« Federal Court Rules That Automakers To Get No Extra Time if California CO2 Regulations Implemented | Main | Mitsubishi Motors and Harbin China Powertrain JV Sign AT Licensing Agreement »
EIA Projects World Energy Use to Grow 50% Between 2005 and 2030; Transportation Accounts for 74% of Increase in Use of Liquids
25 June 2008
 |
| The IEO2008 projects an increase in liquids consumption even in a high-price scenario. The high-price case sees a decline in conventional liquids production compared to today and a stronger increase in unconventionals. Click to enlarge. Data: IEO2008 |
World marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 50% between 2005 and 2030, driven by economic growth and expanding populations in the world’s developing countries, according to the reference case projection from highlights of the International Energy Outlook 2008 (IEO2008) released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The full IEO2008 will be released in July.
In the reference case, total world energy use rises from 462 quadrillion Btu in 2005 to 563 quadrillion Btu in 2015 and then to 695 quadrillion Btu in 2030. Global energy demand grows despite the sustained high world oil prices that are projected to persist over the long term.
 |
| IEO2008 projects 51% growth in global CO2 emissions from 2005 by 2030. Click to enlarge. |
Average world oil prices in every year since 2003 have been higher than the average for the previous year and prices in 2007 were nearly double the 2003 prices in real terms. The IEO2008 uses oil price cases originally developed in the summer of 2007 for use in the Annual Energy Outlook 2008, which focuses on the US energy outlook. These prices do not reflect the substantial runup in prices that has occurred since that time. In nominal terms, world oil prices in the IEO2008 reference case decline from current high levels to around $70 per barrel in 2015, then rise steadily to $113 per barrel in 2030 ($70 per barrel in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
World use of liquids and other petroleum grows from 83.6 million barrels oil equivalent per day in 2005 to 95.7 million barrels per day in 2015 and 112.5 million barrels per day in 2030 in the reference case. The liquids share of world energy consumption declines through 2030, however, as other fuels replace liquids where possible. In most regions of the world, the role of liquid fuels outside the transportation sector continues to be eroded.
On a global basis, the transportation sector accounts for 74% of the total projected increase in liquids use from 2005 to 2030, with the industrial sector accounting for virtually all of the remainder.
The transportation share of total liquids consumption increases from 52% in 2005 to 58% in 2030 in the IEO2008 reference case. Much of the growth in transportation energy use is projected for the non-OECD nations, where transportation energy use increases at an average rate of 2.9% per year, doubling between 2005 and 2030.
In addition to the reference case, IEO2008 includes a high price case to quantify the uncertainly associated with long-term projections of future oil prices. In the high price case, world oil prices in 2030—at $186 per barrel in nominal terms—are nearly 65% higher than projected in the reference case.
Given current market conditions, it appears that world oil prices are on a path that more closely resembles the projection in the high price case than in the reference case. With higher world oil prices slowing the growth of demand in the long term, world liquids consumption in the high price case totals only 99.3 million barrels per day in 2030, 13 million barrels per day lower than in the reference case.
To meet the increment in world liquids demand in the IEO2008 reference case, the EIA projects total liquids supply in 2030 to be 28.2 million barrels per day higher than the 2005 level of 84.3 million barrels per day—an increase of 33.5%. To reach that reference case level, the EIA assumes:
OPEC producers will choose to maintain their market share of world liquids supply, and that OPEC member countries will invest in incremental production capacity so that their conventional oil production represents approximately 40% of total global liquids production throughout the projection.
Increasing volumes of conventional liquids (crude oil and lease condensates, natural gas plant liquids, and refinery gain) from OPEC members contribute 12.4 million barrels per day to the total increase in world liquids production, and conventional liquids supplies from non-OPEC countries add another 8.6 million barrels per day.
Unconventional resources (including oil sands, extra-heavy oil, biofuels, coal-to-liquids, and gas-to-liquids) from both OPEC and non-OPEC sources are expected to become increasingly competitive in the reference case; the share of conventional oil in the overall liquids supply declines with expanded use of unconventionals.
World production of unconventional resources, which totaled only 2.5 million barrels per day in 2005, increases to 9.7 million barrels per day in 2030, accounting for 9% of total world liquids supply in 2030 on an oil equivalent basis.
Those trends are even stronger in the IEO2008 high price case, which reflects oil prices that are closer to those being paid in mid-2008.
Biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel, will be an increasingly important source of unconventional liquids supplies, largely because of the growth in US biofuels production. In the IEO2008 reference case, the United States accounts for nearly one-half of the rise in world biofuels production, at 1.2 million barrels per day in 2030.
Other report highlights include:
Coal’s share of world energy use has increased sharply over the past few years, and without significant changes in existing laws and policies, particularly those related to greenhouse gas emissions, robust growth is likely to continue. Coal accounted for 24% of total world energy use in 2002 and 27% in 2005, largely as a result of rapid increases in coal use in China. China’s coal consumption has nearly doubled since 2000, and given the country’s rapidly expanding economy and large domestic coal deposits, its demand for coal is projected to remain strong. In the IEO2008 reference case, coal use expands by 2% per year between 2005 and 2030, and coal’s share of total world energy consumption reaches 29% in 2030.
Concerns about rising fossil fuel prices, energy security, and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generating capacity. World nuclear capacity is projected to rise from 374 gigawatts in 2005 to 498 gigawatts in 2030. Declines in nuclear capacity are projected only in OECD Europe, where several countries (including Germany and Belgium) have either plans or mandates to phase out nuclear power, and where some old reactors are expected to be retired and not replaced. China is projected to add 45 gigawatts of net nuclear capacity over the projection period, India 17 gigawatts, Russia 18 gigawatts, and the United States 15 gigawatts.
Sustained high prices for oil and natural gas encourage expanded use of renewable fuels. Renewable energy sources are attractive for environmental reasons, especially in countries where reducing greenhouse gas emissions is of particular concern. Government policies and incentives to increase renewable energy sources for electricity generation are expected to encourage the development of renewable energy even when it cannot compete economically with fossil fuels. Worldwide, the consumption of hydroelectricity and other renewable energy sources increases by 2.1% per year in the IEO2008 reference case between 2005 and 2030. In contrast, world coal consumption increases by 2.0% per year; natural gas by 1.7% per year; nuclear by 1.5% per year; and liquids by 1.2% per year.
In the IEO2008 reference case, which does not include specific policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 28.1 billion metric tons in 2005 to 42.3 billion metric tons in 2030—an increase of 51%. With strong economic growth and continued heavy reliance on fossil fuels expected, much of the increase in carbon dioxide emissions is projected to occur among the developing nations of the world, especially in Asia.
In 2005, non-OECD emissions exceeded OECD emissions by 7%. In 2030, however, non-OECD emissions are projected to exceed OECD emissions by 72%.
Resources
June 25, 2008 in Fuels, Market Background | Permalink | Comments (58) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30581548
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference EIA Projects World Energy Use to Grow 50% Between 2005 and 2030; Transportation Accounts for 74% of Increase in Use of Liquids :
Comments
They seem to be ignoring the electric car. Are we all nutters to believe that nearly all cars sold in 2030 will be electric or at least PHEV, and use of liquids in transportation will actually drop dramatically?
Where will this 74% increase come from? Will this oil be found? Seems like they are expecting a business-as-usual scenario.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 25, 2008 2:38:37 PM
Such are the things with a planet with 10 billion human inhabitants. The US better find a way to become energy independant and it better figure it out soon.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 25, 2008 2:43:58 PM
Exactly right Anne. There's so many unfounded assumptions in there it's not worth the paper it's written on. No doubt it will still be used by governments as the basis for their transport planning. Why let reality get in the way of blind faith in business as usual.
Posted by: critta | Jun 25, 2008 2:44:29 PM
The reality is that by 2030 most cars (80%) in the US will be at least PHEV. This will not be true for the rest of the world. Sure some major cities around the world might be up to speed but most will not be, kinda like it is today. The US is no longer #1 in pollution and will most likely be #3 by 2010. Even if everyone in the US got an electric car tomorrow, China and India would be right there to gobble up the surplus of liquid fuel.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 25, 2008 3:03:00 PM
Joseph, you're not factoring in fuel prices. Your scenario would be viable if fuel prices were declining at least a little bit. You are assuming that the rich countries will move to EV while the developing countries will be stuck with fossil fuels. The reality is that the developing countries are already being priced out of the market. Petrol is no longer a cheap option in these places and they are really hurting.
The only way your scenario will work is if there is massive production and take up of EV's, leading to demand destruction in the oil market. I would love to see this happen but unfortunately revolutions take time. Just look how long it took to make the transition from coal/steam as a transport fuel to oil.
Posted by: critta | Jun 25, 2008 3:42:46 PM
Joseph:
There are not too many acceptable reasons why USA would switch to PHEVs and BEVs by 2030 and the rest of the world would not.
Large countries with less Oil like Japan, EU, China and India have even more reasons to switch.
Japan and China may be the first two major countries to switch to lighter electrified vehicles. India may be next in line.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 25, 2008 4:20:40 PM
Is it my imagination or do these people at the EIA spend too much time using rulers to draw straight lines from past points with no concept that the world could be anything other than BAU?
Posted by: Neil | Jun 25, 2008 4:31:11 PM
Interesting to see that they take into account possible "peak oil" in their reference scenario
Posted by: Treehugger | Jun 25, 2008 4:56:55 PM
No in their "high cost" scenario they accept the possibility of "peak oil". if the IEA accept the idea then it will probably happen
Posted by: treehugger | Jun 25, 2008 4:58:13 PM
Wow! What a lot of energy...700 thousand million million btu! If the world constructed solar panels with 30 to 40% efficiency in the deserts of the world operating 90 days per year for 8 hours each day........293 billion kilowatts....Wow! Solar farms would have to extend over an area of 300 miles by 300 miles. My calculations might be wrong. Wow!....bit smaller than my state of Washington! We already have some hydro & wind is getting started.
Africa's got plenty of room...Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia, China has much land...U.S. has extra room...S.Russia has...Australia has...places in S.America...must be a bit of room in Europe....a bit of room between the people in India?....naaawwww! Just too crazy!
Yeah, its too crazy to believe that Africa could be the Power of the world & pull itself out of starvation. Just too crazy to think war-torn lands & countries could see power develop before their eyes....& Sun Power could settle over the Earth in splendor, glory & Peace....yes, its too crazy!!! My figures have to be wrong.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 25, 2008 5:00:50 PM
I have a modified 1950's view towards energy, food and water: all of these should be clean, plentiful and cheap. It should be the aim of government to get energy, food and water to be clean, plentiful and cheap. This is fundamental to the free world's national security (or national security of free countries) and environmental protection.
Posted by: ejj | Jun 25, 2008 5:18:47 PM
It's a no brainer to see that as liquid petroleum supply is dwindling and this, along with the high cost of synthetic liquid fuel, will encourage increasing use of gaseous fuels such as methane and hydrogen.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jun 25, 2008 5:37:18 PM
Anne: "Seems like they are expecting a business-as-usual scenario."
It is likely this is the only reality they know. Perhaps even the one they have invested in -- indeed, a reasonable guess is that the EIA is holding a long future energy position.
In any case, most unfortunate. More and more I'm beginning to suspect that that real change will only happen once the majority of baby-boomers have died off.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 6:39:54 PM
EIA energy and price predictions have always been on the low side during the Bush administration. I have always thought that these low ball numbers were a way to restrict funding of energy R&D in favor war funding. Also Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) suffered through this strategy to the advantage of the auto industry.
In summary, multiply their number by 4 to get a real world prediction.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 25, 2008 6:52:31 PM
Roger: Hydrogen?, your unbelievable, still advocating for hydrogen after all these years when the writing is clearly on the wall that the world will go to EVs and PHEVs (and maybe some AHG). LMAO
Posted by: Neil | Jun 25, 2008 7:32:42 PM
Anon...Don't expect the disappearance of baby-boomers to change things. BBs made up the Beat Generation, hippies, VietNam War protesters, & organized environmentalists. A few of us (too few) were happy to stay with 35 to 75MPG vehicles, but America....overwhelmed the rest. America has overwhelmed the generations after us too.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 25, 2008 7:38:39 PM
The EIA numbers are pure fiction. Don't believe a word of what they say. In 2004 they predicted that oil would reach $35 a barrel by 2030. The Exxon staff employed at the EIA want you to believe there is no urgent need to change our ways.
Posted by: James White | Jun 25, 2008 7:38:57 PM
The report says liquid fuels remain the most important fuels for transportation because there are few alternatives that can compete with liquid fuels. EIA ignores PHEV and HEV which do not use very little fuel or not fuel at all. The oil companies do not want to see PHEV and HEV as there will be many alternatives to generate electricity.
Posted by: HC | Jun 25, 2008 7:54:43 PM
Neil,
Millions of automobiles in the world have been converted to CNG usage. What is the number of BEV and PHEV so far world-wide, eh?
Honda, GM and other are going to sell limited number of FCV's in the very near future. Honda has plan to mass produce FCV's within ten years.
HC,
U forgotta mention H2 and Methane for larger cars, trucks, trains, ships and even airplanes. Without these HDV's, world-wide commerce will come to a standstill.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jun 25, 2008 8:39:21 PM
Nobody at EIA thinks this is how the word will look. As long as you know the base EIA assumption, the projections are useful. The overriding assumption of these projections is that nothing changes (i.e., this is the world the status quo would result in). Of course, there is zero chance that oil prices are $180 a barrel in 2030 if batteries are approaching cost parity today at $130 a barrel. It only takes 15 years for the U.S. fleet to turn over at $30 a barrel. Likewise for the projections of future coal deliveries when 1 GW/year thin film printing machines are just starting to roll. The projections will look remarkably different in 2 years.
Posted by: Andy | Jun 25, 2008 8:39:51 PM
Many seem to think the developed world will use EVs and the rest will not. I think that is a fallacy. This is a world where there are no industrialization secrets.
At one time, the developing world bought old auto designs and built the antiques whose tooling had been paid off.
These days that doesn't happen. As a matter of fact, the obverse is occurring. Detroit and the other international companies, build the same vehicles worldwide now, and merely choose what to import/export by market preferences.
But you will be surprised how quickly Ford and GM adapt and simply decide to build their advanced small vehicles in the US.
EVs and PHEVs will be designed, built and sold worldwide.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 8:54:28 PM
Roger: It's not the CNG that I find so amusing. It's your continued advocacy of H2 in the face of reality. The best H2 can hope for is a few niche applications and possibly use as a range extension fuel for PHEVs.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 25, 2008 10:20:41 PM
Neil:
If you consider the posibilities of using hydrogen fuel cells for locomotives, ships, long haul trucking, and construction/farm equipment where batteries are totally impractical, then yes.
Posted by: | Jun 25, 2008 11:52:57 PM
Actually, this shows that the market can solve our problem. With unbelievably massive supplies of coal, and existing processes to create fuel from coal, we need never worry about energy. And that's what this study shows: coal's share increases every year.
Of course, that's if we let the market solve the problem. The result? Massive environmental destruction, but consistent $100/BBL equivalent fuel prices for 300 years.
This underlines that the market is a tool, but must be managed. We must *push* development in the direction of conservation overall, and electrification of transport in particular. The only "we" that can do this is government - of the people, etc.
Or our future is coal, baby....
Posted by: dollared | Jun 26, 2008 12:37:08 AM
anon: what you have to know about Roger is that he's been flogging H2 for a couple of years on this site to the point where I can only conclude that he works somewhere in the H2 industry.
For locomotives ... they'll go electric (as they already are in Europe). For trucking and farming, they're more likely to use some liquid bio-fuel (algal oil or celulosic ethanol). I would even hazard a guess that where fuel cells are used they'll more likely be using SOFCs than PEMs. H2 was long ago exposed as a bait and switch by the oil industry and there aren't too many people around here that haven't figured that out yet.
ANG is an option.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 26, 2008 12:51:56 AM
The EIA couldn't even get the first 6 months right when this report was written. How the heck do they stand a chance at predicting 20+ years. Toss this one.
Posted by: steve | Jun 26, 2008 4:26:08 AM
This US Energy Information Administration (EIA) IEO2008 report and prediction is not worth the paper it isn't yet written on.
The outrageous idea that nothing will change in technology in the next 50 years, and that liquid fuels will dominate the transportation sector is ... absurdum . (if you have to look up the word, it might apply to your level of education).
The report should rather explain that now wind power is cheaper than coal per kW of installed capacity, and other renewable sources are becoming similarly price competitive. If even the slightest environmental costs are considered our shift in primary power sources will be swift and massive.
Rather than expecting transportation to be 'oil only' which is oil shill and pure stupidity, the report should be honest enough to state the obvious, that we will switch.
Our new power source for transportation is electricity.
Batteries have now reached the point of usefulness in transportation, and will continue to improve. Israel, Denmark, Britain, and now Japan, are beginning the installation of an infrastructure for BEV transportation. As soon as one of these countries demonstrates the system works, we can expect public demand in all countries to be fierce. Governments trying to postpone the implementation of electric transportation will face open rebellion.
Conclusion ...
The EIA predicts that the oil boys have the world in their back pocket, and will be totally rich.
A glance at technology predicts that oil will be used for plastic manufacturing, but not so much for transportation.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 26, 2008 4:33:11 AM
litesong,
Solar hot water and photovoltaics doesn't require additional area and it can easily be placed on existing roofs.
Keep in mind 120'000 km2 of the US alone is built already.
http://www.oerlikon.com/solar/
http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/anlage-e.html
But the problem with solar hot water and PV is that the big power plant operators would lose market share.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 4:52:13 AM
"But the problem with solar hot water and PV is that the big power plant operators would lose market share."
The problem with solar is called "night".
And the problem with wind is called a "calm day".
The only solutions to these problems either do not exist at this time (storage), and/or multiply the cost (storage or diversity).
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 5:32:04 AM
Actually the power consumption during daytime is three times higher than at night and this despite all the electric heaters running at night.
So 75% of the power is needed during day time and 25% is needed at night.
Needless to say that solar heat can very easily be stored over night.
And needless to say, Wind power can provide base load:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jam.pdf
And then there's still efficiency, combined power and heat, geothermal, hydro, wave, tidal and HVDC transmission.
Pumps of hydro dams nowadays are operated by nuclear and coal power in the future they're operated by renewable power. But since renewables produce less power at night, there's less pumping needed.
There's absolutely no reason that at least 80% of the power needs to generated in big non-renewable power plants in order to get a hot tea and a warm shower every day.
Unless of course you are worried about big non-renewable power plant operators losing market share.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 6:38:08 AM
What ever your views on energy are I think there is one overwhelming consensus, and that is we (the world) are increasing energy consumption as energy production is lagging behind. Emerging nations are increasing production and nearly all resources are in particularly high demand. But what does that mean for us Americans? No one knows for sure but it is undoubtedly going to change the way we are currently living. To the degree, I’m not sure but and article I was read a day or two ago called Oil Defies a Correction and it talks about the cause of oil prices, how if effects production, and how that in turn effects our lives. It also gives a prediction from a Harvard graduate on our future. I hope this article is as thought inducing for others as it was for me. I’m not saying its right or wrong but does bring up a lot of very valid points that should be addressed by all Americans. Thanks, let me know what ya'll think.
Posted by: PaulHunt | Jun 26, 2008 6:53:32 AM
What this article ignores is the fact, that businesses in the efficiency and renewable market do benefit from higher non-renewable energy prices. Higher non-renewable energy prices are not just doom and gloom for the entire world economy.
It also ignores the fact that many people still pay way more for rent than for energy.
It also ignores the fact that the world spends significantly more on defense than reducing its dependence from non-renewable resources from abroad.
It also ignores the growth of efficiency and renewable power and assumes that in 32 years 87% of the economy still depends fossil fuels.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/REN21_GSR2007_Prepub_web.pdf
With over 20% growth per year, it's a little odd if one claims there's no change in 32 years isn't it? And this is only considering renewable power and ignoring efficiency.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 7:40:43 AM
Hi Neil....Agree with your answer to Anon. Especially about locomotives. Trains have been recovering electric energy on downslopes in batteries even BEFORE WWI(not WWII).
Hi Anon...Of that 300 Mile by 300 Mile area for world supply of Solar Cell energy, I never excluded tops of buildings, homes, vehicles, parking lots or anywhere to plop down a Solar Cell to gain immediate power. I mention deserts because elevated Solar Cells will give double duty, supplying shade so water wouldn't evaporate as fast, dry crops could thrive & animals would get some relieve from the heat of the sun.
As for your tired cliche Solar Cell criticism 'night', my simple '8 hour' calculation considered that. As for your tired cliche wind turbine criticism 'calm', that gets factored into the economics when they make wind feasibility studies of areas. As for your tired cliche 'storage' problem, our wind turbines supply immediate power & the water power is held back(stored) till the winds abate.
As for your crack about baby boomers, you didn't reply to my answer, as you shouldn't. With your anonymous postings you don't take credit for your words. I see why you wish to distance yourself from your words.
Posted by: litesong | Jun 26, 2008 8:03:55 AM
litesong, I'm not anon.
The solar on roofs guy and the baby boomer guy are different people.
Posted by: Not anon | Jun 26, 2008 8:18:48 AM
The solution is simple:
Fire every single politician and bureaucrat corrupted by Big Oil. Every last one.
Posted by: Jaydee | Jun 26, 2008 9:06:34 AM
The problem with Solar is that even where I live, one of the sunniest places on the planet, is the poor economics. Multiple times over the past 20 years I have checked into getting Solar. Hot water and whole house systems. My last quote for a whole house system that would supply 75% of my 1956sf 3 bedroom house's needs. $23,000 after all city, state and Federal incentives, rebates and credits. In my area I have a choice of only 3 different providors that qualify me for the city and state rebates. The system would save me about $1,200 a year. That equates to a 19+ years payback, assuming nothing breaks or needs replacement. If you don't have the 23K cash you have to finance it and you ROI stretches into the 22+ years.
Thats just not viable for a middle class family
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 26, 2008 9:15:38 AM
Solar hot water capacity added world wide (2006):
China: 75.3%
USA: 0.4%
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
Maybe the middle class families in China are wealthier or the non-renewable energies in the US get a lot of subsidies:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418
Solar hot water costs around $2000 per kW (low volume production).
With 50 billion dollar one can finance: at least 25'000 MW of solar hot water capacity...
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 10:09:24 AM
"Actually the power consumption during daytime is three times higher than at night and this despite all the electric heaters running at night."
http://www.theimo.com/imoweb/siteShared/demand_price.asp?sid=ic
Doesn't even look like a factor of 2, let alone 3.
"Needless to say that solar heat can very easily be stored over night."
I don't want heat at night (a blanket will do just fine): I want electricity to charge the car. Indeed, when PHEV's come online en masse the demand curve you misquote will level out, and in the most unpleasant way: the peak will remain the same, and the valley will fill up.
What to do?
"And needless to say, Wind power can provide base load:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jam.pdf"
You think the power lines for the interconnects are free or something?
I already said that the solution to the intermittent nature of solar and wind are expensive. The fact remains: if wind, solar, etc, were as simple and inexpensive and as useful as current sources we would be swimming in the stuff right now. There literally would be no energy problem worth discussing.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 10:46:00 AM
And nuclear is actually more expensive than wind:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
Florida Power and Light estimates its two new nuclear plants will cost as much as $24 billion.
No wonder wind power is increasing its market share and nuclear is not.
And the power lines needed for nuclear power plants are actually not free either.
Besides nuclear is intermittent: Refueling takes over 1 month. When was the last time the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine for over one month?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
Btw you can easily charge the car at work during day time:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=49007
So, it's no surprise to find underneath Google's solar paneled carports, the parking lot is filled with 40+mpg Priuses as well as the new 100-150 mpg modified hybrids that plug into power cords hanging from the carports.
Or don't you have a job?
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 10:57:57 AM
When windy, make electricity and either dump on grid or make hydrogen for combustion in turbine for non-windy periods.
We will look back on 2007 as the peak use of oil in this country. The future looks bright as far as I'm concerned and the free market will drive us to a greener planet. Who would have thought? Thank you $140/barrel oil!
Posted by: chris | Jun 26, 2008 11:17:36 AM
litesong: "As for your crack about baby boomers, you didn't reply to my answer, as you shouldn't. With your anonymous postings you don't take credit for your words. I see why you wish to distance yourself from your words."
There are some real names in use here that I recognize from other forums.
Yours isn't one of them.
Indeed, I find it quite amusing you believe "litesong" is some kind of well known moniker, with reputation and everything. Here is a free clue for you: most everyone in this forum is essentially anonymous. None of the names you see and use are verified or verifiable in any way.
Anyways, to what extent this is possible, I stand by the statement I made re: baby-boomers. I think a significant fraction of them will have to die off, their wasteful investments unwound, their fears buried with them, before new ideas -- including wind and solar -- can be given a fair chance to succeed (or fail) on their merits.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 11:19:03 AM
anon: we use monikers because it allows us to identify repeat postings by source and allows us to carry on a conversation with something other that some nebulous entity. So, get a handle please.
As for the baby boomer crack, it is too laugh. Every generation thinks they're going to change the world (remember the flower children of the 60s?), and to some extent each generation does effect some change, but never as much as they think they will and not always in as positive a way as they would like. You're obviously just too young and naive to realize that you're just as full of sh!t as everyone else on the planet. And oh, it was boomers in the the 70s that got really got solar going (the idea has been around since the 1800s)
P.S. I'm a gen-Xer so I have no real reason to love boomers.
Posted by: Neil | Jun 26, 2008 11:36:02 AM
Neil: we use monikers because it allows us to identify repeat postings by source and allows us to carry on a conversation with something other that some nebulous entity. So, get a handle please.
I was being criticized for not "taking credit" for my "anonymous postings" -- by an effectively anonymous poster.
If you can't perceive the irony then you aren't worth dealing with. But then again ...
You're obviously just too young and naive to realize that you're just as full of sh!t as everyone else on the planet.
... by your own admission, you aren't worth dealing with.
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 11:59:36 AM
"And nuclear is actually more expensive than wind:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
Florida Power and Light estimates its two new nuclear plants will cost as much as $24 billion."
China is building two 1GW AP1000 plants for $8 billion. Whatever is the matter with the USA? Too many baby-boomers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^bureaucrats perhaps?
"And the power lines needed for nuclear power plants are actually not free either."
You go ahead and compute how much power line is needed for a nuclear plant built within 100km of its market, and compare it to the amount needed for an interconnected set of wind farms spanning a million square kilometers (hint: consider reading the study you cited earlier.).
Heck, you can cite the nuke so it's grid interconnect is completely negligible.
"Besides nuclear is intermittent: Refueling takes over 1 month. When was the last time the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine for over one month?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501"
Are all wind/solar people as intellectually dishonest as you? Last time you cited this, it was "39 days every 17 months" -- the classic mis-matched units trick. Now you just mention the down-time of a month, without the up-time of almost three years ... your basic lie of omission.
"Btw you can easily charge the car at work during day time:"
Day is peak demand, which is peak price. I prefer to charge at home. Crazy how economics works, isn't it?
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 12:18:16 PM
said me: "[...] without the up-time of almost three years [...]"
In the heat of battle, I can't even state the facts right! Serves me, eh? 17 months is of course not three years. 30 on the brain...
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 12:25:23 PM
Stan,
ironically there is way more solar capacity installed in China than nuclear power and this even though solar hot water as opposed to Chinese nuclear power is not heavily subsidized.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf
The nuclear electricity contribution in China is only 1.6% and even if they build the 32 subsidized nuclear power plants they planned, nuclear power will only provide 4% of the Chinese electricity.
China is building two 1GW AP1000 plants for $8 billion. Whatever is the matter with the USA? Too many baby-boomers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^bureaucrats perhaps?
China certainly welcomed the export subsidies paid by the generous American tax payer.
Day is peak demand, which is peak price.
Finally Stan understands the value of solar power. Needless to say that Wind turbines also produce more power during day time than at night.
I prefer to charge at home.
I prefer to charge, where it is cheapest. Crazy how economics works, isn't it?
You go ahead and compute how much power line is needed for a nuclear plant built within 100km of its market
Ironically the French nuclear power plants export electricity to the Swiss hydro pumps every single night and Switzerland sells it back every single day over large distances.
Nuclear is still intermittent: Refueling takes over 1 month. When was the last time the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine for over one month?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
Are all nuclear people as intellectually dishonest as you and keep on asking for more subsidies?
Isn't 60 years of massive subsidies enough? Can't you learn to walk on your own feet without subsidies?
Can't just ask your nuclear god to help you out instead constantly asking the tax payers for more cash?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 2:12:33 PM
Stan,
Stan? I have to say you've lost me on that one.
China certainly welcomed the export subsidies paid by the generous American tax payer.
That doesn't answer my question, does it? Indeed, it seems to me all the more reason to ask it again:
What the hell is the matter with the USA? Too many baby-boomers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^bureaucrats perhaps?
But of course, you have not provided any citations for this particular claim in the first place. I mean, why should the USA give money to China to build 4 nuclear reactors ... when it would make a hell of a lot more sense for the USA to build them itself?
I prefer to charge, where it is cheapest. Crazy how economics works, isn't it?
And right now it is cheapest to charge at night when demand is at a minimum. And guess what: this will remain the case until demand at night exceeds demand during the day. While the day/night gap may close, it will be a long time (if ever) before night power == day power in terms of price.
Ironically the French nuclear power plants export electricity to the Swiss hydro pumps every single night and Switzerland sells it back every single day over large distances.
But that's not what I asked you to figure out, was it?
Take the paper you cited earlier about interconnected wind farms. I recall it was 19 of them, over about 700,000 square kilometers. Capacity factor for the set was about 50%.
Figure out how much wiring is going to be required for that system as described.
A better idea would be to take the four AP1000's that China is building, and construct a wind equivalent on paper. Turbine count, farm size, distribution, wiring, the whole deal. Total cost has to come in below $8 billion. (If you think nuclear is subsidized, then fine, subsidize the wind to the same degree!)
Nuclear is still intermittent: Refueling takes over 1 month. When was the last time the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine for over one month?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
Asked and answered, nitwit. When was the last time the wind blew full-on hard for 17 months?
Are all nuclear people as intellectually dishonest as you and keep on asking for more subsidies?
I have asked for more subsidies? You'll have to note where I did such a thing. (At this point you may wish to recall my dig into the bureaucrats, above. Can you guess what my opinion is of government in general?)
Until then, tilt harder at those windmills!
Posted by: | Jun 26, 2008 4:29:47 PM
Quoth Anne:
Where will this 74% increase come from? Will this oil be found?You should read The Oil Drum. This oil hasn't been found, and probably never will be; the projections of BAU have been coming from assumptions that The Supply Will Be There, and not on any analysis of oil reservoirs or discovery trends (which have been downward for 40+ years and below extraction since the mid-1980's).
One of the more interesting developments of late is that the IEA appears to have admitted that it has been buying its international data from CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), which has in turn taken a great deal of money from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Guess who benefits if the whole world believes that oil prices will be coming down again Any Day Now? I would not be surprised if the ultimate conclusion is that the KSA managed to corrupt the entire IEA/EIA process, and quite a bit else besides.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jun 26, 2008 8:51:50 PM
Anne, there is not shortage of fossil fuel. Anne and E-P will pay the freight whatever it cost while pretending not to be consumers.
Posted by: Kit P | Jun 26, 2008 10:04:44 PM
Actually wind turbines produce more power per area than nuclear power plants and the cows appreciate the shadow of the wind turbine mast.
The area of the mast is about 20 m2. With a power of 2 MW you are at 100 kW/m2.
As opposed to solar hot water capacity and PV nuclear power cannot be placed on existing roofs and thus requires more additional area.
Nuclear is still intermittent: Refueling takes over 1 month. When was the last time the wind didn't blow or the sun didn't shine for over one month? Still not answered nitwit.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/137501
Ironically the French nuclear power plants export electricity to the Swiss hydro pumps every single night and Switzerland sells it back every single day over large distances.
Can you calculate how much wiring and pumping was needed for this effort? Keep in mind: Nuclear power is not suited for load follow.
I mean, why should the USA give money to China to build 4 nuclear reactors ... when it would make a hell of a lot more sense for the USA to build them itself
Because China asked for it and told them to buy from France instead.
What the hell is the matter with the USA? Too many baby-boomers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^bureaucrats perhaps?
The problem with the USA is that gives out too many subsidies to the wrong corporations:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15545418
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 4:27:11 AM
@ Anne: Where will this 74% increase come from? Will this oil be found?
The child sits watching TV and a candy falls in their lap. "The candy fairy just came" explain parents.
A shiny dollar is found beneath the pillow. "The tooth fairy just came" explain parents.
Obviously the EIA were brought up by loving parents and expect the "oil fairy" to show up with an endless supply.
Posted by: J T | Jun 27, 2008 4:48:59 AM
- The transition from coal/steam to Diesel engines in transportation took much less than 20 years in each of its applications, roughly 1920 to 1940 for shipping and 1940 to 1960 for railroads. The beauty of it for today's transportation is that we can manufacture carbon-neutral liquid fuels by a variety of techniques; those fuels can be distributed by the existing infrastructure and used in existing vehicles, so the transition should if anything go faster.
- All of the world's coal would barely supply even the United States' energy needs for the next Century. Switching to coal would be like taking heroin for a headache. If humanity has the sense to pour pee from a boot we will forgo the temporary distraction of coal and avoid the ruinous increase in global warming it would bring by jumping straight to...
- Nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, and nuclear. And wind, and Solar, and a little geothermal and hydro. That would be "nuclear" using breeder fuel cycles and mostly thorium instead of uranium. There is enough thorium on Earth to power the world for thousands of years. It's ridiculous to imagine that a majority of ten billion people would commit suicide or abandon their ambitions for a Western standard of living merely to avoid using nuclear power. Get used to it.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Jun 27, 2008 7:41:26 AM
So, what are you waiting for? Why don't you go ahead and build an affordable thorium breeder reactor without public subsidies?
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 3:06:28 PM
Get used to it that people just need a hot coffee and a warm shower.
No one actually asks for expensive breeder reactors.
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 4:17:54 PM
Mr. Schumacher,
Thank you for the transition examples:
"The transition from coal/steam to Diesel engines in transportation took much less than 20 years in each of its applications, roughly 1920 to 1940 for shipping and 1940 to 1960 for railroads."
"The beauty of it is" the Solar Power Revolution (PV, CPV, & CST) and Electric Transportation Revolution (BEV & E-REV) will happen just as fast. Breakthroughs in technology and economies of scale in production will make them the better economic choice, relative to the high price of fossil fuels. We've reached a tipping point. BAU is no longer possible.
Our last "oil crisis" was in the 1970's. Travis Bradford outlines what happened to electricity generation from 1973 to 2003, i.e. in thirty years, in his book "The Solar Revolution" (page 61). Use of Oil for electricity generation went from 24.7% to 6.9%. Use of Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear increased. Hydro decreased.
Now we have a new oil crisis. This time most of the oil used for transportation will be replaced by electricity. Nuclear may increase again. (Hopefully) Solar and Wind will certainly increase because the cost of both continues to drop, while the cost of fossil fuels is likely to remain high. The same is true for electric transportation (BEVs and E-REVs) relative to oil powered ICE transportation (normal gasoline cars of today). By 2030 there will be huge numbers of BEVs and E-REVs on the road in all parts of the world. Much of the electricity to power them will come from solar and wind. This is as inevitable as cell phones and home computers were in the past.
Biofuels will help get us there, but by 2030 they will have more value for industrial plastics and fertilizers. Some will still be used by the dwindling numbers of HEVs and ICE cars ...and maybe by air transportation.
Posted by: mds | Jun 29, 2008 7:18:14 PM
@Kit P,
I agree with you, there is no fossil fuel shortage.
There is a mismatch between oil supply and demand, because the latter has been growing faster than the first.
Can the supply of oil catch up with demand? I think not. The market thinks not, hence the high oil price. Is the oil price driven up by speculation? Perhaps partially. The biggest share of price increases is due to fundamental causes. Is my opinion, not a fact.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 30, 2008 3:27:33 AM
I happen to have 20/20 hindsight. High energy prices (actually relatively small increases in comparison to the value of using energy) in the past and present have been caused lack of a policy to develop energy infrastructure.
Wishful thinking such as presented by mds does not get projects developed. In the past, as new energy supplies came on line supply exceed demand and energy prices decreased again albeit slightly higher based on higher production cost.
The US, EU, USSR, and Japan all developed an energy construction infrastructure that exceeded demand and resulted in glut of capacity and then a bust in the building boom. I see no fundamental reason for the boom cycle not to be repeated.
Posted by: Kit P. | Jun 30, 2008 1:53:00 PM
I agree a boom cycle in energy production will be repeated. This time however solar, wind, and E-REVs/BEVs will be part of the boom. The economics are there. By the time energy production catches up, solar will be the most cost effective for residential and commercial consumers in the USA sunbelt and in other areas (Hawaii, Israel, etc). Same will be true for E-REVs and BEVs. The battery technology is here. Economies of scale will knock down prices. The price of gasoline will drop, BUT never again to as low as it was a few years back. Pure ICE vehicles will never again be able to compete.
Where I said "hopefully" up above, I was talking about nuclear. We need more nuclear but a good deal of public opinion is unfortunately against it. Solar is a sure thing. Not wishful thinking. Undeniable result of exponential growth curves and predictable from economies of scale.
Posted by: mds | Jul 6, 2008 2:30:27 PM
