Distributed vs. Utility Scale Renewables: A Dead-End BattleCalifornia, United States [RenewableEnergyWorld.com] On a rainy January day in Sacramento, I attended a plenary meeting of California's Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative. At one point, a smartly dressed man from one of the largest rooftop solar finance companies got up to tout the benefits of distributed energy, harping on the drawbacks of high-voltage transmission. Given the backlog of renewable energy projects in California requiring transmission, it was kind of amazing that he had bothered to come to a remote corner of the city to speak against the cause of his renewable energy brethren, an initiative that has zero impact on his firm. Needless to say, next time any of the assembled had a customer referral they would not be turning to this company.
Distributed energy will continue to grow in importance and popularity, but alone it is insufficient to address the climate crisis.
While not all renewable energy company reps are so tone-deaf, the practice of selling distributed energy projects in opposition to all utility scale or central station power projects is outdated and an aid to the continuing dominance of fossil fuels in our electric system. Knee-jerk criticisms of the transmission system and utilities (sometimes found in the pages of this publication) flirt with a similar form of moral hazard. The utilities and grid operators, historically relying most on large-scale power plants, work to respond to our demand for electric power and the conveniences it offers us. In combination with related government agencies and transmission authorities, they have invested in and manage a huge infrastructure that is sending us the power that makes it possible for us to communicate, eat fresh food, get safe medical care, and move around safely. They have figured out ways to do this with a high level of efficiency and service, though unfortunately with fuels that are now endangering our climate. Some critics speak as if it is a breeze to reproduce this service on a smaller scale. This, I believe is either wishful thinking or ignorance. As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy and he is us." So think carefully when you declare distributed energy the only solution: Is this going to be the sole road via which we transition from a fossil fuel to a renewable energy economy? Have you figured out what the costs and availability of generation and storage are that will allow us to energize the devices that we need or want to use, individually and as a society? If you do the calculations, you will realize that developing judiciously sited central station renewable energy plants, new transmission lines, clean storage and ancillary services, as well as distributed generation is the only way we as a society are going to stop climate change while keeping our impact on the earth to a minimum. Michael Hoexter, Ph.D., a renewable energy and energy efficiency advocate, has helped California utilities implement and market energy and resource efficiency programs. His views on the transition to a sustainable energy economy and the valuation of energy and energy services can be found at www.greenthoughts.us.
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
30 Reader Comments
|
Michael Hoexter
Recent Opinion & Commentary |
1 of 30
The biggest issue with CHP is that the biggest proponents of it forget to realize that the population is continuing to relocate from colder climates to warmer ones, so the benefits of co-generation in a non-industrial sense are decreasing over time.