Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508
- Is it possible to build and implement the RE technology without fossil fuel (FF) inputs?
- Is it affordable?
- Can it be done on a climate-relevant schedule?
1. Questions 1 and 2: Technical and Economic Feasibility?
- Claiming that ‘solar PV has a low energy return on energy invested (EROEI or EROI)—too low to power modern civilization [52–55]’, without citing the studies that obtain a different result [17,18,19,20,21] or those that find that static EROEIs of FF electricity technologies are similar to those of solar PV and much less than those of wind [20,22]. Different authors obtain different results by the choice of different methods and regions with different insolations.
- Failing to distinguish between static EROEI, which depends on the properties of the individual energy technology, its pattern of use, and its location, and dynamic system EROEI, which also depends on the rate of implementation of a system of new technologies [21,23]. A rapid implementation, in which new technologies are built before existing technologies have generated the energy needed to build themselves, will inevitably decrease system EROEI temporarily. However, because wind and solar technologies can be manufactured and installed more rapidly than any other energy supply technology, they are likely to have the smallest reduction in dynamic EROEI of any energy supply technology [21].
- Making, in effect, the unreasonable demand that the whole life cycle of RE technologies be instantaneously switched from FF to RE. That transition is underway in mining, mineral processing, aluminium smelting, battery manufacture, transport, retail, computer hardware, software, and so forth, with over 300 large companies committed to transition to 100% RElec by specified dates [24]. Because of RElec’s favourable economics, there is no major barrier, apart from sunk costs, to accelerating this transition.
- Claiming that 100% RElec would require a much higher construction rate for the grid in the USA. Since the current construction rate is low, this is not necessarily a problem for Questions 1 and 2, although it is relevant to Question 3. Transmission costs are generally a small fraction of the cost of the generating system.
- Exaggerating the importance and difficulty of overcoming many other ‘problems’ with RE technologies, most of which are temporary and/or contingent on government policies.
2. Question 3: A Climate-Relevant Schedule?
3. Conclusions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An eco-heterodox perspective on the renewable energy transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A.; Cameron, M.A.; Frew, B.A. Low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 15060–15065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A.; Cameron, M.A.; Mathiesen, B.V. Matching demand with supply at low cost in 139 countries among 20 world regions with 100% intermittent wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) for all purposes. Renew. Energy 2018, 123, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogdanov, D.; Ram, M.; Aghahosseini, A.; Gulagi, A.; Oyewo, A.S.; Child, M.; Caldera, U.; Sadovskaia, K.; Farfan, J.; Barbosa, L.d.S.N.S.; et al. Low-cost renewable electricity as the key driver of the global energy transition towards sustainability. Energy 2021, 227, 120467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, T.W.; Bischof-Niemz, T.; Blok, K.; Breyer, C.; Lund, H.; Mathiesen, B.V. Response to ‘Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems’. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 92, 834–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diesendorf, M.; Elliston, B. The feasibility of 100% renewable electricity systems: A response to critics. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA. World Energy Outlook 2020: Overview and Key Findings; International Renewable Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020/overview-and-key-findings (accessed on 4 July 2021).
- IRENA. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2019; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020; Available online: https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019 (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- Lazard. Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis—Version 14.0. 2020. Available online: https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2021).
- Graham, P.; Hayward, J.; Foster, J.; Havas, L. GenCost 2019-20; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scottish Renewables. Statistics. Available online: https://www.scottishrenewables.com/our-industry/statistics (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- Danish Energy Agency. Energy Statistics 2019. Available online: https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/Statistik/energystatistics2019_webtilg.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- AEMO. South Australian Electricity Report; Australian Energy Market Operator: Melbourne, Australia, November 2020; Available online: https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/electricity/nem/planning_and_forecasting/sa_advisory/2020/2020-south-australian-electricity-report.pdf?la=en (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- REN21. Renewables 2021 Global Status Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/reports/global-status-report/ (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- Clack, C.T.M.; Qvist, S.A.; Apt, J.; Bazilian, M.; Brandt, A.R.; Caldeira, K.; Davis, S.J.; Diakov, V.; Handschy, M.A.; Hines, P.D.H.; et al. Evaluation of a Proposal for Reliable Low-Cost Grid Power with 100% Wind, Water, and Solar. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 6722–6727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jacobson, M.Z.; Delucchi, M.A.; Cameron, M.A.; Frew, B.A. The United States can keep the grid stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable energy in all sectors despite inaccurate claims. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E5021–E5023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Leccisi, E.; Raugei, M.; Fthenakis, V. The energy and environmental performance of ground-mounted photovoltaic systems—A timely update. Energies 2016, 9, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raugei, M.; Fullana-i-Palmer, P.; Fthenakis, V. The energy return on energy investment (EROI) of photovoltaics: Methodology and comparison with fossil fuel cycles. Energy Policy 2012, 45, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raugei, M.; Carbajales-Dale, M.; Barnhart, C.J.; Fthenakis, V. Rebuttal: Comments on ‘Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants’—Making clear of quite some confusion. Energy 2015, 82, 1088–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raugei, M.; Leccisi, E. A comprehensive assessment of the energy performance of the full range of electricity generation technologies deployed in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2016, 90, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Diesendorf, M.; Wiedmann, T. Implications of trends in energy return on energy invested (EROI) for transitioning to renewable electricity. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 176, 106726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brockway, P.E.; Owen, A.; Brand-Correa, L.I.; Hardt, L. Estimation of global final-stage energy-return-on-investment for fossil fuels with comparison to renewable energy sources. Nat. Energy 2019, 4, 612–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Capellán-Pérez, I.; de Castro, C.; González, L.J.M. Dynamic energy return on energy investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 26, 100399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RE100. Available online: https://www.there100.org/re100-members (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- Junne, T.; Wulff, N.; Breyer, C.; Naegler, T. Critical materials in global low-carbon energy scenarios: The case for neodymium, dysprosium, lithium, and cobalt. Energy 2020, 211, 118532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular economy: The concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, H.E. Steady-State Economics: The Economics of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth; WH Freeman and Company: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Dietz, R.; O’Neill, D. Enough is Enough; Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- D’Alisa, G.; Demaria, F.; Kallis, G. (Eds.) Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, T. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- D’Alessandro, S.; Cieplinski, A.; Distefano, T.; Dittmer, K. Feasible alternatives to green growth. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickel, J.; Kallis, G. Is green growth possible? New Political Econ. 2020, 25, 469–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hickel, J. Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World; Penguin Random House: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wiedmann, T.; Lenzen, M.; Keyßer, L.T.; Steinberger, J.K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 2020. Available online: https://www.iea.org/subscribe-to-data-services/world-energy-balances-and-statistics (accessed on 14 August 2021).
- IEA. Countries and Regions. Available online: https://www.iea.org/countries (accessed on 14 August 2021).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Diesendorf, M. Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508. Energies 2022, 15, 964. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030964
Diesendorf M. Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508. Energies. 2022; 15(3):964. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030964
Chicago/Turabian StyleDiesendorf, Mark. 2022. "Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508" Energies 15, no. 3: 964. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030964