99.9 Percent Renewables is Feasible and Cost-Effective

 Credits to Dirk Ingo Franke

In order to defuse counter argumentation and because I try to be as objective as humanly possible (not much then ;) ) I would like to state before anything else that YES a study will remain "just" a study. It can be partial, its methods can be inaccurate and therefore its conclusions and findings can be disputed.

And I would say "good on you" + "get amongst it" since I do believe critical thinking is the corner stone of real freedom and "progress" in the most positive way, and since that would be a good and objective use of it. Although, like most things, it would be biased by our "humanity" that makes us so wonderfully imperfect.

That bias being of course that we mainly seek studies and materials that comfort and support our pre-formed opinions; and disregard/discredit studies and materials that contradict them. Being no exception since that blog is mainly about positive technological breakthroughs and overall supportive news and analysis of renewables and sustainability as a whole; I however am aware of such a bias just like I hope/expect it’d be the same for my readers (what do you mean there are none?!).

But Greg, then how can we trust this study? (or any studies at all for that matter?!) Good question reader, good question indeed… Well the key criteria to recognize the seriousness, application and overall quality of a study so it cannot be totally rejected at once are commonly: reference (towards recognized academic materials) and credits (who wrote it/in what context) plus explanation of the methods used and why.

Such criteria are commonly accepted among rational people in order to reach consensus and generate constructive criticism so we can move on, improve and get things done and also escape the really annoying BS statement “everything’s a matter of opinion/belief”.
And since we’ve all acknowledge that fact in joy and felicity and did put our objective caps on, we can now move from these boring (yet incredibly clever and thoughtful ;) ) considerations to the interesting findings of that study.

Although at this point I’m not even sure what I’m writing about in this post anymore! « I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying » Oscar Wilde => BOOM ! Self high-five ! ;)

Back to the point: You can find all these elements (reference, credits, method dispute) in this thorough and at times technical study that you CANNOT now just disregard given that I bamboozled you with 350 words of wisdom in the previous paragraphs:
 "Cost-minimizedcombinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, poweringthe grid up to 99.9% of the time"

It's been carried out by several authors from several study departments of the Delaware University in Newark USA, and its conclusion are (drum roll, I know you’ve suffered to get to this point):

" At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies."

SOURCE: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759?np=y

What I get from that:

1/ It’s feasible and renewables are sufficient in themselves (no need to complement with fossil energy)

2/ It’s cost effective (costs comparable to todays in a 15 year projection)

3/ We need a multi sector approach and to improve/optimize energy storage technology

That third point is exactly what I’ve been preaching:

“ … in my point of view it is absolutely vital NOT to rely too much/be dependent on just one source of energy, “clean” or not. History as taught us through the oil crisis, the danger of being too dependent of just one source of energy which is why we need to apprehend the energy stakes and challenges with a multi-sector approach in order to reach a clever and complementary combination of energy industries: solar, hydro, wind turbine, biomass…”
Airborne Wind Turbine article

Just like I’ve been overly enthusiast about recent breakthroughs in energy storage technology: "Batterie Graphene" (few seconds of recharge for weeks of use with more than doubled battery life expectancy)

On top of that, I also maintain the need we have for decentralized energy:

“Additionally, it seems self-evident that energy production must be as decentralized as possible! Instead of huge power plants powering entire cities by themselves, each construction, house or building should be thought as an autarkic entity, a mini power plant in itself self-sufficient energy wise. That’s that much issues less in terms of power shortage and so on !”
Airborne Wind Turbine article

In conclusion, my dear friends, all of this post to repeat yet again but one thing: renewable energies, OH YEAH ! It makes sense economically, it makes sense environmentally, it makes sense energetically, strategically…

It makes sense! Period!

Make it profitable, make it sustainable