Here’s another reason why renewables are at an unfair disadvantage

[xchrom]

http://grist.org/climate-energy/heres-another-reason-why-renewables-are-at-an-unfair-disadvantage/

?w=470&h=265&crop=1

Recently, a new pipeline started pumping fracked natural gas from the Marcellus Shale to Manhattan. It’s a critical reminder of the importance of infrastructure in determining our energy future — and of how lopsided our infrastructure policy is.

Burdensome regulations governing infrastructure are hampering renewable energy expansion, while natural gas is facing no such obstacles. If renewable energy is going to make up any significant portion of our nation’s electricity needs, we need to change our energy infrastructure regulations. And the time to make those changes is now.

Coal-fired power plants are retiring, leaving a demand for new electricity generation. The two most likely power sources to fill that void are renewable energy and natural gas. But right now, the competition between these two sources is not happening on a level playing field.

Building out infrastructure is critical to the growth of both of these power generation sources. But it takes a lot longer to put up transmission lines, which link remote wind and solar farms to population centers, than it does to build natural gas pipelines. And therein lies the problem.

[NNadir]

1. Regulations around the world have been changed for so called "renewable energy," hundreds...

...of billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of euro, trillions of yen and yuan have been thrown at it.

The industry does not support itself; on the contrary, it demands the right to charge prices far above market prices and government subsidies on top of that.

Vast stretches of land, including some in some pretty important ecosystems, as well as agricultural land, have been covered by its infrastructure. No serious provisions have been made to dispose of the waste materials that inevitably will result when this material is useless, something that will take place in most cases in two or three decades.

Because of its low energy density, huge relatively toxic mines have been opened all over the world to supply it.

The result is an industry that would collapse in a New York second without access to dangerous natural gas, an industry that didn't produce 1% of the 538 exajoules of energy humanity consumed in 2011, and which almost certainly didn't do so in 2013 and won't in 2014.

And what do we get in return for this huge investment? Complaints from the 1% about "burdensome regulations!"

Tell it to the Republicans. They love to hear about "burdensome regulations."

All energy industries need regulation, otherwise their partisans will do whatever the hell they want, irrespective of impact. It is a lie that the so called "renewable energy" industry has a zero environmental impact. It's becoming increasingly clear that the environmental impact of this stuff is inferior to better systems, notably nuclear energy.

[LouisvilleDem]

2. Why?

But it takes a lot longer to put up transmission lines, which link remote wind and solar farms to population centers, than it does to build natural gas pipelines.

Is it fair to assume that the reason this is true is because of politics? I would think that from a purely engineering and construction point of view, it would be a lot easier to put up power lines than gas pipelines, but I could be wrong.

[GeorgeGist]

3. My reaction also ...

maybe we'll get answer from someone more knowledgeable.

[oldhippie]

4. I don't have current figures, but ....

... I think large overhead transmission line construction costs are more than natural gas pipelines. That is just the construction cost, not costs for right-of-way.

I think the main political opposition to electric transmission lines is that they are unsightly. Once a pipeline is in the ground it is largely forgotten about unless it leaks. Transmission lines are there to look at every single day.

[caraher]

5. Of course, transmission lines can be buried

but then they cost more than the overhead lines.

[phantom power]

6. there are also electrical issues with buried lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Underground_transmission

[caraher]

7. Sure

I'm just pointing out that it's entirely possible

[kristopher]

8. Natural gas and nuclear were the focus of Cheney's 2005 energy bill

And he made sure they both got everything they could possibly want.

But there is good news.

In spite of misinformation by nuclear fans, renewable energy has a strong base established:


And if you just look at just electricity it looks like this, with renewables delivering nearly twice the share of nuclear:


Addressing the point of your OP, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is working hard to structure a regulatory environment enabling renewable growth. They have demonstrated a strong commitment but sadly our fractured system does, in fact, make it difficult to knit together a national policy that can't be undermined by the ALEC inspired efforts at the state level.

ALEC is making opposition to renewables a centerpiece of their legislative efforts in 2014. That means they are also going to continue their effort to nullify the EPA's recent work on carbon limits for electricity generation. Detailed information here:
http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/2013-proposed-carbon-pollution-standard-new-power-plants

Recent action here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/09/3139921/epa-carbon-rule-power-plants/

[xchrom]

9. +1

[CRH]

10. Yes, utilities and infrastructure policies need to be public oriented, ...

privatization should meet the same doom at the doorstep, the people have been led. Only therein progress toward a solution will be found.

[kristopher]

11. Utilities are 'public oriented'

That's the idea of oversight bodies called "public utility commission" and various other names.

Privatization isn't the issue either. The problem is that based on a centralized generation model being a "natural monopoly" has resulted in the utilities being a controlled monopoly with a business model based on that kind of (socialistic) oversight.

They have been promised a given return on their investments as a trade-off for the controlled status. That is done to make sure that money needed to invest in electric supply is available. The return on investment isn't considered high, but it has been considered safe. Now it is threatened by a required shift to distributed renewable generation where the utilities will no longer have a monopoly to sell power. Safe investments, by the way, are a favorite place for pension funds to invest.

The key to solving the problem is to deal with those investments that will no longer be making the money to pay for themselves if the transition goes forward.

There are models for doing this, but limited national level government control in a federal system greatly complicates the chances of finding a streamlined, one-size-fits-all solution for the issue. It is, however, the issue at the heart of utility resistance to change.

And, of course, we also have the efforts of the coal and nuclear industries working through agents like ALEC that are making it even more difficult.