Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 16, 2017
The High Cost Of Going Green
It has become raison d’être that electric vehicles (EV) will keep increasing in use without considering serious factors that could hamper their growth. The British electrical grid example and the growth of EVs should bring pause to consumers, investors and governments promoting their unconstrained usage.
According to the British National Grid, “the growing use of electric vehicles could increase electricity peak demand by 3.5 gigawatts (GW) by 2030.” This will occur since sales of EVs are expected to be more than 90 percent of all British car purchases by 2050, highlighted in its Future Energy Scenarios Report. In July, the British government mandated that all new petrol and diesel cars would be banned by “2040 to reduce air pollution and assist cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 from 1990 levels.” Moreover, the National Grid stated:
“Peak electricity demand could even rise by as much as 8 GW by 2030 without ‘smart charging’ during off-peak hours and 18 GW by 2050 as the pace picks up to decarbonize.”
Where all interested parties should be concerned is the cost to achieve the above mandates. Britain will need billions of pounds of new investments into new power plants (either renewable or fossil fuels), transmission lines, smart grid network technology and EV charging points and stations throughout the country. Otherwise, Britain could potentially suffer power shortages when EVs overtake fossil-fueled vehicles.
Britain has the technology to support millions of EVs over the next two to three decades, but drivers will have to recharge their vehicles overnight or face billions in costs. This is when spare capacity on the grid is abundant, which is typical for most developed nations pursuing EV policies.
The grid operator still faces local network issues, as consumption of electricity to accompany EVs is expected to rise 15 percent in overall demand and 40 percent during peak times. Johannes Wetzel, energy markets analyst at Wood Mackenzie, surmises the dilemma for the British and all EV investors, consumers, governments and taxpayers:
“It will be a challenge and a lot of investment is required – in generation capacity, strengthening the distribution grid and charging infrastructure.”
EV sales are expected to reach 20 million in Britain by 2040, whereas today they have roughly 90,000 on the road. But Britain already faces a power supply crunch, because older nuclear reactors and coal-fired power plants will be phased off the grid by 2025. No one at the National Grid, Parliament or the Prime Minister’s office has stated how this power will be replaced to support a huge surge in electricity demand caused by widespread EV adoption.
The British could attempt to build natural gas plants, which are cheaper, faster to build and allow grid flexibility, but that isn’t being pursued since they produce carbon emissions. Renewable energy has problems when it comes to EVs because of supply and demand problems. Solar panels, for example, produce energy during the day, but not at night when the British would need to recharge their EVs to avoid large infrastructure costs. Though estimates can vary from government figures of EV adoption, analysts surveyed by Reuters said, “anything up to an extra 50 terawatt hours (TWh) would be needed for them (EVs) by 2040.”
Off-peak grid incentives could be the solution by encouraging charging only at night, when demand is currently only about a third of during peak periods. The transition to EVs would then pose no significant stress to the national grid. But the British government would need to make sure off-peak grid demand is properly incentivized and enforced.
This can be achieved, as Britain is making significant progress in energy efficiency. The overall peak power demand fell around 14 percent between 2005 and 2016—a time when the economy experienced significant growth. This bodes well for British EV expansion without significant costs associated with that growth. This could also mean there is slack in the National Grid’s transmission and distribution system that could take additional stress during peak power demand.
The National Grid, which also operates the British transmission system said:
“The rise in peak demand can be kept up to 5 GW if there is smart charging and time-of-use electricity tariffs.”
The National Grid will need off-peak EV charging essential to keep costs down and stress on the grid to minimum levels. What happens, though, for the British economy and investors if peak demand isn’t enforced? The Scottish and Southern Electricity Network tested this theory and found “uncontrolled EV charging would double the usual domestic load to 2 kilowatts (kW) when using a 3.5 kW charger.”
To meet these demands, Britain opened the largest gas plant in two decades at 884 MW. The plant came online in Manchester last year, but the costs were over 700 million pounds. Unfortunately, two additional natural gas plants near Manchester have stalled because the developer has been unable to raise the dual project’s 800 million pounds required for them to be built. However, the risk of more fossil fuel being used to meet additional EV needs could mean that Britain emits more greenhouse gases with widespread EV adoption than conventional vehicles.
Nuclear is also an option to meet growing energy needs, but Britain has struggled to build nuclear plants due to the prohibitive costs associated with construction. EDF’s 3.2 GW Hinkley Point C nuclear plant won’t open until 2025 at the earliest, as the costs fall on the private sector. To address these concerns, British energy regulator Ofgem has been tapped to ensure multiple power sources, infrastructure to support EVs and more interconnectors dispersed throughout the country.
The final reality of mass EV adoption deals with jobs and profits. In early September, China also pledged to outlaw the combustion engine, though the government didn’t say when. Daimler, the builder of Mercedes, gave details about their EV program that should give investors, policymakers and advocates of mass zero-emission motoring reason to plan ahead. Daimler warned that:
“Planned electric Mercedes models will initially be just half as profitable as conventional alternatives, forcing the group to find savings by outsourcing more component manufacturing, which may in turn threaten German jobs.”
Daimler boss Dieter Zetsche also recently told reporters, “In-house production is almost irrelevant to the consumer.” If German jobs are threatened then British and Chinese jobs could also be eliminated. The factors of job elimination, infrastructure upgrades and the tens of billions it will take to have EVs overtake the combustible engine should give investors and elected officials grave concern.
Private energy investors, in particular, should understand the costs and tradeoffs before investing in the British EV market or other developed nations going down this path.
By Todd Royal for Oilprice.com
67 Comments on "The High Cost Of Going Green"
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 4:58 pm
The eventual cost of not going green is far higher.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 5:39 pm
In the past when such situations presented themselves the markets were always counted on to make a new technology affordable. What often happened was an economic boost from the disruptive change of the new technology. What I have been reading lately points to the end of affordability with a new reality of sacrifice. We are not going to get more for less this time like in the past. We will have to sacrifice somewhere to make a renewable/EV world a reality. I don’t see how we can afford a full transition considering all the other costs ahead. If we could get our priorities straight that would help. The reality is our attitudes need to be changed to accepting less. “Less” seems easy but it is not considering our cultural conditioning of mass travel and unlimited discretionary consumerism. The sky is the limit today but now we must have real limits. We often forget another inconvenient reality of a macro “less” this means deflation and deflation means economic decline.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 8:20 pm
Without growth Capitalism wanes and suffocates which what it is doing. A steady state economy,aka socialism is next in line. A system that does not promote waste, planned obsolescence, and scraping the planet clean. Also ever more customers/consumers. But for a more rational benign regularity to be implemented it would take a more rational benign species. Evolution is too lethargic to accomplish such a transmogrification.
Apneaman on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 8:37 pm
clog, Prof Kevin Anderson agrees with you on the alt fantasy. Oh and he also gives the humans a 5% chance of pulling it off (3:45 second mark).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO-aIc8ZInY&feature=youtu.be
It’s too late. Run away climate change is underway.
Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:15 pm
Did you ever hear of green sources, like residential solar roofs? 33 years is a long time. Look at the projections by Tony Seba for reasons why lower costs are likely in time, which will incent far more solar. Solar doesn’t have to be more big commercial plants.
makati1 on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:35 pm
Outcast, do you know that the electronic inverter part of solar lasts about 6-7 years depending on many variables? Those panels may be on the roof for 30 years, but they will be nothing more than glass shingles for most of that time. Do you really expect to be able to buy replacements when that part goes bad? I don’t.
energy investor on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:47 pm
By 2040, the IEA will have already advised their masters in the OECD that a further 750 billion bbls of crude will have been used at today’s usage rates by then.
So in Fatih Birol’s words we will need to have left oil by then…before oil leaves us.
While people talk about EVs, the li-ion technology simply doesn’t cut the mustard and even future anti-global warming initiatives will need to change when we run out of oil, gas and coal won’t they?
I understand that humans breathe in 420ppm of CO2 and breathe out 14,000ppm of the stuff. We and our livestock comprise 98% of land mammals and yet we want to keep the population and human footprint growing?
The only REAL logic at present for transitioning to EVs is peaking oil supply and price.
Despite the fashion of bagging peak oil theory, we are not making any more of the stuff and the limitations of shale as a range extender are becoming a bit stretched and suspect. e.g.
http://mailchi.mp/oilprice/oilprice-intelligence-report-why-oil-prices-are-seeing-a-steep-correction-1521385?e=9804a8eb5e
I reckon Fatih is right and we must leave oil before it leaves us, but the current crop of EVs will need to be improved and we will need serious improvements in electrical energy storage if our grids are to cope with the huge intermittency of renewables like wind and solar.
Right now, these pronouncements by politicians are just hot air and hopium.
energy investor on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:54 pm
Based on the latest EIA report all EVs are likely to be plugged into a lump of coal anyways…lol
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/China-To-Dictate-Energy-Growth-In-Coming-Years.html
makati1 on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 10:27 pm
energy, the ‘renewables’ and EV fantasy is just that. It took over 200 years to build out the current systems. And you expect it to be replaced in 5% of that time? Not going to happen. LOL
fmr-paultard on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 11:07 pm
transportation is so passe. it’s time we move goods and food using pneumatic tubes. hyperloop is a step in that direction.
elon musk will save us all. his tunnels will be shielded from the elements, reducing maintenance. easily equipped with electric rails and driverless.
he’s a genius. he figured out amber heard without a problem
makati1 on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 12:29 am
fmr..you are really on that techie joy juice, aren’t you? LMAO
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 1:36 am
This article says electric vehicles
actually need to have a power source to
supply the electricity they are using up.
I had no idea. Could that really be true?
nathing@hotmail.fr on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 5:48 am
So we have an article about EVs without the word “lithium” in it…
Simon on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 7:20 am
Interesting article, however, this is based around one small countries problems.
Assuming that we are happy to extrapolate this to the rest of the EU, then there are a few things that have not been taken into account, the most important is.
Smart Meters, whilst these are being rolled out EU wide, they are ostensibly to allow the consumer to make decisions on what devices are most expensive. In the long term however I believe the plan is to expose the consumer to the vagaries of the wholesale market, thus your smart meter would warn you when costs are spiking and if you are smart, you turn things off, if however you are as thick as pig shit, you re gonna get hit with a massive bill. This will happen slowly (10-15 years) but will even out the demand curve, so that EV’s will be charged off peak (evening) when demand is lowest.
Given this, no major investment is needed, unless your little country decides that residential customers are not clever enough to adjust when they charge things.
Simon
Davy on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 7:28 am
We need to combat all those peak oil dynamics and the compressing affordability of fossil fuels with renewables as extenders and enhancers. It appears a 100% renewable age is not affordable nor would it be carbon clean. The closer we get to 100% renewable the more carbon that is produced instead of lowered. This is the case if we insist on a 24/7/365 of demand of everything from energy to production. It is obvious renewables because of their intermittency suffer diminishing return the closer you get to 100% in a world of immediate demand requirements. The vast amount of renewable overbuilding, storage, or fossil fuel supported backup makes a renewable world close to 100% actually counterproductive. The sweet spot for carbon reductions is somewhere in between the two worlds of the status quo and a greatly transformed renewable world.
The Holy Grail is demand management which is a fancy term for behavioral changes. All of this may be mute because once we going beyond tweaking the global economy in its status quo as-is of growing growth the consequences may mean serious deflation and economic decline. All these wish lists of changes will not be affordable systematically through the global system itself. Forget about do we have enough energy and resources ask do we have the economy and the social fabric. So we then must ask is demand management possible systematically without destroying productive capacities.
Growing affluence, growing population, virgin resources, and innovative new technology has allowed us to get to where we are at. All of these attributes are under pressure. We are getting poorer through systematic debt and entropic decay. Systematic debt today is really a Ponzi arrangement of living beyond our means that results in mal-investment. A properly invested world centered on survival would not be what we have today. Our world today is about affluence not survival. The survival part is a given in our choices because we mistakenly believe the human ability to produce through a robust economy will remain. Affluence is the real motivation everything else is secondary. This pursuit of affluence is what drives our competitive/cooperative global world. Populations are exploding and must level off and even decline. All resources are in decline. New innovative technology has stalled compared to the late 20th century advances. Combine these and you have a predicament of growth.
If we can cooperate as a global people and manage our bad behavior through demand management and the wise introduction alternative energy we can maybe buy us some breathing room to transition to a modern economy part 2. What is more likely is a postmodern man in a greatly altered planet in economic decline and climate disruption. The key to our next step is now. This is the most important time in man’s existence because this is the point where we move on or end. EV’s are a part of this because we are a transport culture. EV’s properly applied in a system of demand management will enhance the system. This needs to be more than EV’s. It needs to be trains and trams. It needs to be localism and less global movement of people.
If you think we can have a golden age of renewables ahead with a continuation of affluence then you are part of the problem. We are now in an age of decline on every metric. Where we can have a golden age is in human wisdom. We can come together as best we can as a global people in humility and sobriety and build out what we can of a modern age part 2 or we can build lifeboats and hospices for pre extinction. The more likely outcome will be a muddle into a dangerous world of dysfunction and decay. I am not at all optimistic on any of these counts but I am optimistic we will become aware of what is needed and at least try.
Boat on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 9:01 am
davy,
“It appears a 100% renewable age is not affordable nor would it be carbon clean”.
Don’t do a mak and play so dumb. Look at the going price of nat gas and coal around the world supplying electricity. Look at dropping price trends for renewables. The latest UK offshore turbines are competitive now.
Do you really want to argue renewables are as dirty as coal, nat gas and oil?
Let’s see what tech has to say before we assume overbuilds and counterproductive buildouts. For most of the world that is a few decades away.
Davy on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 10:34 am
“Do you really want to argue renewables are as dirty as coal, nat gas and oil? Let’s see what tech has to say before we assume overbuilds and counterproductive buildouts. For most of the world that is a few decades away.”
Did I argue renewables are as dirty? I said systematically when you start approaching the 100% level of total renewables you approach diminishing returns and that approach makes the whole effort appear dirty and unaffordable. The difficult realities of intermittency and the desire for on demand power when wanted and needed becomes very large. To overcome these difficulties requires huge overbuilds of supply, massive storage efforts, and excessive complexity of distribution. This then make no sense if you want to be clean and have an effective EROI of affordability. This is just theory because it has never been done. That is what I am arguing not the binary of dirty/clean. Think outside the box a little boat. What I am saying is there is likely a proper mix somewhere less than 100% renewables. This would at least be until humans could change behaviors to go intermittent, seasonal, and local. Ironically like we once were before went hyper modern.
Antius on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 11:12 am
There are alternatives to Battery Electric Vehicles.
http://www.lowcarbonfutures.org/sites/default/files/potential-guide.pdf
Liquid air can be made and stored for long periods. What’s more an air liquefaction plant does not need any rare materials for its construction, just lots of steel. The same is true for the engine.
Here is an even better solution. It can be powered directly from the grid.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram
Boat on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 12:23 pm
Davy,
“All of this may be mute because once we going beyond tweaking the global economy in its status quo as-is of growing growth the consequences may mean serious deflation and economic decline”.
In mature economies with no population growth deflation should be normal. There is a saturation point for goods. Tech in many products get smaller and use less energy get lighter etc. Electric motors, electronics, tv etc.
In spite of bigger home size, U.S. residential electricity sales have declined in both absolute and per capita terms.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32212
tahoe1780 on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 12:48 pm
About those Nat Gas plants…
https://www.britishgas.co.uk/the-source/our-world-of-energy/energys-grand-journey/where-does-uk-gas-come-from
Davy on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 12:52 pm
That was not what I was talking about boat. What I was talking about is serious economic reengineering to achieve some kind of goal like a close to100% renewable energy system coupled with effective demand management. Think about that and then ask yourself how disruptive that might be. This will not only be creative disruption. It will be disruptive to traditional markets and industries. Many will have to be eliminated to have real and effective demand management. IMO a highly renewable integrated economy must have robust demand management as a basis.
Boat on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 12:53 pm
davy,
A chart on energy intensity.
https://energy.gov/eere/analysis/energy-intensity-indicators-highlights
Boat on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 1:00 pm
BP Cuts North Sea Production Costs In Half
“This focus on standardization, simplification and discipline on cost has contributed to our average production costs in the North Sea coming down from a peak of over $30 a barrel in 2014, to less than $15 a barrel today. Heading towards 2020, with all our major new developments coming into production, we expect that to come down below $12 a barrel in the North Sea,” the BP chief executive said.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/BP-Cuts-North-Sea-Production-Costs-In-Half.html
Davy on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 1:21 pm
Boat, do you have a chart for a large economy at 90% renewable energy supply? I would be curious how those trends hold up.
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 2:24 pm
Boat, where did you get those chart & graphs, from a book? Pffftttt
GregT on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 2:28 pm
Boat,
Between yourself and Davy, it’s obvious which one of you has more on the ball when it comes to energy matters. Good work buddy!
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 3:17 pm
Thanks grandma killing deniers
Yes, climate change made Harvey and Irma worse
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/us/climate-change-hurricanes-harvey-and-irma/index.html
GregT on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 4:29 pm
“Boat, where did you get those chart & graphs, from a book?”
Boat doesn’t do books Apnea, he doesn’t like the ‘spin’ associated with independent analysis.
All of his stats come directly from the corpocracy itself.
They have absolutely no vested interest in misleading the masses.
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 4:36 pm
Sachs: Big Oil will have to pay up, like Big Tobacco
“Here is a message to investors in the oil industry, whether pension and insurance funds, university endowments, hedge funds or other asset managers: Your investments are going to sour. The growing devastation caused by climate change, as seen this month in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean, are going to blow a hole in your fossil-fuel portfolio.
Not only will the companies you own suffer as society begins to abandon fossil fuels in earnest, they will also be dragged through the courts here and abroad for their long-standing malfeasance and denial of what they have done to the world.
Climate change deniers, mainly politicians in the pay of the oil industry, protest that there is no proof that destructive storms and floods are the result of human-induced global warming. Who can say that a Hurricane Harvey or Irma wouldn’t have occurred in the past?
Such a defense — the cynical shrug — will not play for much longer, either in the court of public opinion or in courts of law in the United States and abroad. The risks of climate-related disasters are real and rising, and soon it won’t matter politically or legally that any particular event might have occurred even without human-induced global warming.
The issue is of probability, not certainty. Of course, there have been weather-related disasters in the past. But global warming makes us more vulnerable to these events. Scientists emphasize that hurricane damage, for example, may rise for three reasons: higher sea levels (due to warming) cause larger storm surges; warmer oceans add energy to hurricanes; and warmer air holds more water vapor that can cause torrential downpours.”
http://www.kxlf.com/story/36379878/sachs-big-oil-will-have-to-pay-up-like-big-tobacco
I doubt it will go down the way he describes, but some of it will, to varying degrees. More strain & pressure. Bled the Cancer kings dry with expensive legal challenges.
rockman on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 5:09 pm
And we’re back to the same issue that cripples Apneaman’s conscious so severely he can’t accept his culpability as being part of the group that DIRECTLY produces the vast majority of GHG. And thus are the primary parties RESPOSIBLE for Climate Change: the fossil fuel consumers who personally burn all those hydrocarbons.
But it’s only human nature for those responsible for causing a problem to try to shift the blame. LOL
makati1 on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 6:40 pm
Rockman, just like Americans? LOL
MASTERMIND on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 8:30 pm
Philippines’ Duterte asks head of human rights agency: ‘Are you a pedophile?’ -Reuters
LOL Makati1 your president is total nutter. Just like you! You slimy Asian Carp!
makati1 on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 8:35 pm
MM, Did you ever look in the mirror? You should. What you see will scare you. Hypocrisy from an American. What else to expect? LMAO
Boat on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 8:55 pm
Davy on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 1:21 pm
Boat, do you have a chart for a large economy at 90% renewable energy supply? I would be curious how those trends hold up.
Europe has a handful of 100 percent renewable cities. No large economies that I know of.
Apneaman on Sun, 17th Sep 2017 10:37 pm
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it might be ‘too late’ to recover from climate change
“Scientist and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said Sunday that, in the wake of devastating floods and damage caused by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, climate change had become so severe that the country “might not be able to recover.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html
Still playing far too nice when it comes to the denier scum. The country is all but lost. Zero leadership addressing the real problems & predicaments.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 4:40 am
Antius says:
There are alternatives to Battery Electric Vehicles.
http://www.lowcarbonfutures.org/sites/default/files/potential-guide.pdf
Liquid air can be made and stored for long periods. What’s more an air liquefaction plant does not need any rare materials for its construction, just lots of steel. The same is true for the engine.
Thanks Antius! This is the main reason to hang on a little more to “harvest” links to interesting sources of knowledge.
Made a post of it:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/18/liquid-air-energy-storage/
You do realize that you are now implicitly help promoting a renewable energy society?
But perhaps did (justifiable) Brit-pride take the better of you, since the British are apparently at the forefront of this technology.
Anyway, keep posting links like these!
Antius on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 9:04 am
“We need to combat all those peak oil dynamics and the compressing affordability of fossil fuels with renewables as extenders and enhancers. It appears a 100% renewable age is not affordable nor would it be carbon clean. The closer we get to 100% renewable the more carbon that is produced instead of lowered. This is the case if we insist on a 24/7/365 of demand of everything from energy to production. It is obvious renewables because of their intermittency suffer diminishing return the closer you get to 100% in a world of immediate demand requirements. The vast amount of renewable overbuilding, storage, or fossil fuel supported backup makes a renewable world close to 100% actually counterproductive. The sweet spot for carbon reductions is somewhere in between the two worlds of the status quo and a greatly transformed renewable world.”
I think that hits the nail on the head Davy. To implement a transition away from fossil fuels whilst maintaining civilisation as we know it, huge investments must be made. Our ability to make that investment is being eroded, because our systems are beginning to fail.
In terms of integrating intermittent renewable energy beyond the normally discussed 20-30% level, I think demand management is definitely the most promising approach so far as integrating a large proportion of renewable energy into the grid. The other options being curtailment, which is wasteful and reduces EROI in proportion to the proportion of energy curtailed; and storage, which typically has high embedded energy and suffers from poor round trip efficiency (20-70% in most cases).
Some issues I can see with demand management:
(1) There are clearly some applications where it can work well in principle. For example, a large proportion of total energy use in non-tropical countries is space heating. In principle, heat can be stored for long periods and provided by heat pumps using only occasional bursts of power. But this requires either a building with large thermal inertia built into it, or a large thermal store with a district heating system service multiple structures. In both cases, a lot of new infrastructure is required. The same is true of cooking and other high temperature applications. These could be made to work by building large thermal stores which absorb electric power into heating elements when available and store heat until it is needed. But again, this requires substantial changes to existing infrastructure, which may not be compatible with existing arrangements, i.e. kitchen sizes.
(2) As above, there are some arrangements, such as community large-scale refrigeration and freezing, which can be made to work using intermittent electricity. However, putting them into action suggests changes to social arrangements and new infrastructure costs. These might not be quick and easy things to change. More likely, this will need to be a gradual transition over several decades and will require changes to design and changes in the way designers think about problems.
(3) Some industrial activities are more suitable for demand management than others. Activities where capital equipment and labour costs make up a large proportion of total costs are unsuitable for demand management. Activities where energy and feedstock are the major costs, capital is modest and down periods can be accommodated without damaging equipment, may be suitable for demand management. This may be the case for say, ammonia, cement or brick manufacture, which can adapt to batch processes or ore reduction, which again may be able to operate in batch process.
Demand management inevitably involves additional costs. The key principle that makes demand management more workable than electricity storage is that the number of energy transitions is reduced. We are postponing activities where energy is the major cost and when we store energy, we store it in the form in which we intend to use it: i.e. heat and cold; maybe in compressed air, if we intend to consume energy as compressed air. The downside is that additional capital, maintenance and labour costs are incurred, and in many cases, deep changes are required to society. These by necessity take a lot of time and coordinated effort towards agreed goals. We are short of both.
Antius on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 9:49 am
“Thanks Antius! This is the main reason to hang on a little more to “harvest” links to interesting sources of knowledge.
You do realize that you are now implicitly help promoting a renewable energy society?
But perhaps did (justifiable) Brit-pride take the better of you, since the British are apparently at the forefront of this technology.”
Well, you’re welcome.
I have nothing against the idea of a renewable energy society per se. I just doubt that it is a workable replacement for fossil fuels in a way that allows the present population of the Earth to enjoy anything resembling First World living standards. Since I have children and expect to have grandchildren, I am biased against pouring money into solutions that may turn out to be ‘not solutions’.
My concerns around renewable energy are multifaceted, but of particular concern are energy losses in storage, embodied energy in the generation, transmission and storage equipment; low EROI of specific energy sources. Then there is the simple fact that living on renewable energy would require a different way of life to what people are accustomed to in a fossil fuel society where everything is available on demand.
The possibility of demand management gives me more hope that intermittent energy is something we may be able to adapt to at a user level, avoiding a lot of the need to store electricity. But it requires some quite deep changes to the way we live. So far, renewable energy has focused on substituting limited amounts of intermittent power onto the electric grid, fully backed up by fossil fuels, whilst demand is effectively Business as Usual. A close to 100% renewable economy cannot function like that and adapting our industry and way of life to our energy source will require some very deep changes. We don’t have a lot of time left and as Davy has pointed out, our economic system is unstable.
Whatever energy sources we use, we have the creeping problem of resource depletion, meaning that even in a steady state economy, more and more energy is needed every year to get around problems like falling ore grades, declining soil fertility and collapsing ecosystems. Renewable energy sources tend to be quite heavy on resources like steel, concrete and other refined metals. At this level, I wonder just how renewable it really is. Of course, these problems apply whichever energy source we use. They make me wonder if there is any such thing as a sustainable high-tech society on Earth. This is why I repeatedly advocate development of space industry and space colonisation.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 10:29 am
A close to 100% renewable economy cannot function like that and adapting our industry and way of life to our energy source will require some very deep changes.
The Fraunhofer Institute, no dummies, respectfully begs to disagree. Here is a blueprint for a stable 100% renewable energy society, with, as the claim, the same cost as today:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/blueprint-100-renewable-energy-base-for-germany/
It suffices to have a short glance and the diagram representing the system (for Germany).
The 37 page report, discussing the model, is in German.
The blueprint includes ALL energy aspects, not just electricity.
Apneaman on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 10:36 am
Clog, has tabled a proposal to the Germans to build all the wind turbine blades in the shape of a swastika. Green energy for white cancer.
Apneaman on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 10:41 am
hey clogsnot, here’s the latest on that trash denier David Rose article you were shopping around a few months back.
Fake News: Mail on Sunday Forced to Correct ‘Significantly Misleading’ Article on Global Warming ‘Pause’
https://www.desmog.uk/2017/09/18/fake-news-mail-sunday-forced-correct-significantly-misleading-global-warming-pause-article
Davy on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:01 am
Last I understood a blueprint is not reality. Until you build a 100% renewable region then you are just speculating on a 100% stable renewable world.
Antius on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:26 am
“The Fraunhofer Institute, no dummies, respectfully begs to disagree. Here is a blueprint for a stable 100% renewable energy society, with, as the claim, the same cost as today:”
Unfortunately, I cannot read German. But it should be obvious that they have already failed:
https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/energy-guides/average-electricity-prices-kwh.html
No matter how clever people are, or at least think they are, they always find a way of believing what they want to believe.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:28 am
Last I understood a blueprint is not reality. Until you build a 100% renewable region then you are just speculating on a 100% stable renewable world.
Excellent idea. You just wait, the essential female attitude (waiting), as in doing nothing, cultivating your “can’t do” attitude, complain with fellow doomers like apneaman and anonymouse on the internet how we are all going to die, nay “collapse”, so we in Europe in the meantime acquire all the skills and patents and when we are finished you can buy a turnkey renewable energy society from us for a stiff fee.
All for it.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:34 am
TalmudTurd opines: Godly Clogmeister, here’s the latest on that trash denier David Rose article you were shopping around a few months back.
Fake News: Mail on Sunday Forced to Correct ‘Significantly Misleading’ Article on Global Warming ‘Pause’
https://www.desmog.uk/2017/09/18/fake-news-mail-sunday-forced-correct-significantly-misleading-global-warming-pause-article
Some fact checking first, because I can’t remember this David Rose fella…
google inurl:peakoil.com “Cloggie David Rose”
I find exactly one hit:
http://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/noaa-whistleblower-claims-world-leaders-fooled-by-fake-global-warming-data/comment-page-2
And the only one referring to this David Rose I never heard off… is you, f* TalmudTurd bumpkin.
So unless you provide me with a link, showing “I was shopping around with David Rose” (whatever that may mean), you can stick your David Rose in a place where the sun doesn’t shine and stinks like hell.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:41 am
Unfortunately, I cannot read German. But it should be obvious that they have already failed:
Not really. Australia has hardly renewable electricity worth mentioning, but meanwhile the highest electricity prices in the world, as The Nationalist informed me a few days ago:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/sa-has-most-expensive-power-prices-in-the-world/8658434
There is more to the cost of a kwh than the share of renewable energy in the overall palette, like energy taxes, being an early adopter in renewable energy (which is indeed expensive), monopoly position of providers, etc.
No matter how clever people are, or at least think they are, they always find a way of believing what they want to believe.
That’s top easy to dismiss a single diagram containing the blueprint, with an English legenda provided by me, which somebody like you immediately understands.
Davy on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 11:55 am
By all mean clogster have at it but don’t try and sell me your unfinished product. You succeed once you have a finished product not before. You don’t get a prize before you win the game. It is a horse and cart thing. Nothing feminine about reality and completion.
Antius on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 12:48 pm
“Not really. Australia has hardly renewable electricity worth mentioning, but meanwhile the highest electricity prices in the world, as The Nationalist informed me a few days ago:”
Oh. South Australia recently closed it’s last coal power plant. The state had been installing wind power plants rapidly and using the coal plant as backup. Unfortunately, they failed to compensate the plant for its excessive downtime and it went under. Now they have to pay a fortune shipping power in from out of state. Renewable energy directly caused this problem.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 1:09 pm
This article denies that renewables have anything to do with it:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/study-finds-rising-gas-prices-to-blame-for-electricity-bill-hike-not-renewable-energy-costs/news-story/2ccad7cadb4e0eacf6b215b956194843
Real reason: gas prices.
Cloggie on Mon, 18th Sep 2017 1:25 pm
Denmark has much wind energy, yet countries like Denmark has lower corporate electricity prices than Germany and Britain:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/study-finds-rising-gas-prices-to-blame-for-electricity-bill-hike-not-renewable-energy-costs/news-story/2ccad7cadb4e0eacf6b215b956194843
It is not all what it seems.