Wikimedia photo circa 2006
By John Lawrence
Gas prices have dropped below $4.00 a gallon for the first time in several years.
Every one-cent drop in gas prices means a $1 billion annual decline in energy spending by Americans. Consumers can use the savings to eat out more often, buy more goods or pay down debt. That’s good for US motorists and consumers, but that’s not the whole story.
Part of the story has to do with the fact that solar energy is getting as cheap as coal and natural gas for the production of electricity. As solar prices drop even further, electricity costs for homeowners should come down. That would mean that electric cars powered off of home outlets should have a greater comparative advantage over gas powered vehicles.
These developments, which could phase out the use of fossil fuels in general, will reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHGs)
Another reason that prices at the pump are coming down is that US oil production, which is currently at 8.7 million barrels a day, has increased dramatically in recent years so there is a glut of oil on the market. US oil production is the highest it’s been in 27 years.
OPEC, in an attempt to maintain its market share, has lowered prices. Gas will become even cheaper as competition between the US and other oil producing nations drives down prices. As gas becomes cheaper, so will solar. Decreasing costs for the purchase and fueling of electric vehicles will provide an even greater incentive for switching from oil powered to electric powered vehicles. This will drive oil prices down even further.
A gas tax with the proceeds going to provide incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles could facilitate the lessening of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
An article in Bloomberg, While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar, says it all. As solar becomes cheaper, solar will replace coal, gas and oil in the production of electricity. Solar will be the world’s biggest single source of electricity by 2050, according to a recent estimate by the International Energy Agency.
More than a quarter of the world’s electricity demand could be met with solar power by mid-century, surpassing generation from any other single source, including coal, natural gas, oil, wind, hydro and nuclear, the International Energy Agency has determined. So there will be competition between solar and fossil fuels for the production of electricity which means that in order to preserve market share OPEC will lower their prices even more.
Going all out to maintain production is not good for the environment because fossil fuels really need to be left in the ground, but neither the Saudis nor other oil producing nations including the US are going to sit idly by and let solar take over the market. They will try to out-compete solar based on price alone regardless of what this portends for carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
There are several solar projects in the Mojave Desert which are already supplying energy to southern California homes. These new solar developments could also be supplying energy to electric vehicles as well. As the US converts from gas powered to electric powered vehicles, the need for oil and gas will diminish.
A solar thermal system is operating at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) in California’s Mojave Desert. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility is a 370 MW facility which consists of three separate solar thermal power plants just off interstate highway 15 on the Nevada-California border.
Ivanpah, which began commercial operation in 2013, is delivering power to PG&E and Southern California Edison. The project is currently the largest solar thermal power plant in the world and it doubled US production of energy from solar when it went online. Ivanpah was constructed by Bechtel and is operated by NRG Energy of Carlsbad, CA, one of the project’s equity investors. Google is also a partner in the project.
The Ivanpah plant is not without controversy however. Birds flying through the area have been killed by the intense heat.
A proposed plant is on a flight path for birds between the Colorado River and California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea – an area that is richer in avian life than the Ivanpah plant, with protected golden eagles and peregrine falcons and more than 100 other species of birds recorded there. The toll on birds has been surprising, said Robert Weisenmiller, chairman of the California Energy Commission. “We didn’t see a lot of impact” on birds at the first, smaller power towers in the U.S. and Europe, Weisenmiller said.
If we really want to maintain a livable climate, and prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2˚ Celsius, then no nation, anywhere, can burn any oil, gas, or coal at all after 2050, according to a striking new analysis of the latest climate science.
Stanford University’s Mark Jacobson has a detailed state-by-state roadmap for 100 percent replacement of coal, oil and natural gas with wind, water and solar energy by 2050. This transformation would dramatically reduce air pollution, preventing an estimated 59,000 deaths a year and saving the country billions of dollars, Jacobson says.
These developments – increased oil production in the US, increased competition between the US and OPEC, and increased competition between solar and oil – should drive down all energy prices, both for homes and vehicles. As long as this increases the use of gas and oil for transportation, cheap gas prices will be bad for the environment. If a gas tax were implemented with the proceeds going to build out solar and give incentives for the conversion from gas to electric vehicles, this would ultimately be a good thing.
John Lawrence
Latest posts by John Lawrence (see all)
- Economist Kenneth Arrow, Nobel Laureate, Dead at 95 - March 22, 2017
- Container Ships Burn Dirtiest Fuel: the International Maritime Organization (IMO) Could Change That - March 15, 2017
- Cities and States Prefer Public Banks To Wall Street - March 7, 2017
Rooftop solar generated on top of buildings and parking lot covers combined with community scale storage is the best renewable energy generation option for a sustainable future. In San Diego we have conservative 7,000 MWs of that potential from solar (= over three San Onofre plants). With local clean energy consisting of roof top/parking lot solar, community scale storage (battery technology is now advanced enough to go to scale) and energy efficiency and management as the first priority we create more long term, well paying jobs and capture more of the revenues to stay in San Diego.
The utility’s have been have been encouraged and allowed to purchase remotely generated large scale renewables at essentially any cost and bring it in over huge, expensive transmission lines (that is why the investor owned utilities blame renewables for increasing utility rates and bills), they lose an average of 7% of the energy in transmission and they cause avoidable unnecessary environmental impacts in many ecologically sensitive areas.
If we can get it all– or the vast majority –of our electricity generated and stored and distributed from within the load center and benefit the owners of the residents, businesses and institutions generating the electicity, why aren’t we making that the priority? Plenty of recent actions by California Energy Commission and especially the Public Utilities Commission give insight to the antiquated, broken system that props up an inefficient monopoly utility-first model.
We need to get control of our energy generation through establishment of our own “community choice aggregation” energy district. Residents and businesses within the City and/or County are “aggregated” as a district to buy cost effective, renewable energy and retrofit homes and businesses, while the utility keeps distributing it. Marin, Sonoma have done it. Alameda County is pursuing it. More jobs and local clean energy to come!
Community owned electrical generating facilities are no doubt the way to go. Roughly half of Germany’s renewable energy facilities are in the hands of farmers, citizen groups and almost 900 energy cooperatives. Not only are they generating power but they are generating revenue for their communities by selling back to the grid.
The latest solar technology on the market for charging electric vehicles is the new lower cost Hyper X 2 Bifacial (double sided) solar technology.
This advanced technology has been around for the past 6 years but it was always considered to be far too expensive to install. Now because of new technological advances Hyper X 2 Bifacial solar panels can be purchased at a much lower cost than many standard single sided solar panels.
Instead of boxy looking 1 1/2 to 2 inch thick framed Gen 1 solar panels, these new higher performance Gen 2 solar panels are only 1/4 inch thin and are made with a stronger, see through, glass on glass, frameless, construction that allows sunlight to pass through and reflect off the roof’s surface, thus illuminating the backside of the double sided solar cells, producing additional power.
A mere 10% boost in reflected light can raise this 340 watt solar panel’s output to 374 watts without taking up anymore roof space. New Hyper X 2 solar offers a better PTC to STC ratio “Real World” performance according to the California Energy Commission’s performance rating listings than over 100 of SunPower’s solar panel models.
And they offer a very high 92.88% PTC to STC performance ratio. Hyper X 2 also offers a heat resistant -0.31%/degree C temperature coefficient for better performance in warm/hot climates. And when it comes to aesthetics, nothing even comes close to Hyper X 2’s glass on glass, see through, frameless construction.
Intrigued by the Hyper X 2 solar panels performance you describe. Are they operating on any roofs in San Diego? Sounds like they might work well inside south facing double paned windows. Anything like that?
I will have to check to see if any are installed in the San Diego area. Here’s a press release concerning a recent multi-megawatt installation that utilizes the solar modules that are used in Hyper X 2 systems. They are ideal for use in parking canopy applications because of their dual sided energy production.
At last, some good news. We all must move to renewables. There was a cartoon in the AZ Daily Star today showing a grandma bringing a platter to the dinner table with a little black, charred thing in the middle of it and children and reps of the USA around the table. the caption was “Now your goose is cooked!” We cannot let this happen! The title of the cartoon was “Global Warming News”
John,
Based on U.S. EIA’s International Energy Outlook of 2013, here are projected figures of World Net Electricity Generation using Clean Energy sources: Wind, Solar, Other Renewables, Hydro, and Nuclear: (data in trillions of kilowatt hours)
__________________________________________________________
…………………………………………..2010………….2015………….2030…………..2040
WORLD……………………………..20240……….23309…………32959…………39034
Wind…………………………………….342…………..767……………1544……………1839
%…………………………………………1.7%…………3.3%……………4.7%…………..4.7%
Solar………………………………………34…………..157……………..327…………….452
%………………………………………..0.2%………..0.6%……………1.0%…………..1.2%
Other Renewables…………………..332………….427………………729…………….858
(Biomass, Waste, Geothermal, etc.)
Total Renewables…………………..708…………1351……………2600…………..3149
%………………………………………..3.5%…………5.8%……………7.9%……………8.1%
Hydropower……………………….3468………….3917…………..5348……………6452
%………………………………………17.1%………..16.8%………….16.2%………….16.5%
Nuclear……………………………..2620………….2917…………..4755……………5492
%……………………………………..12.9%………..12.5%…………14.4%………….14.1%
TOTAL CLEAN FUELS……….33.5%………..35.1%………….38.5%………….38.7%
TOTAL DIRTY FUELS……….63.5%………..64.9%………….61.5%………….61.3%
__________________________________________________________
These modest ‘going green’ figures for electricity generation are a bit too ridiculous for words … especially knowing that Coal’s share in electricity and heat CO2 emissions is huge 70%! EIA’s marginal forecast of Renewables generating only 8.1% of world electricity demand by 2040 certainly doesn’t indicate a very promising transition to sustainable energy sources for electricity generation.
Denmark already gets up to 41% of its electricity demand from Renewables; Germany up to 27% and in some regions over 50%, largely with Solar. In 2013, U.S. got about 12% of its electicity demand from Renewables with Solar and Wind contributing less than a quarter of that figure.
To achieve a wind and solar ‘Energy Revolution’ — for the electricity and heat plus transport sectors, which combined produce 70% of global CO2 emissions– the world has a long, long way to go in scale and speed of transition Renewable to avert 4C Earth warming by 2050.
Frank, your figure for solar in 2040 providing just 1.2% of the world’s energy is at odds with the following from the Reuters article:
“IEA Reports said solar photovoltaic (PV) systems could generate up to 16 percent of the world’s electricity by 2050, while solar thermal electricity (STE) – from “concentrating” solar power plants – could provide a further 11 percent.”
They say 27% of world’s energy in 2050 will come from solar. The IEA and EIA have drastically different projections. How do you reconcile the huge difference?
I hate to sound cynical, but it appears the country took two steps backwards in yesterday’s mid-term elections. With the right controlling both houses of Congress, we should expect to have to endure a big push for domestic oil and fracked gas production over the next two years. We’ll have all we can do to stop the XL pipeline. Sorry, I’m just not too optimistic right now. How bad do things have to get before this country stops lurching back and forth?
Germany’s 1st half 2014 Renewable Electricity as % share of power generation including 4% Hydro was an astonishing 31%. Solar and Wind made up a HUGE 17% of power generation.
U.S. 2013 Renewable Electricity as % share of power generation including 7% Hydro was 13%. Solar and Wind made up a TINY 4.5% of power generation.
Germany’s Non-Hydro Renewable Electricity as % share of power generation was 27% vs. 6% for U.S.!
The difference here is stunning.
John,
Let’s remember that what people say”could happen,” as the EIA does, can be a far cry from what “is happening” today. That’s the focus of my statistics.
EIA’s global renewable electricity forecast as % of world power generation goes from 3.5% in 2010 to TINY 8.1% in 2040. That’s hardly an evolutionary or revolutionary movement! Saying 27% of ” total world energy” will come from solar by 2050 when is one of those unsupported “could be” fantasy statements – given fact solar constitutes less than 1% of “total world energy” consumption today!
Actually, what EIA is saying – also ridiculously without documented support – is that solar will be 27% of “total world electricity generation” in 2050 (also a very questionable statement with no documentation).
My research indicates most of the professional reports are quite inconsistent in their energy statistics for many reasons, some evident and some not so evident, e.g., differences in definition, measurement techniques, etc.
BUT, while most reports show global hydro-renewables in vastly different mixes (i.e., wind, solar, biomass, hydro), the same reports show that global hydro-renewables are at best less than 11% of global energy consumption today and modern renewables at 3% to 6% depending on what report one reads. These figures exclude nuclear and traditional biomass – the latter being a highly questionable sustainable, polluting energy source used by developing countries).
All this and much more comes to my point, namely, the world has a LONG WAY to go to reach a 70% to 80% hydro-renewables or even a hydro-nuclear-renewables Clean Energy consumption level as a % of “total world energy consumption” by 2050!!!!
In a nutshell, progress in Clean Energy based on non-hydro or hydro- renewables – while very commendable in a select few countries – remains FAR BELOW a 2C pathway on a global basis. A prime reason is that the growth in coal production and natural gas have been outweighing gains ( as a % ot total world energy consumption) from the rapid growth in modern renewables recent years.
Sheer enerdy demand and survival dependence on coal for economic growth explains China and India’s continuing hell-bent thirst for dirty coal. China now consumes 50% of world’s coal!!!! And India is steadily catching up with China. These are two “developing countries” are in the baby cradle of industrial and commercial development with almost 40% of world’s population. Over 70% of China’s electricity comes from coal-fired plants. Both China and India’s non-hydro renewables are 2% or less of their total energy consumption today.
This abysmal, dangerous Asian renewables dynamic brings the world Renewable % down to less than 3% of world energy consumption (depending on what report one reads) today. The EIA claim that the solar “could” produce 27% of “total world energy” consumption by 2050 is a “pipedream” that’s not in process now at the scale and speed needed to avert 4C rise in temperatures by 2050.
The global renewables shortfall is evidenced also by fact that that ‘little undeveloped’ country, China, already is spewing 28% of world’s global CO2 emissions, vs. U.S. 14%, EU 10%, India 5% with latter’s emissions now accelerating. Both China and India are now +90% on fossil fuels, 6-8% on hydro and nuclear and +-2% on renewables.
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying going to 70-80% hydro-renewables is impossible by 2050. I’m simply saying at the world’s current Clean Energy level and pace and speed of transition to modern emission-free renewables we can’t possibly get there next 36 years.
It’s business as usual with global CO2 emissions continuing to rise to new records. Emissions are now in the 36 billion tons a year range with +80% of projected CO2 increases coming from Asia, largely from China and India. And no reversals in this direction are evident from EIA forecasts of CO2 emissions 2015-2050.