The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Global Impacts of Germany's Renewable Energy Transformation
The New York Times has finally broken away from the old narrative that renewable power is simply too expensive to be really competitive, with a ground-breaking if incomplete piece on the global and spreading impacts of the German energiewende (energy transformation).
Photo credit: Shutterstock
The article points out that by creating a secure, ring-fenced market for renewable electricity, Germany not only built up its own manufacturing capacities to make solar and wind cheaper, but lured the Chinese into the market at such a dramatic scale that renewables are now slicing off increasing segments of the global electricity market—and eating market share in ways that are disproportionately disruptive of the existing utility model and the centralized fossil fuel architecture that underlies it.
The reporter, Justin Gillis, warns that “A reckoning is at hand, and nowhere is that clearer than in Germany. Even as the country sets records nearly every month for renewable power production, the changes have devastated its utility companies, whose profits from power generation have collapsed.”
He identifies one leverage point: solar panels generates the maximum electrons precisely when load peaks—on hot afternoons—the hours in which many electricity sector players make most or all of their profits. In California, as shown below, although less than 2 percent of total electricity is solar, that 2 percent has essentially eliminated the afternoon peak, and as Gillis points out, threatened the cash cow that many electricity players count on.
But he misses another—by echoing the conventional wisdom that “The Achilles’ heel of renewable power is that it is intermittent.” Well it’s true that utilities and electricity planners don’t like intermittency, because electricity is not a true market. The fundamental structure of our utility system was that intrinsically unstorable electrons were produced in surplus by monopoly generating companies, who took the risks of volatility and maintained reserve supply in exchange for guaranteed profits. Intermittent electrons make electricity act more like a spot market. And as Gillis points out, coal plants in particular do not like to be turned on and off—so not only are solar electrons crunching utility profits, wind electrons (which track consumption less closely than solar) are squeezing the operating life of utility generating assets. This has caused German utilities to consider shutting them down altogether—bad for utility planners, but in a market sense a disruptive advantage for wind entrepreneurs. The more renewable power is deployed, the more advantageous it is to replace the remaining fossil resources with clean energy.
The biggest shortfall in the Times piece is that it focuses, like the conventional wisdom, almost entirely on generating assets—power plants and solar panels—and very little on the grid itself, the network which fundamentally comprises the heart of modern electrification. How does a 21st century grid meet the reliability goals of the traditional utility model without incurring the exorbitant costs, waste and pollution of the current system? Well, as Gillis says, “More high-voltage power lines could link wind farms and solar panels in disparate locations, smoothing out the variations. This is politically difficult, but some such lines are being built in both the United States and Germany.” But in reality countries like China are pouring massive capital into exactly such long distance transmission lines, and the Northeastern U.S. already pays billions of excess fees every summer for its inability to import cheap, if remote, renewable electrons. The grid will be built out—and as it is the advantages of clean energy over fossil fuel just keep getting bigger.
And once the utility revolution is linked to the cresting electric vehicle future, those “unstoreable” electrons will suddenly be stored in hundreds of millions of vehicles, changing the fundamental challenge on which the entire utility monopoly system was built. It will indeed, be “wrenching.” But also liberating, and incredibly profitable for innovators, and innovative societies.
A veteran leader in the environmental movement, Carl Pope spent the last 18 years of his career at the Sierra Club as CEO and chairman. He's now the principal advisor at Inside Straight Strategies, looking for the underlying economics that link sustainability and economic development. Pope is co-author—along with Paul Rauber—of Strategic Ignorance: Why the Bush Administration Is Recklessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Progress, which the New York Review of Books called "a splendidly fierce book."
YOU ALSO MIGHT LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Centers for Disease Control has emphasized that washing hands with soap and water is one of the most effective measures we can take in preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, millions of Americans in some of the most vulnerable communities face the prospect of having their water shut off during the lockdowns, according to The Guardian.
Aerial photos of the Sierra Nevada — the long mountain range stretching down the spine of California — showed rust-colored swathes following the state's record-breaking five-year drought that ended in 2016. The 100 million dead trees were one of the most visible examples of the ecological toll the drought had wrought.
Now, a few years later, we're starting to learn about how smaller, less noticeable species were affected.
Natthawat / Moment / Getty Images
Disinfectants and cleaners claiming to sanitize against the novel coronavirus have started to flood the market, raising concerns for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which threatened legal recourse against retailers selling unregistered products, according to The New York Times.
The global coronavirus pandemic has thrown our daily routine into disarray. Billions are housebound, social contact is off-limits and an invisible virus makes up look at the outside world with suspicion. No surprise, then, that sustainability and the climate movement aren't exactly a priority for many these days.
By Molly Matthews Multedo
Livestock farming contributes to global warming, so eating less meat can be better for the climate.