Hard Facts Puncture Fantasies?

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
61

Please reread more carefully. The article was from 15 years later, 2018, and the growth had been substantial. It was at the 2018 rates that it would take four centuries.

DB2

===================================================

Your experts state:
“The study also notes that the United States adds roughly 10 gigawatts of new energy generation capacity per year. That includes all types, natural gas as well as solar and wind. But even at that rate, it would take more than 100 years to rebuild the existing electricity grid, to say nothing of the far larger one required in the decades to come.”

Your experts assumptions are wrong all over the place. For example, EIA says that in 2022 will add 4.61 times the new energy generation capacity that your expert assumed. It will not take 400 years.

In 2022, we expect 46.1 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added to the U.S. power grid, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818

Jaak

1 Like
62

Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.

Jaak,

Safe to assume again and again this will be ignored. LOL

Have a rec.

1 Like
63

Jaak:“In 2022, we expect 46.1 gigawatts (GW) of new utility-scale electric generating capacity to be added to the U.S. power grid, according to our Preliminary Monthly Electric Generator Inventory. Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.”

If we derate the solar and wind by 65% to 70%…that’s not a lot. And what provides the power when the sun doesn’t shine (at least half the time and usually 60+% of time since solar cells don’t work at night) and when the wind dies (65-70% of the time). That’s likely peak output and must be derated significantly with lower wind speeds and cloudy conditions even during many days.

t.

64

Almost half of the planned 2022 capacity additions are solar, followed by natural gas at 21% and wind at 17%.
—
Safe to assume again and again this will be ignored.

Not ignored; it’s just that it won’t get you to net-zero by 2035 or 2050.

DB2

65

Not ignored; it’s just that it won’t get you to net-zero by 2035 or 2050.

DB2

===============================================

Are you sure? You need to look into current studies not the old studies you like to post.

PG&E has committed to be net-zero by 2040. Most of the big utilities in USA have committed to be net-zero by 2050.

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-5-biggest-u…

Jaak

66

Not ignored; it’s just that it won’t get you to net-zero by 2035 or 2050.
—
Are you sure? You need to look into current studies not the old studies you like to post.

From the IEA last year:
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
The number of countries announcing pledges to achieve net zero emissions over the coming decades continues to grow. But the pledges by governments to date – even if fully achieved – fall well short of what is required to bring global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050 and give the world an even chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

However, from the head of the UN, three months ago:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114322
“Keeping 1.5 alive requires a 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by mid-century”, he said, highlighting how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatened to become a huge setback for the concerted effort to speed up climate action. According to current national commitments however, global emissions are set to increase by almost 14% during the rest of the decade…

From two months ago:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-halve-energy-climate-catastrop…
“We have a situation where renewable electricity and total energy consumption are growing quite rapidly alongside one another. So renewables are chasing a retreating target that keeps getting further away,” says Mark Diesendorf, author of the study and Honorary Associate Professor at the School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Arts, Design & Architecture. “The research shows it is simply impossible for renewable energy to overtake that retreating target.”

From six months ago:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/10/211014141949.htm
The production of renewable energy is increasing every year. But after analyzing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.

DB2
Running in place

1 Like
67

Where we are now:
1.2°C warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
417 ppm Global Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
25 ppm increase from 2012 to 2022
32 Gt global energy-related CO2 emissions

Where we might be headed. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide [ppm] by SSP:

      **current** scenario  scenario  **scenario** scenario  scenario
year   **trend** SSP1-1.9  SSP1-2.6  **SSP2-4.5** SSP3-7.0  SSP5-8.5
2020   **416**   416       416      **416**   416       416
2030   **443**   428       433      **444**   456       456
2040   **473**   430       446      **472**   496       500
2050   **506**   428       454      **496**   542       559
2060   **542**   420       454      **517**   593       630

The current trend looks close to SSP2-4.5
(Will 2030 be closer to 440 or 450? Adding 2.5 per year to 418 in 2022 https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html is around 440.)

Temperature anomalies (degrees C) relative to 1850-1900. WG1 AR6 assessed very likely (5-95%) ranges:

      CO2 emissions        scenario  2021-2040   2041-2060   2081-2100
    net zero by 2050       SSP1-1.9  1.2 to 1.7  1.2 to 2.0  1.0 to 1.8
    net zero by 2075       SSP1-2.6  1.2 to 1.8  1.3 to 2.2  1.3 to 2.4
**current levels until 2050  SSP2-4.5  1.2 to 1.8  1.6 to 2.5  2.1 to 3.5**
      double by 2100       SSP3-7.0  1.2 to 1.8  1.7 to 2.6  2.8 to 4.6
      double by 2050       SSP5-8.5  1.3 to 1.9  1.9 to 3.0  3.3 to 5.7

— links —
“Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76° F (0.98° Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0°F (13.9°C) and 2.14°F (1.19°C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/…

Recent Global CO2 Trend, June 08: 417.38 ppm
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html

“Despite the decline in 2020, global energy-related CO2 emissions remained at 31.5 Gt, which contributed to CO2 reaching its highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts per million in 2020 – around 50% higher than when the industrial revolution began.”
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-em…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Socioeconomic_Pathways

1 Like
68

DB2,

In my reply to my post about your experts being wrong, you list a bunch of links to Global Energy not reaching to net-zero by 2050.

I think you often get mixed up between global energy and US energy and US electrical energy. You post one and then backs it up with another. It is really stupid of me to argue with a person who is so confused or plays games with facts.

For example, you earlier referenced an expert who said US power generation will take 400 years to reach net zero at 10 GW of electrical capacity per year. When I showed you that in 2022 US is adding 46.1 GW of new electrical capacity and that six major utilities in the US are committed to net-zero by 2040 and 2050 you replied by grabbing for straws and list bunch of links to Global Energy not reaching net-zero by 2050.

Please try to stay on one subject in future arguments, and keep your units for energy, power and capacity consistent.

Jaak

1 Like
69

I think you often get mixed up between global energy and US energy and US electrical energy.

I don’t, but there is no reason we can’t discuss both. There is, after all, only one atmosphere.

Focusing more narrowly (on California) you started a thread about PG&E going for net zero by 2040. I noted that the article said “Pacific Gas & Electric’s plan is to take as much carbon out of the air as it emits by 2040…” and asked how they plan to remove carbon dioxide from the air. There was no reply. Do they know or is it just hand waving?

When I showed you that in 2022 US is adding 46.1 GW of new electrical capacity and that six major utilities in the US are committed to net-zero by 2040 and 2050 you replied by grabbing for straws and list bunch of links to Global Energy not reaching net-zero by 2050.

The OP of this thread was about global energy (“The belief that 84% of global energy supplied by oil and gas can be replaced by so-called ‘green energy’ is a fantasy.”) and I have mostly been posting about the global situation.

So why the world-wide focus on net-zero by 2050? As the IEA explained, that would give the world a 50:50 chance of keeping the temperature rise to 1.5°C. And, indeed, that is what the pledges made at the Paris climate conference were intended to achieve.

As the head of the United Nations told us earlier this year, “Keeping 1.5 alive requires a 45% reduction in global emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by mid-century.” He went on to point out that the world is not on that path. “According to current national commitments however, global emissions are set to increase by almost 14% during the rest of the decade.”

Other studies agree. “But after analyzing the growth rates of wind and solar power in 60 countries, researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and Lund University in Sweden and Central European University in Vienna, Austria, conclude that virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.”

To repeat, “virtually no country is moving sufficiently fast to avoid global warming of 1.5°C or even 2°C.” And ‘virtually no country’ includes the United States.

Capisce?

DB2
Running to stay in place

70

Please try to stay on one subject in future arguments, and keep your units for energy, power and capacity consistent.

Those are the problems with being long.

Being long the wrong things gets amateurs to double down.

71

From 2009: ‘Apocalyptic climate predictions’ mislead the public, say experts

Gotham will be a Southern-fried hot mess by 2020, climate pros warn
www.nydailynews.com/new-york/2020-forecast-hell-high-water-c…
Climate change is real — and it could turn the city into a flood-prone danger zone with summers as sweltering as the deep South’s in the not-too-distant future, according to an expert panel of scientists. The panel, which Mayor Bloomberg tasked with studying weather patterns in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, predicts the greatest threats to Gotham will be catastrophic heat waves and frequent bouts of heavy rains for days on end.

The bad weather patterns should kick in as early as 2020, according to the findings released on Monday. In that year, the city will see an average temperature of 57 degrees — up from the current 54 — and 10% more rainfall. That rainfall will come with an alarming, nearly 1-foot rise in the already high sea level — which will likely increase the city’s flood risk.

DB2
Actual sea level rise, 2010-2020: 5 mm or 0.2 inches
www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html

4 Likes