Sometimes it's necessary to translate these reports

Solar’s great, no, really, it is:

New research suggests that solar power is set to become the dominant energy source by 2050. While this shift promises a cleaner energy future…

We know that the while will be followed by a but:

The world may have crossed a “tipping point” that will inevitably make solar power our main source of energy, new research suggests. The study, based on a data-driven model of technology and economics, finds that solar PV (photovoltaics) is likely to become the dominant power source before 2050 – even without support from more ambitious climate policies.

Can’t say that bothers us in the slightest. If solar’s the cheapest way to gain the energy we all desire then good luck to it. We’re wedded to a process, not a technology.

But that but:

However, it warns four “barriers” could hamper this: the creation of stable power grids, financing solar in developing economies, capacity of supply chains, and political resistance from regions that lose jobs. The researchers say policies resolving these barriers may be more effective than price instruments such as carbon taxes in accelerating the clean energy transition.

Ah, and here’s where we need the translation. For those four buts are all very expensive problems to try to solve. Meaning that solar is not, in fact, nice and cheap if it has four expensive problems to solve before it is the useful solution.

Solar might be cheap at generating a kWhr, but that’s not what we want. We want a system that can deliver a kWhr where and when we desire to use it. Thus bringing in those vast grid and storage costs. The system costs of solar are not low at all.

Which is why we’re wedded to that process. And also why this report tries to insist on something “much better” than the carbon tax. For what the carbon tax does - sticking that one crowbar into the price system - is makes all of these different costings transparent. We allow the market to chew through all of the complicated sums - not the planners - having already included the costs of climate change in the prices the market chews through.

The reason so many fully in favour of dealing with climate change don’t like - and some positively hate - the carbon tax is because they know that it will show up so many of their pet plans for the grossly expensive follies they are.

Which is why we’re so in favour of that method. For as the Stern Review points out, us humans do less of more expensive things, more of cheaper. Therefore we want to be efficient in dealing with climate change. Precisely because the more efficient we are, the cheaper it is to deal with it, then more dealing with it we’ll all do.

That’s just how our species works after all.

Previous
Previous

There's a simple solution for Mr. Sheeran here

Next
Next

But if Welsh Water is worse than English water then what about privatisation?