Renewables Will Be World's Main Power Source By 2040, Says BP (cnbc.com) 334
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: In a not-too-distant future, renewable energy becomes the world's biggest source of power generation. A quarter of the distances that humans travel by vehicle will be in electric cars. U.S. dominance in the oil market begins to wane, and OPEC's influence is resurgent, as crude demand finally peaks. That is the vision laid out by British oil and gas giant BP on Thursday in its latest Annual Energy Outlook. The closely followed report lays out a vision through 2040 for Earth's energy future, provided government policy, technology and consumer preferences evolve in line with recent trends. BP forecasts that the world's energy demand will grow by a third through 2040, driven by rising consumption in China, India and other parts of Asia. About 75 percent of that increase will come from the need to power industry and buildings. At the same time, energy demand will continue to grow in the transportation sector, but that growth will slow sharply as vehicles become more efficient and more consumers opt for electric cars. But despite the increase in supply, BP thinks two-thirds of the world's population will still live in places with relatively low energy consumption per head. The takeaway: The world will need to generate more energy. The report says natural gas consumption will grow by 50 percent over the next 20 years, increasing in virtually every corner of the globe. "Throughout most of that time, the world will continue to consume more oil year after year, until demand ultimately peaks around 108 million barrels per day in the 2030s," reports CNBC. "This year, OPEC expects global oil demand to reach 100 million bpd."
Meanwhile, coal consumption is forecasted to flatline, as China and developed countries quit the fossil fuel in favor of cleaner-burning and renewable energy sources. "However, BP sees India and other Asian nations burning more coal to meet surging power demand as the nations become more prosperous," reports CNBC.
Meanwhile, coal consumption is forecasted to flatline, as China and developed countries quit the fossil fuel in favor of cleaner-burning and renewable energy sources. "However, BP sees India and other Asian nations burning more coal to meet surging power demand as the nations become more prosperous," reports CNBC.
A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:2)
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they won't.
There is nothing as energy dense, convenient, safe, and inexpensive as hydrocarbons. Maybe we can replace those hydrocarbons with something not from petroleum. Maybe we will use fuels other than hydrocarbons, but that doesn't mean the end for the internal combustion engine. The ICE is just too well entrenched in the culture, economy, and infrastructure to be replaced so quickly.
Part of this infrastructure is the existing stock of vehicles themselves. A common diesel powered truck, tractor, locomotive, ship, or whatever, have a lifespan of decades. Anything sold in the last decade up to today will have a better than 50/50 chance of still being in use in 20 years. Even if no one made spare parts the existing stock of vehicles becomes a supply of spare parts. Then there's things like 3D printing and good old fashioned cottage industry of small time machine shops. People will be burning ethanol, vegetable oil, lubricating grease, solvents, or whatever else they can mix up to keep the wheels turning if something interrupts the supply of petroleum.
No, the ICE will not be obsolete in20 years. Not unless there's some great leap in technology. That leap is unlikely to come from batteries. Sure, maybe the commuter car can be replaced with electrics. That won't mean much for the other vehicles that move, on the road and off.
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is nothing as energy dense, convenient, safe, and inexpensive as hydrocarbons
Hopefully batteries will be in 20 years. (btw gasoline is not safe.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hopefully batteries will be in 20 years.
The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline.
(btw gasoline is not safe.)
Nothing is truly safe, it's all relative. We might find something more energy dense but then it's less safe. We can certainly find materials that are safer but far less energy dense. Given that balance of energy density, convenience, safety, and cost there is not much that can compete with gasoline.
Batteries are not safe either. They can electrocute, burn, even explode, if not handled with due care. K
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline.
Li-Air batteries actually have better usable energy storage density than gasoline.
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:5, Interesting)
And when you burn gasoline in a real-world engine only about 1/5th of the energy makes it to the wheels. Bulk energy storage is only part of the story; what matters in the end is how much useful work you can do with the energy you're able to store. If you can use the energy more efficiently, you can do the same work with less.
The "hydrocarbon advantage" isn't as large as you might think, because the relative efficiencies of gasoline vs chemical battery goes a LONG way to close the gap.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
And gasoline engines are only 20% efficient so they waste most of that specific energy and it makes them equal to Li-air batteries.
Re: (Score:2)
The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline.
What basics are you talking about here?
Re: (Score:2)
The basics of having to carry both fuel and oxidizer in a battery while with gasoline the oxidizer is pulled from the air. If you have an "air breathing battery" then that's pushing the definition of a battery, that's more a fuel cell than a battery.
I could go on but I'll just stop at the definition of a battery. At least for now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I could go on but I'll just stop at the definition of a battery
Yeah you should, because you're sounding kind of ignorant! haha
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The basics of chemical storage of energy means that no battery can ever be as energy dense as gasoline"
Molten-air batteries of iron, carbon and vanadium boride have impressive numbers
https://phys.org/news/2013-09-... [phys.org]
watt-hrs per kg are 1400, 8900 and 5300 while the per liter numbers are 10k, 19k and 27k
Gasoline is 12,200 watt-hrs per kg and 9700 per liter. Gasoline's significant per-kg advantage is diminished by it being consumed during use. Of course there are many hurdles to overcome for molten-air batteries so they won't be commercially available any time soon.
Say it with me: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nu-cle-ar
Pow-er
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess that it's more like 10 or so years from the start of a tipping point. By then about 20% of the cars will be electric, at that point gas will start to get cheap (with the removal of 20% of the demand), but banks and investors will stop financing oil projects (which require lots of money just to keep going). In about 20 years gasoline would be very expensive and pull the rest of the car market into full electric.
Today charge times for a 'super charger' will likely surprise you, 80% charge in 40 minu
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:4, Insightful)
but banks and investors will stop financing oil projects
Well, there goes all the feedstock for the fertilizer you need to grow your soy products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing as energy dense, convenient, safe, and inexpensive as hydrocarbons.
Hydrocarbons are only inexpensive if you discount the externalities. The actual damage to the environment inherent in burning hydrocarbons is quite expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
density isn't the most important consideration anymore
Where did I say it was?
Re: (Score:2)
"No, they won't. There is nothing as energy dense..."
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank goodness you pointed out the importance of solving range, charging station availability and time-to-charge as issues. It's definitely the first time those issues have been flagged in relation to EVs, which is why range, charging station availability and time-to-charge have all remained static for the past decade.
Re:A quarter will be electric cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, most of the "heavy" infrastructure for delivery of charging stations pretty much exists already. Tends to be that you can access electricity anywhere you can access petroleum. Might need to beef it up a bit, but we don't have to do this overnight.
The fact that there are now literally millions electric cars out there in the US shows that the infrastructure is there. People don't buy cars they can't move around in.
There are now more electric vehicles in the US that there were iPhones in the world in 2007!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 20 years ICE vehicles will be obsolete... Its a given.
Never underestimate the staying power of obsolete tech.
Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ferret
Can anyone believe them? (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
--
What the caterpillar calls the end of the world the master calls a butterfly - Richard Bach
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
Of course. There will be no wind and solar dominating without the oil industry. From those oil wells comes a lot of natural gas, and that natural gas will be needed as backup power for the unreliable wind and solar.
The oil companies have nothing to fear from wind and solar. They get to "greenwash" their industry by providing the natural gas to keep those windmills spinning. Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own,
Re: (Score:3)
They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
ROFL
Re:Can anyone believe them? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, people do know that those windmills need power to get up to speed to catch the wind, right? They can't get going on their own, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Just like ICE engines?
Re: (Score:3)
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
I'll emphasize the benefits to traditional power. Those power storage technologies would work well in allowing cheap and efficient coal power to match changing demand, just as they do now for the changing supply of wind and solar.
There is a lack of foresight in thinking that cheap storage will clear a path for wind and solar. That is required, I have no doubt, but insufficient. These technologies could just as easily be what is needed to clear a path for nuclear, "clean coal", or something else.
Fukushima
Re: (Score:3)
Power storage via batteries, or physical energy storage like flywheels, water / weight, all can make wind and solar more viable, as well as improving usage of traditional power as well.
...cheap and efficient coal power...
Coal has been completely outcompeted cost-efficiency and emissionswise by practically everything else on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima melted down because the backup batteries ran dead before the generators could be started or a replacement power line could be run. If they had a "giga-battery" in Japan like Tesla built for Australia then no one would have heard of Fukushima.
No, that's not right. They did in fact have emergency cooling operating on site. They used fire engines to pump in water, for example. The problem is that due to damage to the plant the monitoring systems were not working, so they were unaware that a valve was in the wrong position and diverting water to a holding tank instead of the reactors, and no-one could get near the reactors to check them.
So no amount of extra power supply on site would have helped at that point.
Re:Can anyone believe them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also incorrect. Fukushima was bad industrial engineering due to cheapassery.
The Fukushima plant survived the initial quake.
They were in cooldown, running off the on-site generators when the TSUNAMI hit and flooded out the generators.
1: Had the sea wall been built to specification, there would have been no flood.
2: Had the generators NOT been built at the lowest point in the plant, they wouldn't have been flooded out.
But, in the real world, TEPCO cut corners to save money and the meltdown happened as it did.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you don't believe that the fire engines were on-site and working? Or are you just making the point that had the cooling system not been damaged by the tsunami everything would have been fine, which is basically what I said?
Re: (Score:2)
Fukushima melted down because the backup batteries ran dead before the generators could be started or a replacement power line could be run. If they had a "giga-battery" in Japan like Tesla built for Australia then no one would have heard of Fukushima.
Obviously you want people to believe you feel passionate about nuclear power and that it can solve a lot of problems. Nuclear power was established when people were more interested in science and technology. Much fewer people are interested in those careers now. An expanded nuclear power industry will require a lot more competent people to do a boring job. You're saying they aren't available now.
Essentially what you are saying is "Fukushima melted down because there weren't enough competent people to
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you don't build nuclear reactors in fault zones like California.
You build lots of renewables where it makes sense (solar, wind, wave) in California.
Augment it with natural gas.
You then net-meter.
During the day, California pushes lots of renewable power out of state. During the evenings, they simply import power from stable power sources back into the state.
Re:Can anyone believe them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly these folks and their ideas are funded by the oil industry.
Oil isn't really a competitor to solar. Cars run on gas, power plants run on coal.
BP might want to get rid of electric cars, but they invest in solar plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the section talking about running cars on CNG.
The energy density, the amount of fuel that's carried, and the weight of the tank.
Re: (Score:2)
See my post above.
Here's the link I was too stupid to include.
DERP!
https://youtu.be/3K43XC9J82Q [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
See my post above.
Here's the link I was too stupid to include.
DERP!
https://youtu.be/3K43XC9J82Q [youtu.be]
Your post explains the mechanism of why Fukushima exploded. The reactor design produces massive amounts of hydrogen that are supposed to be bled off with recombiners and other improvements to the facility, like a bigger sea wall. Technological improvements weren't even considered for Fukushima.
It doesn't matter that the batteries are heavier in an electric car because a petrol engine doesn't just include a 15kg fuel tank, it contains several hundred kilograms of engine, gearbox and diff. If you want to
Mars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Jews killed Christ.
Oh, well you can't say they are all bad then. Did you ever meet that Christ guy? He was pretty annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have enough HOST FILES I can give you one of mine.
I actually have a few very hostile spare HOST FILES.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong title. Renewable energy will not dominate. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not what BP said! They did not claim that renewable energy would dominate, they said renewable AND NATURAL GAS would dominate.
Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas. When anyone claims that they will switch from coal to wind and solar what they really mean is that they will switch to wind, solar, and natural gas.
Here's where wind and solar just become proxies for natural gas. When building a backup sy
Re: (Score:2)
"Here's what has been discovered everywhere a switch to wind and solar has been tried, they are nothing more than a proxy for natural gas."
Not a fucking natural gas pipepline around me for blocks. Pure personal solar here, and a large solar plant across from the park down the street powering the whole neighborhood. Learn to properly spec your system instead of listening to idiot salesmen.
Get with the times. Modern solar is fairly efficient now days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Wrong title. Renewable energy will not domina (Score:3)
Spot on.
The industry is switching to gas.
All heavy transport, particularly ships and trucks.
Still, I managed to provoke embarrassed silence on the last conference by noting that the incomplete burning will emit methane ( so-called methane slip which however small when scaled to all heavy transport.... ) and how about all those terrible cows farting.....
Ooops!
Re: Wrong title. Renewable energy will not domin (Score:2)
Conference of energy producers, I forgot to add. Info first hand. That's my job these days...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com]
https://www.tiltrenewables.com... [tiltrenewables.com]
https://www.corrs.com.au/think... [corrs.com.au]
Look how they already got rid of local coal completely 3 years ago, and now have 38% wind, and are increasing exports. https://opennem.org.au/#/regio... [opennem.org.au] (c
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, now tell us how we're going to do this in the flat, central belt of the US.
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to house a giant water reservoir?
Re: (Score:2)
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to house a giant water reservoir?
There actually was a suggestion for something like that. [ge.com]
Re:Wrong title. Renewable energy will not dominate (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually once renewables exceed about 20% of the mix the requirement for backup starts to fall. Geographic distribution and high levels of predictability, combined with a distributed nature that means a single failure only takes out tens of megawatts instead of a gigawatt or two all make renewables more reliable, not less.
Battery tech is going to make peaking plants unprofitable in the next decade or two max. Gas and other types of peak coverage can't react fast enough to compete with batteries. Environmental considerations don't even come into it. Best of all it allows individual energy users to buy their own batteries and avoid those high peak rates completely. Industrial users will level out their consumption, domestic users will charge up when it's cheapest and their solar isn't providing enough during the day.
Any plan based on the old economics of base load and peak demand is going to fail. The nature of the grid and energy consumption is changing.
Re:Wrong title. Renewable energy will not dominate (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear rather than letting their fear of nuclear power compel them to run second generation power plants well beyond their designed lifespan. The Fukushima nuclear power plant was built before Chernobyl. Even though they did upgrades to improve safety they still had to deal with 1960s technology and all the hazards that came with it. Build something new by learning from 60 years of mistakes and you will get something exceedingly safe.
Japan learned from their mistakes. Or so it seems. They are finally starting to build new nuclear after this, they tried doing without nuclear and that was not sustainable. They were losing big on their economy and their air quality. They also won't be building nuclear power plants based on 60 year old designs.
Re:Wrong title. Renewable energy will not dominate (Score:4, Interesting)
Japan isn't building new nuclear plants. The only "new" one is a third reactor at Shimane, which was scheduled to go online in 2011 but was delayed. Not only due to Fukushima, but due to a new previously unknown fault line being discovered in the area and additional safety upgrades being required.
No new designs are being build, and there are no serious plans for any. Japan's nuclear industry is going bust, e.g. Westinghouse, as global demand for their products falls. The industry is trying to pivot away to renewables but they were late to the game and China is on their doorstep.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But natural gas is good enough for the purposes of greatly exceeding any desired reductions, and it can serve the needs of countries too fearful and ignorant to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power.
Yep, pretty much.
The only places where wind and solar can really meet any large portion of a nation's energy needs are in places where they have an abundance of hydro power for storage. Turning the peaks and valleys of wind and solar power into a steady and reliable energy supply means storage, and lots of it. There is no battery technology that can compete with hydro. Without storage like hydro that storage needs to come from something else, and that energy storage is tanks filled with natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
" Without storage like hydro that storage needs to come from something else, and that energy storage is tanks filled with natural gas."
Water towers exist. You use energy to pump water up into the tower, you extract it as you release the water for general town usage. No dams, or rivers, or lakes, or any of that space-hogging shit required.
Re:Same difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever. Go compute the material needs, and the money it would take to buy them, then get back to me on that.
There's a reason why we dam up rivers and not just build a huge water tank in the middle of pancake flat Nebraska to store energy. That path to energy storage is a roadmap to nowhere.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah. Sure.
Now compute the power output of a single large water tower.
Now scale it up to the ACTUAL demand on the grid.
Is every wind turbine ALSO going to have a water tower built into the base?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
way more than any studies say we need to meet.
No idea where you got that from.
We need 100% reduction, not a random percentage.
Re: (Score:3)
We need 100% reduction, not a random percentage.
Assuming that's true then what's your plan to meet that goal? BP presumably has a lot of well paid, very intelligent, and highly educated, people to work on this report and they determined that it won't happen before 2040. I have my doubts you can come up with a better plan, and also make it happen.
Again, assume we need to reduce our CO2 output to zero before 2040, how will we get there? Given that Europe is building a bunch of big gas pipelines from Russia it seems quite clear that they have no intentio
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, face it. We're NEVER going to get 100% reduction.
N
E
V
E
R
E
V
E
R
A combination of lower output sources and demand reduction (requiring tighter building codes for new construction and energy retrofits) can cut demand nearly in half nationwide.
Re: (Score:2)
So the cost of power is low at night and the lights stay on.
Advance productive nations that have jobs and that export products need low cost 24/7 power in the real world.
Re:Wrong title. Renewable energy will not dominate (Score:4, Insightful)
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
Re: (Score:3)
if a gas turbine was only 30% efficient, why would anyone buy one?
I don't know, how about you ask the people buying them? Also, tell me how efficient they are if you dispute the 30% efficiency. Oh, and provide a citation, like this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
When the gas turbine is used solely for shaft power, its thermal efficiency is about 30%
Then you can tell me again on how solar power is "reliable" while natural gas is "dispatchable". Your answer lies in those definitions.
Natural gas turbines have a max realistic efficiency of about 60%. The main problem with them from a business point of view is firstly the prospect of one day having to actually pay for the emissions, which most of the industry currently does not have to do, and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices. With wind and solar you don't have those problems. The business case becomes much more predictable and less risky. Granted, you need grid storage for them but for large segments of the market solar packaged
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and secondly the fluctuations in fuel prices
Not just fluctuations. Americans are blissfully unaware how fucking expensive natural gas is in most parts of the world. Only complete idiots would regularly burn it for electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Distinction without a difference.
Wind stops, its night time (Score:2)
Gas that will have to be extracted, moved around and turned into energy.
Large production lines will expect a low cost, 24/7 power supply that will not change prices.
Stop burning stuff, get over the Nuclear Boogeyman (Score:3)
I've heard all the arguments and complaints and they don't move me. We need nuclear, and that's that.
Solar, Wind and Geothermal (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got bad news, coal and nuclear are inadequate power sources because of the carbon or radio-isotope externalities they produce. We can't continue to rely on them because they are a threat to our species due to carbon held heat or radio-isotopes ruining our genome. Coal threatens the planet, nuclear threatens our species DNA, all species DNA come to think of it.
However we can gradually phase them out with a steady increase in Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind, Geothermal. The good thing about this is it means a massive jobs growth all around the world as we build a 21st century infrastructure based on all the lessons we learned from those two energy industries.
In the US alone there is terawatts of wind power available even before looking to solar PV or solar thermal. Even better news is that solar thermal is the ideal technology for baseload power. We've got a great future with these technologies. Whilst the transition won't be painless the knowledge that we are looking after future generations whilst taking responsibility for the mess previous generations have left us will mean our existence at this point in time has had a positive effect on those who come after us.
so we are doomed? (Score:2)
coal use will flatline and not decrease, oil consumption will increase 50%? all by 2030!
i thought the plan was to make sure the use of all those energy sources would have been decreased dramatically by then, or the earth is lost.
Convienence (Score:2)
Canada (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Canada, we don't have enough gas stations in a lot of places. Who can afford a second car or rental to take you everywhere you need to go when you have already sunk $30K+ on an EV??
But we do have a stable power grid pretty much everywhere. And it's rapidly getting to the point where you don't need a rental or second car as a backup to your EV. The 2020 EV models have enough range that I would probably need a rental only once a year. I'd say my Volvo has about 4 years of life left in it. You can bet I'll be getting a electric when it gives up the ghost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Solar IS fusion. We're directly harvesting the results of a fusion reaction happening 1AU away.
Re:Fusion power when (Score:5, Informative)
Solar IS fusion. We're directly harvesting the results of a fusion reaction happening 1AU away.
Oil IS fusion. Ancient plants were directly harvesting the results of a fusion reaction happening 1AU away. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Solar IS fusion. We're directly harvesting the results of a fusion reaction happening 1AU away.
Oil IS fusion. Ancient plants were directly harvesting the results of a fusion reaction happening 1AU away. :P
It all averages out after a few million years right?
Re: (Score:2)
You're transforming a small part of the electromagnetic energy that is coming from the surface of the Sun. In the most inefficient ways possible.
20% direct conversion is hardly "the most inefficient way possible". In fact, that's only 33% less electricity output for the same primary energy input as a regular nuclear plant gets.