Is the Inflation Reduction Act, passed nearly two years ago, doing what it set out to do? In this episode, Trevor Houser of the Rhodium Group compares the predictions of pre-IRA energy-sector models to the real-world data on clean-energy investment since its passage.
No wonder I'm in a crappy mood. Two of my favorite "climate" technologies were the ones specifically listed as not deploying as projected, wind and heat pumps. Both very important for GHG reductions for us in the freezing high and north country. The right wing is doing a great job of "short-circuiting policy" with very successful PR, portraying these as enemies of rural and working/union folks, and just "not dependable," etc.
Last year was the first in recent memory where the fraction of renewable electricity in the USA went down, right? While this has been blamed on weather, it's also true that wind farm construction fell off a cliff, and a significant fraction of that was repowering 20 year old windfarms, so not even as much addition as it appears. And since the capacity factor of solar is typically 20-25% vs. wind at 37% avg for new, we need 50% more GW of solar to make up for wind not built.
Wind and solar and HPs and EVs seem to be deploying much more quickly in the EU, Australia and China. (OK, not EVs down under yet.) We'll see if building IRA-funded battery factories can offset the anti-EV screeching from the FF-funded media, GOP, Trump...
To me the ultimate objective of IRA is to replace energy from fossil fuels with energy from renewables. Not discussed are projections for future demands for energy. In the electricity sector
I see nothing but bad news. Crypto currencies reached an all time just this week which obviously stimulates demand. Fast emerging to challenge crypto are the demands for electricity for AI.
In the transportation sector EV's are, in my opinion, too heavy thereby wasting energy. Obviously demand projections are beyond the scope of this topic. I do think they merit another Volt presentation.
And the big tech cos putting data centers in AZ and other water scarce, dirty energy places.
I’d be interested in hearing more abt demand projections as well. In summit county, co they are trying to move to as much clean energy as possible, incentives for home solar and buying into larger projects. Our old school grid can’t even handle hot tub and ev demand as it is so new sources are good, but our transmission needs to be updated. And xcel is still wasting money on big (dirty energy) projects that go no where. So the county building dept has adopted air sealing and other efficiency requirements (see the Volts ICC post) in new builds and is now charging thousands of dollars for any outdoor heated spaces not offset with solar. We can do more, incentivizing retrofits and new tech like heat pumps. But for now, xcel still struggles to keep up with all the demand. And as other places become less hospitable, more people will move increasing demand in one place that may not be tied (able to send energy) to the one they moved from. It’s a fun complicated issue.
I'm also and Xcel Colorado customer, and my take is that the Co PUC is preventing Xcel from building wind and solar as fast as it would like. The PUC also rains on effective TOU rates which would actually convince folks to plug in EVs at low demand times, and not stress the grid. They've thought we could efficiency our way out of upgrades and some increased rates based on 20 year old paradigms. CO Xcel rates are about 10% less than national average but you wouldn't know it from the local media. My take is that the anti-Xcel tilt of CO mainstream media is actually a ploy of CO FF interests to create bottlenecks to electrification.
Dave's excitement and optimism about the increasing use of modelling in the policy process is perplexing.
Very often modelling outputs when modelling such complex systems turn out to be so incorrect as to be essentially uninformative (or even leave the user of such information less well informed having considered it in their thinking or decision-making!).
Dave you should read (or re-read) Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson. (I just remembered that she's been on your podcast!)
Modelling is scientific, it uses existing data and past trends to quantify what will likely continue to happen, or what will change in the future. It only makes projections if it has enough inputs that overlap to a conclusion; and there is always a stated uncertainty percentage of the result.
Respectfully, I would suggest your assertion that "modelling is scientific" depends heavily on how 'scientific' is defined. Certainly it can be more (or less) rigorous depending upon how it's done, but integrated modelling of complex social systems (as per the economy, human behaviour and so on) and energy systems is one hell of a challenge.
I am also reminded of Naomi Oreskes's critical discussion (with co-authors) of the increasing modelling of natural systems and what functions we can realistically expect such modeling to perform. Much of what they state applies equally to efforts to model other kinds of systems. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.263.5147.641
I can’t help but wonder how modeling impacts the opposition’s behavior. Like a model in a controlled environment could predict x. But once the opposition sees x is predicted to do well they attack it causing it to fail. The model is an input that affects behavior. Is that accounted for in modeling?
Weird this isn't showing on Spotify?
Very weird indeed. Thanks for flagging this, reaching out to Substack now. They've been glitchy all month.
No wonder I'm in a crappy mood. Two of my favorite "climate" technologies were the ones specifically listed as not deploying as projected, wind and heat pumps. Both very important for GHG reductions for us in the freezing high and north country. The right wing is doing a great job of "short-circuiting policy" with very successful PR, portraying these as enemies of rural and working/union folks, and just "not dependable," etc.
Last year was the first in recent memory where the fraction of renewable electricity in the USA went down, right? While this has been blamed on weather, it's also true that wind farm construction fell off a cliff, and a significant fraction of that was repowering 20 year old windfarms, so not even as much addition as it appears. And since the capacity factor of solar is typically 20-25% vs. wind at 37% avg for new, we need 50% more GW of solar to make up for wind not built.
Wind and solar and HPs and EVs seem to be deploying much more quickly in the EU, Australia and China. (OK, not EVs down under yet.) We'll see if building IRA-funded battery factories can offset the anti-EV screeching from the FF-funded media, GOP, Trump...
To me the ultimate objective of IRA is to replace energy from fossil fuels with energy from renewables. Not discussed are projections for future demands for energy. In the electricity sector
I see nothing but bad news. Crypto currencies reached an all time just this week which obviously stimulates demand. Fast emerging to challenge crypto are the demands for electricity for AI.
In the transportation sector EV's are, in my opinion, too heavy thereby wasting energy. Obviously demand projections are beyond the scope of this topic. I do think they merit another Volt presentation.
And the big tech cos putting data centers in AZ and other water scarce, dirty energy places.
I’d be interested in hearing more abt demand projections as well. In summit county, co they are trying to move to as much clean energy as possible, incentives for home solar and buying into larger projects. Our old school grid can’t even handle hot tub and ev demand as it is so new sources are good, but our transmission needs to be updated. And xcel is still wasting money on big (dirty energy) projects that go no where. So the county building dept has adopted air sealing and other efficiency requirements (see the Volts ICC post) in new builds and is now charging thousands of dollars for any outdoor heated spaces not offset with solar. We can do more, incentivizing retrofits and new tech like heat pumps. But for now, xcel still struggles to keep up with all the demand. And as other places become less hospitable, more people will move increasing demand in one place that may not be tied (able to send energy) to the one they moved from. It’s a fun complicated issue.
I'm also and Xcel Colorado customer, and my take is that the Co PUC is preventing Xcel from building wind and solar as fast as it would like. The PUC also rains on effective TOU rates which would actually convince folks to plug in EVs at low demand times, and not stress the grid. They've thought we could efficiency our way out of upgrades and some increased rates based on 20 year old paradigms. CO Xcel rates are about 10% less than national average but you wouldn't know it from the local media. My take is that the anti-Xcel tilt of CO mainstream media is actually a ploy of CO FF interests to create bottlenecks to electrification.
Huh. That’s interesting. Can you share your sources? I’d be interested in reading about this.
Sure I'll message that if it works.
Dave's excitement and optimism about the increasing use of modelling in the policy process is perplexing.
Very often modelling outputs when modelling such complex systems turn out to be so incorrect as to be essentially uninformative (or even leave the user of such information less well informed having considered it in their thinking or decision-making!).
Dave you should read (or re-read) Escape from Model Land by Erica Thompson. (I just remembered that she's been on your podcast!)
An FYI that David replies to this comment in March's mailbag!
Modelling is scientific, it uses existing data and past trends to quantify what will likely continue to happen, or what will change in the future. It only makes projections if it has enough inputs that overlap to a conclusion; and there is always a stated uncertainty percentage of the result.
Respectfully, I would suggest your assertion that "modelling is scientific" depends heavily on how 'scientific' is defined. Certainly it can be more (or less) rigorous depending upon how it's done, but integrated modelling of complex social systems (as per the economy, human behaviour and so on) and energy systems is one hell of a challenge.
I am also reminded of Naomi Oreskes's critical discussion (with co-authors) of the increasing modelling of natural systems and what functions we can realistically expect such modeling to perform. Much of what they state applies equally to efforts to model other kinds of systems. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.263.5147.641
I can’t help but wonder how modeling impacts the opposition’s behavior. Like a model in a controlled environment could predict x. But once the opposition sees x is predicted to do well they attack it causing it to fail. The model is an input that affects behavior. Is that accounted for in modeling?