The debate surrounding our transition to clean energy is similar across different regions, producing a familiar narrative. On one hand, developers advocate for the supremacy and adequacy of their installed technologies. On the other hand, fossil fuel industry supporters strive to maintain full-capacity generation until the end of its useful life. In the meantime, utilities, bound by mandates to pursue the least-cost generation option, may prioritize cost over environmental considerations. Governments, in turn, claim to possess the exclusive knowledge to keep energy prices low while achieving decarbonization.
Amidst this debate, it is possible to cut through the noise and acknowledge the need to utilize every available tool to decarbonize the electricity grid while accommodating the growing reliance on electricity. Instead of pitting technologies against each other, focusing on the following key elements should help us make some progress:
Transmission
Relying on rooftop solar and household batteries will not be sufficient to decarbonize our economy. Large-scale generation remains the most cost-effective option, necessitating a significant expansion of transmission infrastructure to transport clean energy from production sites to areas of consumption.
Capacity
Wind and solar energy alone cannot fully decarbonize the grid. We need resources that can provide continuous power, even when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining. Capacity comes in various forms, such as battery storage, fossil-based generation, nuclear power, pumped storage, and newer solutions like hydrogen-based thermal plants. It is crucial to leverage these different options to meet diverse energy demands across regions and applications. No single option is likely to solve the problem.
Efficiency, conservation & timing of use
Energy waste is rampant in North America. Over time, driven by rising energy costs, we may get better at conserving energy, using it when it is cleanest and offsetting peak demands by leveraging clean energy sources when they are available.
Those who argue against the necessity of these three elements are likely promoting their own agendas, rather than considering the broader goals of a sustainable energy future.