Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Carlos Chambers who is a member of, and spokesperson for, Generation Zero, and a co-founder of software business Common Ledger. He is active on Twitter via @nzcach.
As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz. And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
It’s true that renewables continue to look like they have promising role to play in the transition to a low-carbon world. It may also be true that the renewables buildout is likely to outsrip the bulidout of coal and gas, over time, as the International Energy Agency’s graph shows.
But, the article’s second graph paints a much less optimistic picture, showing the amount of billions that needs to be invested to minimise climate change and avoid a temperature increase of 2 degrees. The red lines are the amount being spent, the blue are what needs to be spent.
The $200 billion deficit is not small. With global government support for solar fragmented and uncertain and private investment high relative to other clean technologies, but low relative to other technologies industries, the deficit may tell a bigger picture.
The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back.
The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added.
2 Renewable energy is not a toy.
Increasingly, the technology powering the renewable energy renaissance is making more sense. As this article points out, solar will increase its share of the American retail market 30x in the next five years.
I love solar because its such a logical energy source, the sun’s power, and a sensible thing to build a business model around. The rapidly decreasing up-front capital cost and reasonably low maintenance costs, as well as next to nothing cost for the operating cost of the generation process make it a win-win-win.
The article suggest efficiency is the key issue to bigger success. Is it really? It occurs to me efficiency is one part of a more successful solar equation, but the most important, least explored and highest potential impact way to move the needle is through a change in the systems and ways solar is deployed. Jigar Shah’s tweet puts it well “#Solar hype articles are all the rage, half truths are helpful but how technology is deployed actually matters”. Maybe then solar might have a shot at a more decisive role in limiting global warming.
GLOBAL investment in renewable energy, chiefly wind and solar power, rose by a sixth in 2014, to $270 billion. This was partly because of subsidies in the rich world, such as America’s 30% federal tax credit for solar projects. Under a system known as “net metering”, consumers with small solar installations can sell surplus power to the grid at the same price as they pay for power flowing in. But even if the tax credit is cut, as expected, solar electricity could displace 9.7% of American retail electricity sales by 2019, reckons Bernstein, a research firm—over 30 times the share today.
Renewables, excluding large hydropower schemes, now account for nearly a tenth of global power generation. On current trends they will make up a fifth by 2030. But it will take another step change in efficiency for them to play a decisive role in limiting global warming.
3 Drought, Climate Change and California’s Multi-Billion Dollar Problem.
Perhaps it’s ironic that California, the nerve centre of the world’s future-bound technology economy is feeling the constraints and effects of a changing climate, and as Governor Jerry Brown has implied, although just stopped short of actually saying, humans’ historic and causative relationship with it.
While the debate rages on the extent of causation and that relationship, either way Cali has some big climatic and weather changes coming. Can and will the new ideas, technologies and systems coming out of parts of that state be leveraged for the impending challenge?
Maybe the innovative state can be a test-bed for mitigation through new ideas - the conditions, now and into the future, seem to exist for this to be a genuine thing.
But a new report published Thursday by a nonprofit risk-analysis organization suggests that what California is currently experiencing will only get worse — with tens of billions of dollars hanging in the balance — if global greenhouse gas emissions aren’t soon curtailed and adequate adaptation measures aren’t put in place.
Short of such measures, the study — produced by the Risky Business Project, which is co-chaired by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and hedge-fund manager and environmental advocate Tom Steyer — suggests that California will likely face “multiple and significant economic risks from climate change,” over the 21st century.
4 Who knew solar is contagious?
Solar energy moves from house to house through “neighbour effects”. Almost like “network effects” with a neighbourhood twist.
Promising for an industry with typically very high customer acquisition cost. This makes sense - it’s not easy to stumble across solar panels and for them to end up on your roof at home or to make a large, lumpy, snap decision to purchase the required assets. While growing quickly, solar is still in the early phase of adoption, the technology a little foreign to many.
But, if Jack and Jill next door have panels and you can chat to them over the fence about their experience, that’s a more real potential driver.
Neighbour effects, powered by word of mouth. A novel truly distributed, face-to-face and grass roots sales model.
Solar power only generates about 0.4 percent of America's electricity. But it's expanding at a rapid rate, with a new rooftop system installed every four minutes, on average. There are lots of reasons for that, from lower costs to federal subsidies to innovative financing schemes.
But here's another unexpected factor: Solar power appears to be contagious. Yes, contagious. If you install solar photovoltaic panels on your roof, that greatly increases the odds that your neighbors will, in turn, install their own panels.
5 Australia, climate change’s bad boy, forgets wallet and won’t pay up.
If you told an average Australian that their country is now doing less than China to curb emissions and climate change - and I intend to on my next trip there - how would they react?
Increasingly Australia’s actions suggest the question is not one of developed versus developing economies but a question of a developed country outlier who is not pulling their weight.
With international negotiations coming up next year in Paris and wider growing international support for urgency around curbing emissions through emissions trading schemes.
As they say, you only know who is swimming naked when the tide goes out. Surely the Australian would say that they don’t want to be nude in front of all their other friends.
The world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including China and the US, have questioned the credibility of Australia's climate change targets and "direct action" policy in a list of queries to the Abbott government.
In the latest sign of diplomatic pressure over Canberra's stance on global warming, China accused Australia of doing less to cut emissions than it is demanding of other developed countries, and asked it to explain why this was fair.
6 It puts the technology on the body.
By the end of 2015 will we be moving from bluetooth in our ears to Oculus Rift on our faces? Just see how the technology merges with the brain.
Here are 50 wearable technology innovations and products for the year ahead.
7 The next tech bubble is about to burst.
This is a well written opinion piece on questions us people who work in tech enjoy asking and discussing right now - is there a bubble? Will it pop? If so, when? If so, who’s going to be first to die? If not, which companies are the next unicorns?
Best to read and make up your own mind. I liked a friend’s simple, clear, but frustratingly shallow advice to companies - a bubble is a market correction, and if you’re doing things correctly then you should be okay. Keep doing things right.
While an opinion piece I include this because it’s well researched with good links to some of the theories which make up the background on the bubble debate.
8 Software and the sharing economy are (still) eating the world.
I’ve previously shared things on sharing economy (see what I did there?) noting that in many areas - accommodation, transport, food - historical obsession with property rights and ownership of assets is fast being replaced with sharing economy and access to those same assets.
Of course, the next interesting questions are what are the rules which govern or need to be created to govern these new businesses and economies and their suppliers and consumers?
This a16z podcast sits down with some of the heavy hitters in that industry to explore these questions - you may have heard of AirBnB or Lyft. If you like thinking about how to make purchased assets more efficient, turn cost-centres into profit centers or empower large numbers of micro-entrepreneurs with new business models and tools and then this is a must listen.
It has long been the case that technological change outpaces changes to policy and law. Beyond important safety measures, some regulations take the form of complex processes or workflows that simply don't apply to startups doing different things -- or, that involve prohibitive fees, time, and other resources that startups can't afford. For companies like Airbnb, Instacart, LocalMotion, Lyft, Teespring, Tilt, and others on the frontlines of the so-called 'sharing economy' -- What's working? What needs to be changed? This segment of the a16z Podcast shares founders' perspectives and experiences [from a previously recorded live roundtable conversation] on what startups need to be able to innovate in this (and other areas!) in the current regulatory environment... Especially as software continues to eat the physical world.
9 Engineering a path to sustainable development.
Insightful stuff from Amos Avidan of Bechtal - interviewed by Anna Dirksen - who digs deep into how technology engineering and design can enable us to create robust sustainable systems from our energy networks to our cities.
The article contains powerful perspectives. Great plain language and meaningful explanations of the concept of smart cities are helpful too.
Our engineering challenge — our opportunity — is to design an energy infrastructure with a systems approach. This allows us to connect parts of the system to increase efficiencies or cut down on redundancies, as well as be able to smartly disconnect them in the event of an extreme weather situation or other disruptive major event.
We are able to do more now than ever before thanks to truly revolutionary information technologies at our disposal. Today, we have so much more information we can use, taken from multiple sources. It’s big data; and just like how people in social media or in the fast food industry use big data to make their companies more productive, we are using big data in engineering to design better and more resilient energy infrastructure systems.
Something a little different to finish - David Brooks with a slightly different, very refreshing and radically humbling read. A thought provoking explanation of why, just like passion, spirit and character are made not born.
ABOUT once a month I run across a person who radiates an inner light. These people can be in any walk of life. They seem deeply good. They listen well. They make you feel funny and valued. You often catch them looking after other people and as they do so their laugh is musical and their manner is infused with gratitude. They are not thinking about what wonderful work they are doing. They are not thinking about themselves at all.
18 Comments
Cannot read the image of Connecticut after #4 (just know it's Connecticut because I'm from there, not from any titles in the image, even downloaded then zoomed). Please make the image larger.
Edit: clicked on the link for the readable image, so nevermind.
USA feds give tax credits for ecars, solar power, etc. Here our government subsidises the wealthy with income tax reductions, no CGT on properties driving the bubble, selling off assets to the 2%, increasing costs and fees to the rest of us. Lots of 19th Century thinking yet they keep getting re-elected. Go figure.
Here’s Why Apple Is Building Solar Farms in China
China is on track to install more clean electricity than the entire power of the U.S. grid.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-21/here-s-why-apple-is-b…
Really? Who is this 'someone'?
Maybe that says more about who you associate with. True the US grid is not publically owned and has its own potential vulnerabilities, but reliability rates are as high as NZ. (Yes, it has some high-profile failures, but no more than any other developed country).
The US rail system is amazingly effective. Only major system in the world that does not take public subsidies. Passenger rail may be different, but the main goods-hauling system is very strong.
Roads, yes some parts have big problems with deferred maintenance, but it is not a universal problem. Their overall roading network is an amazing piece of effective infrastructure.
You need to get out more. I suggest you take a short vacation to the US and get out from the tourist trails, to where most people live. Then you will understand. It is a huge country, far bigger than NZ (or Wales). You can't organise such a country the way you organise NZ, so its different. Different to what you are used to doesn't make it worse. You can find anything and eveything there, to support any argument.
Oh so shallow. I dont work off what I am used to, that is how a technician operates. I try and think as an engineer/designer, or what might be possible, how to improve things and make them more resilient and effective and safe. Thing about engineers we are very conservative in design because getting it wrong can and does kill ppl. If you had ever had the H&S up your ass looking for fault you would understand. So risk and impact is a big thing unlike finance types who might lose a bit of someone else's money on an off day, but still take their % in "fees". What I do read is papers, articles, comparisons examining such things and I look through them with eyes that have a fair idea what I am looking at. I can do that as easily here as being in the US, its known as the Internet.
I have been to the USA btw all around its coasts delivering fuel oil, paper, wood, water etc etc so I have seen a lot of small and big town America (and Canada, loved it). I have also done the same thing around South America and some of Asia and the middle east. About the only hell hole I avoided was most of Africa, thankfully.
Now in terms of first world,
eg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUCU2GhG8zE
not that representative for maintenance I'll admit, but shows just how far some private enterprise is prepared to go to be "effective" short term making the financial types happy.
Know any railways that bad in the developed world?
though this one probably does beat it for "safety",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dsi_ItK-j30
hmm maybe not,
"Even for West Virginia, a state that has suffered more than its fair share of industrial disasters, the images from a train crash Monday are apocalyptic: many cars derailed, fires so fierce firefighters are simply waiting for them to burn out, 300-foot fireballs. "It was like an atomic bomb went off," one resident told the Associated Press"
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/apocalyptic-wva-tra…
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/07/140723-united-st…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/oil-train-derailment/
part of this is using ancient rolling stock and the tracks dont seem to be well maintained either.
effective? yes it sure the US rail system seems to be killing ppl very effectively.
Thank god for the RMA or the yanks would be over here doing the same thing.
And
China Adds Solar Power the Size of France in First Quarter
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-20/china-adds-solar-the-…
And
China’s Fuel Demand to Peak Sooner Than Oil Giants Expect
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-01/china-s-fuel-demand-t…
What he isnt saying is the peak is due to its un-affordability, many chinese cant afford to pay the asking price, similar to the "developed " world. Which is interesting in itself.
Just consider this, GDP is linked to energy use so for 4% GDP growth an extra 1~2.5% of fossil energy is used. So when these guys say no more liquid fuels that to me says no more growth.
Your just employing the fact Chinese are building out renewable energy to justify your debunked view of oil production having peaked, Steven, Its a classic case of fallacy of presumption, where the false premise of global oil production, having already peaked, leads you to come to the false conclusion that its making investments in renewable energy, because it is responding to the impact that high oil prices is having on economic growth . This is patently false, because the country's economic growth was faster when it consumed far more fuel both in real terms and proportionally to GDP.
a) "Peak oil" refers to conventional crude production and not shale or heavy oil. You dont even understand the basic term, but poo poo it, oh yeah that will get you far. NB If you look at conventional crude output you will see its pretty much the same mbpd as a decade ago. The glut and even hide in conventional decline is due to US shale. But b) Looks like the US shale boom is actually also peaking, we'll know inside 6 months. c) What many ppl missed or ignored was the ability to pay no matter the price, pretty much obvious that isnt the case I'd suggest.
You last para is, well reads like nonsense. We "know already" that an increase in oil output demand is linked to real* GDP that is a data point. So unconstrained for 4% growth the world will use 1~2.5% more fossil fuels, so sure 8% GDP growth will mean 2~5% more energy.
* real GDP is where actual goods are produced, financial wizardy using debt, smoke and mirrors isnt real, in fact its parasitic on the future.
In terms of fallacy, well I dont agree but sure it is an opinion, my one. We are seeing two trends, a) response to climate change and pollution, b) that solar is now competitive when the externalities are taken into account for fossil energy. Coal and oil is getting harder to get out of the ground while renewables are it seems getting a lot cheaper. Doesnt solve the liquid fuels problem of course.
So what we really see here is you putting your foot in your mouth IMHO. You consider the "peak oilists" to be wrong, ergo what they conclude off this "fact" is wrong. Rule 1 see fundimentals, mathematically we are on a finite planet, even if it was 100% oil, with exponential demand it would be used up, one day, the only Q is when. I suggest you watch the oil output this year. Get back to me in say April 2016 and we'll discuss how much oil output has increased or not and how long its going to last. One kicker, when it does drop 4% per annum is likely, see GDP v oil ratio on that outcome.
The thing to watch is a) US rig count and b) June when its expected that the US storage will be full 2 good graphs of that here,
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/traders-think-oil-price-decline-is-ov…
rig count is 50% odd down, well life (for significant output) is 3 years.
That shale peak is hinted at here,
http://fractionalflow.com/2015/03/21/is-the-red-queen-outrunning-bakken…
Oh and in terms of "peak oil" the deniers of it are now saying no production has not peaked, just ppls demand for it. These same ppl were saying not so long ago that there was no peak oil/energy as as the price went up we'd swap in other alternatives, ie overall energy use/demand would keep rising.
So really just who do you want to believe? those that tell you what you want to hear or those that tell you what you need to know in order to take care of yourself.
Your choice, la la land or reality. Personally I think its great that there are so many delusioned, gives me more time.
#8
'Sharing' and other memes obscure one rather important aspect of the system-wide view.
In order to 'share' anything, that thing has to exist in the first place.
And furthermore, the dependencies of that 'thing' have to also exist.
An example: sharing a car, a CNC machine, a building. All need to exist before the optimisation of their usage can occur, and exist in sufficient quantities that there is room to experiment with that process.
Dependencies: car - metal (mining), fuel (oil), lubricants (oil), roads, maps, and on it goes.
Everything truly is connected to everything else....
So the 'sharing' ideas, wonderful as they are, are simply a tiny optimisation of what would otherwise be termed (to an operations researcher) 'slack resources'.
They are no substitute for the much harder grind of assembling the shareable resources to begin with: the mines, the smelters, the transport, the factories etc.
I somehow don't see that task as having much scope for lessening 'obsession with property rights and ownership of assets'........
waymad, i think your view of sharing is way too narow.
Have you never shared a book or magazine?
As Steven says "Linux". The open sorce comunity freely share thier intelectual property. And there are many more examples.
See also
RepRap is humanity's first general-purpose self-replicating manufacturing machine.
Then the Raspberry PI
and on and on.
chinese GDP make believe?
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.co.nz/
"Historically, electricity consumption and economic growth in China have been very closely linked. "From 2005 to 2013, the average elasticity of electricity demand was 1.09, meaning electricity demand was up about 1.09 percent for every percent rise in GDP," Fridley wrote in an email. "In 2014, that number fell to 0.51, the lowest in this 10-year period. During the economic crisis of 2008, it did fall below the average, to 0.60, but quickly rebounded to above 1."
That tells Fridley that something is up. He's not the only one who thinks the government growth numbers aren't reliable"
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.