Chile's Migration to Renewables -- and What We Can Learn from the Process

I’m always happy when governments around the world express interest in renewables – and, not to appear selfish, but I’m even happier when those explorations include me personally. To my great delight, it appears that the federal government of Chile will soon ask us for a formal and comprehensive plan to help them migrate from fossil fuel-based energy to renewables.

Thus far, the whole discussion has gone through a chain of fairly mysterious intermediaries; I’ve not had even a preliminary conversation with them directly on the subject, so I have to guess where this will take us. But here’s one thing I have to hope for: Please, let them be open for a fair assessment of their current energy resources. For my team and me, that’s always the first step in cases like these: to perform detailed analyses of the health and longevity of existing power plants.

Some organizations trivialize this important step, and wind up with migration paths that are wildly unpractical and off-the-charts expensive. Coal plants, for example, have a lifespan of 43 years before they need significant overhaul. Because of that, relatively old coal plants can be slated for retirement with far less financial impact than relatively new ones. But even in the case of plants whose value is near zero, "retirement" of something that large has severe financial – as well as environmental consequences. And there are numerous additional factors that affect the rate at which coal plants age: the type of coal burned, the nature and weight of the burden with which environmental retrofits have been added through the years, etc.

After a study performed by our associates (Marie Corio and her team at AER) that will require anywhere from six to nine months and result in a complete and accurate analysis of the power production assets, the part that I regard as fun begins: the assessment of renewable energy resources and the contemplation of deployment.

I call this "fun," as it’s where we get to look at the ideal situation. We love asking ourselves about the optimum blend of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass -- and how to integrate all this into the grid-mix.  But in truth, energy policy is never really a question of ideals. We all want clean, abundant, and inexpensive energy. But as always, the "tough realities" surface. In a world of fierce competition for finite and precious resources, clean energy, now still a bit pricey, often takes a back seat.

Sure, alternative energy and transportation are there today for people with deep pockets. Santa Monica, California is an example of a community that is both progressive in its thinking and sufficiently affluent to afford implementing the initiatives they deem important. The result? A city fleet (trash trucks, parking enforcement vehicles, etc.) that is 87% composed of alternative fueled vehicles. They can afford it, where most cannot.

The bottom line is this: there is plenty of clean energy and efficient transportation out there. But the question is: What do you want to pay for it?

And of course, that’s really what it will come down to in Chile. Before we reach the point of grid-parity (the point at which an incremental watt-hour of energy from renewables comes at the same cost it would have from fossil fuels) what is the political will for a bit of financial pain?

I’ll know soon. If you’re interested, write me next week and ask.

-- Craig Shields is editor of 2GreenEnergy.com and author of Renewable Energy -- Facts and Fantasies (published by Clean Energy Press, 2010)