Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.
3. When the world's four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe's per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America's total consumption.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.
5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand "only" ten-fold.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.
8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.
9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.
10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.
11. Since 1995, total world energy use rose by 50 percent, an amount equal to adding two entire United States' worth of demand.
12. For security and reliability, an average of two months of national demand for hydrocarbons are in storage at any time. Today, barely two hours of national electricity demand can be stored in all utility-scale batteries plus all batteries in one million electric cars in America.
13. Batteries produced annually by the Tesla Gigafactory (world's biggest battery factory) can store three minutes worth of annual U.S. electric demand.
14. To make enough batteries to store two day's worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of production by the Gigafactory (world's biggest battery factory).
15. Every $1 billion in aircraft produced leads to some $5 billion in aviation fuel consumed over two decades to operate them. Global spending on new jets is more than $50 billion a year—and rising.
16. Every $1 billion spent on data centers leads to $7 billion in electricity consumed over two decades. Global spending on data centers is more than $100 billion a year—and rising.
Realities about Energy Economics
17. Over a 30-year period, $1 million worth of utility-scale solar or wind produces 40 million and 55 million kWh respectively: $1 million worth of shale well produces enough natural gas to generate 300 million kWh over 30 years.
18. It costs about the same to build one shale well or two wind turbines: the latter, combined, produces 0.7 barrels of oil (equivalent energy) per hour, the shale rig averages 10 barrels of oil per hour.
19. It costs less than $0.50 to store a barrel of oil, or its equivalent in natural gas, but it costs $200 to store the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil in batteries.
20. Cost models for wind and solar assume, respectively, 41 percent and 29 percent capacity factors (i.e., how often they produce electricity). Real-world data reveal as much as ten percentage points less for both. That translates into $3 million less energy produced than assumed over a 20-year life of a 2-MW $3 million wind turbine.
21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.
22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.
23. Over 90 percent of America's electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.
24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.
25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven't gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.
Energy Physics... Inconvenient Realities
26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke "moonshot" language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.
27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.
28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.
29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.
EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.
30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.
31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.
32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.
33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.
34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.
36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).
37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.
38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.
39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.
40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.
41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.
A week doesn't pass without a mayor, governor, policymaker or pundit joining the rush to demand, or predict, an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries, freed from the "burden" of the hydrocarbons that have fueled societies for centuries. Regardless of one's opinion about whether, or why, an energy "transformation" is called for, the physics and economics of energy combined with scale realities make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically "new energy economy" in the foreseeable future. Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities "we need to bring math to the problem."
He's right. So, in the recent Manhattan Institute report, "The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking," they did just that.
Quote from: Herman post_id=444112 time=1647818671 user_id=1689
Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand
1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.
2. The small two-percentage-point decline in the hydrocarbon share of world energy use entailed over $2 trillion in cumulative global spending on alternatives over that period; solar and wind today supply less than two percent of the global energy.
3. When the world's four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe's per capita level, global demand rises by an amount equal to twice America's total consumption.
4. A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 would displace five percent of global oil demand.
5. Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand "only" ten-fold.
6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.
7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.
8. Efficiency increases energy demand by making products & services cheaper: since 1990, global energy efficiency improved 33 percent, the economy grew 80 percent and global energy use is up 40 percent.
9. Efficiency increases energy demand: Since 1995, aviation fuel use/passenger-mile is down 70 percent, air traffic rose more than 10-fold, and global aviation fuel use rose over 50 percent.
10. Efficiency increases energy demand: since 1995, energy used per byte is down about 10,000-fold, but global data traffic rose about a million-fold; global electricity used for computing soared.
A lot to look throught Herman..
I'll give it a closer look after I put the supper dishes away.
Quote from: Herman post_id=444114 time=1647818821 user_id=1689
21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.
22. Wind-farm capacity factors have improved at about 0.7 percent per year; this small gain comes mainly from reducing the number of turbines per acre leading to a 50 percent increase in average land used to produce a wind-kilowatt-hour.
23. Over 90 percent of America's electricity, and 99 percent of the power used in transportation, comes from sources that can easily supply energy to the economy any time the market demands it.
24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.
25. The shale revolution collapsed the prices of natural gas & coal, the two fuels that produce 70 percent of U.S. electricity. But electric rates haven't gone down, rising instead 20 percent since 2008. Direct and indirect subsidies for solar and wind consumed those savings.
Energy Physics... Inconvenient Realities
26. Politicians and pundits like to invoke "moonshot" language. But transforming the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently.
27. The common cliché: an energy tech disruption will echo the digital tech disruption. But information-producing machines and energy-producing machines involve profoundly different physics; the cliché is sillier than comparing apples to bowling balls.
28. If solar power scaled like computer-tech, a single postage-stamp-size solar array would power the Empire State Building. That only happens in comic books.
29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.
EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.
30. If combustion engines scaled like computers, a car engine would shrink to the size of an ant and produce a thousand-fold more horsepower; actual ant-sized engines produce 100,000 times less power.
All of there are inconvenient truths.
Quote from: Herman post_id=444115 time=1647818842 user_id=1689
31. No digital-like 10x gains exist for solar tech. Physics limit for solar cells (the Shockley-Queisser limit) is a max conversion of about 33 percent of photons into electrons; commercial cells today are at 26 percent.
32. No digital-like 10x gains exist for wind tech. Physics limit for wind turbines (the Betz limit) is a max capture of 60 percent of energy in moving air; commercial turbines achieve 45 percent.
33. No digital-like 10x gains exist for batteries: maximum theoretical energy in a pound of oil is 1,500 percent greater than max theoretical energy in the best pound of battery chemicals.
34. About 60 pounds of batteries are needed to store the energy equivalent of one pound of hydrocarbons.
35. At least 100 pounds of materials are mined, moved and processed for every pound of battery fabricated.
36. Storing the energy equivalent of one barrel of oil, which weighs 300 pounds, requires 20,000 pounds of Tesla batteries ($200,000 worth).
37. Carrying the energy equivalent of the aviation fuel used by an aircraft flying to Asia would require $60 million worth of Tesla-type batteries weighing five times more than that aircraft.
38. It takes the energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to fabricate a quantity of batteries that can store the energy equivalent of a single barrel of oil.
39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.
40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create more carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.
41. One would no more use helicopters for regular trans-Atlantic travel—doable with elaborately expensive logistics—than employ a nuclear reactor to power a train or photovoltaic systems to power a nation.
I don't understand 31 and 32....39-41 burst the enviromentally friendly, sustainable narrative.
Quote
I assume that's not during use, rather allows the creation of and destruction of auto batteries??
Are there significant pollutants generated during charging and use?
Quote from: cc post_id=444126 time=1647822844 user_id=88
Quote
I assume that's not during use, rather allows the creation of and destruction of auto batteries??
Are there pollutants generated during charging?
Its the ev equivalent of wheels to well.
Ya, they produce pollutants no matter if the energy used to charge comes from natural gas, or wind and solar with natural gas backup. Wind and solar produce more pollutants because of the mining process in developing countries. They both produce C02. I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
Quote from: Herman post_id=444127 time=1647823458 user_id=1689
Quote from: cc post_id=444126 time=1647822844 user_id=88
Quote
I assume that's not during use, rather allows the creation of and destruction of auto batteries??
Are there pollutants generated during charging?
Its the ev equivalent of wheels to well.
Ya, they produce pollutants no matter if the energy used to charge comes from natural gas, or wind and solar with natural gas backup. Wind and solar produce more pollutants because of the mining process in developing countries. They both produce C02. I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
The lifespan of cars......that's an apples to apples comparison with gasoline cars.
Quote from: Herman post_id=444127 time=1647823458 user_id=1689
I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
Yes, hydroelectric power is hard to argue. It in fact, when possible is the ideal
Quote from: cc post_id=444129 time=1647823957 user_id=88
Quote from: Herman post_id=444127 time=1647823458 user_id=1689
I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
Yes, hydroelectric power is hard to argue. It in fact, when possible is the ideal
I read here that it has serious environmental consequences too.
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=444141 time=1647826158 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=444129 time=1647823957 user_id=88
Quote from: Herman post_id=444127 time=1647823458 user_id=1689
I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
Yes, hydroelectric power is hard to argue. It in fact, when possible is the ideal
I read here that it has serious environmental consequences too.
All power generation methods have downsides.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=444142 time=1647826260 user_id=1676
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=444141 time=1647826158 user_id=3254
Quote from: cc post_id=444129 time=1647823957 user_id=88
Quote from: Herman post_id=444127 time=1647823458 user_id=1689
I aint so sure about hydroelectric power.
Yes, hydroelectric power is hard to argue. It in fact, when possible is the ideal
I read here that it has serious environmental consequences too.
All power generation methods have downsides.
Except wind and solar. They are perfect and not racist. :43(2):
21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.
That goes against the narrative that we are "transitioning."
39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.
Sustainablity of electric cars, lol.
Quote from: Thiel post_id=444167 time=1647857174 user_id=1688
21. In order to compensate for episodic wind/solar output, U.S. utilities are using oil- and gas-burning reciprocating engines (big cruise-ship-like diesels); three times as many have been added to the grid since 2000 as in the 50 years prior to that.
That goes against the narrative that we are "transitioning."
39. A battery-centric grid and car world means mining gigatons more of the earth to access lithium, copper, nickel, graphite, rare earths, cobalt, etc.—and using millions of tons of oil and coal both in mining and to fabricate metals and concrete.
Sustainablity of electric cars, lol.
Number twenty one is quite surprising.
Good thread Herm. It debunks what is shoved down our throats about wind, solar and electric vehicles.
Herm. Do you have a link for that?
I'd like to keep and possibly give it to others
EDIT - I searched on quotes and found this "Fee Stories" - https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/
by Mark P. Mills
Interestingly, he says " Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities "we need to bring math to the problem."
He's right. So, in my recent Manhattan Institute report, "The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking," I did just that.
Herein, then, is a summary of some of the bottom-line realities from the underlying math. (See the full report for explanations, documentation, and citations.)
TITLE: Realities About the Scale of Energy Demand
Good spot Herm - He did it at the Manhattan Institute in 2019
Quote from: cc post_id=444202 time=1647879945 user_id=88
Herm. Do you have a link for that?
I'd like to keep and possibly give it to others
EDIT - I searched on quotes and found this "Fee Stories" - https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/
by Mark P. Mills
You're so polite with him....
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=444203 time=1647880395 user_id=1676
Quote from: cc post_id=444202 time=1647879945 user_id=88
Herm. Do you have a link for that?
I'd like to keep and possibly give it to others
EDIT - I searched on quotes and found this "Fee Stories" - https://fee.org/articles/41-inconvenient-truths-on-the-new-energy-economy/
by Mark P. Mills
You're so polite with him....
always
If these are true, heads should roll.
If Canada had built LNG export facilities and countries like Germany hadn't blocked nuclear and fracking, the average German would not have to freeze in the dark.
Quote
Consumer energy prices have soared throughout the EU, with looming shortages of energy that could stretch out for years. At the EU summit on Thursday, the need to start building stockpiles of oil and gas to supply energy for next winter were discussed. In the United Kingdom, household energy bills could more than double to 3,000 pounds ($5,000). As supply tightens and uncertainty grows, the price of oil could hit US$200 a barrel. The value of fossil fuel company shares on the Toronto and other markets are helping to boost stock market prices to record levels.
A Washington Post summary of the options included increased gas imports, along with a host of other options:
Plug pipeline leaks: Plugging these leaks could save Europe up to 2.5 billion cubic metres by the end of this year. Preventing seepage would also cut Europe's annual greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 5 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Turn down thermostats: Reducing thermostats by one degree Celsius would curb gas demand by about 10 billion cubic metres per year and cut EU gas bills by about 10 per cent.
Install heat pumps which use electricity to warm homes in winter and cool them in summer.
Boost building efficiency with better insulation and smart thermostats.
Curb industrial demand by urging energy-intensive industries such as ammonia and aluminum producers to assess their winter production plans and consider temporary closures.
In case the above top-down plans seem inadequate, the IEA's March fuel report listed 10 other ideas to keep the world on track for NetZero 2050.
Reduce speed limits on highways by at least 10 km/h. Around 290 thousand barrels of oil per day (kb/d) can be saved in the short term through a speed limit reduction of just 10 km/h on motorways for cars. A further 140 kb/d (predominantly diesel) can be saved if heavy trucks reduce their speed by 10 km/h.
Work from home up to three days a week where possible. Impact: One day of working from home can avoid around 170 kb/d of oil use. Three days of working from home avoids around 500 kb/d in the short term.
Car-free Sundays in cities. Impact: Avoids around 380 kb/d of oil use in the short term if implemented in large cities every Sunday.
Make the use of public transport cheaper and incentivise micro-mobility, walking and cycling.
Alternate private car access to roads in large cities.
Increase car sharing and adopt practices to reduce fuel use.
Promote efficient driving for freight trucks and delivery of goods.
Using high-speed and night trains instead of planes where possible.
Avoid business air travel where alternative options exist.
Reinforce the adoption of electric and more efficient vehicles.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/terence-corcoran-more-fossil-fuels-%e2%80%94-plus-net-zero/ar-AAVuzwX?ocid=mailsignout&li=AAggFp5
Europe went green. It tossed away energy it had, which was both secure and reliable, and signed on to the fantasy of "let's get to net-zero." How has that worked out for them.
Quote from: Thiel post_id=445190 time=1648775472 user_id=1688
Europe went green. It tossed away energy it had, which was both secure and reliable, and signed on to the fantasy of "let's get to net-zero." How has that worked out for them.
Trudeau/Singh want to double down on that failed example. Biden does too, but he will be facing a GOP congress in January.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=445231 time=1648814251 user_id=114
Quote from: Thiel post_id=445190 time=1648775472 user_id=1688
Europe went green. It tossed away energy it had, which was both secure and reliable, and signed on to the fantasy of "let's get to net-zero." How has that worked out for them.
Trudeau/Singh want to double down on that failed example. Biden does too, but he will be facing a GOP congress in January.
Europeans are paying a fortune to heat their homes. It's rising quickly here too.
Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,045 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 200GW is being built and 300GW is planned.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=445281 time=1648857569 user_id=2015
Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,045 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 200GW is being built and 300GW is planned.
A couple of big name American morons supported China at the Paris Climate Accord by increasing GHG until 2030 before pretending they will cut back. And now we import batteries and solar panel components from coal powered China to "save the planet " ac_toofunny
From India to Europe, coal and nuclear are making comebacks. But, it was stupid to phase them out in the first place.
Coal Makes A Comeback As Energy Crunch Puts The Kibosh On Climate Agenda
https://climatechangedispatch.com/coal-makes-comeback-energy-crunch-puts-kibosh-climate-agenda/?fbclid=IwAR1Ckg3nG-N380MeaTttx7nM-oz8JvMQJt9ZDelKrQfjiUZTZIdgfpHuUHg
From the U.S. and Europe to India and China, the appetite for more coal has been inflamed by a scramble for alternative energy sources to end reliance on oil and natural gas from Russia.
Many countries now see coal as the most practical and speedy solution.
"We will need it until we find alternative sources. Until that time, even the greenest government will not phase out coal," Václav Bartuška, the Czech Republic's energy security commissioner, told news outlet Seznam Zprávy.
Quote from: Herman post_id=445282 time=1648857732 user_id=1689
Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=445281 time=1648857569 user_id=2015
Since 2000, the world has doubled its coal-fired power capacity to around 2,045 gigawatts (GW) after explosive growth in China and India. A further 200GW is being built and 300GW is planned.
A couple of big name American morons supported China at the Paris Climate Accord by increasing GHG until 2030 before pretending they will cut back. And now we import batteries and solar panel components from coal powered China to "save the planet " ac_toofunny
China and Russia are supposedly funding climate change hysteria in the West.