AwlBidnz
Old Guy to be driven around for yrs to come
Purpose of the thread is: "to discuss oil trade and to manage oil price risk"... Sorry, took you for your word
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Purpose of the thread is: "to discuss oil trade and to manage oil price risk"... Sorry, took you for your word
AwlBidnz
Old Guy to be driven around for yrs to come
Only to make the point that electricity production from renewables is not the proof needed to claim replacing hydrocarbons is "not far off". Using electricity generation as your only metric for renewable replacement example is misleading, based on total world energy use.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
What more do you want to know about renewables before implementing them? This is the kind of 2009 talking point that can easily make people think your goal is spreading the idea that renewables require "further research". That's a line of logic even the oil & gas lobby retired about 4 years ago.
There's a reason most new global electricity capacity is solar or wind and transportation is rapidly transitioning to EV, they're simply better and cheaper. No one is being forced to do anything, efficiency and value draws investment.
I'm all for being kind to strangers, but it feels disingenuous.
AwlBidnz
Old Guy to be driven around for yrs to come
Is that what the rejected energy is? I was always told the efficiencies were just the opposite?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This has been extensively studied by many groups who have published detail models of how electrification could replace hydrocarbons.
Here's one of the latest.
Want To Limit Global Warming? Electrify Everything, Finds Study | CleanTechnica
Solar dominated renewable energy world possible by 2050, and cheaper
A 4-year study from Finnish-based LUT University and the German-based Energy Watch Grouplooked at how to meet the 1.5°C target of the Paris climate treaty, and found that the most effective, quickest and cheapest means was to switch just about everything to electricity, and power it with solar and other renewable energy technologies.
“A global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport, and desalination before 2050 is feasible,” the study concludes. In fact, the authors say, it could be done quicker than that.
“Existing renewable energy potential and technologies, including storage, is capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year.
“The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost-effective than the existing system, which is based primarily on fossil fuels and nuclear. A global renewable transition is the only sustainable option for the energy sector, and is compatible with the internationally adopted Paris Agreement.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
AwlBidnz
Old Guy to be driven around for yrs to come
I have always believed that implementation is the next step in research, just as our cars. My fault on calling it "research". It's not lab work but, for many of the renewable sources have moved to getting scaled projects installed and working then, improve them, as is being done. Others need more testing and pilot projects expanded. I have lumped all of the into research.
I don't know what the oil & gas lobby says..can't say they would be a reliable source for anything anyway.
I apologize for the feel. It's only a differing opinion on the current viability of renewables poised to "take over".
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Rejected energy – why is so much energy unloved? | Energy Cultures 2
I was recently asked about “rejected energy” by a colleague who had seen it on a website about US energy. This shows that US energy flows include a lot of rejected energy. This happens in other countries too, so it’s helpful to understand why so much energy is unloved. So what is rejected energy and why is it unloved? Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel – such as gas or petrol – that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport.https://energycultures.org/glossary-index/transport/
However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment, which is totally useless. For a coal fired power station, for instance, about 2/3 of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapour coming off a power-station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England.
It is likely this will change if/when we are successful in finding ways to run cars, trucks and buses and planes on electricity. Basically there will be much less rejected energy because the energy systems will very efficient. Much less energy will be unloved, which will be good for the environment.
I was recently asked about “rejected energy” by a colleague who had seen it on a website about US energy. This shows that US energy flows include a lot of rejected energy. This happens in other countries too, so it’s helpful to understand why so much energy is unloved. So what is rejected energy and why is it unloved? Rejected energy is part of the energy of a fuel – such as gas or petrol – that could be used for a purposeful activity, like making electricity or transport.https://energycultures.org/glossary-index/transport/
However, because of the technologies that we currently use to consume fuels a lot of it gets tossed out by turning it into heat in the environment, which is totally useless. For a coal fired power station, for instance, about 2/3 of the energy released when the coal is burnt is discarded as heat in the environment. This reject energy sometimes appears as clouds of vapour coming off a power-station’s cooling towers, such as the well-known ones at Didcot in England.
It is likely this will change if/when we are successful in finding ways to run cars, trucks and buses and planes on electricity. Basically there will be much less rejected energy because the energy systems will very efficient. Much less energy will be unloved, which will be good for the environment.
Yeah, if you're pivoting your talking point when I specifically asked about the overloaded grid, then you're definitely behaving like a troll.
If, on the other hand, you truly don't know what the rejected energy data meant in winfield100's charts, and thus don't really know what you're arguing about, then I suggest you take a different approach. Maybe ask specific questions to better understand the claims made in this thread, instead of spouting counter-claims without truly understanding what you're saying?
I take it back, let me try this one more time.
Your concerns about energy consumption versus electricity consumption is baseless. The electricity grid only cares about electricity consumption. Your 10-year old claim was that the grid couldn't handle the additional load. Your follow-up point is just words without any understanding. Please go back 2 lines (between our conversation) and see the context of why TTM's points still apply.
Using BP statistical data I've put together a simple metric for the degree of electrification in the world energy system. We begin with Primary Energy Consumption which in 2017 was 13,511 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe). One Mtoe of fossil fuels on average generates about 4.4 TWh of electricity. BP uses this ratio to calibrate Solar or Wind production in TWh to PEC in Mtoe, even though Mtoe = 12 TWh on a heat equivalency basis. So TEC Mtoe = 4.4 TWh on a generation or displacement basis. Using this ratio, we can transform world generation of electricity into an TEC generation basis. In 2017 this was 25,551 TWh, which maps to 5,807 Mtoe = 13,551TWh / 4.4 TWh/Mtoe. Now we can simply define electrification as electricity generation in Mtoe as a fraction of total PEC in Mtoe, Thus, 2017 electrification was 43.0% = 5807 Mtoe / 13,511 Mtoe.
On critical property of this metric is that as the economy shift mostly renewable power within the electricity market, this metric shows what fraction of total energy is displace by renewables. If all forms of energy were put to generation of electricity, the fraction would be 100% (so long as the displacement ratio is current). Deep decarbonization does not require that this ratio goes to 100% as there may be some fraction of carbon neutral energy which is used for other than generation power. But the fraction does need to get much higher than 43%.
Electrification changes slowly. Let me quote a few numbers.
2017 43.0%
2015 42.3%
2010 40.5%
2005 38.5%
2000 37.8%
1995 35.5%
1990 33.5%
1985 31.4%
Progress is nearly linear. The average change is 0.363% point per year. My own extrapolation (using logistic curve) is the 50% electrification will happen by 2035. This may not be nearly fast enough to hit any reasonable climate goal. At this rate, 2070 might still be at a mere 63.2% electrification level.
Fighting climate change surely means picking up the pace at which electrification happens. The problem is that wind and solar may become confined to the traditional limits of the power markets. If stuck there, uptake will slow prematurely and fail to displace fossil fuel not used for generation. In 2017, oil consumption was 4,622 Mtoe, 34.2% of TPEC. Batteries used in land transport can ultimately displace nearly all gasoline and diesel, about half of oil consumption or 17% of PEC. It think that electrolyzers will be key to addressing the other half of oil consumption (shipping, aviation, heat and petrochem). Electricity can also address industrial heat. Electrolyzers give off heat, so there are cogeneration opportunities. Renewable heat will be responsible for offsetting a lot of natural gas and coal. Natural gas PEC is 3156 Mtoe and about 1344Mtoe of this is consumed by power generation. So about 1811Mtoe of gas, 13.3% of TPEC is for heat and industrial gases/petrochem. This will need to be address by electrical heat and electrolyzed gases.
So batteries and electrolyzers are two key technologies for expanding the frontier of the power grid to be able to address all energy needs. Heat from electricity is also critical, but its got a big head start on the other two technologies. BEVs alone only move electrification from 43% to about 60%. Electrical heat can address maybe 20% of TPEC (from remaining oil, gas and coal usage). This leaves another 20% to be addressed by electrolyzers other technologies. This category includes (aviation and marine fuels and petrochem). I think pushing electrification up to 80% will be monumental and will require massive deployment of both batteries and electrolyzers. Another tricky issue is that replacing heat and gases with electricity takes a lot more electric per Mboe replace. To replace Mboe of heat, you need about 12 TWh of electricity and to electrolyze Mboe of gas you need about 18 TWh. Right now we can replace a Mtoe of gas or coal used for generation for as little as 4.4 TWh of wind and solar. But as we approach full electrification the power generation burden goes way up. So we are going to need a lot of innovation just to change the way use energy. How much of the that industrial heat can is really just waste heat? How much of that plastic is just trash that need not be generated in the first place? So there will need to be a more fundamental restructuring of the economy as we approach extreme electrification.
On critical property of this metric is that as the economy shift mostly renewable power within the electricity market, this metric shows what fraction of total energy is displace by renewables. If all forms of energy were put to generation of electricity, the fraction would be 100% (so long as the displacement ratio is current). Deep decarbonization does not require that this ratio goes to 100% as there may be some fraction of carbon neutral energy which is used for other than generation power. But the fraction does need to get much higher than 43%.
Electrification changes slowly. Let me quote a few numbers.
2017 43.0%
2015 42.3%
2010 40.5%
2005 38.5%
2000 37.8%
1995 35.5%
1990 33.5%
1985 31.4%
Progress is nearly linear. The average change is 0.363% point per year. My own extrapolation (using logistic curve) is the 50% electrification will happen by 2035. This may not be nearly fast enough to hit any reasonable climate goal. At this rate, 2070 might still be at a mere 63.2% electrification level.
Fighting climate change surely means picking up the pace at which electrification happens. The problem is that wind and solar may become confined to the traditional limits of the power markets. If stuck there, uptake will slow prematurely and fail to displace fossil fuel not used for generation. In 2017, oil consumption was 4,622 Mtoe, 34.2% of TPEC. Batteries used in land transport can ultimately displace nearly all gasoline and diesel, about half of oil consumption or 17% of PEC. It think that electrolyzers will be key to addressing the other half of oil consumption (shipping, aviation, heat and petrochem). Electricity can also address industrial heat. Electrolyzers give off heat, so there are cogeneration opportunities. Renewable heat will be responsible for offsetting a lot of natural gas and coal. Natural gas PEC is 3156 Mtoe and about 1344Mtoe of this is consumed by power generation. So about 1811Mtoe of gas, 13.3% of TPEC is for heat and industrial gases/petrochem. This will need to be address by electrical heat and electrolyzed gases.
So batteries and electrolyzers are two key technologies for expanding the frontier of the power grid to be able to address all energy needs. Heat from electricity is also critical, but its got a big head start on the other two technologies. BEVs alone only move electrification from 43% to about 60%. Electrical heat can address maybe 20% of TPEC (from remaining oil, gas and coal usage). This leaves another 20% to be addressed by electrolyzers other technologies. This category includes (aviation and marine fuels and petrochem). I think pushing electrification up to 80% will be monumental and will require massive deployment of both batteries and electrolyzers. Another tricky issue is that replacing heat and gases with electricity takes a lot more electric per Mboe replace. To replace Mboe of heat, you need about 12 TWh of electricity and to electrolyze Mboe of gas you need about 18 TWh. Right now we can replace a Mtoe of gas or coal used for generation for as little as 4.4 TWh of wind and solar. But as we approach full electrification the power generation burden goes way up. So we are going to need a lot of innovation just to change the way use energy. How much of the that industrial heat can is really just waste heat? How much of that plastic is just trash that need not be generated in the first place? So there will need to be a more fundamental restructuring of the economy as we approach extreme electrification.
Who are you quoting? Strawman, perhaps? I don't think anyone here thinks hydrocarbons will be full replaced anytime soon. Firstly, not all hydrocarbons need to be replaced. "Displaced" may be a more accurate term. But more importantly, deep decarbonization is a 30 to 100 year process.
Now we do put a lot of attention on things like peak oil demand, but that is nowhere close to the end of oil. It's just the beginning of a long decline in oil use. Peak oil demand denialists like to set up strawman arguments about how quickly that is that is supposed to come. For example, they point to recent growth in oil consumption and say something snarky like, "Gosh, that wasn't supposed to happen with all these EVs on the road!" That kind of nonsense is not tolerated here. In fact, no informed advocate of peak oil demand has suggested that selling a mere 2 million EVs in a year could displace enough motor fuel demand to overwhelm some 1.2mb/d in oil demand growth. However, at 20 to 30 million EVs per year, oil demand growth may very well flatline. Scale makes all the difference in the world.
So please avoid strawman arguments here. Continuing to do so will only solidify a reputation here as troll or ignoramus.
AwlBidnz
Old Guy to be driven around for yrs to come
From mspohr's explanation it seems rejected energy would be better named wasted energy. That has nothing to do with the relative efficiency of the energy source, just the inefficientcy of the process. That inefficiency is on the minds of all that would pay and benefit from it's cash flow if/when they figure out how to economically capture their losses. Understanding others can be hard, I apologize again.
It's not meant as a jab to you. Just a warning about how your posting style could be setting off many of our participants. We try to give folks the benefit of the doubt, but do also get genuine trolls, disruptors wandering in here on a regular basis. So certain posting behaviors are taking as an indication that a poster may be bent on disruption. My advice is to take your time and get to know the thread and usual posters. It will take a while to get up to speed on the range of topics that we have already debated aggressively. Try asking more questions before debating a point. Nobody gets points for winning an argument, but information and perspective brought to the discussion is always appreciated.
For example, you could have asked, "How do you guys see grid keeping up with demand from EV?" We've discussed that already, but you probably would have gotten a friendly response setting out the basics. Moreover, there is constantly articles and new ideas coming to light on this topic, so it is good to keep up with that. So sharing some new material is also likely to be well receives so long as it is not some rehash of anti-EV propaganda. One way you can tell the difference is that new ideas actually work toward solving problems, while propaganda will throw up objections to undermine support for EVs. Certainly there are lots of challenges to be overcome, so a constructive approach to solving problems is preferred.
So welcome to the Shorting Oil thread, AwlBidnz.
Technically, rejected energy also included some statistical adjustments mapping non-fuel energy to primary energy units. These adjustment are not any sort of physical energy. For example. if you map 4.4 TWh of solar to 1 Mtoe of primary energy when in fact the head content of 1 Mtoe is 12 TWh, the difference, 12-4.4 = 7.6TWh, is accounted for as "rejected energy". But in this case we are dealing with a numerical adjustment. The 7.6TWh of "rejected energy" was never actually generated; it's not physical energy!
In any case, converting energy in one form to another always involves some loss. Efficiency of use matters, but some forms of energy are more efficiently converted than others. So it is a problem both with the fuel and the application. In the cast of EVs and ICE, electricity is much more efficiently converted in to propulsion than gasoline. Hybrids exploit the efficiency of electricity to obtain a transmission system that is more efficient. For example, regenerative braking captures energy that a mechanical transmission would have simply lost in the brake pad. So that efficiency has little to do with gasoline. But even converting gasoline most efficiently into electricity with an ICE is only about 30% efficient. So there are some pretty big limits as to how much useful energy you can get out of gasoline. So a typical ICE drivetrain is about 21% efficient, the engine about 30% efficient times the transmission about 70% efficient. Meanwhile, a BEV is around 90% efficient because electricity is so efficient to store in a lithium battery can transform into drive. Even if you trace the electricity back to generating power from some fossil fuel at 35% efficiency or better, you get much better miles per BTU of fossil fuel with the EV path.
Now when it comes to cash flow, definitely not all energy is created equal. This is why it is not particularly helpful to think of all energy as BTUs. Your price per BTU is quite variable. We're all pretty happy to pay many times more per BTU for electricity as per BTU of coal. That in fact is the economic basis for coal generation. The rejected energy here is the means by which a cheap coal BTU is exchanged for a more valuable electricity BTU. Naturally, we'd all want these plants to be a efficient as possible, but there are limits. Even if we put a price on carbon emissions, that would not economically motivate the coal plant to be more efficient, because it can't. (And CC actually consumes more BTUs making the plant less energy efficient.)
mspohr
Well-Known Member
More from LLNL
The upper right portion of the diagram depicts the split between energy that is successfully applied to end use and energy that is rejected to the environment. No energy transformation can be 100% efficient. For example, conversion of coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy in thermal power plants is, averaged over the existing fleet, about 35% efficient due to the fundamental thermodynamics governing the underlying technology. The remainder of the energy (on average 65% of the energy input) is rejected as waste heat to the environment. Most of this waste heat is often removed from power plants in cooling water, which drives the need for water for thermoelectric cooling. Electricity generation does not contribute directly to energy services because the useful result of electricity generation is consumed by the end use sectors.
This analysis does not calculate the efficiency of different forms of electricity production, nor does it assume a single efficiency for all power plants. Rather, it uses the difference between total energy inputs to electricity and total electricity produced to calculate rejected energy (see Appendix A.3.1)
Rejected Energy from Electricity Production: The electricity sector rejects more than half of the energy it consumes. Energy rejection from the electricity sector is calculated as the difference between the total amount of energy input into the electricity sector (described above as SEDS data-codes TEEIB-
ELNIB) and the total amount of electricity generated (described above as (Use + Exports)-Imports)).
Read the first article and linked papers 'n such (only first paper so far for me tho)\
by 2050 electrify everything, increase Solar PV by factor of about 200 - 210. 300GW to 63,450GW, more wind, etc
a consequence is the 'rejected energy/wasted energy/whatever you call it will go down by over 50%, from around 56% to around 25%,
The kids are really pissed off at we elders for not doing anything much and are mobilizing it seems and they specificallly call out Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as leaders, tho i suspect there are many others.
(as an aside for oil/fossil fuels future, over the last 2-3 years, i've chatted with kids in their 20's and early 30's and many say yes, EV's, of course, what else?)
Similar threads
