The Holy Trinity of Renewable Energy
Eating your cake and having it too.
I first read the manifesto of the Unabomber when I was living in France in about 1996. Ultimately, Ted Kaczynski was unmasked after his demand for newspapers to publish his manifesto was accepted (17 years into his deplorable bombing campaign).
In a curiosity of language, Ted Kaczynski would invert the expression “to have your cake and eat it”. This linguistic foible was enough for David Kaczynski to recognize his brother’s writing style - and provided the tip-off that led where forensics had failed - to a cabin deep in the Montana woods. Ted Kaczynski had gone “off-grid” - a concept I will write about in a future post.
“As for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society — well, you can't eat your cake and have it too.”
Kaczynski got very Malthusian very quickly, but at least had clarity on the trade-offs inherent in his anti-industrial society worldview.
Renewables - eat your cake and have it too.
Having your cake and eating it, eating your cake and having it - whichever way around you chose to turn the phrase - it is a colloquial way of expressing the idea of trade-offs or “no free lunch”.
For those who understand that electricity doesn’t simply come out of a socket in the wall - there is a consequent understanding that our modern society’s use of energy will always have trade-offs. That is, unless you are in the religious wing of the renewables cult, in which case there are no trade-offs, only benefits.
The Impossible Promise of Wind and Solar
Wind and solar seem to have it all (if one believes the propaganda): they solve the unsolvable, simultaneously maximizing each leg of the energy trilemma, a new Holy Trinity:
Not just green, but actually saving the planet - (no, but if you believe it, it’s a tick),
Not just cheap, but the cheapest form of energy (no, but if you believe it, it’s a tick)
AND now… increasing reliance on solar and wind power increases energy security.
This looks a lot like “eating your cake and having it too”. What’s not to love? Oh, that boring old notion that “if it seems too good to be true…”?
Renewables for Energy Security
Far be it for me…. but a cynic might argue that the rise in prominence of Energy Security as a pro-renewable argument is correlated to the increasing challenges to the “green” and “cheap” arguments. Surely not!
Be that as it may, the energy-security argument says that a country using wind and solar resources, which exist within its national boundaries, reduces, or ideally, eliminates its reliance on global commodity markets - notably oil, gas and coal. This is a very alluring line of reasoning. Who wouldn’t want more secure energy and thus, control over their own destiny? As noted above, there is the non-negligible bonus that it also has the great Green stamp-of-approval for saving the planet.
As and when the price of an alternative fuel, such as natural gas, spikes on the international markets the zero marginal-cost of wind and solar can also feel like a huge win. Price spikes hurt rich countries, but cause “price rationing” for poorer countries as they get out-bid. When you can’t access deliveries of LNG (even though you had contracted volumes) as happened to Pakistan in 2022, energy security becomes tangible and very painful.
The price of LNG into Europe started rising as the dunkelflaute started in September 2021 and market participants worried about the coming winter. The price spike was accentuated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine six months later, before increasing throughout 2022 on supply/demand concerns.
As gas prices spiked even higher we saw “if only we had more wind and solar - there would be less reliance on the international gas markets” commentaries. The EU fell over itself to accelerate the energy transition - planning more and more renewables
“In terms of structural measures, in March 2022, the EU heads of state issued the Versailles Declaration, outlining the pillars of the EU’s response to the energy crisis. These pillars were later incorporated in the EU Commission’s REPowerEU plan (May 2022), the central policy framework for the EU’s energy strategy.” cepr.org
The horribly named REPowerEU plan is of course blindly doubling-down on the wind and solar policies that have created the structural weakness in the EU energy system (as well as longer-term weakening the EUs economic, and thus military, strengths).
Increasing EU’s 2030 target to 45% renewables in the EU mix, up from the current target of 40% (an additional 169GW to the Fitfor55 2030 target of 1067 GW)
Accelerating the rollout of PV energy, with a dedicated EU Solar Energy Strategy, aiming to deploy over 320 GW of new solar photovoltaic by 2025, and almost 600 GW by 2030 (IEA)
The promise of reducing reliance on Russian gas (energy security) and reducing reliance on global gas markets (energy affordability) by using more (green) renewables is the Holy Trinity manifest. Having your cake and eating it.
Importing Machinery vs. Importing Fuels
However, it is increasingly common to see the counter-argument - that over-reliance on wind and solar simply displaces the Energy Security question. The source and/or processing of all the materials needed for wind turbines and solar panels is dominated by China. Which leads to the “what aboutism” : what about the fact that all the mineral processing and manufacturing is now concentrated in China (or in SE Asia, but still sourced from China)? This is the new “Gotcha” moment - how can we have Energy Security if we rely on China for all the harvesting machines?
With no hint of irony, some commentators have nuanced this to “how can we re-shore the processing and manufacturing without massively increasing costs?” accidentally saying the quiet bit out loud. The unintentional irony of course being that the low manufacturing costs in China are due to cheap coal power, as well as low environmental standards and in some cases forced labour - trade-offs. Did I mention no free lunch?
On a decadal timescale I am sympathetic to the view that over-reliance on one supplier, especially if it be China, is a security issue. However, this has to be contrasted to the alternative, which for most countries, especially in Europe, is the importation of huge amounts of gas, oil, wood pellets, enriched nuclear feedstock and sometimes coal - imports that have to happen as a continuous, unbroken supply chain.
Importing fuel is an energy security AND energy affordability issue. Indeed, just recently, Ethiopia has banned the import of non-electric vehicles specifically to try to reduce its fuel import bill. Whilst Ethiopia banning non-electric vehicles seems a bit premature, it should be seen in the context of both it’s balance of payments as well as the expected ramp up of the 5.5GW Grand Renaissance Dam. This massive (albeit contentious) domestic energy source provides real energy security (absent a major drought or conflict with a neighbour).
There is a significant difference between needing a continuous and voluminous source of fuel (gas, oil, coal) everyday, compared to a need to build and replace harvesting machines every X years. In a case of open hostilities, cutting off fuel supplies can break a country in days - if a large amount of a country’s power comes from renewable electricity - cutting off the supply of replacement turbines and solar panels will not have any immediate effect. So this is not a like-for-like comparison and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that renewable energy, as a significant part of an electrified society’s energy source, can be seen to contribute to Energy Security.
Furthermore, it is theoretically possible to re-shore much of the mining, processing and manufacturing (certainly in North America; Europe would be more challenging). But as noted above, this would come at a cost - but hey, no free lunches and all that. Indeed, in the US the Inflation Expansion Act (TM) has reshoring as part of its objectives. It won’t happen overnight, but in extremis it could be done.
As a partial conclusion, I would argue that energy security is probably a better argument for wind and solar than either their “green” or “cheap” credentials.
Energy Security is not just Domestic Supply
Many commentators (myself included) are firmly of the opinion that a modern industrial society cannot run on renewable power alone.
“Complete decarbonization of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable global economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near-miraculous technical advances.” Vaclav Smil
Unfortunately, Energy Policy in many western countries is a misnomer - most countries have decarbonization policies and simply assume that energy will always just be there as they drive the decarbonization dogma.
Ironically, the inherent limitation (intermittency) of wind and solar may end up being a saving grace.
Let me explain.
Energy Security comes from diversity of supply (see my post on over-reliance on electrical tools during power outages) and diversity of generation, and indeed a diversity of uses. Specifically, the “systemic risk” inherent in the “electrify everything” objective is almost never mentioned. Having most technology running on electricity, heating on gas and transport on oil is not a bad mix, especially when you have electricity generated by multiple sources, and likewise more than one supply of gas and petroleum….
The decarbonization mantra of “electrify everything and use only renewables” is a recipe for energy insecurity. Even if you have an abundant (and reliable) energy resource within national boundaries, it would be wise to diversify. By way of example, one can think of the UK in the 1970s which was heavily dependent on locally produced coal for electricity and heating - and the country was brought to it’s knees by a miners strike. Likewise, the fantastic French nuclear fleet has a systemic risk: having used a cookie-cutter manufacturing approach, any design flaw could affect the whole fleet at the same time and thus impact French electricity - which is 2x that of the UK since there is almost no gas heating in France. When all is working its a fine system. If it has problems in the depths of winter it would be a different discussion.
So it is wise to diversify even if the source be reliable such as coal or nuclear - the fact that wind and solar are intermittent requires the energy system to have alternatives for when they don’t show up. Thus, it is in the nature of renewable power that diversification of supply must exist as back-up. Whilst this is a “bug” with respect to cost, it is an important “feature” with respect to energy security.
One Direction, Misdirection
Sometimes you have to look at what is happening, not at what is being said, even if the “bit” being said is also forming policy. The classic magician’s trick of misdirection to some flashy distraction while the hands work unseen. We hear over and over again of increasingly ambitious (desperate?) targets for renewables. But if we look at what is happening, not at the flashy distracting headlines we a different picture.
Despite Europe having ambitious targets for increasing its wind and solar “capacity”; led by Germany, it has massively expanded its gas import infrastructure as well as increasing its coal generation (and indeed coal imports). In parallel (with Germany being an exception) many European nations are planning for their nuclear power renaissance. France, with its green (nuclear) grid has simply refused EU “renewables” targets.
Look at what the magician’s hands are doing, not at the distraction they are telling you to look at.
The Pivot to Energy Security
As the primary arguments of “cheapness” and “greenness” become increasingly untenable, the somewhat late-to-the-party argument that renewables solve for energy security is finally getting some justifiable consideration.
For countries fortunate enough to have natural resources of coal and/or gas - many will chose the reliability of the resources beneath their feet rather than the wind and sun. For many/most others, some renewables will provide diversification and a consequent increase in energy security - albeit at a cost.
Technology is a Solution, Dogma isn’t.
In the Netflix dramatization of the hunt for the Unabomber, the FBI profiler who is struggling to identify the culprit is returning home after a very late shift - and is sitting in his car at a red stop light - on a deserted city street at 3am. The words of the Unabomber start to mess with him - do we control technology or does it control us? Pointlessly sitting at a red stop light on a deserted street - he starts to understand the anti-technology / anti-progress position of Ted Kaczynski. Is technology the solution or the problem? Solving for the Energy Trilemma requires better understanding of trade-offs, better use of technology and less dogma.
Post Script
Whilst the Unabomber’s manifesto is an interesting read - the very first premise is incompatible with what the data shows:
The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
More realistically, it is arguable (as it is argued in the manifesto) that industrial development has been a disaster for the natural environment. Equally, the separation of humans from nature has a negative spiritual element. But tearing down the edifice of Industrial Society is uber-Malthusian - and unsurprisingly garnered little support.
Post Script 2
Whilst the manifesto is quite rambling, there is an interesting part (approximately paragraphs 219-230) that gives a reasoning of why the “left” would not be useful allies in his mission; it was written over 30 years ago, yet reads like a very up-to-date critique of modern “progressive” politics. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Very insightful, particularly the "energy security" aspect of renewables as part of an energy mix.
Governments all over the world are viewing the "green" energy movement in its current form as a way toward personal enrichment. Since solar and wind cost much more in funding than the value of energy it can ever deliver (particularly at utility scale), it is, ironically, financially unsustainable.
Even here in sunny Southern California, rooftop solar is collapsing because of reduced subsidies. The economics just don't pencil out in the market economy. Allow me to share:
https://keithlehmann.substack.com/p/the-rooftop-solar-business-is-failingin
Solving for the Energy Trilemma requires better understanding of trade-offs, better use of technology and less dogma - best words ever.