I don't agree with the pessimism of Bill McKibben.
Per his Op-Ed in Politico:
We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)
I want to show why he is wrong in his pessimism about the steps we have taken so far in the renewable journey
In 2015, US generated around 4 trillion KWH of electricity. 67% comes from fossil fuels - coal, gas & petroleum. 20% comes from Nuclear and 13% comes from renewables. In 2014, US had 1,172 GW of capacity. Fossil fuel based capacity was 866 GW while renewables nameplate capacity is around 200 GW (17% capacity & 13% production)
The US government released a study findings in Jan 2016 targeting 80% renewables GENERATION (not just capacity) by 2050. Summarizing the study, we need around 1,500 GWe of capacity in 2050 including the growth expected.
Before we dig deeper into the report - let's get the cost of operation out of the way, The report is very clear that current technology renewables can be generated in the cost economic structure of fossil fuels. They estimated the model using 1.1% YoY increase in electricity cost for renewables and i think that's swell. So, what are these costs? Advanced Combined Cycle Natural Gas Electricity geneartion is the cheapest at $72.6/MWH. Onshore Wind is already at $73.6/MWH (didn't see subsidies). So, in 2015, onshore wind is nearly as cheap as lowest cost fossil fuel. Offshore wind at $196.9/MWH; Solar PV at 125.3 and Solar Thermal at $239.7/MWH - all without subsidies are higher cost compared to gas & onshore wind but have headroom in technology based cost optimization. By the way, coal is at $95.1/MWH and hence losing to natural gas in the first place
Back to the report, renewables target is 1,200 GW generation and with higher ineffienciency - wind, solar has moods ;) - we need to add around 1,570 - 1,600 GW of renewables over 35 years. That means we need to net 44 - 46 GW of additional net capacity EVERY YEAR for the next 35 years.
In 2015, we added 8.1 GW of wind and 5.1 GW of solar - 2/3 of the total capacity addition - 13.2 GW of renewable electricity capacity.
In 2016, we are scheduled to add 16.6 GW of renewable energy - solar (9.5 GW), Wind (6.8 GW) and Hydro (0.3 GW). The good news is that solar is going to be highest nameplate capacity increase across all categories. The not so good news is that wind is slowing.
Tripling renewable net additional capacity in a decade is a challenge but a manageable one at that. So, it is not outlandish to think that we can hit 44-45 GW per year of renewable capacity addition by 2025. We shouldn't be complacent but at the same time, we shouldn't overplay the challenge as well
Hillary's #1 energy policy and climate change addressal is installing 500 million solar panels by the end of her first term. Experts are calling her plan — ambitious but achieveable. A high end residential solar panel (residential are lower capacity & that's the worst case) is rated at 345 watts. So, that's 172.5 GW of installed capacity over the next 4 years - 40 GW per year just from solar!
There are multiple approaches to 80% (or even 100% renewables) by 2050. All roads don't have to be the road that leads us through carbon tax + fracking ban + exploration ban in federal ban + all dept. climate change analysis
In fact, i believe the following:
1. Thanks to fracking, natural gas prices have reduced & made coal uncompetitive. natural gas (fracking or otherwise) is a good bridge fuel. We have to watch out to ensure that we don't damage or long term water reserves. So, a 10 year run with natural gas petering out in 2025 seems like a good path for us to explore
2. I believe in carbon tax. This is a fight we should try and continue
3. Depts analyzing for climate change is good but will not do anything to increase capacity, more a behavioral change
In my view, the solutions of Sen Sanders (& Bill McKibben) and Hillary Clinton epitomize their campaigns - Sanders is high on ideals, simplistic ideas, bans/disruptions while Clinton focuses on 1,2,3 major ideas that are implementable & the executive branch has enough freedom to pursue
So, in summary - no, i don't feel Bill McKibben's & Sanders' pessimism. But, that's me ...