Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption

[SeanAU]

........ alternative energy IS ALREADY another layer on the energy use spectrum.

have we stopped using biofuels yet?

No, dried cow dung still works well cooking the evening meals.

RE "that you think fossil fuels is a mere choice makes you equally ridiculous."

I tried to buy a steam engine powered SUV Car last week, one that uses Green Hydrogen as it's Fuel Source, and I could not find one in any of the sales yards to choose from.

I think they are so popular now everywhere was out of stock.   

[kassy]

The essence of jevons paradox is that if energy/resources are available they will be used here-there-anywhere

Yes and we do that already so cleaning up our energy resources is not going to make it worse soon.
It will take decades before they replace fossil fuels so i don´t see why you would worry about it.

[SeanAU]

 What on Earth is Energy Storage?
Decouple Media
 
An excellent backgrounder, 1 year ago.

Mark Nelson, managing director of the Radiant Energy Group, joins us for the third installation of his masterclass series, this time all about energy storage. The ability to store electricity for later use can improve our ability to match supply with demand. Deployed at a large enough scale, it can fill in valleys and smooth out peaks, creating a more manageable grid. But electricity itself must be used the instant it is generated, so how can we go about storing it for later?

Mark explains the basic of energy storage, corrects common misconceptions, and gives a numerically literate overview of a few different energy storage technologies.

[zenith]

... but is it electric?

Get an exclusive inside look at the largest cruise ship on the planet!


i wonder how many people commit suicide on cruises annually?

[gerontocrat]

This article covers all or most financial aspects of investments into energy transition

Of note is that while investment grew by 17% over 2022, the rate needs to triple in the years now to 2030 to stay on the netzero by 2050 path.

Of perhaps even greater note is that even though China remains the largest investor by far, investments in 2023 were 11% less than in 2022. a bit of a surprise to me.

https://www.gasworld.com/story/clean-energy-investment-surges-17-reaches-1-8-trillion-globally-in-2023/2133436.article/

Clean energy investment surges 17%, reaches $1.8 trillion globally in 2023

Global investment in the low-carbon energy transition jumped by 17% in 2023, reaching $1.77 trillion, according to a report published by research provider BloombergNEF (BNEF).

The report, Energy Transition Investment Trends 2024, revealed that the key drivers of investment growth were renewable energy, electric vehicles, hydrogen and carbon capture.

The largest sector for spending in the energy transition was electrified transport, growing 36% in 2023 to $634bn, overtaking the renewable energy sector ($623bn) – an area bolstered by a push to construction wind, solar and geothermal power plants and biofuels production plants.

The third largest contributor was power grid investment at $310bn followed by ‘strong growth’ in emerging areas such as hydrogen (with investment tripling year on year), carbon capture and storage (near doubling) and energy storage (up 76%).

“Last year brought new records for global renewable energy investment,” said Meredith Annex, Head of Clean Power at BNEF and co-author of the report.

“Strong growth in the US and Europe drove the global rise, even as China, the world’s largest renewables market, sputtered, recording an 11% drop.”

Despite having its lead reduced, China remained the largest country for investment with $676bn invested in 2023 – equivalent to a huge 38% of the global total.

The EU, US and UK together saw $718bn of investment while investment in the US jumped 22% year-on-year to $303bn due to effects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

However, although there are strong signs of growth, the report reveals that the current level of investment in clean energy technologies is not sufficient to reach Net Zero by 2050.

“Our report shows just how quickly the clean energy opportunity is growing, and yet how far off track we still are,” commented Albert Cheung, Deputy CEO of BNEF. “Energy transition investment spending grew 17% last year, but it needs to grow more than 170% if we are to get on track for Net Zero in the coming years.”

Energy transition investment would need to average $4.8 trillion per year from 2024 to 2030 to align with BNEF’s Net Zero Scenario – nearly three times the total investment seen in 2023.

The UK would need to see nearly double the $72bn spent on energy transition technologies in 2023, every year from 2024 to 2030 to align with the scenario.

The report also revealed a record-breaking $135bn investment in the global clean energy supply chain, covering equipment factories and battery metals production for energy technologies in 2023 (compared to $46bn in 2020).

The trend is expected to continue, with projections indicating a surge to $259bn by 2025. By 2023, the wind sector is the only area requiring increased supply chain investment to align with a Net Zero trajectory.

“Abundant supply chain investment should continue to tamp down equipment prices across most sectors, which is good news for the energy transition,” said Antoin Vagneur-Jones, Head of Trade and Supply Chains at BNEF. “But the ensuing oversupply heralds an era of squeezed margins for solar and battery manufacturers.”

Two other types of funding were tracked including climate-tech equity raising – which fell from $127bn in 2022 to $84bn in 2023 due to rising interest rates – and energy transition debt issuance, which equalled $824bn in 2023.

[Sciguy]

The record investments in renewable energy, combined with the continuing fall in their prices, is leading to peak fossil fuels as soon as this year.

https://carbontracker.org/2024-misreading-and-mistiming-the-energy-transition-carbon-moves-from-valuable-commodity-to-stranded-element/

2024: Misreading and mistiming the energy transition – Carbon moves from valuable commodity to stranded element
Harry Benham 30 January 2024

Carbon Tracker’s late December 2023 and January 2024 research output reflects this turning arc of time, and the looming impact of the world energy transition in 2024.

This could be accommodated efficiently, if total energy demand growth is steady, and the two energy systems of renewables and fossil fuels collaborate.

But they almost do the opposite – renewables grow quickly as technology learning curves improve, meanwhile, the oil and gas incumbent attempts to grow too, even as its technology becomes outdated, and its product demand is dwindling.

The result will soon be an energy glut, with too much polluting carbon in the energy system forcing fossil fuel production declines – a key example noted here in the global electricity sector by the IEA in a 2023-26 outlook released In January 2024.

The good news is that this will make 2024 the first year of emissions decline in the global power sector.

[SeanAU]

The real mythical beast isn't the dragon, it is why do so many people keep on believing these predictions? It's like assuming you'll win Lotto next Saturday, and you are certain you will.

[gerontocrat]

The record investments in renewable energy, combined with the continuing fall in their prices, is leading to peak fossil fuels as soon as this year.

The good news is that this will make 2024 the first year of emissions decline in the global power sector.

It is possible that the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation may peak this year.

Non-fossil electricity (nuclear+hydro+renewables) is currently about 20% of world primary energy consumption, and that only when the subsitution method is used. See below As inefficiencies in the use of fossil fuels for electricity is over 50%, the actual percentage of energy produced by nuclear+hydro+renewables is less than 10% of world primary energy consumption.

It is unlikely that the use of fossil fuels in total will peak this year

Primary energy consumption via the 'substitution method'. The 'substitution method' – in comparison to the 'direct method' – attempts to correct for the inefficiencies (energy wasted as heat during combustion) in fossil fuel and biomass conversion. It does this by correcting nuclear and modern renewable technologies to their 'primary input equivalents' if the same quantity of energy were to be produced from fossil fuels.

[Sciguy]

The record investments in renewable energy, combined with the continuing fall in their prices, is leading to peak fossil fuels as soon as this year.

The good news is that this will make 2024 the first year of emissions decline in the global power sector.

It is possible that the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation may peak this year.

Non-fossil electricity (nuclear+hydro+renewables) is currently about 20% of world primary energy consumption, and that only when the subsitution method is used. See below As inefficiencies in the use of fossil fuels for electricity is over 50%, the actual percentage of energy produced by nuclear+hydro+renewables is less than 10% of world primary energy consumption.

It is unlikely that the use of fossil fuels in total will peak this year

Primary energy consumption via the 'substitution method'. The 'substitution method' – in comparison to the 'direct method' – attempts to correct for the inefficiencies (energy wasted as heat during combustion) in fossil fuel and biomass conversion. It does this by correcting nuclear and modern renewable technologies to their 'primary input equivalents' if the same quantity of energy were to be produced from fossil fuels.

The problem with using primary energy consumption as the metric to match is that at least half of it is waste energy that doens’t need to be produced!  That’s one reason why electrifing everything and switching to renewables will be much less expensive and faster than many people, including those who buy into the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda, expect.

[Sciguy]

China’s renewable capacity additions are projected to increase more than their coal and gas additions in 2024.  While coal still dominates, it’s now project to decrease well before 2030.

https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/013124-coal-still-accounted-for-nearly-60-of-chinas-electricity-supply-in-2023-cec

31 Jan 2024
Coal still accounted for nearly 60% of China's electricity supply in 2023: CEC
 
Author   Ivy Yin

Coal still accounted for nearly 60% of China's electricity supply in 2023, indicating that record-high solar and wind capacity growths were yet to lead to a ramp up in power production, government-backed industrial association China Electricity Council (CEC) said in a report published Jan. 31.

CEC forecast that China's solar PV installed capacity will reach 780 GW at the end of 2024, increasing 27.9% year on year, much below the 55.2% annual increase in 2023. Meanwhile, the forecasts showed that China's wind installed capacity will increase by 20.5%, on par with the increase in 2023.

The CEC expects China's renewable capacity growth to slow down in 2024. The association highlighted that getting renewable electricity consumed is challenging.

CEC estimated that China will add about 40 GW of coal-fired and 70 GW of gas-fired generation capacities in 2024, to provide sufficient power supplies and address renewables' intermittency.

[SeanAU]

While coal still dominates, it’s now project to decrease well before 2030?

China have been saying that for years already. Pity no one ever listens.

[SeanAU]

The record investments in renewable energy, combined with the continuing fall in their prices, is leading to peak fossil fuels as soon as this year.

The good news is that this will make 2024 the first year of emissions decline in the global power sector.

It is possible that the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation may peak this year.

Non-fossil electricity (nuclear+hydro+renewables) is currently about 20% of world primary energy consumption, and that only when the subsitution method is used. See below As inefficiencies in the use of fossil fuels for electricity is over 50%, the actual percentage of energy produced by nuclear+hydro+renewables is less than 10% of world primary energy consumption.

It is unlikely that the use of fossil fuels in total will peak this year

Primary energy consumption via the 'substitution method'. The 'substitution method' – in comparison to the 'direct method' – attempts to correct for the inefficiencies (energy wasted as heat during combustion) in fossil fuel and biomass conversion. It does this by correcting nuclear and modern renewable technologies to their 'primary input equivalents' if the same quantity of energy were to be produced from fossil fuels.

The problem with using primary energy consumption as the metric to match is that at least half of it is waste energy that doens’t need to be produced!  That’s one reason why electrifing everything and switching to renewables will be much less expensive and faster than many people, including those who buy into the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda, expect 

Meanwhile ENERGY is still being wasted in Batteries charging recharging discharging, cold/hot temps, regular use, battery age, transmission lines and transformers up/down shifts, especially HT long distance transmission, cold state recharging of batteries EV and Stationary lithium grid batteries, voltages shifts anywhere, also losses from all other version of electricity / energy storage systems (large and small), in manufacturing, in mining, in transportation, of deploying infrastructure and maintenance, energy loss happens everywhere in the electricity system today, and expanding it 3 fold multiplies of renewable supply only, the losses also multiply and yet, no surprise here, no one ever talks about that. 

While the true extent needed for storage especially expensive & expansive battery storage is understated to the point of being completely ignored as a "thing".  The dream continues on unabated.

[gerontocrat]

This is a look at the effect of China's transition to BEVs on the energy demand for crude by ICEVs and for electricity from BEVs. Hence I have posted it here.

I have used some new data on China's domestic BEV sales in 2023 and better data from China's National Statistics Bureau on the composition of China's vehicle fleet to update projections of the transition to BEVs. I have left HEVs and PHEVs in the total for ICEVs as their impact on demand for crude is zero or marginal at best.

The scope is limited to light vehicles. and results based on China, where ownership is expected to grow, are not appropriate when looking at the saturated markets of Europe and the USA.

There are two scenarios, one where growth in BEV sales and wind+solar electricity is relatively modest, and a high-grwoth scenarion where Government policies push an acceleration in BEV adoption and wind+solar growth.

In the medium-growth scenario, 
- annual ICEV sales only fall gradually, with annual sales only 20% less by 2033, even though annual BEV sales increase by 140%.
- the light vehicles vehicle fleet grows from about 300 million at end 2023 to about 500 million in 2033,
- the number of ICEVs (+HEVs+PHEVs) on the road increase by 37% from 2023 to 2033,
- the number of BEVs on the road increase by 900% but still only compose 27% of the total light duty vehicle fleet.
- despite their increase, energy consumption by ICEVs (see 2nd graph) may start to reduce by the end of this decade, due to severe energy vehicle fuel efficiency measures being introduced by the Chinese Government and some evidence of higher scrappage rates of old ICEVs in recent years.
- energy consumption by the growth of BEVs may initially form a higher percentage of solar+wind energy produced, but then decline later in the decasde as solar+wind grows at a compound rate.

In the high-growth scenario, 
- annual ICEV sales start to fall quickly from 2025, with annual sales 80% less by 2033, while annual BEV sales increase by 290%.
- the light vehicles vehicle fleet grows from about 300 million at end 2023 to about 500 million in 2033,
- the number of ICEVs (+HEVs+PHEVs) on the road increase by 17% from 2023 to 2033, peaking in 2030 and only then starting to fall quite quickly.
- the number of BEVs on the road increase by 1200% but still only compose 37% of the total light duty vehicle fleet.
- despite their initial increase, energy consumption by ICEVs (see 4th graph) may start to reduce by the end of this decade, due to severe energy vehicle fuel efficiency measures being introduced by the Chinese Government and some evidence of higher scrappage rates of old ICEVs in recent years. From 2030 as the number of ICEVs decrease energy demand from ICEVs starts to reduce quickly
- energy consumption by the growth of BEVs may initially form a higher percentage of solar+wind energy produced, but then declines quickly later in the decasde as solar+wind grows at a high compound rate.

The major point is that the key to reducing energy demand for oil-based products is to reduce the number of ICEVs on the road, and even with high groth rates of BEVs, it takes a number of years to happen in a growing automative market such as China.

Caveats:
These projections are meant simply to illustrate the inertia built into the auto market.
An underlying (heroic?) assumption is that China will be able to main significant economic growth in the next 10 years.
The reality will be different, maybe very very different.

[Sciguy]

In the USA power companies are transitioning to renewables faster than required by State mandates because renewables are more profitable than fossil fuels.

https://www.dailycamera.com/2024/02/06/cu-boulder-finds-u-s-utilities-on-track-to-hit-100-renewable-energy-by-2060/

CU Boulder finds U.S. utilities on track to hit 100% renewable energy by 2060
Study finds industry is outpacing policy
By OLIVIA DOAK
February 6, 2024

A University of Colorado Boulder study found that utility companies nationwide are moving faster toward decarbonizing than state mandates, with companies leading the energy transition without waiting for policy to catch up.

Even in states without policies in place to require changes, utility companies are taking the initiative to create plans, set goals and take action to transition to renewable energy.

The research compared state renewable energy targets with the goals of individual utility companies, which are typically published online. Burgess and Kroeger looked at 30 years of data to understand the renewable energy changes utilities made and the goals established through policy at the state level.

Xcel Energy, for example, plans to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050. Andrew Holder, director of community relations at Xcel Energy, said he thought the study was well done and reinforced what he already suspected.

Burgess said the economics of renewable energy are strong, with the prices of solar energy having fallen dramatically in the last decade. In many places, solar and wind are the cheapest forms of new electricity. He speculates some companies may also be motivated by state-level spillovers, where one company that operates in multiple states chooses to decarbonize completely due to regulations in some of the states it services.

Kroeger said consumer desires may also be a factor as to why the industry is outpacing policy.

[SeanAU]

In the USA power companies are transitioning to renewables faster than required by State mandates because renewables are more profitable than fossil fuels.

Well of course they are!

With the new BBB tax breaks, tax credits, and RE bonuses corp investors can build a new RE project and get almost 100% of the upfront capital normally required to build it repaid in full by the US Govt within a few years.

So of course building new RE plant is more profitable than building fossil fuel power plants. Doh!

Imagine, it likes going into the motor car business and the US Government builds the factory for you for free!  That kind of deal is very profitable for those who have the spare cash and borrowing capacity to go ahead.

The Rich Get Richer ... It's a scam. Almost as good as the GFC and Bernie Madoffs ponzi scheme.

Money for nothing and the chicks are free. 

[interstitial]

China car ownership is 22% by population
Europe is about 57% and
US is about 84%
The state of Montana has the highest car ownership at 2.6 vehicles per licensed driver with the next closest Wyoming at 2.1 vehicles per licensed driver. These are some of the lowest population density states so at least in the US population density is roughly inversely corelated to vehicle ownership rates.


So the Chinese car fleet can increase substantially even if the economy does not grow substantially. Given the population density of China I would expect % vehicle ownership to settle a bit below Europe but many other cultural and policy factors may apply.

[jai mitchell]

In the USA power companies are transitioning to renewables faster than required by State mandates because renewables are more profitable than fossil fuels.

I have long observed that state mandates, whether codes and standards or renewable portfolio and EV sales targets are really produced after the fact to reflect current market operations.  We do not really (to a limited degree, maybe) have a non-market intervention component (mandate) structure in the United States.

It is only through market subsidies, (more bailouts) that these targets are being massaged, this is why China is building (literally) hundreds of thousands of fast charging stations per year and we only built 21,000 last year.

[John Batteen]

In the USA power companies are transitioning to renewables faster than required by State mandates because renewables are more profitable than fossil fuels.

Well of course they are!

With the new BBB tax breaks, tax credits, and RE bonuses corp investors can build a new RE project and get almost 100% of the upfront capital normally required to build it repaid in full by the US Govt within a few years.

So of course building new RE plant is more profitable than building fossil fuel power plants. Doh!

Imagine, it likes going into the motor car business and the US Government builds the factory for you for free!  That kind of deal is very profitable for those who have the spare cash and borrowing capacity to go ahead.

The Rich Get Richer ... It's a scam. Almost as good as the GFC and Bernie Madoffs ponzi scheme.

Money for nothing and the chicks are free.

Yeah it's wild that renewables get all these subsidies and incentives while fossil fuels have never had any incentives or subsidies or tax breaks ever.  Such an uneven playing field.  We may never know who is truly the most economical.

[interstitial]

The Biden administration has been really slow at turning money from the Infrastructure act into programs. They took a long time to create these programs and by the end of 2023 few if any of the charging stations were built. 2024 should see most of those charging stations built. The time of purchase rebates for heat pump water heaters and a number of other appliances have also taken forever and will likely began this summer with variations depending on which state someone lives in. A few states have indicated they will not be participating in the program.


While the latest renewable subsidies are substantial they do not come anywhere near paying the full cost of the projects. Even without the subsidies renewable projects produce cheaper energy. Given that is true why have more renewables not been built? In short regulations. Utilities are the opposite of free markets and decisions are driven by a great many factors. The rules vary greatly so individual utilities operate differently. Many utilities make more money if they provide more expensive power as they can set rates to recover a percentage over cost. For those utilities the more cost the better and if they planned on a 40 year depreciation on the plant it makes more sense for them to keep it open even if building new renewables is cheaper than operating an existing plant. In other areas shutting a large employer like a coal powerplant eliminates many good paying jobs.


In many areas gas companies lobby for NIMBY rules to protect market share. Those NIMBY rules restrict solar wind and powerlines so much so that 15% of counties do not allow most if not all solar and wind projects. This is worse than it sounds because those rules are often enacted in the counties in the best locations for development.


For those of you that are not paying attention a massive spike in gas prices last year was used to push through large (in most cases permanent) increases in utility bills this year despite the fact that gas prices are much lower this year and at this writing lower than even the year before that. Most US utilities asked for and got those large increases. 

[jai mitchell]

In the USA power companies are transitioning to renewables faster than required by State mandates because renewables are more profitable than fossil fuels.

Well of course they are!

With the new BBB tax breaks, tax credits, and RE bonuses corp investors can build a new RE project and get almost 100% of the upfront capital normally required to build it repaid in full by the US Govt within a few years.

So of course building new RE plant is more profitable than building fossil fuel power plants. Doh!

Imagine, it likes going into the motor car business and the US Government builds the factory for you for free!  That kind of deal is very profitable for those who have the spare cash and borrowing capacity to go ahead.

The Rich Get Richer ... It's a scam. Almost as good as the GFC and Bernie Madoffs ponzi scheme.

Money for nothing and the chicks are free.

Yeah it's wild that renewables get all these subsidies and incentives while fossil fuels have never had any incentives or subsidies or tax breaks ever.  Such an uneven playing field.  We may never know who is truly the most economical.

What is really disgusting is how we don't even include the externalities associated with solar panels sucking up all the sunshine from their surrounding areas.  The sunshine is FREE FOR ALL and NOT FOR PRIVATE CORPORATIONS!!!

[Sciguy]

With all of the subsidies for renewables, it’s a wonder that the fossil fuel companies can still operate.

https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic congestion and accident externalities associated with the use of road fuels. Getting energy prices right involves reflecting these adverse effects on society in prices and applying general consumption taxes when fuels are consumed by household.

In the example below, the retail price for gasoline is $0.30 per liter, while the supply cost is $0.50 per liter (inclusive of VAT), total external costs are $0.60 per liter, and the value-added tax (VAT) rate on gasoline is equal to the standard rate of 14 percent. Thus, the explicit subsidy is $0.20 per liter and the implicit subsidy is $0.75 per liter ($0.60 in undercharging for external costs and $0.15 per liter due to the VAT base including all social costs). If national consumption of gasoline is 100 million liters, then the total subsidy is ~$475 million ($100 and ~$375 million from explicit and implicit, respectively).

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 due to government support from surging energy prices. Subsidies are expected to decline in the near-term as energy price support policies is unwound and international prices fall, but then rise to $8.2 trillion by 2030 as the share of fuel consumption in emerging markets (where price gaps are generally larger) continues to climb. 18 percent of the 2022 subsidy reflects undercharging for supply costs (explicit subsidies) and 82 percent for undercharging for environmental costs and forgone consumption taxes (implicit subsidies), with the share of explicit falling to 8 percent by 2030.

Oh, that’s how.

[Sciguy]

There is another subsidy for fossil fuels that is rarely acknowledged. That is the cost of “stabilizing” the Middle East.  Here are a couple of articles that explain the issue and attempt to calculate the costs.

https://epicenter.wcfia.harvard.edu/blog/deal-keeps-oil-flowing

The Deal That Keeps the Oil Flowing

June 1, 2023

The bargain has been in play since 1945: Saudi Arabia promises a reliable supply of oil to the US in exchange for US security against great powers and regional ones. Today, this eighty-year pact is being tested.

Recent events have raised questions on the part of the Saudis concerning the reliability of the United States, and vice versa. National and global trends call into question the pragmatism of the bargain in light of a world order that is becoming increasingly multipolar. More critically, the once-reliable lines of communication between the two countries have become strained, as historic back channels have diminished due to issues of trust. Tensions between these long-time allies come at a time when the oil market is in a tight situation, as the expectation that the world would rapidly shift to sustainable energy sources has turned out to be too optimistic in the interim. In fact, according to the International Energy Agency, for the next 20–30 years, the world is going to need more of Saudi Arabia’s oil, not less—and the US is no exception.

How the Bargain Works, and When It Doesn’t
 
The oil-for-security bargain was formally sealed in February 1945, in a meeting between President Roosevelt and King AbdulAziz bin Saud. Coming out of World War II, the US was in need of more energy supplies, and faced increasing international competition for Saudi oil. At the same time, Saudi Arabia was entering a new global order and sought protection for its resources. A pact was made that has endured for almost eighty years.

During the 1980s, the US developed the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the US would use force to protect “American” interests in the Middle East, and it did. During the Iran-Iraq war, US military presence kept open the Straits of Hormuz—a strategic choke point connecting the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean—and that promise has continued to this day. The height of the Carter Doctrine was the 1991 Gulf war, when US troops defended Saudi oil fields and Saudi Arabia provided funds and fuel. 

Similarly, in 2002 when al Qaeda came to the Arabian Peninsula, the US provided FBI and other assistance to harden Aramco oil facilities and trained Saudis in counterterrorism. The US again provided security assistance after the 2012 Iranian cyber attack of the Saudi oil facilities.

However, 2019 saw a major deviation from the security policy. That year twenty-five Iranian drones and cruise missiles attacked the Abqaiq oil plants and the Khurais oil field, shutting down 5.7 million barrels or 5 percent of world crude and 50 percent of Saudi Aramco production. Although the attack on Saudi oil-producing and processing facilities was identified as Iranian from the debris, it was met with no significant US military response. President Trump stopped short of accusing Iran directly because the administration decided that a significant military response could profoundly destabilize the global oil system. Instead a very modest number of troops and equipment were dispatched to Saudi Arabia.

https://mepc.org/journal/cost-middle-east-conflict-1956-2002-what-us-has-spent

The Cost Of Middle East Conflict, 1956-2002: What The U.S. Has Spent
Thomas R. Staffer

The economic costs of U.S. policies in the Middle East have burgeoned and accumulated since the early 1970s. Identifiable costs now exceed $2.6 trillion –some four times as much as the entire Vietnam War, fortunately involving far fewer American casualties. Prior to 1973, the U.S. costs were modest and the profits were attractive, especially in relation to the substantial oil investment income and the growing export trade after World War II. That balance has changed radically, however, since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The costs have burgeoned, the economic advantages have been dissipated, and the total costs of U.S. policies have aggregated dramatically, accumulating to more than $2.6 trillion over the past 20-25 years.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html

America has spent $6.4 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001, a new study says
PUBLISHED WED, NOV 20 2019

WASHINGTON — American taxpayers have spent $6.4 trillion on post-9/11 wars and military action in the Middle East and Asia, according to a new study.

That total is $2 trillion more than the entire federal government spending during the recently completed 2019 fiscal year. The U.S. government spent $4.4 trillion during the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to the Treasury Department.

The report, from the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as a direct result of fighting. Of those, more than 335,000 have been civilians. Another 21 million people have been displaced due to violence.

Since renewables can be produced in country that they are consumed, all of those costs could be avoided.

[jai mitchell]

The costs have burgeoned, the economic advantages have been dissipated, and the total costs of U.S. policies have aggregated dramatically, accumulating to more than $2.6 trillion over the past 20-25 years.

with .6 trillion dollars going to Israel alone

[SeanAU]

There is another subsidy for fossil fuels that is rarely acknowledged. That is the cost of “stabilizing” the Middle East.  Here are a couple of articles that explain the issue and attempt to calculate the costs.

Wars and Politics in the AGW Solutions threads? Well I never. 

[kassy]

Since renewables can be produced in country that they are consumed, all of those costs could be avoided.

And that is the context.
Any detailed discussion of wars can go into politics.

[kiwichick16]

China's population may have peaked  .....young Chinese are often citing the cost of living as a reason for having fewer .....or no children

Possibly an aspiration to car ownership is part of the cited cost of living ?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-68002803

[gerontocrat]

China's population may have peaked  .....young Chinese are often citing the cost of living as a reason for having fewer .....or no children

Possibly an aspiration to car ownership is part of the cited cost of living ?

Possibly the opposite of aspiration to car ownership by young Chinese.

There are a significant number of young Chinese who have found out their University Education gained by many years of fiendishly hard study is NOT leading to well-paid jobs. Hence very high youth urban unemployment especially among the highly educated.

It seems there are an increasing number who have given up on the "dream". They don't want the jobs, they don't want cars, they just take odd low-skilled jobs when they need some cash. It's a sort of passive resistance to the State.

There is some evidence that car ownership, marriage and kids is a low priority for significant numbers of the educated young in other countries as well. Low birth rates is one of the results.

[kassy]

Most modern societies have this which implies some inherent degrowth.

[Sciguy]

Solar and batteries will make up 81% of additions to the US grid in 2024.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424#:~:text=We%20expect%20a%20record%20addition,installation%20in%20the%20United%20States.

FEBRUARY 15, 2024
Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024

Developers and power plant owners plan to add 62.8 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric-generating capacity in 2024, according to our latest Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. This addition would be 55% more added capacity than the 40.4 GW added in 2023 (the most since 2003) and points to a continued rise in industry activity. We expect solar to account for the largest share of new capacity in 2024, at 58%, followed by battery storage, at 23%.

Solar. We expect a record addition of utility-scale solar in 2024 if the scheduled 36.4 GW are added to the grid. This growth would almost double last year’s 18.4 GW increase, which was itself a record for annual utility-scale solar installation in the United States. As the effects of supply chain challenges and trade restrictions ease, solar continues to outpace capacity additions from other generating resources.

More than half of the new utility-scale solar capacity is planned for three states: Texas (35%), California (10%), and Florida (6%). Outside of these states, the Gemini solar facility in Nevada plans to begin operating in 2024. With a planned photovoltaic capacity of 690 megawatts (MW) and battery storage of 380 MW, it is expected to be the largest solar project in the United States when fully operational.

Battery storage. We also expect battery storage to set a record for annual capacity additions in 2024. We expect U.S. battery storage capacity to nearly double in 2024 as developers report plans to add 14.3 GW of battery storage to the existing 15.5 GW this year. In 2023, 6.4 GW of new battery storage capacity was added to the U.S. grid, a 70% annual increase.

Texas, with an expected 6.4 GW, and California, with an expected 5.2 GW, will account for 82% of the new U.S. battery storage capacity. Developers have scheduled the Menifee Power Bank (460.0 MW) at the site of the former Inland Empire Energy Center natural gas-fired power plant in Riverside, California, to come on line in 2024. With the rise of solar and wind capacity in the United States, the demand for battery storage continues to increase. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has also accelerated the development of energy storage by introducing investment tax credits (ITCs) for stand-alone storage. Prior to the IRA, batteries qualified for federal tax credits only if they were co-located with solar.

Wind. Operators report another 8.2 GW of wind capacity is scheduled to come on line in 2024. Following the record additions of more than 14.0 GW in both 2020 and 2021, wind capacity additions have slowed in the last two years.

Two large offshore wind plants scheduled to come on line this year are the 800-MW Vineyard Wind 1 off the coast of Massachusetts and the 130-MW South Fork Wind off the coast of New York. South Fork Wind, which developers expected to begin commercial operation last year, is now scheduled to come on line in March 2024.

Natural gas. For 2024, developers report 2.5 GW in planned natural gas capacity additions, the least new natural gas capacity in 25 years. Notably, in 2024, 79% of the natural gas capacity added is to come from simple-cycle, natural gas turbine (SCGT) plants. This year will be the first time since 2001 that combined-cycle capacity was not the predominant natural gas-fired technology. SCGT power plants provide effective grid support because they can start up, ramp up, and ramp down relatively quickly.

Nuclear. Start-up of the fourth reactor (1.1 GW) at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant, originally scheduled for last year, has moved to March 2024. Vogtle Unit 3 began commercial operation at the end of July last year.

[SeanAU]

Someone, anyone, please tell me how Batteries equate to or add any "new U.S. electric-generating capacity"? Please!   

We expect U.S. battery storage capacity to nearly double in 2024 as developers report plans to add 14.3 GW of battery storage to the existing 15.5 GW this year. In 2023, 6.4 GW of new battery storage capacity was added to the U.S. grid, a 70% annual increase.

 

So a 92% increase on total insitu, and a 223% increase on what was added in 2023.

I expect to win the Mega Jackpot lotto this year as well. We must be remain positive.

How is this possible? Because Federal Govt Tax Credits means that new RE plant can basically be built at ZERO COST to the owners -- the taxpayers pay for building these things and installing something 95% of the total costs (based on checks done last year of how this giveaway welfare system operates) the mega corporations get paid back within a couple of years -- Guaranteed Free Money.

It's a no brainer, a nice little money earner said Mario the Mafia Don ..... whether the proposed infrastructure is a good deal or a bad deal in the long term... this is irrelevant and of no to little consequence to anyone involved. 

The only reason these US projects are even "profitable" is because it essentially costs nothing in Capex to build them at this time!!! Think about that long term. And think about the rest of the world being unable to afford to build such unprofitable and non-financial projects.

[kassy]

Batteries extend solar energy use across the darker hours.

FF projects are not a free market thing either and the public pays for those too in subsidies and tax breaks. Then there are added costs in health care, polluted groundwater etc which are not priced in.

The FF driven reality we are so used to is often discussed as some idealistic best world which it is not at all.

It would also not be that hard to help countries in Africa and Asia build up solar capacity.

[gerontocrat]

FF projects are not a free market thing either and the public pays for those too in subsidies and tax breaks. Then there are added costs in health care, polluted groundwater etc which are not priced in.

Also not included in the costs of FF projects are the costs, financial and other, of the increasing frequency of and intensity of extreme weather events.

The reported costs usually seem to only include insured losses. Real costs are obviously higher, including indirect costs such as vastly higher house and property insurance premiums.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/time-series

Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters

During 2023, there were 28 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disaster events. These events include: nighteen severe storm events (tornado outbreaks, high wind, hailstorms), four flood events, two tropical cyclones, one wildfire event, one winter storm/cold wave and one drought/heat wave.

This historic number of events exceeds the prior annual record number of inflation-adjusted billion-dollar disaster events (i.e., 22 events in 2020).
The total cost from these 28 events was $92.9 billion. The total cost of the last seven years (2017-2023) exceeds $1.0 trillion while the costs for 376 events from 1980-2023 exceeds $2.660 trillion (inflation-adjusted to 2023 dollars).

Caution should be used in interpreting trends based on this graphic for a variety of reasons. For example, inflation has affected our ability to compare costs over time. To reflect this, the graphic also shows events with less than $1 billion in damage at the time of the event, but after adjusting for inflation (Consumer Price Index), now exceed $1 billion in damages.

The number and cost of disasters are increasing over time due to a combination of increased exposure (i.e., values at risk of possible loss), vulnerability (i.e., how much damage does the intensity (wind speed, flood depth) at a location cause) and that climate change is increasing the frequency of some types of extremes that lead to billion-dollar disasters (NCA 2018).

[Sigmetnow]

< In the [Tesla] Master Plan Part 3 whitepaper it shows that globally, to transition the world to sustainable energy, 22.9 TWh of lithium ion energy storage is needed with an average duration of 8 hours.
 
That results in a total global production requirement of 2.3 TWh/yr of batteries.  That is, the batteries will last 10 years.
 
However, Tesla has up to a 20 year warranty on their batteries, meaning 50% less production should be required.
 
Additionally, most of the storage will likely be 4 hour storage, which means that it will cycle twice as fast and therefore twice as often, meaning another ~50% less.
 
So, when I model it out, I get more like ~736 GWh/yr of global battery production required for grid storage rather than 2300 GWh.
 
Am I missing something in the whitepaper? 

 
Drew Baglino @baglino [SVP of Powertrain and Energy at Tesla]
 
46TWh total required for stationary batteries (Table 9), at 20 year life, or 2.3 TWh/yr (Table 12).

2/6/24, https://x.com/baglino/status/1755063825299337464
 
https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-3

[gerontocrat]

< In the [Tesla] Master Plan Part 3 whitepaper it shows that globally, to transition the world to sustainable energy, 22.9 TWh of lithium ion energy storage is needed with an average duration of 8 hours.

The calculation by Drew Baglino in the above post starts by using the average battery back-up storage life of 8 hours.

But electricity supply is demanded 24/7. Most problems are of short duration, but sometimes last much longer.

For example in the UK in winter most renewable energy comes from wind power. Rarely but every so often the Continental High pushes westwards into and over the UK, and the wind turbines slow and over much of the country can even stop - for days. 8 hours backup can't hack it.

The above calculation starts with a bad assumption and therefore fails. That is one justification for  the UK Government pursuing the development of nuclear power.

Methinks each and every grid operator will have to develop its own strategy, which may well include connections between grids and mergers of grids and optimised energy sources.

[Sigmetnow]

< In the [Tesla] Master Plan Part 3 whitepaper it shows that globally, to transition the world to sustainable energy, 22.9 TWh of lithium ion energy storage is needed with an average duration of 8 hours.

The calculation by Drew Baglino in the above post starts by using the average battery back-up storage life of 8 hours.

But electricity supply is demanded 24/7. Most problems are of short duration, but sometimes last much longer.

For example in the UK in winter most renewable energy comes from wind power. Rarely but every so often the Continental High pushes westwards into and over the UK, and the wind turbines slow and over much of the country can even stop - for days. 8 hours backup can't hack it.

The above calculation starts with a bad assumption and therefore fails. That is one justification for  the UK Government pursuing the development of nuclear power.

Stationary batteries will not be the only source of energy — the calculations in the white paper do not assume they will be.

Even during wind doldrums, the sun will still be shining upon solar panels.  Non-stationary EV batteries will have power to share. Plus, more efficient technology means less total power will be needed for a sustainable economy than is required for today’s fossil-fuel intense one.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/master-plan-part-3

So, yes, various regions will overbuild various power generation supplies, and others will build less.  As Tony Seba terms it, “Superpower.”
 
——
Related:
 

In early 2023, Tesla Megapack delivery wait times were about 2 years. Now, likely as a result of Tesla's Lathrop Megafactory ramping up, wait times are ~8 months.

Tesla's new Shanghai Megapack factory is expected to finish construction in Q3 of this year and will eventually double the company's Megapack production capacity to 80GWh. Once fully ramped, the Lathrop and Shanghai Megactories will collectively generate over $25 billion in revenue annually.

About Megapack: Enables low-cost, high-density commercial and utility projects at large scale. It ships ready to install with fully integrated battery modules, inverters, and thermal systems. pic.twitter.com/pdjer18Bkj 

2/18/24, 2:34 PM  https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1759300484035141910

[Sigmetnow]

Australia
 
Works begin on giant Queensland battery at site of former coal plant

Construction has started on the 250MW/500MWh Swanbank Battery south of Brisbane, setting in progress one of Queensland’s biggest battery energy storage systems, and the first to be built by the state’s publicly owned utility CleanCo.

The $330 million big battery is being developed by CleanCo in partnership with Tesla and Yurika at the site of the former Swanbank B coal-fired power plant outside Ipswich.

Once part of a precinct of coal-fired power stations – Swanbank A, B, C and D – the gas-fired Swanbank E remains the only operating power station on the site.

The state Labor government says the big battery will have the capacity to store enough energy – largely from solar generated across local rooftops – to power more than two-thirds of Ipswich for two hours each night when demand rises as the sun sets.
…
“Renewables are driving down the spot wholesale price of power below zero, which is why we will continue to invest in them.” …

https://reneweconomy.com.au/works-begin-on-giant-queensland-tesla-battery-at-site-of-former-coal-plant/

[gerontocrat]

IEA Electricity Data to Novenber 2023.

The focus is mostly on wind+solar. For a change, here is a look at Hydro+Nuclear in China, India, the USA and the OECD excluding the USA.

The table attached has the data. Overall, Hydro+Nuclear has declined as a perecntage of total electricity produced in the period Nov 17 to Nov 2023.

Unless things change dramatically, growth in hydro & nuclear power will not be major contributors to energy transition for the next few years at least.

click image twice for full enlargement

[gerontocrat]

From the WMO 2023 State of the Climate Report

On finance required to meet 2030 IPCC targets 2030 - a lot

[interstitial]

US solar reaches new one day high despite the fact it normally peaks in June.

[gerontocrat]

US solar reaches new one day high despite the fact it normally peaks in June.

Just maybe at last we will see in 2024 the sort of increase we have been waiting for for sooooo long.

Any ideas how wind might do this year?

[interstitial]

US solar reaches new one day high despite the fact it normally peaks in June.

Just maybe at last we will see in 2024 the sort of increase we have been waiting for for sooooo long.

Any ideas how wind might do this year?

Wind growth is slow the land based wind is slow (600 mw a month green line not green bars) and unlikely to increase much with all the nimby resistance and false environmental concerns. Offshore wind is looking to take off but since the infrastructure (ports and ships) is being built the bulk of projects are a few years out (mostly 2026 or beyond). Given the upcoming elections things may be delayed. Waiting for interest rates to decline hopefully later this year may also delay things.

Planned solar additions do well through the end of June but slow after that. The pipeline of new projects has not been growing I think interest rates are the biggest issue though securing US content solar panels may be slowing things as well. Massive expansions and new US solar manufacturing is occurring but it takes time. The trailing twelve month average shown in the chart (yellow line but not yellow bars) will reach over 3 gigawatts a month about  the time the growth slows down again. I still think monthly growth should be over 10 gw a month but even that would not be close to enough to reach my original goal by 2030.


Wind was about 0.8 gw when Biden took office and 0.6 gw now. Solar was about 1.1 gw a month when Biden took over but I think it will go higher than 3 gw if he gets reelected.

[gerontocrat]

Thanks for the info & graphs, interstitial.

The nails in the coffin for 2030 emission targets (not just in the USA) are pretty well all nailed down, but as they say every little helps (a little).

[gerontocrat]

China's Bureau of National Statistics have produced energy data for February 2024*

In the first 2 months of 2024 elecricity production was 10.2% higher than in the first 2 months of 2023, and thermal electricity up by 10.7%. However coal production in Jan-Feb 2024 was 3.9% less  than in Jan-Feb 2023.

This influenced the growth rates for the total production March 2023 to Feb 2024 over production Mar 2022 to March 2023 :-
- coal production up 1.9%,
- total electricity up 7.4%,
- thermal electricity up 8.5%,.
- wind+solar up 17.5%
- hydropower down 4.6%

Although wind+solar as a % of total electricity increase from 11.4% to 12.5%, thermal electricity produced increased by almost 500 TWH in that period.

Peak thermal?
The data I have (being announcements by the main mining companies on coal production and various estimates on China wind+solar and grid investments) still ends up with a guesstimate of thermal electricity only declining from 2028 onwards at a gradually accelerating rate. The most crtical parameter is total elctricity demand. If annual demand growth slipped down from my parameter of 5% to 4%, peak thermal electricity would be reached in 2025.

* China does not publish January monthly data.

click images to enlarge

[interstitial]

This topic popped up late last year but is now showing up with more specifics.

After more than 30 years of falling or flat demand for electricity, forecasts say the nation will need the equivalent of about 34 new nuclear plants, or 38 gigawatts, over the next five years to power data centers and manufacturing and electrify buildings and vehicles, according to filings made to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and compiled by Grid Strategies.

https://www.power-grid.com/generation/report-more-than-38-gw-of-peak-demand-growth-expected-through-2028/

Dominion still expects overall demand for power to grow by 85% over the next 15 years as consumers shift


The TVA has contracts with additional centers not yet built that will increase the need for electricity by 40% to 50%.


Georgia Power, which has more than 2.7 million customers, told regulators in 2022 it would need the equivalent of an extra single mid-sized power plant for the rest of the decade. But late last year, it said it will need 17 times more electricity – the equivalent of four new nuclear units – because of new data centers and manufacturing.

The nationwide estimates don’t necessarily include the growth of hard-to-track but energy-hogging cryptocurrency or cannabis farming, which are estimated to be using up to 2.3% and 1%

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/21/why-is-us-energy-demand-soaring-climate-crisis

[interstitial]

I think I got suckered by the misleading article the growth percentages quoted are second order or growth in growth rate. If growth is 1% and it grows to 1.8% that is an 80% increase.

[gerontocrat]

The US EIA have issued energy data to December 2023

In the end it's all about CO2 emissions, so I've made the effort to add the EIA table to my spreadsheets and make a graph (1st graph attached).

I leave it to others to opinionate on whether the US can reduce CO2 annual emissions from 6,000 million tons (in 2005) to 3,000 million tons in 2030.

FACT SHEET: President Biden Sets 2030 Greenhouse Gas ...
The White House (.gov)
https://www.whitehouse.gov › 2021/04/22 › fact-sheet-...
22 Apr 2021 — Today, President Biden will announce a new target for the United States to achieve a 50-52 percent reduction from 2005 levels in economy-wide ...

The wind+solar graph attached shows solar doing OK but wind in the doldrums.

Coal declines but natural gas does not.

But this year........?

[wehappyfew]

Thanks for the graphs, Gero...

I have questions:

1. First graph, there are two purple trend lines, one with R^2 of 0.821, appears to be a quadratic, curving down, fitted to the "Total CO2 Emissions", but there is a second with R^2 of 0.245, curving slightly up, what does that fit to?

2. Third graph, pinkish area labeled "The Rest" ... what does that include?

TIA

[gerontocrat]

Thanks for the graphs, Gero...

I have questions:

1. First graph, there are two purple trend lines, one with R^2 of 0.821, appears to be a quadratic, curving down, fitted to the "Total CO2 Emissions", but there is a second with R^2 of 0.245, curving slightly up, what does that fit to?

2. Third graph, pinkish area labeled "The Rest" ... what does that include?

TIA

R2 = 0.821 is polynomial (x3)trend
R2 = 0.245 is linear trend

The rest is mainly biomass which many classify as renewable, but I do not.

[interstitial]

EIA predicts coal declines from 17% in 2023 to 15% of generation this year and 14% in 2025. Natural gas stays flat at 42% in 2023 and 2024 declining slightly to 41% in 2025.
Solar increases from 4% in 2023 to 6% in 2024 and 7% implied in 2025.
Other sources about the same.


More succinctly EIA predicts Solar will displace some coal this year and next with a slight decline in gas next year.


This predictions is consistent with the daily values to date.

[interstitial]

A cold snap in January lead to a sharp increase in fossil fuel generation compared to last year. Daily generation numbers show fossil fuel generation trending lower than last year since.