A critique of the
IPCC Report on Renewable Energy. (2011a.).
Ted Trainer.
Social Sciences and International
Studies,
Univ. of NSW, Australia. 2052
F.Trainer@unsw.edu.au
12.6.2012.
This document has been regarded as confirming the widespread
belief that renewable energy can replace fossil fuels and more or less meet
world energy demand by 2050. The Press Release says, ÒClose to 80 percent of the worldÔs energy supply could be met by
renewables by mid-centuryÉ a new report shows.Ó (IPCC, 2011b.) Thus the report is likely to be
accepted as an authoritative and definitive statement that transition to
renewable is possible, does not require significant social change, and is
affordable.
However there is a strong case for regarding the report as
remarkably unsatisfactory and as not establishing the main conclusion
attributed to it. This case is summarise at RE3p.htm Following are the main points made.
á The report does not show that
renewable sources can meet future energy demand, or a large fraction of
it. It is not that its attempt to
show this is unsatisfactory; the point is that it does not offer a case; it
does not attempt to show what proportion of demand could be met by
renewables. The report merely
presents the results of some studies which state conclusions about renewable
energyÕs potential, without attempting to assess their worth. It is argued
below that the main such study, on which the WG3 report relies heavily, is deeply
flawed, is of little or no value and does not establish its claims.
The report should be a detailed
analysis of the potential and limits of renewable energy, deriving conclusions
about what proportion of demand it can meet, and demonstrating these
conclusions via evidence and transparent assumptions and reasoning that others
can work through to assess how well the conclusions follow or are
established. The reader should be
able to examine an argument to satisfy himself that the conclusion is valid,
that it can be seen to follow from the reasoning, (or to decide how well it has
been established, what assumptions are weak, where better evidence is needed
etc.) The report does not engage in
a discussion which enables such an assessment.
á
The
actual conclusion regarding renewable potential the ReportÕs states is as
follows.
ÒMore than 50% of the scenarios project levels of RE
deployment in 2050 of more than 173 EJ/y reaching up to over 400 EJ/y in some
cases.Ó (SPM, p.20, see also p. 18.)
More than half say renewable could provide more than 27% of energy.
(IPCC, 2011a, Summary for Policy Makers, pp. 4, 15.)
Note firstly that this conclusion is
not saying that 80% of 2050 demand can be provided. Note secondly that it is
not a conclusion the IPCCÕs WG 3 has come to; it is a summary of the conclusions
the selected studies have come to.
The 173 EJ/y median renewable contribution foreseen is around 20% of the
2050 demand we seem to be heading for.
á There is no critical examination of
the 164 studies considered. It is
not explained how they were selected.
It is said that they were not randomly selected. There is no reference to any of (the
few) studies that I am aware of as having been published doubting the capacity
of renewable energy to meet demand.
(These include Hayden, 2004, Trainer, 2007, Bryce, 2010, Moriarty and
Honnery, 2010, Trainer 2010a.) A
satisfactory review would have presented the details from an IPCC working group
reporting on their thorough critical examination of all, or a representative
selection of, the reports to determine whether their quantitative conclusions
were sound or plausible and whether the difficulties had been dealt with. There is no analysis of this kind.
á Several crucial difficulties and
problems confronting renewable energy supply are either not dealt with
adequately, or not mentioned at all.
It is argued below that some of these are not likely to be overcome.
á The report depends heavily on one of
four selected studies. This is the
source of the claim that 80% of energy could come from renewables by 2050. It
will be argued below that this study is remarkably superficial, unconvincing,
mistaken and misleading.
á Even if the ReportÕs main claims are
accepted, this is of little consolation.
Even if renewables could supply 27% of energy by 2050, then catastrophic
climate change is very likely.
World energy demand is heading towards a doubling by 2050 so if one
quarter of it could be met by renewables then the other three quarters would
still have to be met by fossil fuels (unless breeders or fusion can deliver
about 750 EJ/y by then, and meet all present non-electrical demand.) The IPCCÕs graphs (Summary Chapter 1, p.
10) show that CO2e is heading for an average estimate of 65 GT/y by 2050. If renewables cut this by 75% by 2050 we
would still have around 50 Gt/y of emissions, far more than the present amount.
In 2007 the IPCC 4AR said emissions must be cut to between about
6 and 13 Gt/y. But it is very
likely that we will soon recognise that emissions to the atmosphere must be
totally eliminated by 2050.
(Hansen, 2008, Meinshausen et al., 2009.) If we donÕt do this we will go
past the emission budget limit. (Carbon
Capture and Storage canÕt solve the problem, because it is very unlikely that
more than only 80 – 90% of emissions from stationary sources can be
captured. Metz, 2005, Trainer, 2011a.) Therefore even if renewables can provide
one quarter of demand as the IPCC says, that would fall far short of solving
our energy and greenhouse problems. Yet the report conveys an air of optimism
regarding the capacity of renewables to solve our problems.
Omissions: The main concern.
There are a number of very important problems to do with
renewable energy supply with which the report does not deal at all, or deals
with superficially, or fails to draw significant conclusions about.
There is no discussion of the crucial problem of meeting
demand in mid winter, when demand can peak and solar resources can be
negligible or non-existent.
Firstly, in order to meet peak demand with a safety margin (e.g., for
breakdown of some units) up to 1.3 times as much coal-fired generating plant
might have to be built as would meet average demand. (The Australian ratio of plant to
average demand is 1.78.) Secondly the crucial problems for renewable supply are
set by winter. Winds are stronger
then but solar resources are at their weakest. Central receiver output at the best US
sites would average around 50% of summer output (NREL, 2010), but in some years
a monthly average can be 40% lower than the long term average for that month.
Combining these two factors, a peak high in demand and peak
low in energy availability, might double the amount of capacity that seems to
be required when calculations are based on average demand and average radiation
levels. This factor has significant
implications for the amount of plant required and therefore for total system
capital cost.
However there is a much bigger problem, on which the report
does not comment. The greatest challenges set by variability of wind and sun
concerns the gaps of several days in a row when there might be no sun or wind
energy available across large regions, including continents. There are several studies documenting
the magnitude and seriousness of these common events. For instance Oswald et
al, (2008) show that over the whole of Ireland, UK and Germany for the first
300 hours of 2006, i.e., in mid winter, the best time of the year for wind
energy. For half this period, i.e.,
6 days, there was almost no wind input in any of these countries. For about 120 continuous hours UK
capacity averaged about 3%. During
this period UK electricity demand reached its peak high for the whole year, at
a point in time when wind input was zero. Throughout this period the solar
input would also have been negligible.
The considerable capital cost implications of having a back up system
capable of substituting for just about all wind capacity (noted by Lenzen,
2009) are rarely focused on.
The IPCC discusses integration at some length and its
summaries seem to align well with LenzenÕs review (2009, p.19) which confirms
the previously generally understood conclusion that wind cannot contribute more
than 25%, probably 20%, of electricity required. These integration limits mean that wind
plus PV might contribute at best only 55% of electricity, i.e., only 14% of all
energy. The Report does not deal
with the question of from which sources the other 86% is to come, apart from
biomass.
There is discussion of the crucial energy storage issue,
reviewing (superficially, some) options, but it does not help much in assessing
the possibility of a global renewable energy supply system. Such a system would have to rely heavily
on extremely large scale storage of electricity, which is not possible at
present and is not foreseen. The
report does not contradict this view.
The formidable difficulties are recognised briefly (Chapter 8, p. 41),
in a sentence which actually says it is questionable whether solutions will be
found.
There is a table stating embodied
energy costs for renewable technologies, but no much-needed discussion enabling
more confident conclusions regarding this unsatisfactory field. There is reason to believe that a
thorough accounting would indicate costs that are much higher than have been
assumed, in the case of PV by a factor of 10. (Lenzen, et al., 2003)
The heavy reliance on the Greenpeace
report, The Energy (R)evolution.
Chapters 2 to 7 and 9 review a great deal of valuable
evidence and discussion, including on the nature of technologies and the
quantities of energy these Òcould/mightÓ provide. However the most remarkable feature of
the whole report, and its most objectionable aspect, is the focus in Chapter 10
on four selected studies, one of which is very optimistic and is the source of
the claim the Report is identified with, i.e., that 80% of world energy in 2050
can come from renewables. The study
in question, the 2008 Energy (R)evolution, by Greenpeace, is, to be as polite
as possible, extremely challengeable.
(For a critique of this report, see Trainer, 2011b.) It fails to deal with several crucial
issues, makes implausible and poorly supported or unsupported assumptions, and
above all simply presents a desired/imagined 2050 scenario which is not derived
and not shown to be possible.
Despite the glaring inadequacies in the Greenpeace Report the IPCC
offers no critical or evaluative comment on it.
Capital costs.
The reportÕs conclusions regarding the capital costs of
mitigating climate change are also unsatisfactory, highly challengeable and in
my view, quite misleading. Again
the Working Group does not attempt to calculate possible costs but quotes those
stated in the four selected studies selected in Chapter 10. In the Summary for Policy Makers a total
is briefly given without derivation or discussion, and is apparently taken from
Greenpeace. The 2010 version
of the Greenpeace document (Teske, et al., 2010) give the figure of $17.9
trillion to 2030 or $600 billion p.a., but no derivation or references are
given. It is not explained that an investment cost would have to be paid every
year into the future, as plant requires constant reconstruction or replacement
at about 25 year intervals. In Trainer 2010a and 2011a estimated capital costs
for a world renewable energy supply are derived. They are in the region of ten times as
great as the above figure, and an even greater multiple of the present ratio of
energy investment to global GDP. (Birol, 2003.)
It should also be kept clearly in mind that the appropriate
focus for a discussion of world energy supply is the amount all the worldÕs
people could use. Australians are
heading towards a 2050 per capita use of 500-600 GJ/y given current growth
rates. If 10 billion people were to
live as we would then be living, global energy production would have to be
maybe 6,000 EJ/y, twelve times as great as it is now. If the IPCC wants us to feel confident
that renewables can provide for us they need to explain how they can provide
not the 27% or 50% of 500 EJ/y the report is being taken to claim, but 25-50
times as much.
Conclusions.
Although the Report is a large and valuable compendium of
information, it simply does not throw much or reliable light on the crucial
question of the extent to which we are likely to be able to rely on renewables
in 2050. It is being regarded as
providing strong reassurance but this is not justified. The Report is seriously
misleading, reinforcing optimism regarding the potential of renewables to
enable continuation of energy-intensive societies, and in reassuring people
that there is no need to think about vast and radical structural and cultural
change.
It is difficult to understand why such a problematic report
has emerged. What we want to know,
and what this Report will be taken to have settled, is the extent to which we
can run on renewables. But the
hundred or so authors referred to have not worked on that question; they have
only reported on, and apparently endorsed, what a selection of others have
said. They have not critically
examined what those others have said in a process intended to determine whether
they are correct. Above all they
have been content to allow their ReportÕs take-home message to come from the
transparently problematic Greenpeace Report, without giving it any critical
attention. These are not
satisfactory scientific ways of proceeding.
This critique is not intended to have any implications
regarding climate science. It is
not to do with the claim that human activity is a significant cause of
dangerous global warming. However
it does raise concerns regarding the credibility of the IPCC and its
processes. It is greatly to be
hoped that the IPCCs conclusions on climate change do not derive from analyses
such as those evident in this report.
It would be disturbing in the extreme if its climate claims were based
on the selection of ÒscenariosÓ, relied heavily on one, and carried out no
critical examination of their worth.
It is also important to stress that this has not been a
rejection of renewable energy. The
Simpler Way (Trainer 2010b, 2011c) stands for a shift to full reliance on it as
soon as possible, and for the claim that we can live well on it...but not in
energy-intensive societies.
So whatÕs the solution?
The point is that for consumer-capitalist society there isnÕt one. The
argument in Trainer, 2010b and the core theme in The Simpler Way (Trainer, 2011c)
analyses is that global problems are basically due to the commitment to grossly
unsustainable levels of consumption and to limitless economic growth. The problems cannot be solved by trying
to provide the quantities of energy that a consumer-capitalist society for 10
billion would require. Consumer
society is generating other major problems in addition to energy and climate,
including the poverty of billions, the destruction of the ecosystems of the
planet, resource conflicts, and deteriorating social cohesion. These problems cannot be solved unless
there is vast and radical transition a Simpler Way of some kind. This IPCC WG3
Report reinforces the dominant faith that there is no need to think about this
perspective on our global situation.
Birol, F., (2003), World energy investment
outlook to 2030. IEA, Exploration and Production: The Oil & Gas Review, Volume 2.
Bryce, R., (2010), Power Hungry, Public Affairs, New
York.
Greenpeace International and European
Renewable Energy Council, (2010), World Energy (R)evolution; A Sustainable
World Energy Outlook.
Hansen, J., et al., (2008), ÒTarget
atmospheric CO2; Where Should humanity aim?Ó, The Open Atmospheric Science
Journal, 2, 217 – 231.
Hayden, H. C., (2004), The Solar Fraud, Pueblo West,
Co, Vales Lake Publishing.
IPCC, (2011a), (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
Working Group 111, Mitigation of Climate Change, Special Report on Renewable
Energy Sources and Climate Mitigation. June, 2011. http:www.srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report
IPCC, (2011b), PRESS RELEASE:
Potential of Renewable Energy Outlined in Report by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/press/content/potential-of-renewable-energy-outlined-report-by-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change
Lenzen, M., 2009. Current State of Electricity Generating
Technologies. Integrated Sustainability Analysis, The University of Sydney.
Lenzen, M., C. Dey, C.
Hardy and M. Bilek (2006) Life-Cycle
Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia. Report to the Prime Minister's Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear
Energy Review (UMPNER), Internet site
http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf,
Sydney, Australia, ISA, University of Sydney.
Meinshausen, M, N. Meinshausen, W. Hare, S. C. B. Raper, K.
Frieler, R. Knuitti, D. J. Frame, and M. R. Allen, (2009), ÒGreenhouse gas
emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 degrees CÓ, Nature,
458, 30th April, 1158 -1162.
Metz, B, O. Davidson, H. de Coninch, M. Loos and L. Meyer,
(Undated), Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage, IPCC Special Report, Summary for Policy Makers,
Working Group III.
Moriarty, P., and D. Honnery, (2010), The Rise and Fall
of Carbon Civilization, Springer, Dordrecht.
NASA, (2010), Climate Data Resource. http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.cgi?uid=3030
Oswald, J.K., Raine, M., and Ashraf-Ball,
H.J., (2008), ÒWill British weather
provide reliable electricity?Ó, Energy Policy, 36, 3202 – 3215.
Teske, S., T. Pregger, S. Simon, T.
Naegler, W. Graus, and C. Lins, (2010), ÒEnergy [R]evolution 2010—a sustainable world energy outlook,Ó Energy Efficiency, 41 -433.
Trainer, T., (2007), Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A
Consumer Society, Dordrect, Springer.
Trainer, T., 2010a. Can renewables etc. solve the greenhouse
problem? The negative case. Energy Policy, 38, 8, August, 4107 - 4114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.037
Trainer, T., 2010b. The Transition to a
Sustainable and Just World.
Envirobook, Sydney.
Trainer, T., (2011a), ÒRenewable energy – Cannot sustain an energy-intensive societyÓ, (50 page updated summary case).
Trainer, T., (2011b), Critical comments on Energy
(R)evolution; A Sustainable Australian Energy Outlook, by Greenpeace,
2008.
http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/GreenpeaceCrit.html
Trainer, T., (2011c), The Simpler Way
website. thesimperway.info