jhm
Well-Known Member
Elon Musk taking direct approach to lobbying Nevada lawmakers on solar energy
This is very interesting.
This is very interesting.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
jhm
Well-Known Member
Shocking IEA Data Points to Flat CO2 Emissions in 2015 | OilPrice.com
This is very good news. The globe may well have hit it's carbon peak. It's been at 32.1 Gt for 2015 and 2014, and 2013 was just 32.0 Gt. This is what we're working for. Let's see if emissions can drop below 32.0 Gt this year.
It's gonna take lots more wond, solar and batteries to drive this curve down.
Many of you are familiar with how I've been predicting peak combined fossil fuel demand by 2021. We are still on course with this. Peak carbon is happening now primarily because coal has already peaked and is in structural decline. Coal is the biggest source of carbon emissions, about 80% more CO2 per MWh than for natural gas. So switching gas for coal has definitely helped carbon level out, but even gas needs to be displaced by renewables. Within the US, natural gas consumption may have seen its peak last September. But it is too soon to be sure that this is structural decline and not mere seasonal variation. In Europe, there is not an abundance of gas. So renewables have been primarily displacing gas and not coal. Basically the cost of importing gas gives coal an economic advantage. My sense is that to know when gas is in decline globally you need gas demand to decline domestically in gas exporting countries. The cost of exporting will everywhere put exported gas at a disadvantage to wind and solar. So based on the US, I think that we are likely at the global peak for natural gas this year. The big challenge will be to push oil into decline. Without a massive EV fleet, solar can maybe displace 5% to 10% of oil consumption. This is primarily taking oil out of electricity generation (5%) and then displacing products like kerosene and lamp oil in places in the world not served by grids. So distributed solar is really key to displacing oil. EVs, however, are needed to tackle the 68% of oil consumption that goes to transportation. China, for its part, is targeting 5 million EVs by 2020. That is enough to displace 200,000 barrels per day. Hopefully, the rest of the world will keep up with this and the global EV fleet will stand at 25 million displacing 1 million bpd of oil demand. If so, the peak for oil demand may come as early as 2023. These are exciting times.
This is very good news. The globe may well have hit it's carbon peak. It's been at 32.1 Gt for 2015 and 2014, and 2013 was just 32.0 Gt. This is what we're working for. Let's see if emissions can drop below 32.0 Gt this year.
It's gonna take lots more wond, solar and batteries to drive this curve down.
Many of you are familiar with how I've been predicting peak combined fossil fuel demand by 2021. We are still on course with this. Peak carbon is happening now primarily because coal has already peaked and is in structural decline. Coal is the biggest source of carbon emissions, about 80% more CO2 per MWh than for natural gas. So switching gas for coal has definitely helped carbon level out, but even gas needs to be displaced by renewables. Within the US, natural gas consumption may have seen its peak last September. But it is too soon to be sure that this is structural decline and not mere seasonal variation. In Europe, there is not an abundance of gas. So renewables have been primarily displacing gas and not coal. Basically the cost of importing gas gives coal an economic advantage. My sense is that to know when gas is in decline globally you need gas demand to decline domestically in gas exporting countries. The cost of exporting will everywhere put exported gas at a disadvantage to wind and solar. So based on the US, I think that we are likely at the global peak for natural gas this year. The big challenge will be to push oil into decline. Without a massive EV fleet, solar can maybe displace 5% to 10% of oil consumption. This is primarily taking oil out of electricity generation (5%) and then displacing products like kerosene and lamp oil in places in the world not served by grids. So distributed solar is really key to displacing oil. EVs, however, are needed to tackle the 68% of oil consumption that goes to transportation. China, for its part, is targeting 5 million EVs by 2020. That is enough to displace 200,000 barrels per day. Hopefully, the rest of the world will keep up with this and the global EV fleet will stand at 25 million displacing 1 million bpd of oil demand. If so, the peak for oil demand may come as early as 2023. These are exciting times.
Methane emissions (which are multiple times more damaging then Co2) have gone up approximately 30%- 60% and have been rising steadily since 2007, unlike any time in our recorded history. Arguably the United States has contributed significantly during this time frame.
We reduce one emissions problem for a far, far worse one.
As we all know, time to ditch the gas and fast.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yep, gas is a transition fuel to nowhere. I would much rather run a coal plant for a couple more years and replace it with renewables than to build a new gas plant to replace a coal plant only to have to replace the gas plant with renewables several more years out. This has been the basic con of the gas industry. The shortest path to renewables is renewables. So let's get on with it.
doggusfluffy
Closed
jhm
Well-Known Member
They did not value any of the benefits. They only counted cost, not benifits. So non-solar customers are now get all the benefits for free with no cost. Thus, solar customers are now subsiding nonsolar customers. There was never any net subsidy to begin with.
they would've attempted to count both, its really clear to do the counting in a district where the producers/wire network/retailers are all segregated, but the result will be the same, nonsolar customers deserve to pay the same price for electricity to the producers of solar - be it utility farm based or distributed household based.
My own state's labour government allowed a special solar reading surcharge just because solar customers required more telephone support than non solar customers. My gut feeling is that it was fully evidenced based, even though i don't feel the retailers add any value to anyone, I accept that their costs are higher for me, than for others.
I know this was previously posted. However, I felt this article added a little color.
Why Nevada Legislators (& Leonardo DiCaprio) met at Tesla's Gigafactory
Why Nevada Legislators (& Leonardo DiCaprio) met at Tesla's Gigafactory
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Should we really care if solar is temporarily locked out of Nevada? These states will simply be disadvantaged as the gold rush to get into renewables accelerates. Shouldn't electing energy puppets have repercussions and wouldn't it be best to allow those repercussions to be handled by Nevada voters? the more IO think about it, the less i want federal rules to lock in things like net metering. Forward thinking states should be rewarded for their efforts by becoming natural hubs for renewable energy companies.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I find it hard to square this IEA data with reality: CO2 levels are reaching record highs.
Earth saw 'explosive' annual growth in carbon dioxide in 2015
I understand the El Niño taking place in the pacific has an effect on this, but still. Best case scenario, we are simply wrong about the emissions data and are in fact emitting much more than we realize. A much more scary scenario is that we have already reached a natural tipping point where the carbon sinks are no longer able to absorb carbon like they used to and "nature" (like permafrost) has begun emitting more carbon than it absorbs, leading to a runaway C02 problem. I really hoping I am wrong.
Here's how I think about it: CO2 emissions are cumulative (at levels above the carbon cycle's equilibrium point -- this point is pre-industrial levels, AFAIK, so we are way above it). Even if emissions stay flat or even decrease, CO2 concentration will increase until we drop emissions below the point that the carbon cycle can absorb the emissions.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
While I agree completely with that thinking, what scary is that last year's year over year increase was the highest in recorded history (last 56 years). 3.05 parts per million increase last year. A steady or declining emissions rate would imply a steady or declining year over year increase in total carbon levels (i.e. <2 parts per million). I understand the planet is a complex system and year over year data is full of "noise". Still, I get this feeling that there is more going on here than what we are measuring with this emissions data.
jhm
Well-Known Member
To be clear, the IEA is only counting energy related CO2 emissions. There are presumpably other human sources of CO2 emissions whatever the measurement errors may be. I think the focus here is merely on emissions that can be impacted by energy policy and energy economics. Hopefully we don't have too many other non controllable problems kicking in. We've got to make swift progress on decabonizing energy, no matter what.
I see the fossil fuel industry fighting distributed generation in every way that they can. They are protecting their incumbent monopoly. Utilities are cultures of entitlement that will utilize their financial resources and regulatory capture to prevent the disruption of their corrupt business models. This is David and Goliath and Goliath has brought a knife.
Renewable energy freedom of commerce is a right that should be extended to every home and every business.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Some of the rooftop solar supporters in Nevada pack guns...to PUCN hearings. Goliath may need more than a knife.
- Status
Similar threads
