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.
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.
This is just electricity. Industrialization is still increasing globally and I'm not sure CO2 generation has gone down overall. Coal is burned directly for smelting and there is still a lot of oil and natural gas powering cars and heating homes directly.
This inevitable increase in use of alternative energy is never taken into account by climate models that assume an ever increasing generation of CO2.
No that's yoyu making shit up to fit your agenda.
Look at the future extrapolation bit:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
yes, it is sourced.
but sadly that is not how the world works any longer, no one wants real data,
At least you're honest!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This inevitable increase in use of alternative energy is never taken into account by climate models that assume an ever increasing generation of CO2.
This is just false. For example, the IPCC reports have a variety of different scenarios each based on different levels of CO2 https://ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf is a good place to start. Unfortunately, even given these emissions levels, the damage is going to be severe. We need to do a lot more than we're doing.
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.
Yes, that's why Trump is announcing the Whale Oil Initiative. To insure diversity of supply. The peat fuel lobby just bought EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt a townhouse in DC, so I expect to hear about the new Peat Fuel Initiative any day now.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Other than 2.5X the power than all renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) combined, and at a lower cost. Not to mention it's basically 100% uptime. But yeah, other than massive amounts of highly reliable, affordable power, nuclear has done nothing!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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?
Lithium is ideal for portable devices because of high energy density, but for a building sized battery permanently connected to the grid size and weight is no longer critical...that means a more abundant element (sodium for example) is a practical, cheaper alternative despite lower energy density.
Blank until
Well, it's not from the levelized cost of energy, as nuclear is better than most renewables, and the always-available nature is highly attractive. But it is extremely expensive, especially because of activist intervention delaying development for 5 to 10 years, or more...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
nuclear is better than most renewables [world-nuclear.org]
Are you referring to the passage reading
Comparing the economics of different forms of electricity generation
In 2017 the US EIA published figures for the average levelised costs per unit of output (LCOE) for generating technologies to be brought online in 2022, as modelled for its Annual Energy Outlook. These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh; natural gas, 5.7-10.9 c/kWh (depending on technology); and coal with 90% carbon sequestration, 12.3 c/kWh (rising to 14 c/kWh at 30%). Among the non-dispatchable technologies, LCOE estimates vary widely: wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.
? Since "most renewables" in terms of capacity installed actually means "solar PV, onshore wind, and hydro" (the last of which isn't quantified in that list but is usually very cheap), I don't see how your claim is supported by your source, especially in a view ~20 years into the future where even these figures will be considered hilarious.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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