At long last, one of clean energy's OGs, Michael Liebreich, has come to Volts. He and I discuss his recent essays on five causes for pessimism about the net-zero transition, alongside five causes for optimism.
Michael said something in this ep and the "superheroes" post to the effect of "EVs and heat pumps are the natural complementary technologies to wind and solar, in that their use can be time-shifted by a few hours or days to accommodate mismatches in supply and demand." However, I hear *all the time* from heat pump and efficiency advocates that cycling your heat pump temperature (e.g., pre-cooling) undermines heat pump performance and can negatively impact comfort more than cycling an AC. Is this true? Is cycling worth the sacrifice in COP because of the peak-shaving benefits? It is worth cycling in the summer, but not winter? Obviously if you have dual-fuel in winter that would assist with avoiding winter peaks and could enable heat pump cycling/interruption. But what if you have an all-electric system?
"Cycling," what's usually referred to as setback and setup, is absolutely preferable for summer AC.
Most anywhere now, and more places going forward, AC customers should pre-cool during hot sunny afternoons with AC and let the indoor temp float up during early evening peak demand hours. The efficiency may be lower, and kWhs higher, but the powerplant GHGs will be lower, in many cases by a large amount because there will be way more PV and more efficient generation in the early afternoon. Where there is a decent TOU rate, operation costs may go down significantly by using cheaper mid day rates, and avoiding the evening penalty rates. Even in locations w/o a lot of daytime PV or TOU, doing this will "encourage" your utility, PUC or grid operator to utilize more PV, instead of screeching about peaker plants and nukes.
Someone from my alma mater (CU-Boulder) has a post on "The Conversation" detailing the small increases in energy from simulated setup and setback, but they made zero effort to take it back to GHG emissions, now or in the future. They detail the wonky hourly simulation inputs and algorithms, but it doesn't address the system which provides the electricity.
Some utilities now have partnerships with smart t'stat companies to control precooling, and incent the customer directly where the TOU rates don't do that. Here in CO, Xcel got egg on its face last year because it has a smart t'stat program, but it only sets AC t'stats up in load emergencies, it didn't precool. (I think, not sure, Xcel asked the PUC for precooling, but they denied it in a fit of "efficiencyism" as Saul Griffith would call it.) When Xcel turned off ACs off on a very hot evening, many of the homes were starting at 78F or 80F; unhappy customers.
HPs in heating are less clear cut. Set up from night setback can drive a HP into backup heat. AM peaks in some areas, other areas not, etc. If relying on wind for low carbon, the availability is less predictable.... Being able to switch to gas when COP is low and renewables are low would be great. I'd love to have a smart t'stat and signaling that could do that.
Octopus Energy in the UK is providing A-W HPs with smart t'stats which incorporate all kinds of inputs and outputs to maximize use of its low cost renewable generation.
What seems left out of this very interesting discussion is the state of the world while 40 years of "transition" goes on. Already, we have ocean water too warm, we have coral reefs bleaching, we have a high rate of extinctions, we have increasingly deadly wildfire seasons, we are cutting down the rain forest, and so on. Is all this going to stand still for 40 years while we work on getting to net zero? Why is the inevitable increase in climate catastrophes not taken into account?
Contemplating the impact of generational change, not to mention investment & insurance wreaking climate disasters, it seems that Micheal is being too pessimistic about meeting 2050 targets. It’s pretty clear that we really just need political will to get on with adapting, rather than more undiscovered “break-thru” technology. We’ve already created most of the required new technology.
I kind of dig the whole "conservative" discussion with the guest. I've kind of come into the space of feeling that certain aspects of conservative thought find an honored and needed place in the last places you'd expect. I got a book on Maoist economics once. Some of the statements in there I remember best are things you'd expect of of the mouth of Mike Huckabee. What's the greatest responsibility of the state? "Strict accounting". What's the most important economic activity? Agriculture. The most important industrial sector? Ag equipment. Somebody has to know where the iron rice bowl is coming from!
The point about the cost of capital doesn't make sense to me. Coal and Natural Gas have vaguely similar cost of capital, but Solar can be deployed in *much* smaller increments. High capital costs benefit solar.
And we are talking about the developing world where increasing the energy supply is driven by raising the standard of living, not by transitioning to a new fuel. The grid needs to grow out regardless of the fuel supply.
Coal and Natural Gas increase the risk of receiving a reasonable return on investment because the cost of solar and wind is continuing to fall rapidly. Investing in Fossil creates a high risk of needing to compete with far cheaper renewables in 10 years.
Great overview of life on the planet. My biggest worry is that the supervillains of vested interest inertia and defensive FF interests have already chipped away at those superhero younger generations, convincing them that the superhero technical solutions themselves are much more harmful than they really are. Many progressive youth seemed primed for this view by some kind of utopian hope that solutions can be found with zero harm, and that merely much lower harm isn't good enough. Or am I being too cynical?
Excellent discussion as always, Dave. But I find it a bit ironic that you both talk about "system solutions" yet leave out the most important part of the system: people. Surely, a system solution to meet ever-growing energy demand can't just address the supply side and leave out the demand side, which is driven by people that in turn drive a consumption-based economy. In other words, shouldn't we at least acknowledge that people are part of the problem and potentially part of the solution? Or by euphemistically calling it "lack of political will," we absolve people of individual responsibility?
The point at the end of the conversation was that consumers aren't demanding electrons from coal, but "a corridor that isn't dark" and we have many ways to satisfy that individual demand that our corporations and regulations capture for fossil fuel interests to the detriment of us all.
If we're pushing on people to vote better, yeah here for it. If we're pushing on people to stop demanding the thinner iPad or to make our preferred individual consumption choices in their day to day life... we're pushing on the end of the rope. Bill McKibben's "individual action" works through collective divestment pressure on the individuals who control endowments. That's not an individual consumption tactic, because in large part demand is created by businesses/regulations/systems. There is no latent demand for a 7,000lb EV that crab-walks, or another 'truck' that can't get wet.
Does an end user even know that those biodegradable utensils are worse for the environment than plastic ones? Who has the depth of chemistry and supply chain knowledge to over-rule marketing, green enthusiasm, and the wisdom of crowds? Yes, we should be washing metal utensils or using wood for disposable, but a whole industry of doing good has sprung up around false hopes and that's not an individual's fault. We could look at the straw mania driven by a misleading narrative of the ocean garbage patch (was fishing nets, not straws). Individuals are being lied to regularly and lack the agency to change the system on their own. Today the consumer is the victim of our consumption economy, not the master of it.
Michael Liebreich did a good thorough covering of the already started implementation of clean energy. He even said that we need to double the capacity of transmission power lines, costing a lot. But, failed to mention reconductoring, which costs much less and, also, more than doubles the power lines power capacity.
It is rare to find a piece that presents such a brilliant and accessible overview of the current energy situation.. Bravo bravo, and thanks. This analysis needs to be widely disseminated! (I'm a 73 yr old Boomer - we're not all dinosaurs.)
Jevons paradox is something that I feel like anyone who is a techo-optimist always glosses over(speaking as a former techo-optimist). Combined with the food/land use question makes all the stuff feel kind of moot. I would love to do some data analysis work on it to find out though.
There is a lot of price behavior in the US (and India) that does not represent the underlying technology or world capacity due to on-shoring and protectionism. While the IRA is a great boon in the US for clean energy in the long term, it absolutely raised costs and reduced supply in the short term - and arguably that great state brinksmanship slowed us down at the point where it dealt maximum damage (the best time to transition is yesterday). With California pulling rooftop solar shenanigans we've had a couple compounding factors recently. US solar is 2/3 taxes and tariff and 1/3 module cost.
Beyond the local tariff and protectionism, we've had high interest rates and a couple wars break out over the last couple years on top of industries with boom and bust cycles at the manufacturing and supply chain level. Give it a couple months/years and it'll revert to trend.
Just look at the Powerwall -> Anker progression in home battery backup (40% cheaper and arguably more capable) and you can see how prices will drop out of these markets as/if we get into a more competitive cycle. We don't even have alternative chemistries widely available. Even the public walk-backs on Wind projects were more interest rate and PPA obligations than the cost of building the turbines - though there we have seen a lot of manufacturing challenges with the largest turbines and oil and gas companies reversing their green commitments in a real way that might have a much longer impact.
Michael said something in this ep and the "superheroes" post to the effect of "EVs and heat pumps are the natural complementary technologies to wind and solar, in that their use can be time-shifted by a few hours or days to accommodate mismatches in supply and demand." However, I hear *all the time* from heat pump and efficiency advocates that cycling your heat pump temperature (e.g., pre-cooling) undermines heat pump performance and can negatively impact comfort more than cycling an AC. Is this true? Is cycling worth the sacrifice in COP because of the peak-shaving benefits? It is worth cycling in the summer, but not winter? Obviously if you have dual-fuel in winter that would assist with avoiding winter peaks and could enable heat pump cycling/interruption. But what if you have an all-electric system?
I responded to this by responding to the response to you. I don't think you get notified of that.
Thanks!
Would love this answer too.
"Cycling," what's usually referred to as setback and setup, is absolutely preferable for summer AC.
Most anywhere now, and more places going forward, AC customers should pre-cool during hot sunny afternoons with AC and let the indoor temp float up during early evening peak demand hours. The efficiency may be lower, and kWhs higher, but the powerplant GHGs will be lower, in many cases by a large amount because there will be way more PV and more efficient generation in the early afternoon. Where there is a decent TOU rate, operation costs may go down significantly by using cheaper mid day rates, and avoiding the evening penalty rates. Even in locations w/o a lot of daytime PV or TOU, doing this will "encourage" your utility, PUC or grid operator to utilize more PV, instead of screeching about peaker plants and nukes.
Someone from my alma mater (CU-Boulder) has a post on "The Conversation" detailing the small increases in energy from simulated setup and setback, but they made zero effort to take it back to GHG emissions, now or in the future. They detail the wonky hourly simulation inputs and algorithms, but it doesn't address the system which provides the electricity.
Some utilities now have partnerships with smart t'stat companies to control precooling, and incent the customer directly where the TOU rates don't do that. Here in CO, Xcel got egg on its face last year because it has a smart t'stat program, but it only sets AC t'stats up in load emergencies, it didn't precool. (I think, not sure, Xcel asked the PUC for precooling, but they denied it in a fit of "efficiencyism" as Saul Griffith would call it.) When Xcel turned off ACs off on a very hot evening, many of the homes were starting at 78F or 80F; unhappy customers.
HPs in heating are less clear cut. Set up from night setback can drive a HP into backup heat. AM peaks in some areas, other areas not, etc. If relying on wind for low carbon, the availability is less predictable.... Being able to switch to gas when COP is low and renewables are low would be great. I'd love to have a smart t'stat and signaling that could do that.
Octopus Energy in the UK is providing A-W HPs with smart t'stats which incorporate all kinds of inputs and outputs to maximize use of its low cost renewable generation.
What seems left out of this very interesting discussion is the state of the world while 40 years of "transition" goes on. Already, we have ocean water too warm, we have coral reefs bleaching, we have a high rate of extinctions, we have increasingly deadly wildfire seasons, we are cutting down the rain forest, and so on. Is all this going to stand still for 40 years while we work on getting to net zero? Why is the inevitable increase in climate catastrophes not taken into account?
Contemplating the impact of generational change, not to mention investment & insurance wreaking climate disasters, it seems that Micheal is being too pessimistic about meeting 2050 targets. It’s pretty clear that we really just need political will to get on with adapting, rather than more undiscovered “break-thru” technology. We’ve already created most of the required new technology.
I feel like Elon may show up on both lists
I kind of dig the whole "conservative" discussion with the guest. I've kind of come into the space of feeling that certain aspects of conservative thought find an honored and needed place in the last places you'd expect. I got a book on Maoist economics once. Some of the statements in there I remember best are things you'd expect of of the mouth of Mike Huckabee. What's the greatest responsibility of the state? "Strict accounting". What's the most important economic activity? Agriculture. The most important industrial sector? Ag equipment. Somebody has to know where the iron rice bowl is coming from!
The point about the cost of capital doesn't make sense to me. Coal and Natural Gas have vaguely similar cost of capital, but Solar can be deployed in *much* smaller increments. High capital costs benefit solar.
And we are talking about the developing world where increasing the energy supply is driven by raising the standard of living, not by transitioning to a new fuel. The grid needs to grow out regardless of the fuel supply.
Coal and Natural Gas increase the risk of receiving a reasonable return on investment because the cost of solar and wind is continuing to fall rapidly. Investing in Fossil creates a high risk of needing to compete with far cheaper renewables in 10 years.
Great overview of life on the planet. My biggest worry is that the supervillains of vested interest inertia and defensive FF interests have already chipped away at those superhero younger generations, convincing them that the superhero technical solutions themselves are much more harmful than they really are. Many progressive youth seemed primed for this view by some kind of utopian hope that solutions can be found with zero harm, and that merely much lower harm isn't good enough. Or am I being too cynical?
Excellent discussion as always, Dave. But I find it a bit ironic that you both talk about "system solutions" yet leave out the most important part of the system: people. Surely, a system solution to meet ever-growing energy demand can't just address the supply side and leave out the demand side, which is driven by people that in turn drive a consumption-based economy. In other words, shouldn't we at least acknowledge that people are part of the problem and potentially part of the solution? Or by euphemistically calling it "lack of political will," we absolve people of individual responsibility?
Go ahead and look at the Sankey diagrams and point to individual choice for me.
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/
The point at the end of the conversation was that consumers aren't demanding electrons from coal, but "a corridor that isn't dark" and we have many ways to satisfy that individual demand that our corporations and regulations capture for fossil fuel interests to the detriment of us all.
If we're pushing on people to vote better, yeah here for it. If we're pushing on people to stop demanding the thinner iPad or to make our preferred individual consumption choices in their day to day life... we're pushing on the end of the rope. Bill McKibben's "individual action" works through collective divestment pressure on the individuals who control endowments. That's not an individual consumption tactic, because in large part demand is created by businesses/regulations/systems. There is no latent demand for a 7,000lb EV that crab-walks, or another 'truck' that can't get wet.
Does an end user even know that those biodegradable utensils are worse for the environment than plastic ones? Who has the depth of chemistry and supply chain knowledge to over-rule marketing, green enthusiasm, and the wisdom of crowds? Yes, we should be washing metal utensils or using wood for disposable, but a whole industry of doing good has sprung up around false hopes and that's not an individual's fault. We could look at the straw mania driven by a misleading narrative of the ocean garbage patch (was fishing nets, not straws). Individuals are being lied to regularly and lack the agency to change the system on their own. Today the consumer is the victim of our consumption economy, not the master of it.
Michael Liebreich did a good thorough covering of the already started implementation of clean energy. He even said that we need to double the capacity of transmission power lines, costing a lot. But, failed to mention reconductoring, which costs much less and, also, more than doubles the power lines power capacity.
It is rare to find a piece that presents such a brilliant and accessible overview of the current energy situation.. Bravo bravo, and thanks. This analysis needs to be widely disseminated! (I'm a 73 yr old Boomer - we're not all dinosaurs.)
Jevons paradox is something that I feel like anyone who is a techo-optimist always glosses over(speaking as a former techo-optimist). Combined with the food/land use question makes all the stuff feel kind of moot. I would love to do some data analysis work on it to find out though.
Is the price per kWh really dropping that fast? When I look at the $/kwh on statista.com it actually seems to be leveling off.
There is a lot of price behavior in the US (and India) that does not represent the underlying technology or world capacity due to on-shoring and protectionism. While the IRA is a great boon in the US for clean energy in the long term, it absolutely raised costs and reduced supply in the short term - and arguably that great state brinksmanship slowed us down at the point where it dealt maximum damage (the best time to transition is yesterday). With California pulling rooftop solar shenanigans we've had a couple compounding factors recently. US solar is 2/3 taxes and tariff and 1/3 module cost.
Beyond the local tariff and protectionism, we've had high interest rates and a couple wars break out over the last couple years on top of industries with boom and bust cycles at the manufacturing and supply chain level. Give it a couple months/years and it'll revert to trend.
Just look at the Powerwall -> Anker progression in home battery backup (40% cheaper and arguably more capable) and you can see how prices will drop out of these markets as/if we get into a more competitive cycle. We don't even have alternative chemistries widely available. Even the public walk-backs on Wind projects were more interest rate and PPA obligations than the cost of building the turbines - though there we have seen a lot of manufacturing challenges with the largest turbines and oil and gas companies reversing their green commitments in a real way that might have a much longer impact.