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.
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.
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
Just so you know... It's already too late.
We blew thru the 1 degree Celsius "budget" a few years ago. We blew thru the 1.5 degree Celsius budget recently. To avoid 2 degrees Celsius increase, we would have to get our carbon output down under 13 gigatons per year immediately and for every year between now and 2100. We are currently at about 26 gigatons per year (which is down about 11 gigatons from 37 gigatons per year back in 2001 but the easy gains have been made).
So we will blow thru the 2.0 degree celsius budget by 2024 or 2025. So temperatures will increase by over 2 degrees celsius (barring some new unforeseen problems with multiple models).
At this point, we need to invent something that will sequester gigatons of carbon per year. One possibility is a sand replacement made from carbon used to build new construction (we are also running out of sand fast. Desert sand can't be used- it's spherical- river sand is trapezoids). If we tried covering the planet with trees, it would only buy us about 2.5 gigatons a year.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.