suggesting that, even in the relatively highly populated UK, there are environmentally appropriate sites available for a very significant expansion of on shore wind and solar.
The study by Exeter University for Friends of the Earth says that 130 TWh could come from PV solar and 96 TWh from onshore wind, compared with 17 TWh at present- a 13 times increase. And it would only need 3% of UK land area. Of course that’s in addition to large inputs from offshore wind, and also wave and tidal projects. So the overall potential is very large and siting constraints need not be a major issue. And as green energy technology economics continues to improve, the UK, along with most other countries, looks likely to continue to move in rapidly in that direction.
However, with technology advance and success there can also be problems, especially in a highly competitive global market. For example, the EU is worried about the impact of cheap Chinese wind tech dumping. It’s concerned that Chinese subsidies are unfairly benefiting Chinese wind turbine manufacturers, allowing them to undercut EU producers. Margrethe Vestager, the EU's competition commissioner, criticised China for flooding the market with what she described as ‘cheap copycat technology’.
Chinese exports dominate the global wind turbine market: China manufactures about for half of the world's wind plants. As the Daily Express noted, Chinese manufacturers offer prices up to 50% percent lower than those from EU supplier, and also more lenient financing terms. A similar problem is also being faced in relation to PV solar imports. Whereas, under the EU's ‘Green Deal Industrial Plan,’ European manufacturers were expected to produce around 40% of the solar panels used, the Express said current figure stands at only 3%, with the majority being imported from China.
You could say that, if they can do all that cheaply then good luck to them- it’s a global green success cutting all our emissions. But it’s not so good if the technology is sub-standard or if the workforce involved is paid poorly- we need good, safe, clean, reliable technology and a ‘just’ transition to its production and use, with good green jobs.
The ‘cheap tech’ dumping issue had emerged some while back in the case of solar cells in the USA. Trump had imposed import controls (a 30% Tariff), but one impact of that was to undermine solar installers in the USA- so there were big job losses. Not so easy then to decide about global social justice. One compromise is to impose ‘local content’ rules on technology, requiring that only say 20% of it can be imported, the rest being sourced locally. That can protect jobs. Quality control regulation is another option, to avoid the dumping of dubious substandard goods. The market has to be regulated to protect consumers, and, ultimately, the planet.
However, it doesn’t have to be that onerous or slow progress. Even in the EU, where regulatory controls are quite strict, the target is for renewables to supply 45% of energy use by 2030, with wind and solar dominating. And in the USA, the ‘land of free enterprise’, the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2023 said that, on current trends, solar will continue to boom and become the USA’s largest power generation source after 2033, supplying 24.2% of US energy in 2035, closely followed by wind at 23.7%. So maybe further import controls are not needed?
Of course current trends may not continue. For example, Trump may take power again in the US, and also around the world we may have even more wars unfolding, with global economies becoming even more unstable, all of which have impacts on the energy situation. But, leaving aside the possibility of major crises, although coal may still be a major source in some countries, and some see nuclear as making some gains, it seems unlikely that globally renewable growth will falter. The International Energy Agency says that, globally, low-emissions sources of electricity, led by solar, are on track to make up almost half of global generation by 2026 And although that includes some nuclear, its global share remains small, at around 10%- eclipsed by renewables.
While in some countries, for example China and India, nuclear may do a bit better, renewables will still lead there. And in many other countries nuclear is either in decline, stagnant or absent. Indeed you could say, if you are still keen on nuclear for some reason, it needs protection against cheaper renewables! Some anti-nuclear lobbyist argue that, in effect, it already gets that, with privileged access to finance. But even given that, it's not doing too well. In the currently pro-nuclear UK, the chair of the new Great British Nuclear agency says that, in relation to new large reactors, it should ‘pause and look and just check that we’ve got our strategy right’ and that it was now aiming to have the first Small Modular Reactors operational by the mid-2030s, significantly later than the ‘early 2030s’ mentioned by the government earlier. So renewables will still dominate. It's the same in the USA. It’s hard to see it going for new large nuclear plants after the $35bn Vogtle mess, but some SMRs may get going, as in the UK, in the mid 2030s. The DoE EIA has nuclear at 14.7% by 2035 compared to wind and solar at near 50%. Though who knows, with Trump maybe in power then.
Then again, other futures may be possible, with new nuclear finding it increasingly hard to get funding, and renewables booming. For example, there are now several nuclear-free global scenarios suggesting that that renewables coupled with efficiency upgraded, could supply 100% of all energy by 2050. They may be optimistic, given the current political situation, but faced with rising concerns about climate change, and possible social, environmental and economic collapse, some key countries could seek a ‘planned degrowth’ approach. For example the Europe-wide ‘efficiency first’ Clever scenario ramps up renewables on a sustainable demand ‘energy sufficiency’ basis, so that they supply 100% of the reduced demand, with no nuclear needed. One way or another, is it too much to hope that the future may not be as awful as portrayed in some apocalyptic films and TV series?
Comments
Post a Comment