Written by John Treat and first published at AIDC
Anyone trying
to understand what’s happening with the world’s energy systems right now can be
forgiven if they are confused. On one hand, most people know about the climate
emergency, and the need to move away from fossil fuels. On the other hand, we
frequently see headlines about “record setting” levels of wind or solar power,
how “coal is dead,” booming sales of electric vehicles, or how renewable energy
is now cheaper than fossil fuels. Many stories in the second category suggest
that the transition to a low-carbon economy is “inevitable,” or even “well
underway.”
Sorting
through all of this can be very daunting, especially for people who are not
energy experts, but who are concerned about the climate crisis. For South
Africans, understanding these issues is especially important given the
country’s heavy reliance on coal, the serious problems facing Eskom, and the
announced plans for its “unbundling” in order (among other things) to
accelerate the shift to renewable energy sources. As my colleague Sean Sweeney
has argued elsewhere, talk of “unbundling” Eskom is code for privatisation: it
is a well-established part of the privatisation playbook of the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
So what’s
really going on? It is true that energy systems around the world are undergoing
profound changes. Different countries are facing different challenges, and are
tackling those challenges in different ways. But since the climate crisis
requires global as well as local action, it is worth looking at the trends in
order to understand the lessons.
Demand for
energy is growing faster than renewable energy
Despite
“record setting” growth in renewables, the overall growth in demand for energy
is larger still. In March 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported
that global energy demand grew by 2.3% in 2018 – the sharpest rise, and nearly
twice the average rate, this decade. The surge was attributed to strong overall
economic growth, as well as to record temperatures in many parts of the world,
which raise demand for heating and cooling.
Electricity and coal
While demand
for all forms of energy is growing, what is happening with the power sector
(electricity) is especially important. Moving away from fossil fuels will
involve widespread electrification, dramatically increasing the need to
generate electricity. Global demand for electricity grew even faster in 2018
than demand for energy overall, at 4%. And 42% of energy-related emissions last
year came from the power sector.
Despite the
closure of many coal plants around the world, coal remains the dominant fuel
for generating electricity globally. On current trends, coal consumption is
projected to remain at roughly current levels for many years. Although coal
consumption declined for a few years, it actually rose in 2017, and again last
year.
Coal
consumption is growing dramatically in several large countries, mainly in
Southeast Asia. China recently announced plans for at least 300 new coal-fired
power plants – most of them outside China. Coal demand for power rose 2.6% last
year, and CO2 emissions rose 2.5%, with coal accounting for 80% of the
increase.
Where coal
generation capacity has been replaced in the energy mix, it has mostly been
replaced by natural gas rather than renewables. This is especially true for the
world’s two largest emitters, the U.S. and China.
From the
perspective of climate change, this is bad news. Natural gas has been promoted
as a “bridge fuel” between coal and renewables, because burning methane
produces less CO2 than burning coal. But methane itself is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2 on shorter time scales – roughly 86 times more powerful
on a 20-year time scale – and we are learning that methane leakage from
fracking and other operations is significantly higher than previously
recognised. It even exceeds any gains associated with burning gas rather than
coal.
So what we
are seeing is not a “transition to renewables,” but rather a reconfiguration of
the world’s energy systems. Meanwhile, overall use of energy continues to grow,
and no major fuel source is going away any time soon. In other words, not only
are we not yet digging our way out of the hole, but we haven’t even stopped
digging the hole deeper yet.
Time to Stop Digging and Inspect the
Shovel?
How did we
get here? In order to understand why the situation is so alarming, we need to
look more closely at the policies that were supposed to drive the transition to
a sustainable new “green” economy.
In March
2019, the IEA reported that the deployment of new renewable generation capacity
“stalled” in 2018.
Why has this
happened? As Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported in early 2019, investment in
new clean energy capacity fell 8% in 2018 from 2017 levels – from $362 billion
to $332 billion. This is very striking, given that we hear so frequently about
“record low” prices for renewable generation, which we are told makes
renewables more attractive than fossil fuels.
The problem
is that the way these “falling prices” are typically reported ignores a crucial
distinction: the distinction between the falling construction costs of the
infrastructure, and the falling auction prices for the projects that are
contracted.
It is true
that the construction costs associated with building new renewable projects are
falling; this is due to economies of scale, technological improvements, etc.
But the competitive pressures of auction-based procurement are driving down the
final auction prices even faster. This means profit margins are shrinking, and
investors are turning elsewhere.
Crucially,
this decline in investment has taken place at a time of very low interest rates.
This is especially important because the cost of capital – the interest on
money borrowed to build the projects – is by far the largest cost factor for
renewable generation, accounting for three quarters or more of total project
costs for wind and solar projects. So any rise in interest rates would act as a
significant further brake on investment levels.
China to the Rescue?
We often hear
that China has taken a different path, and indeed recent data from Bloomberg
would seem to show that clean / renewable energy investment in China is
continuing to grow (despite the fact that China is also building large numbers
of coal plants):
Unfortunately,
this apparent difference seems to be largely a matter of timing. In order to
understand it, we need to back up a bit.
The initial
boom in solar and wind capacity in Europe and elsewhere – the boom that has now
stalled there – was largely due to generous, “come one, come all” subsidy
schemes. These typically took the form of “feed-in tariffs,” where anyone who
could afford to provide generation capacity could sign up and enjoy the
guaranteed revenues. This generated a burst of deployment – so much in fact
that it became impossible to accommodate all of the new capacity into existing
grids.
It also led
to exploding subsidy bills for governments. These costs were often passed on to
users in the form of higher electricity bills, which led to skepticism about
renewable energy and political pressure on government officials. This is why
many governments shifted to “competitive bidding” systems, which allowed them
to contain both capacity additions and costs – but also led to shrinking profit
margins and the loss of investor interest.
That same
pattern now seems to be emerging in China. On June 1, 2018, in an effort to
contain ballooning subsidy bills and growing overcapacity, the country’s
National Development and Reform Commission announced that, effective
immediately, approvals for new projects had been “halted until further notice,”
and tariffs for existing contracts would be lowered by 6.7 to 9 per cent
(depending on the region). The announcement caused serious drops in share price
values for Chinese solar companies, and industry observers slashed capacity
growth forecasts for the year by as much as one-third.
“No Just Transition without a
Transition”
The
implications of these trends are profound. In order to have any chance of a
just transition, we first need to ensure that there is a transition. The
current, market-based approach to the energy transition has failed, and we
cannot afford to wait any longer.
Unions and
climate activists need to organise and mobilise for public and social ownership
of energy, with real democratic accountability. Only such an approach can
ensure a rapid but orderly transition to renewable energy – one that takes
considerations of profit out of the equation, and puts workers and communities
at the centre.
John Treat is based in the
International Program for Labor, Climate and Environment, part of the City
University of New York’s School for Labor and Urban Studies, where he supports
Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED): http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/
Any analysis must include the fact that electricity is only 25% of total world energy demand. Most analysis doesn't include this fact.
ReplyDeleteIf you are 15 years old, emissions went up 30% in your lifetime. If you are 30 years old, emissions went up 60% in your lifetime.
After 30 years of trying, solar and wind are just 2% of total world energy use.
We must reduce emissions 50% in 10 years, and 100% in 20.