Renewable energy then dominates electricity generation by the 2050s, but even with an outlook that stretches to the end of the century, electricity doesn’t pass 60% of “final energy”1 use. The remaining 40% comes in the form of hydrogen and hydrocarbon fuels, such as petrol. And hydrocarbon – oil or gas based – feedstocks are also required to supply a growing chemicals industry.
Demand for fossil fuels declines in Sky, but still in 2100, industry will use some fossil fuels for processes requiring intense heat and the transport sector will still seek the high energy density of hydrocarbon fuels to power some ships and planes. Although, a portion of these fuels are synthesized – or manufactured – from sustainably grown biomass.
A century is a long time, but perhaps the minimum period required to see a complete evolution of the energy system. Society may eventually achieve a world where everything is renewable, but it is an unlikely outcome for the 21st century alone.
Let’s concentrate on the future of renewable fuels. Five renewable fuels are ahead of the pack in today’s energy creation and consumption landscape. The origin of these fuels is from biomass energy, hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal.
The most popular form of it comes in the following sound bite: “If you covered all of Britain’s roofs in solar panels, it would meet 100% of Britain’s electricity demand”. The claim itself is actually false, even if you simply consider total energy produced – and ignore the long stretch of winter when Britain’s solar panels might as well be disconnected from the grid. And what a glorious coincidence this would be, that covering all available roof space in solar panels would precisely match demand.
That’s if we assume they point put in place enough storage to store something like half a day’s worth of electricity demand, which is not an easy task. Alternatively, they could build less solar, but build enough storage to store a few weeks worth of electricity demand for winter. I could quantify why this is improbable, but that might be labouring the point.
We hear that the US needs to get off of fossil fuels within 12 years or by the year 2030 by one group in order to save the planet.
This will be impossible of course based on the laws of physics and the likelihood that common sense and not political narrative and a fake climate crisis will prevail but let's pretend that it was possible.
Keep in mind that the US has been decreasing CO2 emissions for a decade and is responsible for a smaller and smaller fraction globally. CO2 is well mixed thru the global atmosphere, so increasing emissions from China for instance, more than cancel out any cuts by the US.
China, in the Climate Accord, based on the agreement hashed out with Obama, will consider stopping their increase in CO2 emissions in 2030. Look at the graph below. Take the USA down to zero CO2 emissions and what would that do to global emissions? The only thing that it would do is kill the USA economy.
Even if CO2 was not a beneficial gas and was actually pollution causing a climate crisis, the US would not be able to have much impact with the economy killing Green New Deal. Funny thing, the Climate Accord would not solve it either because China and India will continue to increase their emissions under that agreement.......negating cuts by others.
Here's another graph with GLOBAL energy consumption to provide perspective. Again, keep in mind that CO2 emissions are well mixed in the GLOBAL atmosphere.
According to one group, we must cut our CO2 emissions to bare minimum by 2030 in the US, using the Green New Deal. Keep in mind that the Climate Accord was passed 3.5 years ago. The US, which withdrew from this agreement is actually one of the countries that has cut its CO2 emissions.
Look at where global emissions have been going since the Climate Accord was passed and every major country except the US is on board. See any reductions in global emissions for the past 3+ years?
No, because thats NOT what the Climate Accord will do. That's what they want you to think that it will do. It will just transfer money from the rich/developed countries to the poor/undeveloped countries and impose world socialism on us.
I am good with the rich giving to the poor. Really, really good.
But not with lies and by hijacking climate science and by imposing a world government on us, led by the United Nations using a disingenuous scheme to bamboozle us.
We were once sold on biofuels being the way to replace our dependence on fossil fuels.
Here's a paper from a scientist that discusses some principles of energy that relate to physics and chemistry.
Energy Insecurity The False Promise of Liquid Biofuels
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
This Times article completely ignores any discussion of global energy use actual data that demonstrates the “fact” that the world’s developing nations overwhelming dominate global energy use (and emissions) with fossil fuels providing 87.5% of these nations energy consumption in 2018.
The Times article ignores energy data demonstrating the “fact” that the developing nations consumed nearly 60% of total global energy in 2018 accounting for nearly 2/3rds of all global emissions.
The Times article ignores the “fact” that the world’s developing nations increased global CO2 emissions by 4.5 billion metric tons in the last decade that overwhelmed and exceeded the developed nations 1 billion metric ton reduction of CO2 during that period. That reduction was led by the U.S. which displaced coal fuel with low cost, more efficient and reliable natural gas.
The Times article fails to discuss “facts” showing that the developing nations will further grow both their future energy use and emissions in the coming decades and by 2050 dominate world energy use and emissions by representing nearly 2/3rds and 70% of these global measures respectively.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Global energy and emissions detailed information for 2018 is now available which includes data encompassing the latest decade of 2008 to 2018. The world energy consumption data from the report is summarized in the graph below.
This latest decade energy and emissions data clearly demonstrates that the developing nations completely dominate global energy and emissions. This includes both present levels as well as future growth. These results also show that the developed nations play a minority role in these measures both presently and in the future.
The results for the last decade show that global energy use grew by 18.5% during the last decade with 98.5% of that energy growth accounted for by the developing nations.
The developing nations represented about 51% of global energy use in 2008 and ended the decade accounting for over 59% of global energy use.
Energy use growth by the developing nations during the last decade occurred at a rate 5.5 times greater than the flat growth rate that occurred in the developed nations.
The developing nations energy use growth during the last decade was met by significantly increased use of fossil fuels that supplied over 78% of this latest decades energy growth.
The developed nations reduced use of fossil energy by about 3.2% during the decade with the largest reduction being in the use of coal fuel that was largely offset by increases in use of natural gas.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
Despite this small developed nation fossil energy reduction during the last decade world fossil energy increased by over 14.5%. Global energy consumption during this period saw coal use climbing by 8%, oil use climbing by over 12% and natural gas use climbing by over 28% as illustrated in the graphs below.
Despite reductions in coal use by the developed nations coal fuel remained by far and away the primary fuel for the world’s electricity generation.
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The stupendous display of global energy and emissions ignorance by the Democratic Party Presidential candidates on CNN’s climate alarmist gabfest was nothing short of astounding.
Before addressing some of these candidates ridiculous, totally useless and massively costly energy schemes its important to establish what is the global energy and emissions data status today and where is it likely to go in the future.
“They imagine that fossil fuels can be replaced by solar energy, without doing the math on how many square miles would have to be tiled with solar panels to satisfy the world’s vastly growing thirst for electricity. And they think that voluntary sacrifices, like unplugging laptop chargers, are a sensible way to deal with climate change.”
Looking at global energy and emissions data is absolutely required to facilitate rational and reasonable judgments regarding global energy and emissions policy.
Global energy use climbed by 18.5% during the decade between 2008 and 2018.
About 98.5% of that decade long energy growth occurred in the developing nations with about 78.5% of that growth obtained from increased fossil fuel use.
The rate of energy growth in the developing nations during that decade was 5.5 times greater than in the developed nations that saw little growth.
The developing nations consumed 59% of global energy use in 2018 accounting for 64% of global CO2 emissions that year.
Fossil fuels accounted for about 85% of 2018 global energy consumption with the developing nations energy provided 87.5% through use of fossil fuels.
Wind and solar accounted for 3% of global energy in 2018 that is staggeringly small given more than a decade of mandated use by government edict and trillions of dollars in global government subsidies.
In the decade leading to 2018 the developing nations increased CO2 emissions by about 4.5 billion metric tons completely overwhelming the developed nations that decreased CO2 emissions by about 1 billion metric tons led by the U.S.
About 67% of the developing nations CO2 huge emissions increase in the last decade was from India and China.
By year 2050 EIA projects that global energy use will climb by about another 36% from year 2018 levels with more than 85% of that increased growth coming from the developing nations that will then account for about 67% of global energy use.
The developing nations are projected by EIA to use fossil fuels for about 78% of their year 2050 energy with renewables accounting for less than 10% of year 2050 energy.
EIA projects that CO2 emissions will climb by over 8.8 billion metric tons by 2050 from year 2018 levels with the developing nations accounting for 92% of that increase resulting in these nations representing 70% of global CO2 emissions in year 2050.
"Dr. Lars Schernikau has founded, worked, and advised many organizations in the energy, raw material, and coal sectors in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas. Lars finished his PhD on the economics of energy, commodities, and the global coal business and published two industry trade books (Springer, available on Amazon) in 2010 and 2017"
Figure 1: Graph on global energy
Guess which countries rely on/use the most solar/wind(right side) and which countries use the most coal(left side)?
Figure 2: Global prices for power – power in Germany is the most expensive
metmike: Electric cars, environmentally UNfriendly compared to coal mining!
Material requirements: Next comes the question of the inputs and materials required to produce a battery. It is expected and conservatively calculated that each Tesla battery of 85 kWh requires 25-50 tons of raw materials to be mined, moved and processed. These required materials include copper, nickel, graphite, cobalt and some lithium and rare earths. We will likely also need some aluminum and copper for the case and wiring. Additionally, energy of 10-18 MWh is required to build one Tesla battery, resulting in 15-20 t of CO2 emissions assuming 50% renewable power.
I am not even considering the overburden that needs to be moved for each ton of minerals mined. The overburden ratio can be estimated 1:10. Thus, you can 10x fold the numbers above. One Tesla battery requires 500-1.000 tons of materials to be moved/mined compared to coal which requires only 0,3 tons – a factor of 1.700 to 3.300!
Figure 5: case in point: Tesla‘s batteries – energy density & environmental impact
Farmers should be the most alarmed at the Green New Deal and plan to replace fossil fuels with electric cars. It would be the end of corn ethanol blended into gasoline.
Green New Deal-corn ethanol
Started by metmike - Aug. 31, 2019, 2:54 p.m.
The end of fossil fuels would mean the end of industrial fertilizer production via the use of natural gas, which has gifted the world to a doubling of food and crop production.
Another secret about fossil fuels
Started by metmike - Sept. 17, 2019, 10:55 p.m.
Here in the real world, not the one featuring made up Green New Fairy Tales, these are the realities....from an actual source that uses authentic data/facts:
Copied from WUWT:
Sep 29, 2019
The U.S. Department Of Energy Says More Oil, More Natural Gas
Jude Clemente Contributor
I cover oil, gas, power, LNG markets, linking to human development.
Numerous energy headlines from this past week alone caught my attention. They perfectly illustrate the massive scale of investment plans for oil and gas projects around the world. Here are just a few:
*”Japan to invest $10 billion in global LNG infrastructure projects.”
*”Tellurian Signs $7.5 Billion LNG Pact With India’s Petronet.”
*”LNG investments hit record of $50 billion in 2019.”
*”Brazil’s Huge $25 Billion Oil Auction Clear Very Important Hurdle.”
As fate would have it, on Tuesday, a day after my birthday (I turned 25 again), the U.S. Department of Energy’s EIA released its International Energy Outlook 2019. It’s a glorious read, and one that I deem mandatory for all Americans, and even those globally interested in energy. We should all take advantage of the fact that we have such government information freely available to us open-source online.
You should know that the vast majority of countries have no such access to their own governments. Again, this is the official modeling from the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Energy Modeling System. This is not from ExxonMobil, the Sierra Club, or the American Wind Energy Association trying to sell you something or make you think a certain way. This is the outlook of the U.S. Department of Energy.
What’s past is prologue: more oil, more natural gas. No kidding. These two essential fuels supply nearly 65% of the energy used in the U.S. and global economies. Global annual oil demand has been surging ~1.4 million b/d since 2000 alone, with gas usage up 8 Bcf/d per year.
The simple reason why we see such huge investments in oil and gas as seen in the above headlines is because we know that the world will need even more of them. In particular, the still developing world is looking at the oil and gas consuming West to see how affordable and reliable energy can grow economies and improve human development.
The main reason for the following graphic is that oil is the world’s most vital fuel and has no significant substitute whatsoever. Oil is the basis of globalization, utilized in practically everything that we do, and the most internationally traded commodity in the world. Oil’s value is so immense that too high of a price can cause a global economic recession.
Next comes the world’s go-to fuel: natural gas.
Just last year alone, global gas demand jumped over 5% to a staggering 137 trillion cubic feet.
That’s a Marcellus’ shale worth of production devoured every three weeks. "
metmike: There are too many charts/graphs to include all of them but I will pick out some good ones below.
While EIA forecasts an explosive growth in renewable energy, it doesn’t replace fossil fuels. It just get piled on top of the energy mix… Just like fossil fuels and nuclear were piled on top of biomass.
"Did I mention that Peak Oil has been postponed… Again?"
After looking at these projections of the REAL world based on the best data available from one of the worlds most respected, unbiased authorities, compare them to the plans of people like this(which actually are similar to his colleagues that all want us to just "trust them" to be able to make smart decisions running our countries energy and other policies because if we elect them, they will "save the planet for our children"):
Sanders Touts $16 Trillion Climate Plan: Anti Science Bernie = the complete opposite of the truth! August 2019
"Let me now turn to the example of Germany itself”. In an analysis of 126 countries using purchasing power-adjusted data, Germany ranks 16th in the international ranking (the highest in Europe) in household electricity prices. Most of the countries with even higher prices are crisis-ridden developing countries such as such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso where some people cannot afford electricity at all or in isolated island countries such as Vanuatu, the Cook Islands, and Tonga. According to data for March 2020, the electricity price for households in Germany was $0.38 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), compared to $0.15 for US households, $0.17 for Sweden, $0.21 for France and $0.26 in the UK.
Germany has felled thousands of acres of its ancient Teutonic forests and threatens its endangered species of birds and bats in its sacrifice at the altar of the Green God by consecrating thousands of windmill crucifixes with arms made of petroleum-based glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy or polyester resins and made in furnaces fuelled by natural gas, its motors need rare earths such as dysprosium, neodymium and praseodymium which are extracted using fossil fuels. Windmills are constructed on thousands of tons of reinforced concrete towers with cement and steel manufactured in intensive fossil fuel-powered factories. Most disturbingly, the leading German newsmagazine Der Spiegel found that in 2014, 17% of all German households live in poverty due to an “energy cost explosion”. Since then, in the Green-propelled rush to shut down its nuclear reactors, natural gas-fuelled power and coal power plants, average electricity prices for a three-person household have risen by almost 68% over the last 15 years.
Let’s turn to another leading example of societal suicide. This is California – sometimes referred to in a decidedly non-humorous fashion by over-taxed and beleaguered small businesses as the People’s Republic of California — run exclusively by the Democratic party for decades. According to engineer Ronald Stein, “California’s green crusade direction and actions are increasing the costs of electricity and fuels which guarantees growth of the homeless, poverty, and welfare populations, and further fuels (no pun intended) the housing affordability crisis.”
California, the world’s fifth largest economy, now imports most of its crude oil from overseas (since the extraction of its ample local oil resources are practically banned) and it imports nearly a third of its electricity from neighbouring states (since nuclear and natural gas-fuelled power plants are progressively shutdown by legislation). Between 2011 and 2017, California’s electricity prices rose five times faster than they did nationally and now Californians pay 60 percent more, on average, than the rest of the nation, for residential, commercial and industrial electricity. With rolling power blackouts, it has accorded itself a third world status. Indeed it seems the state has anticipated the advice proffered by the notable Rutgers University professor of anthropology.
In a remarkable moment of candour, Governor Gavin Newsom said in mid-August that the state’s transition away from fossil fuels is a contributing factor to the state’s rolling blackouts. The elimination of fossil fuel products and the shift to solar power, windmills and other forms of green energy has led to what Newsom called “gaps” in the energy grid’s reliability. To top it off, the Governor signed an executive order on September 23 banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles within 15 years to cut down on air pollution and reach the state’s goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delivered this common sense verdict to the Green Governor: “California’s record of rolling blackouts – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent requests to neighboring states for power begs the question of how you expect to run an electric car fleet that will come with significant increases in electricity demand, when you can’t even keep the lights on today.”