Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[mspohr]

No need for countries to issue new oil, gas or coal licences, study finds

Researchers say world has enough fossil fuel projects planned to meet demand forecasts to 2050 if net zero is reached

www.theguardian.com

The world has enough fossil fuel projects planned to meet global energy demand forecasts to 2050 and governments should stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences, according to a large study aimed at political leaders.

The data offered what they said was “a rigorous scientific basis” for global governments to ban new fossil fuel projects and begin a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry, while encouraging investment in clean energy alternatives. By establishing a “clear and immediate demand” political leaders would be able to set a new norm around the future of fossil fuels, against which the industry could be held “immediately accountable”, the researchers said.

 

[mspohr]

Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report

A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don't look so good for this particular form of energy production.

newatlas.com

The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb."

At least 375,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity is likely to be added to the US grid in the next seven years," they say. "By contrast, IEEFA believes it is highly unlikely any SMRs will be brought online in that same time frame. The comparison couldn’t be clearer. Regulators, utilities, investors and government officials should acknowledge this and embrace the available reality: Renewables are the near-term solution."

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I know this is repeating but solar panel production was .05% of China's energy use. I am not sure why this tiny amount means we give them a pass.

And it "only grew" 20% YOY in the first quarter. So maybe it is now .06%.

I really don't understand this "letting China off the hook" so to speak just because they manufacture solar panels. And at 20% YOY - civilization is toast at that pace. Does that even keep up with a/c use?

I wonder if March was also warm in China? Lets compare NG use in the US for March 2024 to prior year? Winter energy use, we are all going to decline around the North world. And I think the take home from that long article is the decrease in construction as the largest factor. Which is really just stopping a poorly planned RE construction boom. Wasted construction is wasted carbon.

Yeah, where did you get your statistic 0.05%?!

Silicon ingot production is the most energy intensive part of making solar cells, and the amount of silicon used in a single 1 sq meter solar panel (300w) is equivalent to 600 i9-core processors, or 10,000 microcontrollers, or 83,000 LED chips.

The semiconductor industry in china consumes 3% of china's energy production, so there's no way that solar panel production (which uses 1/4 of all the silicon that china produces) only consumed less than a fraction of a percent of that. You're off by a factor of 20 at least.

Not to mention the amount of clean water that's consumed! There are huge ecological costs to solar panel production that china needs to get under control if they don't want to kill their citizens in the process.

So unless you want to bring that ecological disaster onshore (in order to buy domestic), we're going to have to give them a pass or go without any solar panels.

 

[David_Cary]

The .05% was a from a prior post. That is why I stated that I was repeating it. No one refuted it back on page 191.

Was it wrong? I think so but I can't find the original reference. By your numbers (and going with silicon ingot dominating the numbers), it would be .75% - a 12.5X mistake since I said .06% for 2023.

Are we supposed to be ok that China is killing its citizens making solar panels as you imply? I am not ok with "ecological disaster" in China or the US. Are you saying I should be?

China uses coal to manufacture solar panels. If you used something else (anything else), it would be better. I think we can agree on that. Using forced labor isn't a great look either - I want no part of that. Or am I supposed to be ok with that?

China has overdone things - like a monopoly does to drive away competition. This has long term consequences on capital investments. So the market is encouraged to use forced labor, carbon intensive manufacturing because it is so cheap compared to the alternatives.

I do realize that using coal in the short term is better than not manufacturing panels at all. But longer term, it maybe slowing the production of panels using renewables. Overproducing panels using coal seems pointless from an ecologic/carbon perspective.

 

[eevee-fan]

The .05% was a from a prior post. That is why I stated that I was repeating it. No one refuted it back on page 191.

Was it wrong? I think so but I can't find the original reference. By your numbers (and going with silicon ingot dominating the numbers), it would be .75% - a 12.5X mistake since I said .06% for 2023.

Are we supposed to be ok that China is killing its citizens making solar panels as you imply? I am not ok with "ecological disaster" in China or the US. Are you saying I should be?

China uses coal to manufacture solar panels. If you used something else (anything else), it would be better. I think we can agree on that. Using forced labor isn't a great look either - I want no part of that. Or am I supposed to be ok with that?

China has overdone things - like a monopoly does to drive away competition. This has long term consequences on capital investments. So the market is encouraged to use forced labor, carbon intensive manufacturing because it is so cheap compared to the alternatives.

I do realize that using coal in the short term is better than not manufacturing panels at all. But longer term, it maybe slowing the production of panels using renewables. Overproducing panels using coal seems pointless from an ecologic/carbon perspective.

Induced demand by artificially lowering the cost of a product and slowing the development of alternatives... we do that with fossil fuels in America and we seem to be ok with it. Weird.

 

[eevee-fan]

The whole China this, China that agrenda is similar to tactics of the fossil fuel companies. If China is subsidizing, why can’t we? Weird.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/01/opinion/clean-energy-solar-wind.html

 

[mspohr]

The whole China this, China that agrenda is similar to tactics of the fossil fuel companies. If China is subsidizing, why can’t we? Weird.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/01/opinion/clean-energy-solar-wind.html

Could you rephrase this into a sentence or two that makes sense?

 

[eevee-fan]

Could you rephrase this into a sentence or two that makes sense?

Subsidy, we are experts in that already.
Forced laber, we have child labor in the south.
What advantage does China have aside from our lack of interest?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

The .05% was a from a prior post. That is why I stated that I was repeating it. No one refuted it back on page 191.

Was it wrong? I think so but I can't find the original reference. By your numbers (and going with silicon ingot dominating the numbers), it would be .75% - a 12.5X mistake since I said .06% for 2023.

Are we supposed to be ok that China is killing its citizens making solar panels as you imply? I am not ok with "ecological disaster" in China or the US. Are you saying I should be?

China uses coal to manufacture solar panels. If you used something else (anything else), it would be better. I think we can agree on that. Using forced labor isn't a great look either - I want no part of that. Or am I supposed to be ok with that?

China has overdone things - like a monopoly does to drive away competition. This has long term consequences on capital investments. So the market is encouraged to use forced labor, carbon intensive manufacturing because it is so cheap compared to the alternatives.

I do realize that using coal in the short term is better than not manufacturing panels at all. But longer term, it maybe slowing the production of panels using renewables. Overproducing panels using coal seems pointless from an ecologic/carbon perspective.

You can NOT pick and choose which solar farm will power your furnaces (because it's all coming from the grid). And usually burning a fossil fuel is more energy efficient than running an electric furnace, so you can't make that substitution anyway! So the choice is truly, buy chinese solar panels to drive the renewable energy supply OR go without.

And the people running those factories are highly skilled technicians. Although they're underpaid by western standards, it's not forced labor by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[mspohr]

Subsidy, we are experts in that already.
Forced laber, we have child labor in the south.
What advantage does China have aside from our lack of interest?

China has a national policy to move to renewable energy and there is no dissent.
We have some good initiatives (thanks to IRA, etc.) but lots of dissent and no guarantee that programs will continue against this dissent.
(We also have prison labor... just like China)

 

[eevee-fan]

Speaking of civilizations that rely on coal. LOL

 

[eevee-fan]

You laugh, but I am seeing this today with states that do not produce fossil fuel but are against renewables. Nevada (a purple state) is progressing slowly with renewables yet our right wing governor recently cried about the CA bill to limit fossil fuel company profitability, thinking that will cause gasoline prices in NV to skyrocket...?!? Since when is state self sufficiency a bad thing? Seems the right wing is no longer about self sufficiency but about fascism.

And I guess this explains it... why be more or less energy self sufficient when you can be reliant to fossil fuels?

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2024/06/20240602-kpmg.html

 

[Raffy.Roma]

Analysis: Monthly drop hints that China’s CO2 emissions may have peaked in 2023 - Carbon Brief

China’s CO2 emissions fell by 3% in March 2024, ending a 14-month surge that began when the economy reopened after the nation’s “zero-Covid”

www.carbonbrief.org

[From the quoted article]

China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 3% in March 2024, ending a 14-month surge that began when the economy reopened after the nation’s “zero-Covid” controls were lifted in December 2022.

The new analysis for Carbon Brief, based on official figures and commercial data, reinforces the view that China’s emissions could have peaked in 2023.

The drivers of the CO2 drop in March 2024 were expanding solar and wind generation, which covered 90% of the growth in electricity demand, as well as declining construction activity.

Oil demand growth also ground to a halt, indicating that the post-Covid rebound may have run its course.

A 2023 peak in China’s CO2 emissions is possible if the buildout of clean energy sources is kept at the record levels seen last year.

However, there are divergent views across the industry and government on the outlook for clean energy growth. How this gap gets resolved is the key determinant of when China’s emissions will peak – if they have not done so already.

 

[Dr. J]

Subsidy, we are experts in that already.
Forced laber, we have child labor in the south.
What advantage does China have aside from our lack of interest?

Or, haiku:

Subsidy? We're experts.
We have Southern child labor.
Who points the finger?

 

[mspohr]

Texas goes for gas which they don't need.

Vistra, ENGIE and other developers move to tap $5B Texas Energy Fund for 41 GW of gas-fired projects

The fund will provide low-interest loans for new generation. “Our plan is to expand this program in the upcoming legislative session,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

www.utilitydive.com

Developers representing more than 41 GW of mostly gas-fired generation projects have indicated to state regulators they will apply for low-interest loans through the Texas Energy Fund. Voters authorized the TEF in November and the state’s legislature appropriated $5 billion for the program

Texas load growth forecasts are rising rapidly, and the interconnection queue for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is brimming with solar and storage. In April, ERCOT had active generation interconnection requests totaling 346 GW, with solar representing 155 GW of the queue, followed by 141 GW of battery storage. Gas made up just 15 GW. “We don’t think additional gas is needed — that is, if the solar-plus-storage goes forward and we really pay more attention to the demand side,” Reed said.

 

[eevee-fan]

Texas goes for gas which they don't need.

Vistra, ENGIE and other developers move to tap $5B Texas Energy Fund for 41 GW of gas-fired projects

The fund will provide low-interest loans for new generation. “Our plan is to expand this program in the upcoming legislative session,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

www.utilitydive.com

Developers representing more than 41 GW of mostly gas-fired generation projects have indicated to state regulators they will apply for low-interest loans through the Texas Energy Fund. Voters authorized the TEF in November and the state’s legislature appropriated $5 billion for the program

Texas load growth forecasts are rising rapidly, and the interconnection queue for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is brimming with solar and storage. In April, ERCOT had active generation interconnection requests totaling 346 GW, with solar representing 155 GW of the queue, followed by 141 GW of battery storage. Gas made up just 15 GW. “We don’t think additional gas is needed — that is, if the solar-plus-storage goes forward and we really pay more attention to the demand side,” Reed said.

They do need... their industry need, forget what is best for the people. That's what you get with a pro-business government. West Virginia is another one, always in the news for some industrial waste scandal - coal and now PFAS. I guess their population is expendable for corporate profits. LOL

 

[Dr. J]

Texas goes for gas which they don't need.

Vistra, ENGIE and other developers move to tap $5B Texas Energy Fund for 41 GW of gas-fired projects

The fund will provide low-interest loans for new generation. “Our plan is to expand this program in the upcoming legislative session,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

www.utilitydive.com

Developers representing more than 41 GW of mostly gas-fired generation projects have indicated to state regulators they will apply for low-interest loans through the Texas Energy Fund. Voters authorized the TEF in November and the state’s legislature appropriated $5 billion for the program

Texas load growth forecasts are rising rapidly, and the interconnection queue for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is brimming with solar and storage. In April, ERCOT had active generation interconnection requests totaling 346 GW, with solar representing 155 GW of the queue, followed by 141 GW of battery storage. Gas made up just 15 GW. “We don’t think additional gas is needed — that is, if the solar-plus-storage goes forward and we really pay more attention to the demand side,” Reed said.

The triumph of ideology over facts and best interests.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The triumph of ideology over facts and best interests.

Let's get rid of ideology and work out the Climate Change issue as a purely Scientific issue.

 

[eevee-fan]

We're closer to tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030 than we look – IEA

Governments are rolling out renewables at a record pace, and tripling capacity by 2030 is within reach – it's time to make Paris Agreement targets official.

electrek.co

China gets another thumbs up despite those who only want to focus on coal use while also ignoring themselves as the cause (demand for cheap mfg goods from China).

 

[David_Cary]

Southern child labor in the US. This came up before - the states that are allowing increased teen labor are a diverse group and not exclusively in the South.

I really don't think the small amount of prison labor in the US compares to the Xinjiang imprisonment of Muslims.

I would honestly think most things are agreed upon. I am not sure why all the China cheering. We suck, they suck, all of that is not a disagreement.

Unfortunately ideology and politics makes the world go round. Ignore at your peril. The science is settled, the technology is there. The problem is political will with ideology as a part.