30/05/2020

Plunging Solar Energy Prices Spell Bright Future For Clean Electricity

Deutsche Welle - Ajit Niranjan

Solar energy has fallen in cost faster than experts predicted. How did electricity from photovoltaic panels get so cheap?



The plummeting cost of turning sunlight into electricity is beating forecasts by decades, speeding the transition toward a clean energy system.

Solar prices have sunk low enough to make photovoltaics the cheapest source of electricity in most of the world — undercutting fossil fuels in price even before counting costs like air pollution and climate change. Averaging about $0.05/kWh, the cost of generating solar electricity has reached lows that six years ago the International Energy Agency did not expect to come until the middle of the century.

When Jenny Chase started working on solar energy in 2006, her job title was head of "improbable technologies" — and she thought solar could only ever provide 1% of the world's electricity mix. "Now, it's already gone north of 2%," said Chase, a solar analyst at energy consultancy BloombergNEF.

The price of renewables like solar matters for climate change. The energy sector is responsible for about three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions — mainly from burning coal, oil and gas — and governments must rapidly decarbonize their electricity grids to meet targets that keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

Forecasters have underestimated the rate at which solar capacity would grow


Coal, which has long been considered the cheapest way of generating electricity, is now struggling to compete with energy from sunlight. The competition has grown so fierce that developers risk wasting more than $600 billion (€546 billion) through planned coal projects, according to analysis published in March by think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative.

Within a decade, the authors predict, it will be cheaper everywhere to shut down existing coal-fired plants and build new solar and wind plants in their place. That could shift the energy mix in coal-hungry countries like the US with governments hostile to efforts to halt climate change.

Cheap solar energy has now become a "no-regrets" solution, said Marcelo Mena-Carrasco, a Chilean former environment minister. "It doesn't matter what your presidents think, it's the market that's doing the talking."

Burning coal carries hidden costs like air pollution and climate change



Germany's new Datteln 4 coal-fired power station is likely to be the country's last



Where is solar energy cheapest?

The cheapest solar energy deal in the world was signed last month by Abu Dhabi at $0.0135/kWh, lower than record-breaking deals set earlier this year by Dubai and then Qatar. Analysts say that utilities in these countries benefit from free land and grid connections that lower prices beyond the true cost.

In other regions — even sunny ones — barriers to finance hold back expansion.

In India, where the government is pushing to revive a faltering coal industry, solar developers pay several times more interest on debt than in the Middle East, said Vibhuti Garg, senior energy specialist at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Across Africa, where energy demand is projected to soar as populations and living standards rise, difficulties securing loans have stalled a potentially lucrative solar boom. There are just 5 gigawatts of solar photovoltaic panels installed on the continent — less than a single country like the UK, which receives far fewer hours of sunshine.

"We're talking about a geography that is incredibly blessed with renewable energy," said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, an energy think tank. "What we need now is for our leaders, particularly in Africa, to put everything in place to allow us to harness and take advantage of the renewable energy revolution."

China has installed more solar capacity than any other country in the world



African countries have abundant sunlight but limited access to cheap loans



How did solar energy become so cheap?

The first solar photovoltaic cells were invented by researchers in the US in 1954, brought to markets through subsidies in Germany in the early 2000s, and made competitively cheap on a large scale in China after that. A study published in the journal Energy Policy in 2018 found that 60% of the fall in prices between 1980 and 2012 was because of government policies that stimulated market growth, like feed-in tariffs that pay consumers for unused energy they supply to the grid.

In Germany, which has the most installed solar power per person, such policies triggered investments that, in turn, led to rapid innovations, said David Wedepohl of German solar lobby group BSW. It created incentives for manufacturers to make solar panels and build new factories and machines.

Each time solar capacity has doubled, the total price of solar energy has fallen by about 30%. Analysts call this relationship a learning curve. The more solar plants are deployed, the more the technology comes down in price — though the gains flatten out over time.

Germany's demand for solar power "not only installed a lot of solar, but it catalyzed the learning curve," said Gregory Nemet, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who has written a book on how solar energy became cheap. In China, where most of the world's solar panels are now made, production processes were refined further to bring prices down to levels that compete with coal.

Electric cars could help fluctuating energy manage supply

What is the future of solar energy?

In sunny parts of the world, average solar prices are on track to hit $0.01/kWh by 2035, according to analysis by clean energy advocate Ramez Naam in May. "In a purely open market, these incredibly low prices would drive the world's remaining coal plants into bankruptcy, and steal some of the most profitable operating hours even from cheap natural gas plants," he wrote.

But other analysts are less optimistic, questioning whether the learning rate can be applied to the total cost of solar or just the capital costs. Solar price predictions in sunny countries in the next couple of decades range from below $0.01/kWh to $0.025/kWh, which is still well below the cost of running existing coal plants.

Electricity grids must also fix problems of intermittency, said Auke Hoekstra, an electric vehicle researcher at Eindhoven University of Technology. Because skies are darker at night and in the winter, the attractiveness of solar depends on how well an electricity grid can manage demand and store energy.

The price of solar power depends on sunlight, financing and government support

What's more, as renewable energy dominates grids, it lowers electricity prices while running, which erodes revenues for suppliers. This could offset gains in technology costs if better storage or demand solutions are not found, according to a new study published in the journal Renewable Energy.

Still, progress in these fields is also accelerating. Battery technologies, for instance, are making similarly rapid progress to solar, said Nemet, and electric vehicles could be charged at night as a way of spreading out demand. Access to cheap, abundant solar energy "gives us a tool that we didn't have in the past."

Links
at No comments:

Big Oil Loses Bid To Move California Climate Court Fight

Bloomberg Law - Ellen M. Gilmer | Malathi Nayak

A woman walks along the seawall at Fort Point near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco on Dec. 28, 2005. Photographer: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

California cities and counties cleared an important hurdle in their legal fight to get major oil companies including BP Plc, Exxon Mobil Corp., and Chevron Corp. to pay tens of billions of dollars to deal with the effects of climate change.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said Tuesday that San Francisco, Oakland, San Mateo County, and other jurisdictions can pursue their lawsuits in state court rather than in a federal venue thought to be more favorable to the energy industry.

The decision doesn’t guarantee the local governments will ultimately prevail, but it paves the way for a full airing of their arguments in state court.

The cities and counties “live another day to put forth their claims and argue their case,” said Hana Vizcarra, a staff attorney at Harvard Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program.

The suits seek to reimburse taxpayers for costs associated with adapting to impacts such as rising sea levels—from building multibillion-dollar sea walls and repairing damage from powerful storms to—perhaps soon—moving whole communities inland.

Lawyers for the cities and counties have long argued that such local infrastructure damage raises classic local-level concerns that belong in state court. Industry lawyers, supported by the Trump administration, have countered that climate change is a global issue, pushing the litigation to a federal jurisdiction.

“We hold that the state-law claim for public nuisance does not arise under federal law,” Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote for a three-judge panel on Tuesday, reviving a case from San Francisco and Oakland.

The George W. Bush appointee also penned a related ruling Tuesday that rejected oil companies’ bid to jettison a separate set of climate cases from state to federal court.

More Claims?

The ruling could spur more such claims and influence whether cases in other states are decided under local nuisance statutes, rather than under federal laws cited by courts that threw out similar complaints.

“Venue is really important to the cities” because it allows them to “get to the point of arguing the merits of their case,” Vizcarra said before the ruling. But there’s still “another round of consideration” at the federal district court before the case fully moves forward in state court, she later said.

And cities and counties face an uphill climb on the climate change-linked claims at the heart of the dispute, something state courts haven’t yet grappled with, she said.

Similar disputes over court venues have dominated climate liability cases playing out in Colorado, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

“We’re pleased that we can proceed with this case to protect our residents, workers, and businesses from the costs and damage these fossil fuel companies knowingly imposed on our communities,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement.

The coalition of local governments involved in the San Mateo case issued a joint statement saying they’re looking forward to proceeding in state court, “where the Californians we represent will have a chance to present the facts about what the defendants knew about the climate change-related dangers their fossil fuel products pose.”

But Chevron spokesman Sean Comey said the lawsuits aim to penalize reliable and “ever cleaner” energy.

“They present substantial issues of national law and policy which makes them inappropriate for state law,” he said in an email. “In whichever forum the cases are ultimately determined, these factually and legally unsupported claims do nothing to sensibly address the significant national economic, legal, and policy issues presented by climate change.”

Reconciling Competing Opinions

Industry groups could push the issue to the Supreme Court, where they’re already seeking review of another appellate decision that allowed a climate case from Baltimore to proceed in state court.

The rulings reconcile competing opinions issued by two federal judges in cases several municipalities filed in 2017.

The appeals court overturned a decision from U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who sided with the industry and dismissed cases brought by San Francisco and Oakland. Tuesday’s ruling sent the case back to federal district court for further proceedings.

The panel affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who permitted cases by San Mateo County, Marin County, Imperial Beach, and others to proceed in state court.

“We conclude that the defendants did not carry their burden of establishing this criteria for removal,” the court wrote in the San Mateo decision. “Because we lack jurisdiction to review other aspects of the remand order, we dismiss the remainder of the appeal.”

Narrow Question

Ama R. Francis, a fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said the Ninth Circuit rightly confined its review to a narrow legal question in the San Mateo case: whether the litigation triggered federal court jurisdiction by involving federal government officers.

Industry lawyers had encouraged the court to consider a host of other grounds for placing the case in federal court.

“The Ninth Circuit San Mateo decision protects the critical balance of power between state and federal courts,” said Francis, who co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the local governments. “This case raises standard state law claims, and belongs in state court.”

‘Abundantly Clear’

Industry advocates, meanwhile, criticized the court’s analysis.

“It makes no sense to spend years of judicial resources on these procedural rulings when it is abundantly clear that this is a policy issue for executive or legislative bodies, not courts,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel for the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an industry advocacy group.

“In fact,” he said, “today’s ruling underscores why the U.S. Supreme Court should hear the climate tort cases now and resolve them once and for all.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently allowed Baltimore to litigate a similar case in state court. Industry attorneys have asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

The cases are Cty. of Oakland v. BP Plc, 9th Cir., No. 18-16663, 5/26/20 and Cty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 9th Cir., No. 18-15499, 5/26/20.

Links
at No comments:

Cop26 Climate Talks In Glasgow Will Be Delayed By A Year, UN Confirms

The Guardian - 



The UK business secretary, Alok Sharma, said that while the focus was on fighting Covid-19, the fight against climate change must not be forgotten. Photograph: Aaron Chown/PA

Global talks aimed at staving off the threat of climate breakdown will be delayed by a year to November 2021 because of the coronavirus crisis, the UN has confirmed.

The summit, known as Cop26, which 196 nations are expected to attend, will now take place in Glasgow from November 1 to 12 next year, as reports had anticipated, with the UK government acting as host and president. They were originally set to take place from 9 November this year.

Earlier dates were thought to be too difficult, as travel restrictions may still be in place in some countries next year and finding a new date was further complicated by the scheduling of other major international environmental meetings, including global talks on the biodiversity crisis.

Alok Sharma, UK business secretary and Cop26 president, said: “While we rightly focus on fighting the immediate crisis of the coronavirus, we must not lose sight of the huge challenges of climate change. We are working with our international partners on an ambitious roadmap for global climate action between now and November 2021. Everyone will need to raise their ambitions to tackle climate change.”

Cop26 is the most important international meeting on the climate emergency since the Paris agreement was signed in 2015. Under the landmark accord, countries must come forward every five years with revised plans on curbing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris goal of limiting global heating to no more than 2C, and preferably no more than 1.5C.

Current national targets would take the world to at least 3C above pre-industrial levels, scientists warn, so countries are under pressure to come up with more stringent commitments.

According to the timetable, those emission-cutting targets – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – should be put forward this year, even though the meeting itself has been delayed. The UK has not yet submitted its NDC, but has pledged to do so before Cop26.

Many developing countries and civil society groups were supportive of the delay, but called for governments to bring forward plans for a green recovery from the Covid-19 crisis, to set the world on the right track to meet the Paris goals.

Patricia Espinosa, the UN climate chief, also linked the two: “Our efforts to address climate change and Covid-19 are not mutually exclusive. If done right, the recovery from the Covid-19 crisis can steer us to a more inclusive and sustainable path.”

Sonam Wangdi, from the Kingdom of Bhutan, who chairs the Least Developed Countries group at the UN climate talks, said: “The postponement of climate negotiations should not be taken as postponement of climate action. Climate action has been delayed long enough … To focus on recovering from the Covid-19 crisis while ignoring action to address the climate crisis would only lead to more devastation in the future.”

Poor countries are concerned that the damage caused by the coronavirus crisis and the global economic shock will mean less assistance is available to help them reduce carbon emissions and cope with the impacts of climate breakdown.

Janine Felson, Belize’s ambassador to the UN and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, said: “Small island developing states are at the brink of economic collapse, with the major drivers of our economies at a standstill. This comes at a time when we are preparing for a volatile hurricane season.”

As well as the Cop26 presidency, the UK will hold the revolving presidency of the G7 group of industrialised countries next year, and Italy – which will co-host Cop26 with the UK – will be president of the G20 group, which includes major emerging economies.

That puts the Cop26 hosts in pole position to steer both sets of discussions towards a green recovery, experts said. Environmental and development groups called on Boris Johnson – who spoke on Thursday at a development conference of the need “to build back better and base our recovery on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy” - to take an international lead.

“We need to see countries using their economic recovery packages to accelerate the transition to a zero-carbon world,” said Kat Kramer, global climate lead at the charity Christian Aid. “Boris Johnson needs to show he’s a credible host by ensuring the UK is leading the world with a truly green stimulus.”

“The government now has a short window of opportunity to start delivering on the Paris agreement,” said John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK. “What is required is action, not words, starting at home by delivering a climate-proof economy that supports millions of jobs. Next year’s climate summit will only be a success if major economies use this opportunity to build a green recovery.”

Links
at No comments: