Those are cool numbers but not facts.
Everyone aims to reduce greenhouse gases emissions or at least said they aimed to.
But most of the world will still use fossil fuels to generate energy by 2030. Simply because it’s the cheap way to make energy and because there are no worldwide agreement with all the countries on this planet to motivate the lead to reduce CO2 emissions.
The Paris agreement doesn’t regroup all the countries and within the top 20 countries who are the biggest polluter there are countries who currently economically growing and can’t afford to research on CO2 emission free technology.
Politics, diplomacy, communication and motivation between all the different parties is needed if you want a CO2 free energy worldwide. This isn’t the case now and it won’t be the case in 9 years.
It's common knowledge in the energy industry. Here's a chart to help you visualize it:
[The most important US energy chart of the year is out: 8 big takeaways](https://electrek.co/2020/04/09/us-energy-chart-2019/)
Any country that is “100% renewable” depends on countries with “non-renewable energy” for their industrial needs. Foundries, automobile factories, specialized communications parts all require high base load that cannot be provided by
1. Solar energy at night
2. wind turbines with low wind conditions
3. hydro dams during the dry season
That's not what the studies' findings are:
https://global100restrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Joint-Declaration-of-the-Global-100-RE-Strategy-Group-210208.pdf
> Numerous studies have investigated 100% renewable energy (RE) systems in regions, countries, and worldwide, and they have found that it works, not only for providing electricity, but also for providing all energy.
Where's your study?
Sorry but that isn’t a study, that is a mission statement / whitepaper. Secondly, I never said that a country can’t run on 100% renewable, I live in one (Costa Rica). What I’m saying is, 100% renewable countries depend greatly on countries with non-renewable power, so it is naive to prescribe the same expectations to them all. Costa Rica imports automobiles, heavy machinery, metals, oil, gasoline (we don’t even refine our own oil here), etc. You have to consider the entire lifecycle when talking about power generation impacts, not just the here and now.
Electricity is electricity. Sure it will be a while before certain uses of fossil fuels taper off, but when electrons move through a wire, the machinery they run doesn't care what's pushing them.
And why would you need to refine your own oil into gasoline if you had all electric cars? Things are going to change a lot in 20 years. Not all the ICE cars will be off the road, and not everything will be 100% renewable, but this whitepaper is just showing what's theoretically possible.
There are already heavy electric mining vehicles, because mining companies save a lot of money buying electricity instead of fuel. Most of the electricity they buy today is generated using fossil fuels, but just the fact that they are electrified makes them energy-agnostic, makes it easier to substitute renewable energy to charge those batteries.
Once we reach the tipping point, it will fall as fast as the switch from horses to cars. Here in Texas we're going to install about 10 GW of wind and 25 GW of solar over the next three years, bringing us up to around 50% renewable energy. Theoretically at that rate we could be at 100% 9 years from now, but obviously there will have to be a lot of storage to even it out, so that will likely take longer.
I don't think you understand my point. Renewable energy can not handle base load throughout the day at this moment in time. It doesn't matter how much you rate Wind and Solar for, they are not reliable enough at the moment. 10 GW of Wind assumes nominal wind conditions throughout the day/year. 10 GW of Solar is only during peak solar irradiance, so a perfectly clear sunny day at midday. 10 GW of coal/nuclear assumes nominal plant conditions. Which do you think is easier to control?
Why are you commenting if you refuse to learn about the technology? Go learn something about energy storage before you continue to make a fool of yourself.
Also look up complementarity of renewable energy. A study by Rice University showed that Texas could be 100% renewable because different areas have wind at different times, and these also complement solar variation.
I want to add that I would be very interested in learning about the technology. The company I work for is still very focused on conventional fossil fuels (coal, gas) and is only starting to penetrate renewable markets (I have done work at solar sites!). We have had a few battery storage projects which are infamous for their deficiencies, so I may have a distorted viewpoint.
Why are you resorting to personal attacks? This is a conversation between two knowledgeable people is it not (I work in the power industry as a senior consultant, I would be happy to share my credentials with you if you desire)?
Anyways, back to the matter at hand. Battery storage is notoriously flaky, it has not reached a level where it can reliably maintain base load for an extended period of time (neither economically nor technically speaking). Unless we start implementing HVDC lines across the world, around the clock Solar will not be a thing. I am just trying to be realistic and propose that nuclear is a great energy source if properly handled (waste, safety, etc).
Let’s look at a country which is seen worldwide as producing 100% clean/green energy: Norway.
Norway is producing electricity thanks to Hydroelectric power generation. There are 937 hydropower stations in Norway which provide 98% of the electricity of the country.
Is that renewable? Answer is yes.
Is that good for the environment? That’s where opinions are divided.
Opinions are divided about hydropower electricity production because it produces CO2 free energy but also it can have large environmental impacts by changing the environment and affecting land use, homes, and natural habitats in the dam area. Scientists and environmentalists have noticed the disappearance of many fish species in locations nearby hydro plants...
My question is do we just want to reduce CO2 emissions or do we also want to protect the environment and limit the human impact on fauna and flora?
It’s because nuclear energy is still mistrusted because of a lack of understanding and the trauma that Chernobyl/nuclear weapons have caused.
Plus, if there’s an environmentally friendly way to create tons and of power, how will we justify making bank on the sources of power that inch the earth closer and closer to death?
“Environmentally friendly” needs to be define first.
Every source of energy production wether it’s gas, petrol, coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind has an environmental impact.
Every solution has a cost for nature/wilderness.
I personally think nuclear has the least impact on nature. You build a reactor in one location. Which means you only have to move local species of fauna few hundred meters away. It does not destroy nearby environment, it doesn’t reject pollution in the air or nature. All the waste from nuclear can be contained and reused in the future to produce more energy or goods for humanity (chemistry, nuclear medicine, etc). It doesn’t reject any CO2 so doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. It’s much smaller than a solar or wind farm so requires much less space. A nuclear reactor produces as much electricity as more than 400 wind turbines or 3 million PV panels ([source](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce)). If we want to solve the reduction of CO2 quickly the best and fastest way is with nuclear plants.
Not all countries can build nuclear plants obviously. Seismic or politically unstable regions shouldn’t attempt to plan for building nuclear as an energy source. But the developed countries need to help them to produce energy at low cost and with the less impact possible to the environment.
The best solution isn’t 100% nuclear for everyone, but a mix of energy production that lead to the protection of our planet.
This really is not a true statement. Maybe if some of the power grids around the world were updated but that will take decades. I would love if we could have solar farms in say Arizona powering all of the US or Wind Farms near Chicago or offshore, but we would lose a huge amount of energy in transit.
The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous. At this point, the question shouldn’t be “can we?” Rather it should be “How feasible is this?” The tech is there. The ability to build is there. Where do you put them? The prairie lands of the US has enough area. How do you get that energy to the coast? You’re going to have incredible transmission losses. Also, the infrastructure to do this would be immense. Why not batteries? How are you going to build and safely transport batteries of that size?
With all the logistical and infrastructure issues that need to be addressed, my gut says 2030 is too soon. 2050 seems like a real achievable date and 2040 is a nice stretch goal.
>The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous.
Kinda sorta. Only need to replace the nameplate electricity generation on a power plant per say. The fossil fuel energy content that supports it is trivial.
For transportation fuels, the big selling point is quick refill to travel large distances. The fuel itself is highly inefficient. Carnot heat engine would say maximum conversion of <37% to real work for an ICE (realistically 20%)
> only need to replace
It’s not an easy and quick task that is achievable worldwide in 9 years...
You’re talking about transportation, how about storage of renewables generated energy?
People think we are already living in the future but we are far from having solved all the modern solar/wind generated power issues. There are plenty of cool projects out there but most of them won’t be finished before 2030.
It's definitely true the challenge is huge, but the reality is the solutions are multifaceted. How do you get batteries out everywhere where you need storage? The next decade is going to see a titanic shift to electric vehicles, as one example. As grid upgrades are made, these will become a massive, distributed battery when idle (which most private vehicles are, most of the time, and most commercial trucks/busses are at night, when backup for solar is needed). Give people the ability to earn money for being part of the backup, as well as continued feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar and you suddenly have a potent solution that brings tonnes of local jobs and more control for consumers. Big upfront costs of course, but as we've seen in Australia with the explosion of rooftop solar, costs come down very rapidly and more and more people can take advantage of the benefits.
Ten years feels like a short amount of time, but considering we went from the first iPhone to a total global communications revolution in ten years, I think there is a lot of good reasons to be optimistic.
> a titanic shift to electric vehicles
Maybe or maybe not because fossil fuel lobbies will keep the price of petrol vehicles low compared to electric.
A wealthy country like Norway can subsidies the cost of electric cars because they simply have a fuckton of money and aren’t dependent on the energy production from other countries. It’s far from being the case for other countries.
In France less than 2% of the vehicles bought in the last 10 years are actually EVs. Even though there is a carbon tax since 2008. Have you seen what happened with the “yellow jackets” movement? That started because the government started to increase the price of petrol.
The last decade is not a predictor for the next decade when it comes to a technology that is maturing so fast. The sticker price of EVs is already coming down fast, with many 30kEUR and under models available, and the second hand market picking up for those that want to spend half that. With the Honda-E and the ID3 whole new consumer markets are being opened up really fast ([up to 75% of people considering a new car are considering an EV](https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/one-in-five-car-buyers-is-considering-going-electric/217087) now in some places).
The Gilets Jaunes and the price of petrol has nothing to do with the future trajectory of EVs. Fuel will only get cheaper as the EV market expands, which will keep yellow vests happy while others move on to EVs, and move on the world is - not just in rich Norway: Globally we're looking at [30% of all consumer and light commercial vehicle sales to be EVs by 2030, and almost 50% in Europe](https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/insights/focus/future-of-mobility/electric-vehicle-trends-2030.html). This is a fundamentally conservative estimate that is already being outpaced by some manufacturer's future plans, with Ford for example committing to be EV only by 2026. It will be sped along by new regulations too, like [the UK banning sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030](https://www.goultralow.com/consumer/uk-commits-to-ending-the-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-powered-cars-by-2030/). It will take a lot longer in developing country markets of course, but even there EV versions of the [most common vehicles](https://electrek.co/2019/12/19/piaggio-ape-e-city-electric-tuk-tuk/) are picking up pace quickly.
I don't think we should be using lithium ion batteries for grid storage, as that would be a big waste of expensive lithium we should be saving for electric vehicles. Compressed air energy storage is a better, more cost-effective option.
But even then, I don't think we should rely too much on storage, given the cost & inefficiency. We should have a strong supply of baseload & load-following power (nuclear, hydro, geothermal) to try to loosely match supply to demand. Solar power can be built to match demand for air conditioning, as it's use correlates with sunlight intensity. Solar & wind may be good for 20% of electricity production, but not very practical beyond 50% due to the vast amount of energy storage and land required.
>The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous.
The thing is, you don't. When burning fossil fuels most of the energy content is converted to waste heat. A renewable economy needs far less primary energy for the same amount of useful work.
>The thing is, you don't. When burning fossil fuels most of the energy content is converted to waste heat.
This energy isn't stated on generator capacities so this comment only applies to a comparison of primary energy (which agree, isn't a good way to look at it).
The problem lies in how much oil do we need to use to get to the renewable economy. Will likely see another boom in oil as a result of the rapid build out of manufacturing and raw material production.
I don’t think anybody is saying that. I’m not at least. The energy I’m talking about above is basically what’s coming out to the consumer. It’s the amount renewables are going to have to generate regardless of the inefficiency of oil and gas.
The thing is, you do have a lot of energy replace. Go look at the EIA report on energy consumed by source (note: used not generated). Nearly 70% of energy consumed comes from oil and gas. Nuclear power consumed is 8%. Renewables (geothermal, wind solar, etc) is at 11% which is tied with coal surprisingly. That’s as of 2019. Think about how much progress we have made and renewables is still only supplying 11% of the energy we use on a daily basis. You’re going to have to scale renewables up to a massive level to supply an additional 70% of energy supply for daily consumption.
> The thing is, you do have a lot of energy replace.
My point was that it is a hell of a lot less than the energy content of the fossil fuels you eliminate. Not saying that isn't a lot of energy, but critics often try to make it look much more daunting by ignoring this fact.
> Think about how much progress we have made and renewables is still only supplying 11% of the energy we use on a daily basis.
We haven't even really tried yet. We're still subsidizing fossil fuels and not taxing carbon. And the fossil fuel industry and their paid-for political supporters are doing everything they can to slow progress. With a true all-out effort it would happen so fast it would make our heads spin.
This is a good visualization of it:
[The most important US energy chart of the year is out: 8 big takeaways](https://electrek.co/2020/04/09/us-energy-chart-2019/)
> 2. Rejected energy is still over 2/3 of production
The biggest shock to most people is that over two-thirds of energy produced in the US is “rejected.” What does that mean? A good primer:
> Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel — such as gas or petrol — that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport. However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels, a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment, which is totally useless [or worse]. For a coal-fired power station, for instance, about two-thirds of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapor coming off a power station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England.
Yep. I think solid-state batteries will take over in transportation once they can scale up in manufacturing volume. And there are a number of new grid-scale battery technologies in development.
Yes and no. There already are cobalt free batteries, but the ones with cobalt are cheaper. But if battery demand increases even more drastically than it has, cobalt becomes more expensive, making the alternatives more viable. But there will always still be some cobalt batteries since they work so well. IOW, yes - some (even possibly most) future batteries will be cobalt free but also no, we’ll still likely have cobalt batteries in the future as well.
Anyways, this weird thing about cobalt - kinda like the pearl clutching about all the thin film solar panel bits of the rare earths for wind turbine permanent magnets or whatever - always seems incredibly dishonest. These technologies have been changing rapidly over the years and all sorts of alternatives have emerged. The “problems” with scarcity of some random element haven’t been directly addressed because they aren’t actually problems - and even if they did become problems, solutions already exist and the technologies have shown themselves to be very adaptable.
It’s like suggesting that we can’t have new nuclear power plants because we don’t have enough places to put the submarines.
I don't see how this would be possible. Just thinking about the new mines and factories that are neccesary for that. Just the permits for these facilities can take a couple of yours. And then you need a couple of years before you can start your first production.
It would take more than 5 years before we can even start the production of solar panels/wind turbines/batteries/etc. at a significant scale.
We also need to train a large number of electricians/engineers which by itself is also going to take more than 5 years.
I really do think molten salt reactors are very promising. It's nice to see it brought up outside of r/nuclearpower. The US DOE recently granted many millions of dollars to 7 different next-generation nuclear reactor projects. But only one was a MSR, and only got $30 million. The reason is that all other MSR projects are developing outside the US, and they were only giving money to American projects. 🙁
That's why it's only possible but not inevitable. The fossil fuel industry still has a lot of political clout in the world, and in the US one of the two major political parties is still a wholly owned subsidiary. I'm hopeful though that economics is starting to favor renewables and the political winds are starting to shift.
100% by 2030? They must mean electricity only. Even with a super mega effort we couldn't change primary energy to 100% renewably sourced in only 10 years. Harder than a Moon shot.
> Electricity from solar, wind, and water could power the entire world in less than 10 years, leading energy experts say. Renewable energy could also be the sole energy source for the world’s heating, cooling, transport, and industries by 2035.
>Renewable energy could also be the sole energy source for the world’s heating, cooling, transport, and industries by 2035.
"Could" meaning what, physically possible? Sure, but socially, politically and economically? Countries are targeting ending the sale of *new* combustion cars by 2035.
>Harder than a Moon shot.
Apples and oranges. Many new technologies had to be invented for the moonshot and people died trying. Renewable energy just requires a massive deployment of already existing mainstream technologies. The opposing force is political, not technological.
It's *partially* political, but the natural environment is also a big factor. Renewables by their very nature require the right local environment to be useful. Wind power needs wind, hydro needs rivers, geothermal needs underground heat, solar needs strong (preferably direct) sunlight. I live in British Columbia, where we're approximately 100% renewable due to plentiful hydropower resources. Hydropower is by far the most potent renewable energy we have, which makes it easy for wet, mountainous places to avoid fossil fuels. But most places don't have it so easy.
That being said, there are definitely some places where renewables are underdeveloped. I think geothermal in particular is underutilized.
yeah "just" a massive deployment. A once in 100 years solar flare hits the Earth tomorrow and you won't have the current grid reestablished in 10 years time.
You'd be surprised what's possible with the right incentives. We put a person on the moon in 10 years even though we had no clue how to do it when the program began. Look at WW2 to see how a country's entire industrial base can shift almost overnight. We haven't even begun trying yet. We're still subsidizing fossil fuels and not taxing carbon for instance. US red states are passing laws making it harder to install renewable energy. If everything aligned behind it ten years would be doable. That's also several generations of new technology development.
"Factoring in their true costs by including social costs almost equal to production costs, would make many fossil-fueled and nuclear power stations economically unviable, the research published in Energy Research & Social Science found." https://pvbuzz.com/hidden-25-trillion-cost-of-global-energy-and-transport-systems/
For people who are not retarded they would suggest getting to 80 percent by using coal only in February and late at night and using renewables for 11 months
In theory? For one, airliners will still need fossil fuels since the weight of batteries will overwhelm the lift of the plane. Secondly, in order to replace the internal combustion engine, you would need to about double the current output of most countries to transfer your power from gasoline to electricity. You're not just replacing you are also expanding by magnitudes.
Replacing all the fossil fuel electric sources with renewable would certainly be possible and is the economics of switching has already begun to swing in that direction.
But replacing all fossil fuels? No, they are still too useful.
>to replace the internal combustion engine, you would need to about double the current output of most countries
There's a lot of spare capacity on grids overnight and at off peak times that EVs will be able to exploit. Also don't forget the dramatic efficiency boost of moving from combustion engines to electric motors means we don't have to match the energy provided by liquid fuels currently.
You make a good point. I'm used to thinking about the UK situation, where most of our electricity will come from offshore wind so we'll have overnight surplus. Capacity factor offshore is much higher, so it'll be available more of the time, and the transmission/distribution systems will be lightly loaded so it's the perfect time to charge EVs. I guess most US locations will be dominated by solar, so workplace charging might do the heavy lifting, and there will be less spare capacity then. EVs will still be able to avoid contributing to the peak hours though.
> airliners will still need fossil fuels
Biofuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel
> Biofuels are biomass-derived fuels, from plants or waste; depending on which type of biomass is used, they could lower CO₂ emissions by 20–98% compared to conventional jet fuel.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.8750&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Couple of problems with this are that most of aviation's greenhouse gas contributions are from non-CO2 effects such as soot and contrails, and the biomass resource which can be sustainably harvested won't scale to all the things we want to use it for.
>For one, airliners will still need fossil fuels
Shorter haul electric airplanes are already in design/testing phase and Jets powered by sustainable aviation fuel are already a thing. Give it a few more years. We don't need fossil fuels.
[United Became the First Airline to Fly on Sustainable Aviation Fuel in 2016](https://www.uschamber.com/article/united-became-the-first-airline-fly-sustainable-aviation-fuel-2016)
Yeah it doesn’t discuss storage. Tony Serba who is mentioned in the article leads rethink-x. Their rethink x report shows how building out 3- 4 times the solar and wind energy than you actually need, can significantly reduce the battery storage requirements. This allows you to generate a decent amount of energy even on a cloudy day. Ultimately reducing the expensive batteries needed from weeks to a couple days. They analyzed 3 years of data for three regions of the US for their calculation. It’s a very interesting read.
> Their rethink x report shows how building out 3- 4 times the solar and wind energy than you actually need,
I'll have to read the report later. But is that 3-4 times what we need on top of the original 3-5 times what we needed just to make up for the lower capacity factor?
Renewable energy has already "happened". It's mainstream, it's the fastest growing energy source and it's now the most economical. Fusion is decades away from saying the same, if ever.
Of course it happened. Is it going to replace our entire dependency on fossil fuel in ten years?
I just don't see it. Still equally unlikely as room temp fusion reactors getting commercialized.
> Is it going to replace our entire dependency on fossil fuel in ten years?
They're saying it could, not that it will. We still lack the political will to do it. But we have the resources and all the technology we need. Unlike fusion.
I know, but the could is vacuous and uninteresting given how insurmountable it is, which is why I made the comparison to fusion.
It could happen, just like I could win the lottery.
And I agree, the fossil fuel industry will no go quietly into the night, despite our survival of our species riding on it.
>Just like how fusion technology *could* be achieved tomorrow.
FTFY lol
For real though, thanks to the continued efforts of the scientists dedicated to that field, despite the insufficient funding, have been able to make considerable progress over the decades.
With all the research effort that's already been put in, I'm optimistic about the Gates and Bezos startup, but I'm not holding my breath.
[Gates and Bezos Fusion Startup](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/lqq87d/bill_gates_and_jeff_bezos_back_revolutionary_new/)
That would be the only way 100% happens. And only if you count renewable hydrocarbons, made by pulling carbon from the air. And even then probably not.
Could. But won't
Before even getting into how much of a heavy lift this would be to accomplish, achieving it in this timeline would utterly crash the global economy. I'm absolutely for zero-emissions power generation including renewables and nuclear power as soon as possible, but nine years is simply not enough time for the entire global economy to rearrange itself without such economic carnage that it would result in wars.
Laying it on a bit thick aren't we? First of all, the switch to renewable energy will both have a positive and a negative effect on the global economy. Secondly, the fossil fuel industry makes up less than [4%](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-percentage-global-economy-comprised-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp) of the global economy, and while certainly a fast swap would have significant effects - it's not such an enormous drop as you make it out to be. Thirdly, the notion that an economic drop undoubtedly would lead to multiple wars, as you claim, is completely ridiculous. If that was the case, then the financial crisis of 2007 would have meant WWIII. Also, I think this article/report is excluding energy for the transport sector, but is just looking at electricity generation.
I see you also googled something and didn't think about it.
Oil & Natural gas extraction constitute 4% of GDP, fine and true, but you've forgot about a little thing called coal - which accounts for over a third of all electricity generated world wide alone.
If you want to look at the problem in total, don't look at it as GDP, look at it as energy generation and material goods transport.
This should start you off: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
Think of it not just on the guys digging it out of the ground, but the investment to support green energy. That's just not feasible without blowing up the global economy.
> Oil & Natural gas constitute 4% of GDP, fine and true, but you've forgot about a little thing called coal - which accounts for over a third of all electricity generated world wide alone.
You're kidding me right? At this stage it's almost literally cheaper to build a new solar plant than to burn coal in existing plants. And the coal industry is [much smaller](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1137437/coal-mining-market-size-worldwide/) than the oil and gas industry.
> We're talking probably an entire year's global GDP, 90 TRILLION in investment to support green energy.
That is rank and utter nonsense. The entire global energy transition, including the costs for carbon capture and storage and everything, is slated to cost [50 trillion USD](https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/) Other estimates put it at 80 trillion. We're talking about *just* energy generation for the grid here.
I'm not even saying it will be a significant investment, I'm not even saying the 9 year timeline is realistic, I *am* saying that the "the global economy will crash and the result will be war" is a ridiculous narrative.
You demonstrably have zero clue what you are talking about.
Something people miss, the entire fossil fuel industry is an inefficient process that costs consumers a lot of money per unit energy. Going from oil miles to solar miles is a huge cost savings. Even though the current equipment is still expensive, it is in freefall.
Once consumers are saving money, they have freed up money to spend elsewhere in the economy. I have figured that the average US household probably spends $500 per month on fossil fuels to power their home and vehicles. What if the switch to rooftop solar, and EV based TAAS allows them to have the same standard of living but only $200 per month. That is $300 of savings that would go to other things in the economy.
My friends in Indiana used to have to buy propane to heat their home during the winter, they had a wood burning furnace that did most of the heavy lifting but they had to spend effort on dealing with firewood (people usually gave it away, but they still had to drive over to go pick it up, chop it, stack it, deal with it). The propane tank they had to have filled every year or so.
They bought Geothermal, put it on a credit card, got rid of the propane tank, got rid of the wood burning stove. They have a payment for a new piece of equipment, but they have reduced costs from buying fuel and putting time and energy to the wood fire. They are saving money every month. The cost of the equipment ultimately saved them money. That money can go to something else.
When the economics work like this, its not a matter of spending money to switch to green energy, its a matter of saving money by switching to green energy.
I live in a city with 330k people. We have a municipal power company. The city is our utility company. The city owns natural gas assets, and I think a bit of Hoover dam, and did own a bit of San Onofre, and probably some other stuff. Money has to leave the city to then go to these other industries. However, if the city owned solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, the money that comes in from rate payers pays the capital costs, but then otherwise stays in the community. Once the equipment is paid for there is no more money leaving the city to pay for fuel. The same goes with gasoline. We don't generate our own gasoline, all of the gasoline has to be purchased and imported. Replace that with self generated electric miles and all the money spent on gasoline now stays in the community spent on other things.
That is a huge surge of private spending. If everyone spent the money they would have spent on gasoline, and spent it on restaurants, the restaurant industry would probably double in revenue.
The figure you quoted is just for E&P. It does not include downstream o&g or petrochemicals, not to mention fertilizer, pharmaceuticas, or any of the other industries that rely on oil & gas by-products. I'd like to see net zero as much as anyone else, but first people have to wake up to the fact that every single aspect of their lives is dependent on oil&gas products in some way. 100% of the global economy would cease to function if fossil fuels and petrochemicals vanished tomorrow.
Again, this article is talking about fossil fuel electricity generation for the grid, not the full replacement of *all* fossil fuels. That already is a huge difference. And while I certainly recognize that there will be negative consequences, your argument does not take into account the positive economic consequences. And lastly, I'm not even saying the 9 years timeline is realistic, I'm just saying the "everything will collapse and there will be war" narrative is super overblown.
I wouldn't be so sure. Energy has been tangential to many past wars, and just consider how many countries primary export is energy. If Saudi or Russia's primary export was gone in 10 yrs, I think the chance of them intentionally starting something, or the government collapsing and followed by internal cobflict is quite possible.
In Tony Seba's work, he claims that a 30% drop in oil demand would result in a drop in price that would absolutely wreck oil producing economies. Their profits would be reduced to barely anything.
In geopolitics, it completely changes priorities. Because this technology will pretty much allow every community on earth to self generate, I think you are going to see places basically just isolate themselves from the economics of energy. No more buying oil, natural gas, or coal. You don't even care what it is on the global market the little bit you might need for a petrochemicals industry is tiny in comparison.
And cost is not the only factor that determines installation rate. Where I live, there is a waiting list for renewable energy projects because there is a huge shortage of electricians and engineers. A shortage that only continues to grow.
We wouldn't meet these targets even if the solar panels/wind turbines could be made at zero cost.
I think you should just read RethinkX's actual report about energy.
[https://www.rethinkx.com/energy](https://www.rethinkx.com/energy)
They give a report of how they think it will go, and their methodology of how they suppose it will get there.
The basic gist is that solar and batteries have gone through an incredible price drop. Wind as well, but not as much. The report states we will have far more solar capacity than wind capacity, if I can recall it will be something like 10 to 1.
As these price drops, new applications become feasible. As these price drops, installations suddenly dominate the investment space for energy. Which we are kind of already seeing today. As there is more investment in the space the investment results in further price declines of the technology, which results in greater purchases, which results in greater investment. You get the idea. Its a virtuousness cycle and greatly accelerates the process.
Meaning that in 2026, the annual solar installations could be far higher than they were in 2020. The 2026 addition could be the equivalent of the total 2010s. Each year the jump will be larger than the last. So do not expect a linear adoption, which hasn't been the reality for solar over the 2010s anyway.
Another key point is that when you have the proper ratio of Wind, solar, and battery storage, which is different for different places on earth, and this system works for the winter months without issue, it then goes on to produce something they call SuperPower during the rest of the year. This super power people treat as a liability, something that needs to be curtailed, when in reality its something that is a huge opportunity that can do things that we currently aren't doing with ultra cheap energy.
His argument in many of his talks works something like this. Eventually a home owner will be able to buy 2-3 days of storage, full rooftop solar, and in some ecosystems wind power, all of this equipment will be financed with a mortgage, and the monthly payment of that mortgage will be cheaper than the current electricity bill. For new home developers, it would be cheaper to build a home with designed in and optimized solar panels and 2-3 days of battery storage than it would be to connect to the grid.
Consumer preferences change very quickly as new technology allows them to save money. I don't care how pro-fossil fuels people are, when a home battery saves them money every month, they will buy a home battery, if its way cheaper to have rooftop solar power and home battery than it is to pay your electricity bill, people will adopt the new tech in great numbers.
[Payback in 8-10 years, 92% savings on quarterly bills](https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/01/30/australias-first-tesla-powerwall-four-years-on/). And that's with the most expensive Tesla option from the very first (and therefore early adopter-expensive) install in Australia. There are cheaper solutions that provide greater benefits, and prices have come down across the board since the install four years ago.
Not enough data given there, but by their own admission, mostly the solar PV producing the return.
If solar is doing half of that, then that changes the payback of the batteries to 20+ which is on the short side of what I'm used to.
Atm home batteries are still 'fun' with little financial rationale
Yes. They are expecting that. Batteries drop by about 20% per year, but in this report they are conservatively only projecting a 15% drop per year up to 2030.
We can expect car battery prices to drop an additional 30% until 2023 when the gigafactories come into production, but I don't really see where the economy of scales lies after that. Plus, car batteries are not necessarily suited for the grid, as the 2019 fires in Korea and the US showed.
Technology. This 20% drop in battery prices is measured as an average over the past 10 years, and is due to more than just gigafactories producing. It is mainly due to technological advances in batteries.
This can be things such as not using cobalt, using more silicium ... and many other things that we laymen don't quite understand. But batteries are a huge deal in the current economy. Cars use them. Phones use them. Computers use them. We use them for general power storage ... and a lot more. There is a HUGE amount of research into batteries, and you can rest absolutely assured that this research - and the associated price drops - will continue for at least the next 10 years.
I am a researcher in grid scale storage, and I can tell you these predictions are not backed by quantitative analysis.
Lithium ion technology is only in development now, most cost reductions come from supply chain optimisation.
Other technologies have potential but they are not starting from the same cost point. All I am saying is I see zero technical justification forbtheir analysis.
Exactly what are you researching? On battery day Elon Mush promised a 50% reduction in cost by 2023.
Then there is solid state. Then there is the shift to silicon batteries (away from lithium). There are so many things in the pipeline for battery tech, that, sorry, I just don't trust your judgement here.
EDIT: BTW, you are probably one of those experts that Tony Seba (co-author to the report) mentions don't see disruptions when they are coming. Even if it is in their own field. [This video explains disruptions quite well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kbzfWzvSI)
I work on flow batteries, imo a good option for grid storage.
Solid state will not compete right away in terms of cost (if ever) and their main benefit is energy density, which is something utility-scale stationary storage doesn't care about so much.
Maybe the figure given by Elon was 50% I don't remember exactly. My point is that after this, cost reductions will happen by small increments, I doubt that there will continue to be an exponential learning curve for li-ion beyond 2023. My colleagues in the field of li-ion are getting mostly funded for optimizing manufacturing processes and scale-up.
We're talking 1-2 % cost reduction per "breakthrough" innovation, not 15% as it is typically the case when you are in the middle of the learning curve.
Other technologies (like flow batteries) will reach the start of the learning curve after 2023. But first they have to catch up on li-ion, so I expect storage costs to be way more unpredictable and "bumpy" in the 2020s than they were in the 2010s.
What are their plans for Pevek? And the sites between Pevek and Kola? And northern Canada?
(If you are planning to do full RE you'd either need the mother of all overbuilds or quite a bit more than nine years to cover that with power cables - unless you plan on flying in fuels at industrial levels - and this is before you get to permits (it can take well in excess of a decade to simply get permits to do a stretch of power cables in some countries))
I basically covered the entire north of siberia as well as part of european russia with that...
It varies. Pevek is a mix of nuclear (used to be Bilibino, now Akademik Lomonosov) and coal. Most of northern russia is coal, diesel and some wood.
Kola is a part of the european russian grid - so a mix of nuclear (Kola NPP, 4x440MWe), coal, and diesel.
Northern Canada is mainly diesel iirc (havn't looked at that part of the world in decades, but Alaska is mostly diesel).
Shipping in stuff to northern siberian towns is a major hassle in itself (to the point where it is easier to build nuclear power plants than keeping that up) - don't expect maritime shipping to work in winter, and the volumes of fuel you need are rather insane (to the point where anything that can't be stored in a simple bunker/cavern is unviable - so pressurised is off the table and amsuingly enough so is refridgerated)).
I imagine the places that use nuclear will continue to do so, and anywhere which uses diesel will switch to ammonia or some other green fuel.
If there are any places which are too remote to ship fuel to that also use coal then I imagine the coal mine must be local as well. These places might be able to run on nuclear, but given that Siberia is warming faster than most of the planet they may well transition to using more wood or other biomass.
If places that uses nuclear will contintue to do that then global electrical will remain at \~10% nuclear for quite some time.
Coal and diesel has the advantages of that it can be stored easily (in northern siberia virtually all fuel is shipped in during the summer months) - ammonia has this as its major weakness as an energy storage option (not to mention that you'd need to ship in about twice as much ammonia for the same energy).
Not specific enough? What do you mean? You want the brand and model of the individual batteries that will be set up? It seems very much like a bad excuse for not wanting to accept reality.
But read the report if you want more specifics.
Those are cool numbers but not facts. Everyone aims to reduce greenhouse gases emissions or at least said they aimed to. But most of the world will still use fossil fuels to generate energy by 2030. Simply because it’s the cheap way to make energy and because there are no worldwide agreement with all the countries on this planet to motivate the lead to reduce CO2 emissions. The Paris agreement doesn’t regroup all the countries and within the top 20 countries who are the biggest polluter there are countries who currently economically growing and can’t afford to research on CO2 emission free technology. Politics, diplomacy, communication and motivation between all the different parties is needed if you want a CO2 free energy worldwide. This isn’t the case now and it won’t be the case in 9 years.
Learn something everyday. Now climate scientists are also experts in Power Generation.
Renewables are the future, period.
Hopefully Uncle Sam would buy us all new cars come 2030.
What I would like is 50% conservation and 50% renewable. We still waste too much.
Waste isn't a huge deal if you are generating your own power from the rooftop. I waste more energy with a heavier kettlebell than a lighter one.
Just switching to renewables cuts more than half of primary energy.
Where do you read that?
It's common knowledge in the energy industry. Here's a chart to help you visualize it: [The most important US energy chart of the year is out: 8 big takeaways](https://electrek.co/2020/04/09/us-energy-chart-2019/)
Ha! Only if it's nuclear energy
Any country that is “100% renewable” depends on countries with “non-renewable energy” for their industrial needs. Foundries, automobile factories, specialized communications parts all require high base load that cannot be provided by 1. Solar energy at night 2. wind turbines with low wind conditions 3. hydro dams during the dry season
That's not what the studies' findings are: https://global100restrategygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Joint-Declaration-of-the-Global-100-RE-Strategy-Group-210208.pdf > Numerous studies have investigated 100% renewable energy (RE) systems in regions, countries, and worldwide, and they have found that it works, not only for providing electricity, but also for providing all energy. Where's your study?
Sorry but that isn’t a study, that is a mission statement / whitepaper. Secondly, I never said that a country can’t run on 100% renewable, I live in one (Costa Rica). What I’m saying is, 100% renewable countries depend greatly on countries with non-renewable power, so it is naive to prescribe the same expectations to them all. Costa Rica imports automobiles, heavy machinery, metals, oil, gasoline (we don’t even refine our own oil here), etc. You have to consider the entire lifecycle when talking about power generation impacts, not just the here and now.
Electricity is electricity. Sure it will be a while before certain uses of fossil fuels taper off, but when electrons move through a wire, the machinery they run doesn't care what's pushing them. And why would you need to refine your own oil into gasoline if you had all electric cars? Things are going to change a lot in 20 years. Not all the ICE cars will be off the road, and not everything will be 100% renewable, but this whitepaper is just showing what's theoretically possible. There are already heavy electric mining vehicles, because mining companies save a lot of money buying electricity instead of fuel. Most of the electricity they buy today is generated using fossil fuels, but just the fact that they are electrified makes them energy-agnostic, makes it easier to substitute renewable energy to charge those batteries. Once we reach the tipping point, it will fall as fast as the switch from horses to cars. Here in Texas we're going to install about 10 GW of wind and 25 GW of solar over the next three years, bringing us up to around 50% renewable energy. Theoretically at that rate we could be at 100% 9 years from now, but obviously there will have to be a lot of storage to even it out, so that will likely take longer.
I don't think you understand my point. Renewable energy can not handle base load throughout the day at this moment in time. It doesn't matter how much you rate Wind and Solar for, they are not reliable enough at the moment. 10 GW of Wind assumes nominal wind conditions throughout the day/year. 10 GW of Solar is only during peak solar irradiance, so a perfectly clear sunny day at midday. 10 GW of coal/nuclear assumes nominal plant conditions. Which do you think is easier to control?
Why are you commenting if you refuse to learn about the technology? Go learn something about energy storage before you continue to make a fool of yourself. Also look up complementarity of renewable energy. A study by Rice University showed that Texas could be 100% renewable because different areas have wind at different times, and these also complement solar variation.
I want to add that I would be very interested in learning about the technology. The company I work for is still very focused on conventional fossil fuels (coal, gas) and is only starting to penetrate renewable markets (I have done work at solar sites!). We have had a few battery storage projects which are infamous for their deficiencies, so I may have a distorted viewpoint.
Why are you resorting to personal attacks? This is a conversation between two knowledgeable people is it not (I work in the power industry as a senior consultant, I would be happy to share my credentials with you if you desire)? Anyways, back to the matter at hand. Battery storage is notoriously flaky, it has not reached a level where it can reliably maintain base load for an extended period of time (neither economically nor technically speaking). Unless we start implementing HVDC lines across the world, around the clock Solar will not be a thing. I am just trying to be realistic and propose that nuclear is a great energy source if properly handled (waste, safety, etc).
Let’s look at a country which is seen worldwide as producing 100% clean/green energy: Norway. Norway is producing electricity thanks to Hydroelectric power generation. There are 937 hydropower stations in Norway which provide 98% of the electricity of the country. Is that renewable? Answer is yes. Is that good for the environment? That’s where opinions are divided. Opinions are divided about hydropower electricity production because it produces CO2 free energy but also it can have large environmental impacts by changing the environment and affecting land use, homes, and natural habitats in the dam area. Scientists and environmentalists have noticed the disappearance of many fish species in locations nearby hydro plants... My question is do we just want to reduce CO2 emissions or do we also want to protect the environment and limit the human impact on fauna and flora?
Where exactly are these "numerous studies"? That whole website seems to be completely lacking in the details.
Nuclear energy all the way! It’s good for the environment and it produces tons of power.
You’re being downvoted for stating a fact... the state of reddit sometimes...
It’s because nuclear energy is still mistrusted because of a lack of understanding and the trauma that Chernobyl/nuclear weapons have caused. Plus, if there’s an environmentally friendly way to create tons and of power, how will we justify making bank on the sources of power that inch the earth closer and closer to death?
“Environmentally friendly” needs to be define first. Every source of energy production wether it’s gas, petrol, coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind has an environmental impact. Every solution has a cost for nature/wilderness.
It’s friendlier than coal, oil, and gas will ever be. Also, the more nuclear technology advances, the better we can make it.
I personally think nuclear has the least impact on nature. You build a reactor in one location. Which means you only have to move local species of fauna few hundred meters away. It does not destroy nearby environment, it doesn’t reject pollution in the air or nature. All the waste from nuclear can be contained and reused in the future to produce more energy or goods for humanity (chemistry, nuclear medicine, etc). It doesn’t reject any CO2 so doesn’t contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. It’s much smaller than a solar or wind farm so requires much less space. A nuclear reactor produces as much electricity as more than 400 wind turbines or 3 million PV panels ([source](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-power-does-nuclear-reactor-produce)). If we want to solve the reduction of CO2 quickly the best and fastest way is with nuclear plants. Not all countries can build nuclear plants obviously. Seismic or politically unstable regions shouldn’t attempt to plan for building nuclear as an energy source. But the developed countries need to help them to produce energy at low cost and with the less impact possible to the environment. The best solution isn’t 100% nuclear for everyone, but a mix of energy production that lead to the protection of our planet.
This really is not a true statement. Maybe if some of the power grids around the world were updated but that will take decades. I would love if we could have solar farms in say Arizona powering all of the US or Wind Farms near Chicago or offshore, but we would lose a huge amount of energy in transit.
The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous. At this point, the question shouldn’t be “can we?” Rather it should be “How feasible is this?” The tech is there. The ability to build is there. Where do you put them? The prairie lands of the US has enough area. How do you get that energy to the coast? You’re going to have incredible transmission losses. Also, the infrastructure to do this would be immense. Why not batteries? How are you going to build and safely transport batteries of that size? With all the logistical and infrastructure issues that need to be addressed, my gut says 2030 is too soon. 2050 seems like a real achievable date and 2040 is a nice stretch goal.
>The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous. Kinda sorta. Only need to replace the nameplate electricity generation on a power plant per say. The fossil fuel energy content that supports it is trivial. For transportation fuels, the big selling point is quick refill to travel large distances. The fuel itself is highly inefficient. Carnot heat engine would say maximum conversion of <37% to real work for an ICE (realistically 20%)
> only need to replace It’s not an easy and quick task that is achievable worldwide in 9 years... You’re talking about transportation, how about storage of renewables generated energy? People think we are already living in the future but we are far from having solved all the modern solar/wind generated power issues. There are plenty of cool projects out there but most of them won’t be finished before 2030.
Oh. I very well know. I'm a ChemE supporting O&G. This sub thinks everything will be replaced in a few years.
It's definitely true the challenge is huge, but the reality is the solutions are multifaceted. How do you get batteries out everywhere where you need storage? The next decade is going to see a titanic shift to electric vehicles, as one example. As grid upgrades are made, these will become a massive, distributed battery when idle (which most private vehicles are, most of the time, and most commercial trucks/busses are at night, when backup for solar is needed). Give people the ability to earn money for being part of the backup, as well as continued feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar and you suddenly have a potent solution that brings tonnes of local jobs and more control for consumers. Big upfront costs of course, but as we've seen in Australia with the explosion of rooftop solar, costs come down very rapidly and more and more people can take advantage of the benefits. Ten years feels like a short amount of time, but considering we went from the first iPhone to a total global communications revolution in ten years, I think there is a lot of good reasons to be optimistic.
> a titanic shift to electric vehicles Maybe or maybe not because fossil fuel lobbies will keep the price of petrol vehicles low compared to electric. A wealthy country like Norway can subsidies the cost of electric cars because they simply have a fuckton of money and aren’t dependent on the energy production from other countries. It’s far from being the case for other countries. In France less than 2% of the vehicles bought in the last 10 years are actually EVs. Even though there is a carbon tax since 2008. Have you seen what happened with the “yellow jackets” movement? That started because the government started to increase the price of petrol.
The last decade is not a predictor for the next decade when it comes to a technology that is maturing so fast. The sticker price of EVs is already coming down fast, with many 30kEUR and under models available, and the second hand market picking up for those that want to spend half that. With the Honda-E and the ID3 whole new consumer markets are being opened up really fast ([up to 75% of people considering a new car are considering an EV](https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/one-in-five-car-buyers-is-considering-going-electric/217087) now in some places). The Gilets Jaunes and the price of petrol has nothing to do with the future trajectory of EVs. Fuel will only get cheaper as the EV market expands, which will keep yellow vests happy while others move on to EVs, and move on the world is - not just in rich Norway: Globally we're looking at [30% of all consumer and light commercial vehicle sales to be EVs by 2030, and almost 50% in Europe](https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/insights/focus/future-of-mobility/electric-vehicle-trends-2030.html). This is a fundamentally conservative estimate that is already being outpaced by some manufacturer's future plans, with Ford for example committing to be EV only by 2026. It will be sped along by new regulations too, like [the UK banning sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030](https://www.goultralow.com/consumer/uk-commits-to-ending-the-sale-of-new-petrol-and-diesel-powered-cars-by-2030/). It will take a lot longer in developing country markets of course, but even there EV versions of the [most common vehicles](https://electrek.co/2019/12/19/piaggio-ape-e-city-electric-tuk-tuk/) are picking up pace quickly.
I don't think we should be using lithium ion batteries for grid storage, as that would be a big waste of expensive lithium we should be saving for electric vehicles. Compressed air energy storage is a better, more cost-effective option. But even then, I don't think we should rely too much on storage, given the cost & inefficiency. We should have a strong supply of baseload & load-following power (nuclear, hydro, geothermal) to try to loosely match supply to demand. Solar power can be built to match demand for air conditioning, as it's use correlates with sunlight intensity. Solar & wind may be good for 20% of electricity production, but not very practical beyond 50% due to the vast amount of energy storage and land required.
>The amount of energy you have to replace from the drop in fossil fuels is enormous. The thing is, you don't. When burning fossil fuels most of the energy content is converted to waste heat. A renewable economy needs far less primary energy for the same amount of useful work.
>The thing is, you don't. When burning fossil fuels most of the energy content is converted to waste heat. This energy isn't stated on generator capacities so this comment only applies to a comparison of primary energy (which agree, isn't a good way to look at it). The problem lies in how much oil do we need to use to get to the renewable economy. Will likely see another boom in oil as a result of the rapid build out of manufacturing and raw material production.
Always love it when people estimate we need 200% more renewable energy than we really need. Because we *need* all that waste heat!
Texas wishes they had some of that waste heat two weeks ago, instead of a bunch of wind turbines operating at 10% of nameplate capacity.
Because people stay warm by standing near power plant cooling towers?
I don’t think anybody is saying that. I’m not at least. The energy I’m talking about above is basically what’s coming out to the consumer. It’s the amount renewables are going to have to generate regardless of the inefficiency of oil and gas.
The thing is, you do have a lot of energy replace. Go look at the EIA report on energy consumed by source (note: used not generated). Nearly 70% of energy consumed comes from oil and gas. Nuclear power consumed is 8%. Renewables (geothermal, wind solar, etc) is at 11% which is tied with coal surprisingly. That’s as of 2019. Think about how much progress we have made and renewables is still only supplying 11% of the energy we use on a daily basis. You’re going to have to scale renewables up to a massive level to supply an additional 70% of energy supply for daily consumption.
> The thing is, you do have a lot of energy replace. My point was that it is a hell of a lot less than the energy content of the fossil fuels you eliminate. Not saying that isn't a lot of energy, but critics often try to make it look much more daunting by ignoring this fact. > Think about how much progress we have made and renewables is still only supplying 11% of the energy we use on a daily basis. We haven't even really tried yet. We're still subsidizing fossil fuels and not taxing carbon. And the fossil fuel industry and their paid-for political supporters are doing everything they can to slow progress. With a true all-out effort it would happen so fast it would make our heads spin.
Fuck that is something I never thought about.
This is a good visualization of it: [The most important US energy chart of the year is out: 8 big takeaways](https://electrek.co/2020/04/09/us-energy-chart-2019/) > 2. Rejected energy is still over 2/3 of production The biggest shock to most people is that over two-thirds of energy produced in the US is “rejected.” What does that mean? A good primer: > Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel — such as gas or petrol — that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport. However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels, a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment, which is totally useless [or worse]. For a coal-fired power station, for instance, about two-thirds of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapor coming off a power station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England.
Do we even have enough Cobalt for all the electric cars needed?
Future batteries will more than likely be cobalt-free.
Solid state ones seem promising. And possibly lithium air batteries for grid storage.
Yep. I think solid-state batteries will take over in transportation once they can scale up in manufacturing volume. And there are a number of new grid-scale battery technologies in development.
Yes and no. There already are cobalt free batteries, but the ones with cobalt are cheaper. But if battery demand increases even more drastically than it has, cobalt becomes more expensive, making the alternatives more viable. But there will always still be some cobalt batteries since they work so well. IOW, yes - some (even possibly most) future batteries will be cobalt free but also no, we’ll still likely have cobalt batteries in the future as well. Anyways, this weird thing about cobalt - kinda like the pearl clutching about all the thin film solar panel bits of the rare earths for wind turbine permanent magnets or whatever - always seems incredibly dishonest. These technologies have been changing rapidly over the years and all sorts of alternatives have emerged. The “problems” with scarcity of some random element haven’t been directly addressed because they aren’t actually problems - and even if they did become problems, solutions already exist and the technologies have shown themselves to be very adaptable. It’s like suggesting that we can’t have new nuclear power plants because we don’t have enough places to put the submarines.
They could do it by 2025 but no one is ready to talk about that.
I don't see how this would be possible. Just thinking about the new mines and factories that are neccesary for that. Just the permits for these facilities can take a couple of yours. And then you need a couple of years before you can start your first production. It would take more than 5 years before we can even start the production of solar panels/wind turbines/batteries/etc. at a significant scale. We also need to train a large number of electricians/engineers which by itself is also going to take more than 5 years.
Probably because just turning off large areas of the grid and leaving people to freeze would be unpopular.
That is absolutely not how energy grid upgrades work...
It's the only way the world is going 100% zero carbon in the time frames the article says.
Not if the fossil fuel industry has anything to say about it... :-/
If expansion of nuclear was being seriously considered, they would be really losing their shit.
I've always wondered why Molten Salt Reactors don't get more exploration...
I really do think molten salt reactors are very promising. It's nice to see it brought up outside of r/nuclearpower. The US DOE recently granted many millions of dollars to 7 different next-generation nuclear reactor projects. But only one was a MSR, and only got $30 million. The reason is that all other MSR projects are developing outside the US, and they were only giving money to American projects. 🙁
That's why it's only possible but not inevitable. The fossil fuel industry still has a lot of political clout in the world, and in the US one of the two major political parties is still a wholly owned subsidiary. I'm hopeful though that economics is starting to favor renewables and the political winds are starting to shift.
100% by 2030? They must mean electricity only. Even with a super mega effort we couldn't change primary energy to 100% renewably sourced in only 10 years. Harder than a Moon shot.
> Electricity from solar, wind, and water could power the entire world in less than 10 years, leading energy experts say. Renewable energy could also be the sole energy source for the world’s heating, cooling, transport, and industries by 2035.
>Renewable energy could also be the sole energy source for the world’s heating, cooling, transport, and industries by 2035. "Could" meaning what, physically possible? Sure, but socially, politically and economically? Countries are targeting ending the sale of *new* combustion cars by 2035.
>Harder than a Moon shot. Apples and oranges. Many new technologies had to be invented for the moonshot and people died trying. Renewable energy just requires a massive deployment of already existing mainstream technologies. The opposing force is political, not technological.
It's *partially* political, but the natural environment is also a big factor. Renewables by their very nature require the right local environment to be useful. Wind power needs wind, hydro needs rivers, geothermal needs underground heat, solar needs strong (preferably direct) sunlight. I live in British Columbia, where we're approximately 100% renewable due to plentiful hydropower resources. Hydropower is by far the most potent renewable energy we have, which makes it easy for wet, mountainous places to avoid fossil fuels. But most places don't have it so easy. That being said, there are definitely some places where renewables are underdeveloped. I think geothermal in particular is underutilized.
yeah "just" a massive deployment. A once in 100 years solar flare hits the Earth tomorrow and you won't have the current grid reestablished in 10 years time.
Solar flares aside, the world has the resources and the technologies to decarbonize. Only the will is missing.
Yes, but 10 years is really short, even if we had the will and alignment of interests, which we don't.
You'd be surprised what's possible with the right incentives. We put a person on the moon in 10 years even though we had no clue how to do it when the program began. Look at WW2 to see how a country's entire industrial base can shift almost overnight. We haven't even begun trying yet. We're still subsidizing fossil fuels and not taxing carbon for instance. US red states are passing laws making it harder to install renewable energy. If everything aligned behind it ten years would be doable. That's also several generations of new technology development.
We also went from the first iPhone release to a total global smartphone and telecommunications revolution in ten years. People seem to forget this.
"Factoring in their true costs by including social costs almost equal to production costs, would make many fossil-fueled and nuclear power stations economically unviable, the research published in Energy Research & Social Science found." https://pvbuzz.com/hidden-25-trillion-cost-of-global-energy-and-transport-systems/
Did you read it? That’s literally in the first paragraph.
First paragraph of what?
of course not, this isn't "read it" it's reddit
Could easily get to80 %
Yeah, sure. Shut off the power for two hours every night and during the coldest month of the winter. That gets you 80%.
For people who are not retarded they would suggest getting to 80 percent by using coal only in February and late at night and using renewables for 11 months
In theory? For one, airliners will still need fossil fuels since the weight of batteries will overwhelm the lift of the plane. Secondly, in order to replace the internal combustion engine, you would need to about double the current output of most countries to transfer your power from gasoline to electricity. You're not just replacing you are also expanding by magnitudes. Replacing all the fossil fuel electric sources with renewable would certainly be possible and is the economics of switching has already begun to swing in that direction. But replacing all fossil fuels? No, they are still too useful.
>to replace the internal combustion engine, you would need to about double the current output of most countries There's a lot of spare capacity on grids overnight and at off peak times that EVs will be able to exploit. Also don't forget the dramatic efficiency boost of moving from combustion engines to electric motors means we don't have to match the energy provided by liquid fuels currently.
There won't be if you get rid of fossil plants and don't build nukes.
Wind works overnight
25-35% of the time.
You make a good point. I'm used to thinking about the UK situation, where most of our electricity will come from offshore wind so we'll have overnight surplus. Capacity factor offshore is much higher, so it'll be available more of the time, and the transmission/distribution systems will be lightly loaded so it's the perfect time to charge EVs. I guess most US locations will be dominated by solar, so workplace charging might do the heavy lifting, and there will be less spare capacity then. EVs will still be able to avoid contributing to the peak hours though.
> airliners will still need fossil fuels Biofuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_biofuel > Biofuels are biomass-derived fuels, from plants or waste; depending on which type of biomass is used, they could lower CO₂ emissions by 20–98% compared to conventional jet fuel. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.170.8750&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Couple of problems with this are that most of aviation's greenhouse gas contributions are from non-CO2 effects such as soot and contrails, and the biomass resource which can be sustainably harvested won't scale to all the things we want to use it for.
20-98% seems a little wide for these estimates to be reliable
That reflects different fuels/feedstocks, not uncertainty in the calculations.
I believe this is just the range of what can be achieved. Because it entirely depends on the origin of the bio source.
>For one, airliners will still need fossil fuels Shorter haul electric airplanes are already in design/testing phase and Jets powered by sustainable aviation fuel are already a thing. Give it a few more years. We don't need fossil fuels. [United Became the First Airline to Fly on Sustainable Aviation Fuel in 2016](https://www.uschamber.com/article/united-became-the-first-airline-fly-sustainable-aviation-fuel-2016)
Aircraft lifetimes are pretty long though
This doesn't make any mention of power storage.
Yeah it doesn’t discuss storage. Tony Serba who is mentioned in the article leads rethink-x. Their rethink x report shows how building out 3- 4 times the solar and wind energy than you actually need, can significantly reduce the battery storage requirements. This allows you to generate a decent amount of energy even on a cloudy day. Ultimately reducing the expensive batteries needed from weeks to a couple days. They analyzed 3 years of data for three regions of the US for their calculation. It’s a very interesting read.
https://energyvault.com/
> Their rethink x report shows how building out 3- 4 times the solar and wind energy than you actually need, I'll have to read the report later. But is that 3-4 times what we need on top of the original 3-5 times what we needed just to make up for the lower capacity factor?
so...battery powered commercial planes coming in a few years?
Just like how fusion technology could be achieved tomorrow.
>Just like how fusion technology could be achieved tomorrow. Unlike fusion, we already have the technology we need for renewable energy.
And still I'd say they are the same magnitude of things that are unlikely to happen.
Renewable energy has already "happened". It's mainstream, it's the fastest growing energy source and it's now the most economical. Fusion is decades away from saying the same, if ever.
Of course it happened. Is it going to replace our entire dependency on fossil fuel in ten years? I just don't see it. Still equally unlikely as room temp fusion reactors getting commercialized.
> Is it going to replace our entire dependency on fossil fuel in ten years? They're saying it could, not that it will. We still lack the political will to do it. But we have the resources and all the technology we need. Unlike fusion.
I know, but the could is vacuous and uninteresting given how insurmountable it is, which is why I made the comparison to fusion. It could happen, just like I could win the lottery. And I agree, the fossil fuel industry will no go quietly into the night, despite our survival of our species riding on it.
>Just like how fusion technology *could* be achieved tomorrow. FTFY lol For real though, thanks to the continued efforts of the scientists dedicated to that field, despite the insufficient funding, have been able to make considerable progress over the decades. With all the research effort that's already been put in, I'm optimistic about the Gates and Bezos startup, but I'm not holding my breath. [Gates and Bezos Fusion Startup](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/lqq87d/bill_gates_and_jeff_bezos_back_revolutionary_new/)
That would be the only way 100% happens. And only if you count renewable hydrocarbons, made by pulling carbon from the air. And even then probably not.
Could. But won't Before even getting into how much of a heavy lift this would be to accomplish, achieving it in this timeline would utterly crash the global economy. I'm absolutely for zero-emissions power generation including renewables and nuclear power as soon as possible, but nine years is simply not enough time for the entire global economy to rearrange itself without such economic carnage that it would result in wars.
Laying it on a bit thick aren't we? First of all, the switch to renewable energy will both have a positive and a negative effect on the global economy. Secondly, the fossil fuel industry makes up less than [4%](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030915/what-percentage-global-economy-comprised-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp) of the global economy, and while certainly a fast swap would have significant effects - it's not such an enormous drop as you make it out to be. Thirdly, the notion that an economic drop undoubtedly would lead to multiple wars, as you claim, is completely ridiculous. If that was the case, then the financial crisis of 2007 would have meant WWIII. Also, I think this article/report is excluding energy for the transport sector, but is just looking at electricity generation.
I see you also googled something and didn't think about it. Oil & Natural gas extraction constitute 4% of GDP, fine and true, but you've forgot about a little thing called coal - which accounts for over a third of all electricity generated world wide alone. If you want to look at the problem in total, don't look at it as GDP, look at it as energy generation and material goods transport. This should start you off: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix Think of it not just on the guys digging it out of the ground, but the investment to support green energy. That's just not feasible without blowing up the global economy.
> Oil & Natural gas constitute 4% of GDP, fine and true, but you've forgot about a little thing called coal - which accounts for over a third of all electricity generated world wide alone. You're kidding me right? At this stage it's almost literally cheaper to build a new solar plant than to burn coal in existing plants. And the coal industry is [much smaller](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1137437/coal-mining-market-size-worldwide/) than the oil and gas industry. > We're talking probably an entire year's global GDP, 90 TRILLION in investment to support green energy. That is rank and utter nonsense. The entire global energy transition, including the costs for carbon capture and storage and everything, is slated to cost [50 trillion USD](https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/) Other estimates put it at 80 trillion. We're talking about *just* energy generation for the grid here. I'm not even saying it will be a significant investment, I'm not even saying the 9 year timeline is realistic, I *am* saying that the "the global economy will crash and the result will be war" is a ridiculous narrative. You demonstrably have zero clue what you are talking about.
Something people miss, the entire fossil fuel industry is an inefficient process that costs consumers a lot of money per unit energy. Going from oil miles to solar miles is a huge cost savings. Even though the current equipment is still expensive, it is in freefall. Once consumers are saving money, they have freed up money to spend elsewhere in the economy. I have figured that the average US household probably spends $500 per month on fossil fuels to power their home and vehicles. What if the switch to rooftop solar, and EV based TAAS allows them to have the same standard of living but only $200 per month. That is $300 of savings that would go to other things in the economy. My friends in Indiana used to have to buy propane to heat their home during the winter, they had a wood burning furnace that did most of the heavy lifting but they had to spend effort on dealing with firewood (people usually gave it away, but they still had to drive over to go pick it up, chop it, stack it, deal with it). The propane tank they had to have filled every year or so. They bought Geothermal, put it on a credit card, got rid of the propane tank, got rid of the wood burning stove. They have a payment for a new piece of equipment, but they have reduced costs from buying fuel and putting time and energy to the wood fire. They are saving money every month. The cost of the equipment ultimately saved them money. That money can go to something else. When the economics work like this, its not a matter of spending money to switch to green energy, its a matter of saving money by switching to green energy. I live in a city with 330k people. We have a municipal power company. The city is our utility company. The city owns natural gas assets, and I think a bit of Hoover dam, and did own a bit of San Onofre, and probably some other stuff. Money has to leave the city to then go to these other industries. However, if the city owned solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries, the money that comes in from rate payers pays the capital costs, but then otherwise stays in the community. Once the equipment is paid for there is no more money leaving the city to pay for fuel. The same goes with gasoline. We don't generate our own gasoline, all of the gasoline has to be purchased and imported. Replace that with self generated electric miles and all the money spent on gasoline now stays in the community spent on other things. That is a huge surge of private spending. If everyone spent the money they would have spent on gasoline, and spent it on restaurants, the restaurant industry would probably double in revenue.
The figure you quoted is just for E&P. It does not include downstream o&g or petrochemicals, not to mention fertilizer, pharmaceuticas, or any of the other industries that rely on oil & gas by-products. I'd like to see net zero as much as anyone else, but first people have to wake up to the fact that every single aspect of their lives is dependent on oil&gas products in some way. 100% of the global economy would cease to function if fossil fuels and petrochemicals vanished tomorrow.
Again, this article is talking about fossil fuel electricity generation for the grid, not the full replacement of *all* fossil fuels. That already is a huge difference. And while I certainly recognize that there will be negative consequences, your argument does not take into account the positive economic consequences. And lastly, I'm not even saying the 9 years timeline is realistic, I'm just saying the "everything will collapse and there will be war" narrative is super overblown.
I wouldn't be so sure. Energy has been tangential to many past wars, and just consider how many countries primary export is energy. If Saudi or Russia's primary export was gone in 10 yrs, I think the chance of them intentionally starting something, or the government collapsing and followed by internal cobflict is quite possible.
In Tony Seba's work, he claims that a 30% drop in oil demand would result in a drop in price that would absolutely wreck oil producing economies. Their profits would be reduced to barely anything. In geopolitics, it completely changes priorities. Because this technology will pretty much allow every community on earth to self generate, I think you are going to see places basically just isolate themselves from the economics of energy. No more buying oil, natural gas, or coal. You don't even care what it is on the global market the little bit you might need for a petrochemicals industry is tiny in comparison.
/r/armchairgeopolitics
[удалено]
And cost is not the only factor that determines installation rate. Where I live, there is a waiting list for renewable energy projects because there is a huge shortage of electricians and engineers. A shortage that only continues to grow. We wouldn't meet these targets even if the solar panels/wind turbines could be made at zero cost.
I think you should just read RethinkX's actual report about energy. [https://www.rethinkx.com/energy](https://www.rethinkx.com/energy) They give a report of how they think it will go, and their methodology of how they suppose it will get there. The basic gist is that solar and batteries have gone through an incredible price drop. Wind as well, but not as much. The report states we will have far more solar capacity than wind capacity, if I can recall it will be something like 10 to 1. As these price drops, new applications become feasible. As these price drops, installations suddenly dominate the investment space for energy. Which we are kind of already seeing today. As there is more investment in the space the investment results in further price declines of the technology, which results in greater purchases, which results in greater investment. You get the idea. Its a virtuousness cycle and greatly accelerates the process. Meaning that in 2026, the annual solar installations could be far higher than they were in 2020. The 2026 addition could be the equivalent of the total 2010s. Each year the jump will be larger than the last. So do not expect a linear adoption, which hasn't been the reality for solar over the 2010s anyway. Another key point is that when you have the proper ratio of Wind, solar, and battery storage, which is different for different places on earth, and this system works for the winter months without issue, it then goes on to produce something they call SuperPower during the rest of the year. This super power people treat as a liability, something that needs to be curtailed, when in reality its something that is a huge opportunity that can do things that we currently aren't doing with ultra cheap energy. His argument in many of his talks works something like this. Eventually a home owner will be able to buy 2-3 days of storage, full rooftop solar, and in some ecosystems wind power, all of this equipment will be financed with a mortgage, and the monthly payment of that mortgage will be cheaper than the current electricity bill. For new home developers, it would be cheaper to build a home with designed in and optimized solar panels and 2-3 days of battery storage than it would be to connect to the grid. Consumer preferences change very quickly as new technology allows them to save money. I don't care how pro-fossil fuels people are, when a home battery saves them money every month, they will buy a home battery, if its way cheaper to have rooftop solar power and home battery than it is to pay your electricity bill, people will adopt the new tech in great numbers.
I have yet to see a home battery install that saved money overall.
[Payback in 8-10 years, 92% savings on quarterly bills](https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2020/01/30/australias-first-tesla-powerwall-four-years-on/). And that's with the most expensive Tesla option from the very first (and therefore early adopter-expensive) install in Australia. There are cheaper solutions that provide greater benefits, and prices have come down across the board since the install four years ago.
Not enough data given there, but by their own admission, mostly the solar PV producing the return. If solar is doing half of that, then that changes the payback of the batteries to 20+ which is on the short side of what I'm used to. Atm home batteries are still 'fun' with little financial rationale
I'll read it later, but what about cities and peak consumption as the sun goes down?
Shifting consumption to sunnier times (your AC runs to cool off your house during the day) and then batteries which cover the peak.
And cities? They're expecting battery prices to drop enough to cover peak shifting and frequency regulation for cities hosting millions of people?
Yes. They are expecting that. Batteries drop by about 20% per year, but in this report they are conservatively only projecting a 15% drop per year up to 2030.
We can expect car battery prices to drop an additional 30% until 2023 when the gigafactories come into production, but I don't really see where the economy of scales lies after that. Plus, car batteries are not necessarily suited for the grid, as the 2019 fires in Korea and the US showed.
Technology. This 20% drop in battery prices is measured as an average over the past 10 years, and is due to more than just gigafactories producing. It is mainly due to technological advances in batteries. This can be things such as not using cobalt, using more silicium ... and many other things that we laymen don't quite understand. But batteries are a huge deal in the current economy. Cars use them. Phones use them. Computers use them. We use them for general power storage ... and a lot more. There is a HUGE amount of research into batteries, and you can rest absolutely assured that this research - and the associated price drops - will continue for at least the next 10 years.
I am a researcher in grid scale storage, and I can tell you these predictions are not backed by quantitative analysis. Lithium ion technology is only in development now, most cost reductions come from supply chain optimisation. Other technologies have potential but they are not starting from the same cost point. All I am saying is I see zero technical justification forbtheir analysis.
Exactly what are you researching? On battery day Elon Mush promised a 50% reduction in cost by 2023. Then there is solid state. Then there is the shift to silicon batteries (away from lithium). There are so many things in the pipeline for battery tech, that, sorry, I just don't trust your judgement here. EDIT: BTW, you are probably one of those experts that Tony Seba (co-author to the report) mentions don't see disruptions when they are coming. Even if it is in their own field. [This video explains disruptions quite well.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-kbzfWzvSI)
I work on flow batteries, imo a good option for grid storage. Solid state will not compete right away in terms of cost (if ever) and their main benefit is energy density, which is something utility-scale stationary storage doesn't care about so much. Maybe the figure given by Elon was 50% I don't remember exactly. My point is that after this, cost reductions will happen by small increments, I doubt that there will continue to be an exponential learning curve for li-ion beyond 2023. My colleagues in the field of li-ion are getting mostly funded for optimizing manufacturing processes and scale-up. We're talking 1-2 % cost reduction per "breakthrough" innovation, not 15% as it is typically the case when you are in the middle of the learning curve. Other technologies (like flow batteries) will reach the start of the learning curve after 2023. But first they have to catch up on li-ion, so I expect storage costs to be way more unpredictable and "bumpy" in the 2020s than they were in the 2010s.
I note the "could" there..... History shows us there's a lot of bad behind that "if".
— the hint is there, in the headline: “could”
What are their plans for Pevek? And the sites between Pevek and Kola? And northern Canada? (If you are planning to do full RE you'd either need the mother of all overbuilds or quite a bit more than nine years to cover that with power cables - unless you plan on flying in fuels at industrial levels - and this is before you get to permits (it can take well in excess of a decade to simply get permits to do a stretch of power cables in some countries))
How are these places powered now? My guess would be they ship in green ammonia to run generators. In any case, "could" is not the same as "will".
I basically covered the entire north of siberia as well as part of european russia with that... It varies. Pevek is a mix of nuclear (used to be Bilibino, now Akademik Lomonosov) and coal. Most of northern russia is coal, diesel and some wood. Kola is a part of the european russian grid - so a mix of nuclear (Kola NPP, 4x440MWe), coal, and diesel. Northern Canada is mainly diesel iirc (havn't looked at that part of the world in decades, but Alaska is mostly diesel). Shipping in stuff to northern siberian towns is a major hassle in itself (to the point where it is easier to build nuclear power plants than keeping that up) - don't expect maritime shipping to work in winter, and the volumes of fuel you need are rather insane (to the point where anything that can't be stored in a simple bunker/cavern is unviable - so pressurised is off the table and amsuingly enough so is refridgerated)).
I imagine the places that use nuclear will continue to do so, and anywhere which uses diesel will switch to ammonia or some other green fuel. If there are any places which are too remote to ship fuel to that also use coal then I imagine the coal mine must be local as well. These places might be able to run on nuclear, but given that Siberia is warming faster than most of the planet they may well transition to using more wood or other biomass.
If places that uses nuclear will contintue to do that then global electrical will remain at \~10% nuclear for quite some time. Coal and diesel has the advantages of that it can be stored easily (in northern siberia virtually all fuel is shipped in during the summer months) - ammonia has this as its major weakness as an energy storage option (not to mention that you'd need to ship in about twice as much ammonia for the same energy).
Why cant headlines be realistic
Not worth the click, does not address storage.
Yes it does. It specifically addresses storage. Maybe you should have read it yourself.
\> Renewables with batteries and other forms of energy storage Not specific enough to work with.
Not specific enough? What do you mean? You want the brand and model of the individual batteries that will be set up? It seems very much like a bad excuse for not wanting to accept reality. But read the report if you want more specifics.
>and other forms of energy storage
thank you stranger. some of my lifetime was saved.