Can renewables etc. solve the greenhouse problem? The negative case

Abstract:To displace fossil fuels and achieve the global greenhouse-gas emissions reductions required to meet the Paris Agreement on climate change, the prevalent argument is that a mix of different low-carbon energy sources will need to be deployed. Here we seek to challenge that viewpoint. We argue that a completely decarbonized, energy-rich and sustainable future could be achieved with a dominant deployment of next-generation nuclear fission and associated technologies for synthesizing liquid fuels and recycling waste. By contrast, non-dispatchable energy sources like wind and solar energy are arguably superfluous, other than for niche applications, and run the risk of diverting resources away from viable and holistic solutions. For instance, the pairing of variable renewables with natural-gas backup fails to address many of the entrenched problems we seek to solve. Our conclusion is that, given the urgent time frame and massive extent of the energy-replacement challenge, half-measures that distract from or stymie effective policy and infrastructure investment should be avoided.

Section: Alternative Energy Mixes and The "Silver Buckshot"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Silver Buckshot or Bullet: Is a Future “Energy Mix” Necessary?

Brook

Blees²,

Wigley

et al. 2018

“…In recent years, improvements in technology, in particular the production of highly refined silicon and the more efficient fabrication of the purified silicon into cells, has brought down the embodied energy significantly to the extent that some researchers now claim an energy payback time of less than 2 years [52]. However, other researchers suggest that half of the energy impacts occur in upstream activities outside of the boundaries of conventional PV LCA analyses (see Lenzen [54], Crawford [119], Trainer [7,120]), and a host of downstream ancillary and incidental energy costs are simply not considered in conventional PV LCA analyses (see Hall et al [121], Hall and Prieto [6]). …”

Section: Embodied Energy Of Pv Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Household Solar Photovoltaics: Supplier of Marginal Abatement, or Primary Source of Low-Emission Power?

Palmer¹

2013

Abstract:With declining system costs and assuming a short energy payback period, photovoltaics (PV) should, at face value, be able to make a meaningful contribution to reducing the emission intensity of Australia's electricity system. However, solar is an intermittent power source and households remain completely dependent on a -less than green‖ electricity grid for reliable electricity. Further, much of the energy impact of PV occurs outside of the conventional boundaries of PV life-cycle analyses (LCA). This paper examines these competing observations and explores the broader impacts of a high penetration of household PV using Melbourne, Victoria as a reference. It concludes that in a grid dominated by unsequestered coal and gas, PV provides a legitimate source of emission abatement at high, but declining costs, with the potential for network and peak demand support. It may be technically possible to integrate a high penetration of PV, but the economic and energy cost of accommodating high-penetration PV erodes much of the benefits. Future developments in PV, storage, and integration technologies may allow PV to take on a greater long term role, but in the time horizon usually discussed in climate policy, a large-scale expansion of household PV may hinder rather than assist deep cuts to the emission intensity of Australia's electricity system.

“…The fundamental challenge for CSP in winter is that solar supply and heating demand are inversely correlated, which is exacerbated by the thermal threshold characteristic of CSP, causing a sharp drop-off in electricity below a threshold daily insolation [111]. Trainer [112] notes that even high insolation regions in central Australia regularly experience sequences of several cloudy days in a row in winter during which little or no electricity would be generated without backup. In the context of meeting Melbourne's large winter heating load, it would make little sense to decommission gas furnaces in Melbourne and retrofit heat pumps powered by remote CSP plants, which themselves rely on large-scale natural gas during winter.…”

Section: Baseload Electricity Generationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Energy Efficiency Reduce Emissions and Peak Demand? A Case Study of 50 Years of Space Heating in Melbourne

Palmer¹

2012

This paper examines the relationship between space heating energy efficiency and two related but distinct measures; greenhouse mitigation, and peak demand. The historic role of Melbourne's space heating provides an opportunity to assess whether improvements in energy efficiency lead to sustained reductions in energy consumption or whether rebound factors "take back" efficiency gains in the long run. Despite significant and sustained improvements in appliance efficiency, and the thermal efficiency of new building fabrics, the per-capita heating energy consumption has remained remarkably stable over the past 50 years. Space heating efficiency is bound up with notions of comfort, sufficiency and lifestyle, and the short-run gains from efficiency become incorporated into a new set of norms. It is this evolution of cultural norms that reconciles the contradiction between the short-run gains from efficiency measures, with the efficiency rebound that becomes evident over the long-term. The related, but distinct peak demand measure can be influenced by efficiency measures, but energy efficiency measures will not alter the requirement for large-scale conventional energy to provide affordable and reliable winter heating.