Energy in 2030; 15 year prediction

[UberEV1]

. . . As I posted in my prediction I think we'll still need fossil fuels in 15 years...

And well beyond that too. I am hopeful we soon recognize the need to reserve fossil fuels for those applications where alternative options are not yet viable, for example air transportation and transoceanic shipping. This recognition would then drive faster adoption of renewables for all our terra firma-based demand and increased focus on ramping bio-fuel options.

 

[rays427]

The EIA is NOTORIOUS for under predicting renewable growth. The GREAT thing is that you can actually dig up past predictions and see how close they were... most are HILARIOUSLY BAD. We've got ~10x more solar than the EIA was predicting ~10 years ago.

EIA Forecasts Consistently Underestimate RE and EE Compared to Market Realities

View attachment 89158

If the EIA is your sole source I can see how you would be under the mistaken impression that we need fossil fuels for 'the foreseeable future' :wink:

There is no technical or economic reason we can't reduce our dependency by ~90% by 2040. Only cultural.

The EIA did have one estimate as high as 200 GW for Solar and 500GW for wind. If you use this graph the Solar Industry predicts about 6 GW per year so you would have 150 GW in 2040. This is still a drop in the bucket that is needed to get rid of gasoline for cars in the US. Especially when you consider that this amount is only available in the summer. Per your 5-1 system output the available Solar would only be 30 GW during the lowest month. Wind of course will assist so from what I can see you might get this down to 2-1 on a monthly basis. On a daily basis this would be much higher. Assuming Wind and Solar combined produce 1/2 the amount from Winter to Summer you need about 2000 GW to handle winter needs to replace all cars. Even if you can get to this amount you still have fossil fuels in heating, planes, diesel trucks, etc. In addition the total energy use in the world will most likely increase as the population increases and third world countries energy use per person goes up. So again I see fossil fuels needed for quite a while.

 

[nwdiver]

The EIA did have one estimate as high as 200 GW for Solar and 500GW for wind. If you use this graph the Solar Industry predicts about 6 GW per year so you would have 150 GW in 2040. This is still a drop in the bucket that is needed to get rid of gasoline for cars in the US. Especially when you consider that this amount is only available in the summer. Per your 5-1 system output the available Solar would only be 30 GW during the lowest month. Wind of course will assist so from what I can see you might get this down to 2-1 on a monthly basis. On a daily basis this would be much higher. Assuming Wind and Solar combined produce 1/2 the amount from Winter to Summer you need about 2000 GW to handle winter needs to replace all cars. Even if you can get to this amount you still have fossil fuels in heating, planes, diesel trucks, etc. In addition the total energy use in the world will most likely increase as the population increases and third world countries energy use per person goes up. So again I see fossil fuels needed for quite a while.

That's not a linear increase... installed solar capacity is doubling every ~30 months. Even optimistic projections usually fall short of reality. >2TW of installed solar capacity by 2040 is certainly achievable. Even I'm not arguing that we'll be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2040... but even aviation can start to ween itself off with biofuels and this if they can scale it up....

The point here is that fossil fuels are a necessary evil that are less necessary everyday. If we don't reduce our fossil fuel consumption to the single digits by ~2040 that's on us. If you CAN use solar then you SHOULD use solar; If you don't NEED to use fossil fuels then you SHOULDN'T use fossil fuels.

It sadly goes against our 'merican culture... but we need to elevate social responsibility above personal choice where climate is concerned.

Which story do you want to tell your grandkids? Which side of history do you want to be on?

 

[rays427]

That's not a linear increase... installed solar capacity is doubling every ~30 months. Even optimistic projections usually fall short of reality. >2TW of installed solar capacity by 2040 is certainly achievable. Even I'm not arguing that we'll be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2040... but even aviation can start to ween itself off with biofuels and this if they can scale it up....

The point here is that fossil fuels are a necessary evil that are less necessary everyday. If we don't reduce our fossil fuel consumption to the single digits by ~2040 that's on us. If you CAN use solar then you SHOULD use solar; If you don't NEED to use fossil fuels then you SHOULDN'T use fossil fuels.

It sadly goes against our 'merican culture... but we need to elevate social responsibility above personal choice where climate is concerned.

Which story do you want to tell your grandkids? Which side of history do you want to be on?

A Utility Scale Solar array is now being built in California. It's 579 megawatts, takes 5 sq miles at a cost of $2.2 billion. So if you take that cost and build 2TW solar the cost would be $7.6 Trillion. Cut it in half for future improvements it's still a lot of money. In addition you would need storage to power the system at night and days with little sunlight. The low estimate of future battery storage cost at $100/kwh. I have no idea how much storage would be needed but assuming it's 50% of the low output or 500Gwh the cost would be $50 Trillion. This sounds like too much so tell me where I'm wrong. Electric cars would provide some of the storage but you would need to be able to charge them in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. Air conditioning would work well with solar but heating would be a problem since you generally need more heat at night. You need to upgrade all electric transmission systems. You also need all the new electric cars. So the overall cost of converting to solar would be quite expensive. Wind would probably be cheaper but has some of the same problems as solar.

 

[nwdiver]

This sounds like too much so tell me where I'm wrong.

Certainly... :wink:

Solar;
I'm assuming you're referring to the Topaz solar farm... that project was started in 2011 when solar was >$5/w. The average cost of the project was ~$4/w. A new 80MW project in Texas is projected to cost $100M or $1.25/w. First Solar is predicting <$1/w installed by 2017. 2TW of solar built over the next 25 years is unlikely to cost >$2T.

Storage;
Storage isn't just batteries... there's thermal storage, pumped storage, virtual storage... all kinds. I even heard today about furniture that's designed to act as thermal storage. We've barely scratched the surface of storage since there really isn't much of an incentive right now. Tesla claims that you can run the US on renewables with 16TWh of storage. ~13 minute mark. @$100/kWh that's ~$1.6T

Cost;
Many of these investments are cost negative... if spending $50M on storage in a switchyard means you don't have to spend $100M on another transmission line to meet higher demand... those batteries didn't really cost anything. If spending $15k on solar saves you $45k over 20 years... A lot of storage is also SUPER CHEAP... a co-worker spent $20 on a timer for his hot water heater... that's $5/kWh for storage! Worst case let's assume ~$4T... that's $160B/yr over the next 25 years... the utilities currently spend $100B/yr keeping the current system running. We spend $600B/yr on the military. PLUS much of that investment won't be borne by the utilities... Facebook is buying solar, Goldman Sachs is buying solar, Google, Telsa, Apple... etc, etc...

No doubt Solar will be the star of this show... but wind, hydro, tidal... they all play a part and I'm sure we'll keep a few nuclear plants around... you know... for old times sake :wink: there are a lot of tools in the tool box...

Absolutely no reason this can't get done....

 

[Saghost]

A Utility Scale Solar array is now being built in California. It's 579 megawatts, takes 5 sq miles at a cost of $2.2 billion. So if you take that cost and build 2TW solar the cost would be $7.6 Trillion. Cut it in half for future improvements it's still a lot of money. In addition you would need storage to power the system at night and days with little sunlight. The low estimate of future battery storage cost at $100/kwh. I have no idea how much storage would be needed but assuming it's 50% of the low output or 500Gwh the cost would be $50 Trillion. This sounds like too much so tell me where I'm wrong. Electric cars would provide some of the storage but you would need to be able to charge them in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. Air conditioning would work well with solar but heating would be a problem since you generally need more heat at night. You need to upgrade all electric transmission systems. You also need all the new electric cars. So the overall cost of converting to solar would be quite expensive. Wind would probably be cheaper but has some of the same problems as solar.

A GWh is a million kWh. Therefore, $100 per kWh would mean $100 million per GWh. Which would make the total cost $50 Billion. Somehow you end up paying $100 per Wh in your math.

 

[ThosEM]

Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post

some great graphics in a Washington post article today...

 

[Saghost]

Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post

some great graphics in a Washington post article today...

As you say, some very interesting visuals. What would be really nice would be to see those same charts for last year, five years ago, ten, twenty, and fifiy years ago - get a sense of how things are changing.

 

[rays427]

A GWh is a million kWh. Therefore, $100 per kWh would mean $100 million per GWh. Which would make the total cost $50 Billion. Somehow you end up paying $100 per Wh in your math.

Thanks for the correction it was late at night and as I indicated it seemed way to high. However even $50 billion isn't chump change. I do not agree with the idea that the utilities will save much since in general if you increase the electric use you will need more power lines and systems to regulate them. All of which will cost $$$.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the correction it was late at night and as I indicated it seemed way to high. However even $50 billion isn't chump change. I do not agree with the idea that the utilities will save much since in general if you increase the electric use you will need more power lines and systems to regulate them. All of which will cost $$$.

As soon as I posted this I thought about it and $50 billion is probably chump change in the overall cost of trying to reduce fossil fuels.

 

[Saghost]

Thanks for the correction it was late at night and as I indicated it seemed way to high. However even $50 billion isn't chump change. I do not agree with the idea that the utilities will save much since in general if you increase the electric use you will need more power lines and systems to regulate them. All of which will cost $$$.

- - - Updated - - -



As soon as I posted this I thought about it and $50 billion is probably chump change in the overall cost of trying to reduce fossil fuels.

Well, that depends...

The interesting thing with solar and grid storage is they don't have to be centrally located.

If the utility encourages home solar installations and then chooses to put something like the 400 kWh pallets Tesla is making at the local substations, suddenly they don't need as many power lines into the neighborhoods - peak surges will be handled by the local battery pack, and the utility just has to meet the average neighborhood demand as modified by any solar installations from central sources and over the big wires.

This is what I'm expecting to see - a move to less centralization and more interconnectivity among the grids as batteries and solar continue to become cheaper.
Walter

 

[ggr]

Thanks for the correction it was late at night and as I indicated it seemed way to high. However even $50 billion isn't chump change. I do not agree with the idea that the utilities will save much since in general if you increase the electric use you will need more power lines and systems to regulate them. All of which will cost $$$.

- - - Updated - - -



As soon as I posted this I thought about it and $50 billion is probably chump change in the overall cost of trying to reduce fossil fuels.

You can do this 20 times or more for the cost of one Iraq war.

 

[Bangor Bob]

Well, that depends...

The interesting thing with solar and grid storage is they don't have to be centrally located.

If the utility encourages home solar installations and then chooses to put something like the 400 kWh pallets Tesla is making at the local substations, suddenly they don't need as many power lines into the neighborhoods - peak surges will be handled by the local battery pack, and the utility just has to meet the average neighborhood demand as modified by any solar installations from central sources and over the big wires.

This is what I'm expecting to see - a move to less centralization and more interconnectivity among the grids as batteries and solar continue to become cheaper.
Walter

Sized appropriately, and with enough solar in the area, the neighborhood's evening peak could disappear from the grid most nights. The utility may decide it's worthwhile to install local storage and lease space for panels on your roof (and all your neighbors) rather than to pay for peak hour generation. Depends on what they get paid for. If they get paid for shifting kWh from producers to consumers, then it won't happen. If they get paid to deliver reliable and affordable electric service, then they have incentive to do it.

 

[DriverOne]

Mapping how the United States generates its electricity - Washington Post

some great graphics in a Washington post article today...

Very clear. Why does Florida generate so much power, and why so much by oil?

 

[Dutchie]

So... I thought this might be kind of fun. Plus I'll get to look back (This forum will still be searchable... right?) and see how right or wrong we were...

Energy PRODUCTION;
- Nuclear power will only exist in tightly regulated markets. ~1/3 of the current fleet will be shut down. Vogtle and Summer will be the last fission plants ever built.
- Wind will continue to expand but will be largely overshadowed (no pun intended) by solar; The primary benefit to wind will be to decrease storage requirements.

SOLAR;
- Module ~$0.20/w; Inverter ~$0.10/w; Racking ~$0.20/w. Labor ~$1/w residential; ~$0.30 utility.
- Average module efficiency ~25% with ~30% for premium modules.
- Daytime electricity costs will be NEGATIVE (fee for exporting) for >1hr/day for >10% of the US.
- Solar Installs will begin to level off at ~200GW/yr. >1TW of installed solar. Solar PV >30% of total generation.

Generation Breakdown...
Solar ~40%
Wind ~25%
Nuclear ~10%
Coal ~5%
Natural Gas + Hydro ~20%


Energy CONSUMPTION;
- Supercharger BAYS outnumber gas stations ~2:1.
- EV cheaper than ICE counterpart (~2025 parity).
- ~75% of car (not truck) sales are EVs
- Light Duty trucks & SUVS <25%. Mostly PHEVs.
- Most public chargers are free 10am - 2pm
- PHEV semi-trucks make their appearance (<5% of fleet)
- Toyota continues to say Hydrogen is the future... :wink:

Great write-up. I think the % of nuclear is way too small. There are some exciting activities in this files like Transatomic power Homepage - Transatomic a start-up also funded by Peter Thiel. It promises to use existing nuclear waste and produce electricity at a cost lower than coal.

Like discussed in other threads there are some exciting start-ups working on nuclear fusion of which I think Lawrenceville Plasma physics' Focus Fusion is the most promising. Scientific feasibility could be proven within a year. FUSION | Empowering The World

just one of these has to come through in order to see a revolution in energy supply.

 

[mspohr]

Great write-up. I think the % of nuclear is way too small. There are some exciting activities in this files like Transatomic power Homepage - Transatomic a start-up also funded by Peter Thiel. It promises to use existing nuclear waste and produce electricity at a cost lower than coal.

Like discussed in other threads there are some exciting start-ups working on nuclear fusion of which I think Lawrenceville Plasma physics' Focus Fusion is the most promising. Scientific feasibility could be proven within a year. FUSION | Empowering The World

just one of these has to come through in order to see a revolution in energy supply.

One can keep hope alive for nuclear but experience has shown that it is just too expensive and complicated. The real revolution is solar and wind with battery storage.

 

[Skotty]

Borrowing format from original poster (some of you won't like my more pessimistic predictions):


Energy PRODUCTION;
- Nuclear fission power will be reduced by attrition. ~10% of the current fleet will be shut down due to age. A few places will be toying with advanced breeder reactors, but will be a niche market.
- Nuclear fusion will be proven viable by the ITER project. Followup DEMO project (prototype commercial fusion reactor) will be underway but naturally behind schedule and over budget.
- Other forms of fusion will make progress but will still be at the research lab level.
- Wind will continue to expand slowly but growth will be largely overshadowed by solar.

SOLAR;
- Costs will be about %20 lower than they are today, but subsidies will be fewer.
- Module efficiency about 5% better than today.
- There will be a strong push for rollout of grid storage as utilities struggle with the variable output.

Generation Breakdown...
Solar ~15%
Wind ~15%
Nuclear ~15%
Coal ~25%
Natural Gas + Hydro ~25%
Other ~5%

Energy CONSUMPTION;
- gas stations outnumber Supercharger BAYS ~9:1.
- Tesla SuperChargers will remain free, but 3rd party operated pay SuperChargers will start popping up mostly in cities.
- ~10% of Tesla SuperChargers have solar panels and grid storage.
- EV 5% more expensive than ICE counterpart (no parity).
- ~20% of car (not truck) sales are EVs, 15% Tesla, 5% other manufacturers
- Most public chargers are broken. Tesla charging starting to become industry standard.
- FCEVs will have expanded but will also be in decline.

What progress we do have on renewable power (especially solar) and EVs will be almost entirely thanks to Tesla (EVs, powerwall, power packs, and batteries), with some thanks to solar companies like Solar City and solar friendly utilities. There will be a feeling of commercial war as legacy automotive and energy companies begin to really fear Tesla, with Tesla seemingly on the road to global domination even Tesla fans won't be comfortable with. Stocks will be chaotic, with a share of Tesla today ending up worth around $500 by today's dollars, though it may have split or transformed in some way.

Climate change will be more widely accepted as real as denial will be no longer possible with an additional 15 years of mounting evidence. We will have seen 1 or 2 extreme weather events that will have more people talking about it.

 

[rays427]

What is the typical time from concept to completion of utility scale solar projects?

 

[Bangor Bob]

Very clear. Why does Florida generate so much power, and why so much by oil?

Those circles are by plant capacity. I'd put good odds on those plants not running very much in the past few years. They are likely idle a lot of the time.

What's fun is to compare the planned capacity additions vs planned retirements. Here's the next year...

Additions:

Retirements:

Buh-bye to a big chunk of coal, hello to lots of wind and solar (and a few big gas plants).

Data from EIA Electric Monthly

 

[Robert.Boston]

Very clear. Why does Florida generate so much power, and why so much by oil?

As noted up-thread, the capacity of plants isn't the same as the MWh generation. Historically Florida utilities built lots of oil-fired plants because there were no trunk gas pipelines into the state and there is ample port capacity to bring in refined oil products. Remember, there were legal constraints against using natural gas for electric generation until 1992.

 

[Saghost]

Remember, there were legal constraints against using natural gas for electric generation until 1992.

I didn't know that - and my quick Google search didn't turn up anything relevant. Could you provide some details or point me towards what to look for, please?