There is an inconvenient truth to renewable energy...
With renewable energy, you don’t have to pay for your fuel — and that fuel is also entirely carbon-free. These are two huge strengths. But you can’t just make this energy show up when and where you want it — and that is the ugly truth.
This truth was recently much discussed at one of the best conferences on the integration of renewable energy into power systems and markets, ESIG 2024 — an event centered on matters of weather and climate in energy systems and markets.
Throughout the conference and then again in the closing panel discussion, the “ugly truth" of renewable energy was underscored : “You can’t predict your way out of renewable energy variability”. Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series — the “good” and the “bad” — showed how renewable energy forecasts have improved tremendously over the years. But even when the best forecasts in the world tell you with 100% certainty that the wind will stop blowing in 30 minutes just as the clouds pass over, the sudden loss of energy from the wind and solar plants is going to have to be balanced in some way. The forecasts tell you to get ready, they give you the warning, but the wind energy and the solar power will still drop. So, either some other source of generation will have to come online quickly (“reserves”, as the power industry calls it), or the electricity usage will have to drop (demand management or flexible load). Again, the ugly truth: “You can’t predict your way out of variability”. Instead, the system needs to have sufficient capacity and flexibility to deal with it. We have already shown that renewable energy is much less variable and even more predictable if you expand your view to an entire state, region, country — and that balance can be achieved by having the electricity demand respond to the amount of renewable supply.
The energy conundrum
You might ask yourself, “Why is this even an issue worthy of discussion?”. We are living in an increasingly polarized world (another ugly truth) where working together to find solutions to problems is seen as less important than “winning”. The same is true in the energy space.
In the rapidly growing and changing global energy sector we are facing two simultaneous and interconnected challenges: maximized decarbonization and a huge growth in electricity demand. Let’s look at these in a bit more detail.
1) Maximized decarbonization: Climate change is forcing us to decarbonize the entire energy sector — i.e. dramatically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. Decarbonization requires us to make everything that needs energy use electricity or carrier fuels such as hydrogen — all of which needs to be generated with zero carbon emission.
2) Massive growth in electrical demand: It will be challenging enough to decarbonize the current global energy demand (think not just the electricity you use today, but energy for industrial processes and transportation as well). Now add to that the huge expected growth in global energy demand driven by data centers, AI, and cryptocurrencies – not to forget energy growth in the income level 1 and 2 counties. Suddenly, achieving total decarbonization seems like an overwhelming challenge.
We have huge increases in energy demand, the requirement to electrify everything, and the need to generate all of this required electricity with as few carbon emissions as possible. It's a lot. Overwhelming, yes — but far from impossible.
The transition
We've established big goals — so how do we get there? Point #1 — our goal to maximize decarbonization — is sadly somewhat of a political issue, despite the science leaving no room for interpretation: Human carbon emissions are the cause of climate change, and stopping these emissions is absolutely required to stabilize the Earth’s climate. It is the 'if' and 'how' to change—the transition—that is contentious. Point #2, however — fulfilling our massive and growing electricity demands — gets no argument, especially from the folks building all those data centers, desiring a higher quality of life, or looking to provide the energy and electricity services of the future.
We are at a bit of a tipping point when it comes to further increasing renewable energy penetration levels in some parts of the world. In the early days of renewable energy, many thought that renewables would remain prohibitively expensive and that their dependence on the weather, their inherent variability of generation, would limit the amount that could be built. Both of these have proven to be false.
The economics are still in favor of renewable energy, and there are clear technological and systematic pathways to massive market penetrations (say, 60% to 90%). Sadly, though, here enters our “ugly” again: The politics surrounding these goals, and the need to “win”. The transition to a low-carbon energy future powered mostly by renewable energy is not an issue of technology or even overall cost, it is about who pays the bill, and who wins and who loses during that transition. Even if we stay on the path of low renewables and continued high dependence on fossil fuels — a path actively discussed in the USA and Europe due to a combination of politics and high energy prices — there will be clear market winners and losers, and we will all be paying the bill one way or the other. The path to high renewable penetration and a low-carbon future will also create winners and losers, and it is clear that the status quo will need to change to make it happen.
As it turns out, the real ugly truth of renewable energy is not that it depends on the weather – it's that the renewable energy transition is happening too slowly and encountering too much resistance.
Even after two decades of showing how renewable energy can scale and be affordable, numerous engineering studies showing a technical pathway to achieving massive deployments, and the unquestionable link between carbon emissions and climate change, we are still failing to work together to take the urgent action needed. That’s just ugly.
