Slashdot Mirror
Renewables Will Be World's Main Power Source By 2040, Says BP (cnbc.com)
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.
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 system for wind and solar this backup must be able to come online quickly, in a matter of minutes as the system detects the wind or sun fading. That means natural gas turbines. Well a natural gas turbine is about 30% efficient. Because of the laws of physics, and cost constraints, this is about the best we can do. If this same natural gas was burned in a combined cycle power plant, where water is boiled for steam, then they can achieve efficiencies of about 60%. These plants, again because of physics and cost, cannot come online in minutes but instead take hours. This makes them unfit as backup for wind and solar.
So, what we have with wind and solar is burning the same amount of natural gas as if we had no wind and solar at all. This is building a bunch of worthless monuments to Gaia in hope of appeasing those worshiping this false god. In exchange we get higher energy costs and no real reductions in greenhouse gasses.
Oh, and did they even mention nuclear power? France has relied on nuclear power for much of their electricity supply and did well with that. There's an example of how to run a nation and keep CO2 output low. To those that claim nuclear power cannot be run safely, cheaply, or meet the needs of a modern economy need only look at the radioactive wasteland that is France. Oh, it's not radioactive like Chernobyl? That might be because they knew enough to put a containment dome over their reactors, and not have them run by drunken bureaucrats. What of Fukushima? You mean where thousands were dead and missing from a once in a thousand year tsunami? And only one known death from the actual reactor? That Fukushima? Certainly that's a mess but so is a lot of things from that tsunami. I guess people forgot the damage done by the massive wave and focused on the relative non-event that was the reactor. Oh, and we don't build reactors like those at Fukushima any more, and certainly not like at Chernobyl where they have no containment dome. We build them far safer now.
Nuclear power is safe, abundant, cheap, and reliable. There is no reduction of CO2 output without nuclear power. That's my prediction. We can deal with that reality now or we can ignore the facts and be dragged into the truth later. I don't much care what anyone says, the debate is over (to recycle a phrase) and nuclear is our future.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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, they take electricity to get started before they produce any on their own.
Then there is the transportation sector. There's not any airplanes without hydrocarbons. No cargo ship is going to cross an ocean without hydrocarbon fuels either. Maybe we can electrify the trains, and a few cars, but long haul trucks will still be burning diesel in 2040. If they switch to any other energy source then it's the natural gas they are talking about. Even if they are electric then it's natural gas that will produce a large portion of that electricity.
The oil industry has nothing to fear. Except nuclear. Did they even mention nuclear? The mentioned hydrogen but hydrogen isn't an energy source, no more than electricity is an energy source. Where would this hydrogen or electricity come from? It's going to be natural gas or nuclear power.
Maybe this was in fact funded by "big oil". By focusing on natural gas, wind, and solar, they can try to hide the benefits of nuclear power. This might work until everyone involved retires and they don't have to worry about what happens after that.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Anything that allows people to justify backing away from nuclear is a friend and gift to the oil industry.
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...
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Nuclear is a goner. Its only reason of existence is offsetting the cost of nuclear weaponry.
The nuclear lifecycle is dirty and destructive. The leftovers are dangerous for millenia. The efficiency is abysmal. The effects on environment are dire. It is a huge proliferation risk. It is a huge terrorist target. It is a lot more dangerous than all nuclear lobbyist estimates. It is FUCKING EXPENSIVE. The minimum order is unaffordably high.
It is not only an attempt to offset the costs of nuclear weaponry, it is a short-sighted and misguided attempt.
RIP, nuclear.
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.
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/...
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
"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-...
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.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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!
In 20 years ICE vehicles will be obsolete... Its a given.
Never underestimate the staying power of obsolete tech.
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.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Have gnu, will travel.