Slashdot Mirror
World Trending To Hit 50% Renewables, 11% Coal By 2050: Report (arstechnica.com)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a new report this week that estimates how electricity generation will change out to 2050. ArsTechnica: The clean energy analysis firm estimates that in a mere 33 years, the world will generate almost 50 percent of its electricity from renewable energy, and coal will make up just 11 percent of the total electricity mix. Add in hydroelectric power and nuclear energy, and greenhouse-gas-free electricity sources climb to 71 percent of the world's total electricity generation. The report doesn't offer a terribly bright future for nuclear, however, and after a period of contraction, the nuclear industry's contribution to electricity generation is expected to level off. Instead, falling photovoltaic (PV), wind, and battery costs will cause the dramatic shift in investment, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) notes. "PV and wind are already cheaper than building new large-scale coal or gas plants," the 2018 report says. In addition, BNEF expects that more than $500 billion will be invested in batteries by 2050, with two-thirds of that investment going to installations on the grid and one-third of that investment happening at a residential level.
Someone better tell the Envirowackos because they want to/are tearing down dams left and right and of course they've thrown so many wrenches into nuclear energy, it's a miracle that we have and nuke plants left.
So what they are actually saying is the renewables, only on 2050, will only comprise 50% of the power.
Put that in your weed pipes and smoke it, libtards!!
My president is making coal great again. If any foreign nation tries to go full renewable, you just got on our shit list.
It's our job as Americans to spread black lung.
This inevitable increase in use of alternative energy is never taken into account by climate models that assume an ever increasing generation of CO2.
I wish we could get a realistic assessment of what happens to the various models when they take into account both declining birthrates and greatly increased use of alternative energy, then we'd all have a way more accurate baseline to discuss possible future changes or mitigation... but sadly that is not how the world works any longer, no one wants real data, they just want to scare and badger. :-(
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm guessing we will hit 50% much sooner than 33 years based on the improving economics. I wonder what state the grid will be in at that point though; will de-centralized energy take over, will we see interconnected microgrids, or will it be largely the same as today.
I think the only real question is if SMR's will provide a nuclear renaissance, or if that is still "20 years out." From what I read it doesn't seem like the SMR economics are any better on a $/kW basis than traditional reactors on a construction cost basis, although legal risk and financing costs should (theoretically) be reduced.
As has often been the case in the past our problems are mostly solved by advances in technology and not by politicians or the short term needs of company chairmen. It is arguable that science and technology has given the bulk of society all of the gains in the last 150 years and not our elected or business leaders. You can debate just how much freedom the academic world should have but you can be sure that our problems would be far worse if they did not have any.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Trump can help it! But first, PARDONS FOR A!!
I read the source rather than opinionated drivel on ars technica.
https://about.bnef.com/new-ene...
#1 and #2 are fudged to the extreme to get the outcome they're gunning for. #4 is equally fudged and is in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #5 is also in direct contradiction with #1 and #2. #3 is likely true in the assumption on coal, but it's highly unlikely to be replaced with what study claims.
First of all, if you are to try to deploy lithium batteries on world scale as spinning reserve replacement, lithium prices will not just go through the roof - they'll go into outer space. The reason we have cheap lithium now is because we get lithium by literally vaporising water in the driest desert on the planet. If you want to increase production by orders of magnitude, as this kind of project would require, you'd have to go for less economic ways of making lithium. And that means orders of magnitude higher costs. So much for #1 and #2. Not to even mention that solar doesn't scale all that well, because there are too many regions where there isn't enough sun, and energy requirements are at their highest when sunny periods are at their lowest. So linear scaling of low hanging fruit adoption for decades on is literally the infamous xkcd level of "you're getting married tomorrow, so you'll lots of wedding cakes for next year at a linear rate of one a day".
As for the #4, UK makes for a great example here. CCGTs replacing coal, because to meet CO2 targets, you can get roughly twice the energy from natgas that you would get from coal for the same emission of CO2. It's also mutually exclusive with their claims in #1 and #2, showing that whatever model they're using, it appears to contradict itself.
The only things to take away are #3 and #5. #3 will likely be sorta, kinda correct in that we'll probably switch from goal mostly to CCGTs, and #5 is likely correct that as long as "lithium prices go to outer space" scenario of #1 and #2 doesn't happen (another internal contradiction in the model), a significant portion of locomotion will go electric.
The coal is also used to fabricate the renewable components, by example, melting the silicon (for photovoltaic cells) or the stainless steel.
Funny thing about predictions, they're easily able to be BS'ed and in 33 years time, no one is going to remember if they were right or not.
For all we know, there may be an even better technology that comes out that is cheaper and even better than solar energy or wind.
All this Kendall whiner does is make shit up, lol - What a faggot.
Coal and nuclear are on the way out because they are not profitable. Investors don't want it, EWGs refuse to build them, merchants and ISOs don't want to bother with those kludgey designs. Only monopolistic utilities who sunk billions into them want to keep them running at ratepayer expense.
But 50% renewables - no way. That is pie in the sky thinking. Not based on actual capacity factor and LCOE. By 2050 there will still be natural gas combined cycle plants running. NG is cheap and plentiful, and clean burning. EPA changing the rules again on NG will get their asses sued.
Maybe by 2100 - you might be able to make that prediction. But then there will be something else to make renewables unprofitable.
of energy production and use throughout sectors of economy to get us to global temperature only rising 1.5 degrees Celcius.
We need to be substantially off carbon at or shortly after mid-century, for everything. A little bit of remaining petrochemicals is fine, but other than that, off of the fossil carbon.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
And yet none of what you said demonstrated any effective use from the subsidies they received.
Sorry, LynnwoodRooster, but you're ignoring the billions in subsidies that delivered nothing.
Note the context, subsidies for nuclear, nothing more. Stop trying to ignore their record of completely failure.
Why have they failed despite the handouts? Because they have no real incentive to perform. They think we can't afford to abandon them, that we'll keep on paying out.
But it turns out we can stop, break the cycle, and turn them off. Not one entity that has shut down a nuclear plant has regretted it, nor have they regretted never starting.
On the other hand, all of the failed plants that received billions, well, the only people that don't regret those are the ones who made a profit.
Seriously, we need to stop building fossil fuel plants, esp. coal. These are going to kill this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nice renewable natural gas.
This is just electricity. Industrialization is still increasing globally and I'm not sure CO2 generation has gone down overall
CO2 generation has gone down in the U.S., but you are right it's not gone down overall.. yet.
But the thing is, in the future everything is electricity. Manufacturing is especially is electricity. But automotive is just at the start of turning that way, the Chinese already have a. ton of small transport things (like practical scooters with storage) in cities, and soon trucking... plane flight is just starting to go that way as well.
So while CO2 generation is still going up overall from increased industrialization, within a decade that trend will start an irreversible decline with a massive and rapid uptake of electricity in things that did not use it, along with the cost of solar power finally overtaking other generation costs on a practical scale (except for nuclear of course, but that has very little CO2 component as well).
Electricity just makes way too much sense in almost every application as does solar power in areas that are just starting to industrialize. If you are designing a real power infrastructure from scratch the redundancy of a grid making heavy use of batteries and solar panels just makes way too much sense...
Wind power is of course just a fad and will mostly die off once the running costs become re-apparent (they were already known from previous attempts at large scale use, but people forget easily). Solar is however here to stay and is just going to get cheaper and cheaper....
It's kind of funny how people would moderate optimism in the future as trolling, but the truth of what I am saying will be glaringly evident within ten years.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also strange that you forgot Hydro in your renewables, since your own link shows hydro is bigger than solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and nuclear combined.
To run a nuke plant at 100% you will end up paying other people to take your electricity as there isn't that much demand for 100% continuous power.
You sound like Musk. Sell most of your electricity at a loss but make it up on volume.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oy vey, goy! What are ya, some kind of Nazi?
Oy vey! It's anudda Shoah, I tells ya! Anudda Shoah!
This is just false. For example, the IPCC reports have a variety of different scenarios each based on different levels of CO2
Look more carefully, that document is not as I said truly taking into account the real uptake we will see in alternative energy. I commend them for trying but the numbers are all way off.
Look at the tables at the end that show the most optimistic case (the B1 "timeline" as it were) - not at all reflective of the world as it will be, with truly massive uptake of solar and other alternative power.
Share of coal as a percentage - 21% (2%-37%) in 2050, 8% 8 (%0-22%) in 2100. Absurdly high. The final figure for 2100 as the range is far too broad, the 2050 figure is way off track for actual reduction in coal use for purely economic reasons alone.
The more damning bit is right below that:
Share of zero carbon in primary energy (%) - 30% (18%-40%) in 2050, and just 52% (!!!!) 52 (33%-70%) in 2100.
Come on, please try to argue rationally for the 2050 figure, never mind the 2100 figure... can you seriously see any way solar and nuclear power (with a bit of other forms strewn in) do not comprise at least 50% of worldwide power generation by 2050? There is just no way that is not the case. The whole document then is hugely off kilter. I am happy to hear again rational opposing viewpoints to this but just cannot see how those figures represent technical improvement in alternative power generation over the next 30-70 years. Think of how far solar power has come in the past 30 years then magnify that going forward, along with all of the other breakthroughs that will happen in other fields in that time...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you not notice the problem is already being solved without your constant whining?
Cutting off American coal and natural gas would be a decent start. Then work on getting your oil down to more sensible levels.
So don't use lithium for the batteries. It's not like you need to drive them around or carry them in your pockets. These will be batteries that just sit somewhere, it won't make any difference how heavy they are.
this is the image that says it all:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp...
Look at the line drawn to signify the "present"... that is where we are now.
Everything beyond that is speculation. You can say "but we have people talking about building X or Y"... sure. And I've seen enough of these projection graphs created for other things to know they're not worth much. They tend to be wildly inaccurate.
I'd throw out a few examples but I can already hear the politicos Reeeing over how embarrassing it is to show predictions at time T and then what actually happened at T+5.
There's a lot of politics involved in these things. The people making predictions have a track record of not having a good mental filter between what they want and what they're seeing.
If anyone finds that "triggering"... leave it at this, at time T... "now"... the argument is not credible. At crystal ball gazing future time T+30 years you can predict anything you like. Aliens invading, everyone integrating with personal AIs, Scientology being the dominant global religion. Its all just tea leaves and animal entrails.
Predict whatever you want. But the wise know the secret of prophesy is not in the ability to predict the future but to manipulate the present by getting people to believe in your prediction.
I am too much goat to be folded into that flock of sheep.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
We all know fusion power is only 10 years away now after being 25 years away for the past 80, so limitless cheap, clean nuclear fusion power will dominate by 2050 for sure.
There should be outright international policy that subsidising old fossil fuel operations is outlawed, subsidising renewables encouraged.
If not outright banning installing anything but sustainable.
Would it be bad economically. Yes. But I don't think it would actually be a total crash Wipeout. Within 5 years the costs wood drop very much, tech improvements realised faster.
Could benefit all of us.
We're all too short sighted.
Did you mean 5020 ?
That is true but technology for scrubbers that prevent CO2 emissions from processes like that is also improving... you would think any such process would be greatly interesting in re-capturing carbon for further industrial use.
"Recapture carbon for further industrial use"? We dump the stuff by the megaton right now and we can literally dig carbon it out of the ground for WAY less money than it costs to capture and reuse carbon. There simply isn't that much demand for carbon even if we had a way to process it economically.
Over time other materials will take the place of steel though, I'm not sure how much longer steel has as a primary material but I'm thinking less than 20 years.
Based on what? Steel is going to remain a vital and first choice metal for the foreseeable future. Certainly for the lifetime of anyone reading this. I don't see any circumstances where this would change. It's simply too useful and cost effective and there is no plausible material or group of materials that could plausibly displace it.
Heh, charge/discharge efficiency of nickel-iron battery is only 65% / 85%. Pumped hydro does better with its full cycle efficiency of 70% - 80%.
Pumped hydro is geographically restricted and thus not a useful comparison for many/most places. Where I live it is literally impossible to use on any sort of meaningful scale because we don't have large dams anywhere nearby. If you live somewhere near a large dam then yeah, you might find pumped hydro to be a good idea. For most of us it isn't so helpful. Hydro is great except where you cannot get it. (oh and that pesky little problem of screwing up local ecosystems too)
The batteries are also expensive. They cost around $4.5 - $20 per one litre. I guess you can build pumped storage cheaper per 1 litre.
"Per litre"? What does a volume measurement have to do with a static chemical battery? Anyway pumped hydro is only cheap in places where hydro power is already available. In places like where I live it is FAR more expensive because we'd have to build a massive man-made reservoir first which would be immediately uneconomical.
It does not look good for batteries. Looks like the only good thing about them is the response time.
Bullshit. Chemical batteries have a lot of good features besides response time.
1) Not geographically restricted
2) Can be placed at or near point of use
3) Can be consolidated for grid power or distributed for off-grid use
4) Are economical compared to alternatives not blessed with special local geography.
5) Are (relatively) easy to maintain
6) Can be recycled and reused and relocated
7) Steady improvement in technology and chemistry
8) Easy to expand battery banks as needed
9) Relatively high efficiencies for certain battery types
Love the Nickel-Iron battery, but the vanadium redox battery is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
They even covered it in the summary. Nuclear is expected to drop off. So what is the prediction based on? I sure hope it's not historic trends given:
% coal used in energy generation in 1997: 38.5%
% coal used in energy generation in 2017: 38.5%
Worse still the percentage of coal in the energy mix along with it's consumption actually rose last year (thanks India).
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...
Time to buy a new car I think: http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/T...