The Third Phase of Clean Energy Will Be Most Disruptive Yet
(disclaimer: I am part of a Climate&Energy research group that does this sort of economic modeling)I would say that the author's broad conclusions are actually likely to pan out (albeit on a different timeline).However, the individual arguments are cherry picked (e.g. specific utility decisions that do not generalize) and do not necessarily support the conclusion. So, please ignore the graphs as just visual candy. Also, their conclusions around wind are likely incorrect, given the learning curve and deployment rates for solar vs wind.Some problems:- The author skips over the difference between dispatchable and non-dispatchable power. The article alludes to it with the discussion of storage, but the nuances are actually very important.- There are graphs comparing solar and coal. Coal is already dying, and not going to get serious traction by any investors in the future. It is a high capital, low marginal cost plant with expensive cycling for shutdown/turn-on. With today's renewables, the variability in grid demand is too high to make it economical. Even if that wasn't true (which it might not be in the future with sufficient storage), natural gas is strictly cheaper with fracking, and likely will be for the next 50 years.- The author states that renewables are on the verge of being "cheaper than the cost of continuing to operate existing coal- or gas-fueled power plants". They support this argument with some cherry-picked examples. Realistically, that is not true, nor will it likely every be true. The marginal cost for natural gas is roughly ~1.8 cents/kWh today (including O&M), though NG is very cheap right now. With a capacity factor of 25%, solar would have to be ~$0.50/W including ammortized O&M (so call it $0.35/W. With a ~20% learning curve, that is ~5 doublings from today, so more than net electricity demand). On top of that, that power is mostly useless without storage, which adds additional LCOE (e.g. amortized battery capital and RTE derating).- Much of the authors argument would require full electrification of transportation+commercial/residential heating, which is unlikely to really pick up steam until the 2030s. Industrial heating will likely be the last holdout (barring some regulatory pressure like a carbon tax).Anyway, after years of research I would say that I am actually optimistic (I did not used to be) about renewables+storage with sufficient regulatory pressure to get us over today's cost hump (e.g. tax credit, RPS, carbon tax, anything), but take this article with a grain of salt.Edit:
I should say that NG prices vary dramatically by location, and Europe will likely see a very different path forward than the rest of the planet (they also get to cheat with storage with the Norwegian Fjords), so they may push us down the learning curve significantly faster than the US/Asian market. China seems to be doing things by fiat, too, which is always handy.