a more graphical view, 2001 - 2017. it roughly looks like Coal/nat gas went from ~25 Quads in 2000 to ~23 Quads in 2017 and Wind/Solar went from 0 to ~3.0+
The BP data may be more "correct"
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The BP data may be more "correct"
looked at BP statistical data from 1965, a bit more "grainy"
here is just the USA from their data, Coal/nat gas flipping in US, and Wind/Solar PV gaining
NOTE: Nukes and hydro are essentially "flat", neither gaining or losing much
here is Wind and solar broken out, last year a total of ~325 Terawatt hours __BUT__
here is just the USA from their data, Coal/nat gas flipping in US, and Wind/Solar PV gaining
NOTE: Nukes and hydro are essentially "flat", neither gaining or losing much
here is Wind and solar broken out, last year a total of ~325 Terawatt hours __BUT__
Last edited:
Planetary, it's a bit of a different story, coal still gaining, however, Wind and PV Solar are "cranking" and gaining due to cost drops
with, Planetary, Wind and Solar PV 1,565+ Terawatt Hours Total, 6% from _zero_ percent in only 20 years (well 22 years)
manufactured free energy vs extracted energy
(the data is free for the download)(if you really really want I can email the spreadsheets OR
download from
Downloads | Statistical Review of World Energy | Energy economics | BP
with, Planetary, Wind and Solar PV 1,565+ Terawatt Hours Total, 6% from _zero_ percent in only 20 years (well 22 years)
manufactured free energy vs extracted energy
(the data is free for the download)(if you really really want I can email the spreadsheets OR
download from
Downloads | Statistical Review of World Energy | Energy economics | BP
Last edited:
Nice charts! I like the pull out for wind and solar. Solar is coming to meeting the annual increase of wind. I think solar growth will overtake wind by 2020.
2017, it was discouraging to see coal advance as it did. It's important to notice that year to year variation in coal and gas is pretty substantial. Until recently it has been bigger than the gains in wind and solar. This is part of what has made these renewables "ignorable". But now the annual growth is getting so large that it will make a visible impact on coal and gas.
2017, it was discouraging to see coal advance as it did. It's important to notice that year to year variation in coal and gas is pretty substantial. Until recently it has been bigger than the gains in wind and solar. This is part of what has made these renewables "ignorable". But now the annual growth is getting so large that it will make a visible impact on coal and gas.
SebastianR
Active Member
I hope things like this won't go unnoticed:
On first day as PM, Morrison learns difference between Big Battery and Big Banana
On first day as PM, Morrison learns difference between Big Battery and Big Banana
If you look at the charts from only 2005 - 2017, it looks a bit different. that seems to be when Wind and Solar (finally) took off
Coal went up about 2,000, nukes went down ~500, nat gas up ~2,000, Wind plus PV Up ~1,500, hydro up ~1,000.
If you pull out US state data, Hawaii, California, -->North Carolina!! (15x !)<--- way up in PV from 2010-2014
many many folks voting with wallets for essentially "free" fuel, manufactured vs extracted
(drive the 30-40 miles (50km - 65km) thru Texas from Tucumcari, New Mexico heading East on Interstate 40 and see the monster Wind turbine farm, or Interstate 8 in California or Route 390 heading for New York, near Cornell (apologies for preaching) and monster PV farms in North Carolina!!
The length of time you look back makes a big difference in growth trend because some of these are growing exponentially. I simple way to get a feel for that is to look back to how long the last doubling took. Solar has doubled in the last 3 years from 2014 to 2017. Wind has doubled since 2012, 5 years. Nat gas has doubled since 2001, 16 years. And the others have not doubled in the last 20 years. It hard to say how many more years it will take each fuel for the their next doubling. But solar does look to double again before any other fuel does.
Total electricity growth is roughly linear. The average over the last 10 year is about 550 TWh per year. Over the next 6 years wind could double while solar could quadruple, which would add about 2450 TWh, or about 408 TWh per year average, or 17% CAGR. So it looks like wind and solar combined will exhaust annual demand growth 5 to 6 years. This is no fancy model, just some back of the envelope thinking.
Total electricity growth is roughly linear. The average over the last 10 year is about 550 TWh per year. Over the next 6 years wind could double while solar could quadruple, which would add about 2450 TWh, or about 408 TWh per year average, or 17% CAGR. So it looks like wind and solar combined will exhaust annual demand growth 5 to 6 years. This is no fancy model, just some back of the envelope thinking.
How Wind is doing (i don't know why EIA says 1,000, megawatt hours instead of just Gigawatt hours)
I only included the big folks, plus Hawai'i
I only included the big folks, plus Hawai'i
Now PV is kinda similar in 1 way, California is way up there in electricity generation
data also from EIA
data also from EIA
Of about 1.9 Million PV modules to generate the above electricity, Calif has over 700,000
As I drive from maryland to Florida, I'm seeing more and more PV everywhere, more Turbines to a lesser extent, more random houses in neighborhoods with large arrays, this is east coast of US tho
As I drive from maryland to Florida, I'm seeing more and more PV everywhere, more Turbines to a lesser extent, more random houses in neighborhoods with large arrays, this is east coast of US tho
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Hopefully this puts some pressure on the US to do the same.
EU ends trade controls on Chinese solar panels
EU ends trade controls on Chinese solar panels
Please disregard if this is too off topic, but was just thinking about how bmw 3 sales have been slowing since model 3 came out, and model 3 is probably going to be the best selling car in N.A., and how it might be a good time to look into shorting BMW or maybe Fiat and anybody else? I can see why someone who wants a jeep would still stick with that but it seems like there are more and more reasons to choose a tesla over a bmw.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
BMW is the closest direct competitor to Tesla.
But BMW sales are up in the USA and Globally.
For every 3 Series sale loss they gain 1.03 X3/X5 sale.
Fiat Chrysler is the weakest of the Detroit 3 but is looking better today than it has in the last 10 years.
As of now it seems Tesla is taking most market share from Toyota/Lexus and Honda/Acura. But the profit loss, so far, is minuscule.
I wouldn't short any legacy automaker, just yet.
Yeah but I think things could change pretty quickly. Remember how dominant Blackberry was and then just a few years later they missed the boat and were pretty much gone? Looking at fiat right now and they are trading right at book value so that's pretty reasonable (tsla is 13x for contrast). But a good chunk of the assets on their balance sheet is pretty much obsolete as soon as someone starts making electric counterparts. If tesla made off road-ish versions of x/y that would probably do to jeep what the m3 has done to bmw 3series.
Was just watching a video tfl car (they are really into jeeps) on youtube where they compare (it's more of a setup more for entertainment) the offroad performance of an old jeep to a new subaru. Subaru fails at the hardest part so they walk away happy but they don't realize that electric is the real competition, not subaru. Now that I think of it I wonder if Subaru is a good possible short to look at too.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Time decay is not on the shorter's side.
The market can remain irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
Shorting depending on quick change is a fool's errand IMO.
I was thinking long dated puts. The Jan 2020 puts are almost a year and a half away. By that time Tesla might have the best selling sedan/vehicle in n.a., first yearly profit ever, a tech advantage of self driving/electric/charging, not to mention how things could develop with solar/storage/uber. Wonder what bmw or fiat look like by then?
Study Proves Fossil Fuels Way Worse for Land Use than Renewables
100% Renewables Requires Less Land Footprint Than Reliance On Fossil Fuels In California — #RealityCheck | CleanTechnica
Land use is one of those areas where anti-renewable folks can really twist things up. Notice the huge range of density estimates of installed wind capacity from Koch Bro 3MW/km2 to US DOE Wind Vision 100MW/km2 (1MW per hectare), with two randomly selected wind farms in California at 24 and 29 MW/km2.
Installed MW wind per area misses to important issues: capacity factors and intercroping. The trend in wind has been to increase the height and hence wingspan of wind turbines. This increase access to stronger and more reliable wind at higher altitudes which drives up the capacity factor. The average CF for US wind in 2017 is 36%, but newer and taller wind can reach upwards of 60% CF. Optimistically 100MW/km2 at 60% CF delivers 526 GWh/year/km2 or 60 W/m2. But more modestly 25MW/km2 at 36% CF produces 79 GWh/year/km2 or 9 W/m2. So clearly if optimizing wind production per meter was of high importance, there is huge upside available. More likely wind is optimized around the cost per MWh, and if land is cheap, this need not result in optimal energy density.
Intercropping is illustrated with solar. The base of a turbine takes up very little surface area and the whole turbine casts very little shadow. So you can basically layer wind over ground mounted solar at very little loss of light or wind. NREL estimates solar can produce 100 GWh/year/km2 or 11.4 W/m2. So intercropping wind and solar can easily yield 20 W/m2 but may reach upwards of 80 W/m2 (solar efficiency increasing too).
So there is plenty of energy density upside for wind and solar. The fundamental problem we many of the critiques of renewable from a power density point of view is that the economics simply have yet forced renewables into optimizing power density. It turns neither does the oil and gas industry, which has claimed some 30,000 km2 in North America since 2001 just to expand production. This study does not include land used for gas and oil pipelines, refining, or gas processing. NA oil and gas production (all of it not just study area) grew by 448 million BOE which is enough to yield 1975 TWh of electricity or 66 GWh/year/km2 or 7.5 W/m2. So roughly both wind and solar look to have higher power density than North American oil and gas.
And yes, rooftop solar requires no incremental land commitment. Both solar and wind can be integrated with other land uses, be that suburban living or cattle ranching. Wind and solar use quite minimal water resources which is definitely not true of fossil fuels. So water resources also represent a substantial land use commitment to fossil fuels. The risk to long term damage to land and water resources also weigh substantially against fossil fuels. So from many prospectives wind and solar look better than fossil fuels from a land use perspective.
100% Renewables Requires Less Land Footprint Than Reliance On Fossil Fuels In California — #RealityCheck | CleanTechnica
Land use is one of those areas where anti-renewable folks can really twist things up. Notice the huge range of density estimates of installed wind capacity from Koch Bro 3MW/km2 to US DOE Wind Vision 100MW/km2 (1MW per hectare), with two randomly selected wind farms in California at 24 and 29 MW/km2.
Installed MW wind per area misses to important issues: capacity factors and intercroping. The trend in wind has been to increase the height and hence wingspan of wind turbines. This increase access to stronger and more reliable wind at higher altitudes which drives up the capacity factor. The average CF for US wind in 2017 is 36%, but newer and taller wind can reach upwards of 60% CF. Optimistically 100MW/km2 at 60% CF delivers 526 GWh/year/km2 or 60 W/m2. But more modestly 25MW/km2 at 36% CF produces 79 GWh/year/km2 or 9 W/m2. So clearly if optimizing wind production per meter was of high importance, there is huge upside available. More likely wind is optimized around the cost per MWh, and if land is cheap, this need not result in optimal energy density.
Intercropping is illustrated with solar. The base of a turbine takes up very little surface area and the whole turbine casts very little shadow. So you can basically layer wind over ground mounted solar at very little loss of light or wind. NREL estimates solar can produce 100 GWh/year/km2 or 11.4 W/m2. So intercropping wind and solar can easily yield 20 W/m2 but may reach upwards of 80 W/m2 (solar efficiency increasing too).
So there is plenty of energy density upside for wind and solar. The fundamental problem we many of the critiques of renewable from a power density point of view is that the economics simply have yet forced renewables into optimizing power density. It turns neither does the oil and gas industry, which has claimed some 30,000 km2 in North America since 2001 just to expand production. This study does not include land used for gas and oil pipelines, refining, or gas processing. NA oil and gas production (all of it not just study area) grew by 448 million BOE which is enough to yield 1975 TWh of electricity or 66 GWh/year/km2 or 7.5 W/m2. So roughly both wind and solar look to have higher power density than North American oil and gas.
And yes, rooftop solar requires no incremental land commitment. Both solar and wind can be integrated with other land uses, be that suburban living or cattle ranching. Wind and solar use quite minimal water resources which is definitely not true of fossil fuels. So water resources also represent a substantial land use commitment to fossil fuels. The risk to long term damage to land and water resources also weigh substantially against fossil fuels. So from many prospectives wind and solar look better than fossil fuels from a land use perspective.
U.S. Auto Sales Brand Rankings - July 2018 YTD -
As of July, the Tesla brand has moved up into 17th position in US rankings. This is right after Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi in positions 14, 15 and 16. Mercedes is taking a tumble, down 29% from prior year. Tesla is at 16,675 for July while MB is at 22,955. If Tesla can deliver just under 5000 M3 per week into the US market, then it could displace MB, BMW, and Audi in the US ranks. Nice race to watch.
As of July, the Tesla brand has moved up into 17th position in US rankings. This is right after Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Audi in positions 14, 15 and 16. Mercedes is taking a tumble, down 29% from prior year. Tesla is at 16,675 for July while MB is at 22,955. If Tesla can deliver just under 5000 M3 per week into the US market, then it could displace MB, BMW, and Audi in the US ranks. Nice race to watch.
Similar threads
