Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 2, 2017
No Peak Oil For America Or The World
Oil is more plentiful than you can imagine. And we keep figuring out easier and more economical ways to get it out of the ground.
In 1938, the famous geologist M. King Hubbert came up with the concept of peak oil, which is defined as having extracted half of the recoverable, conventional oil reserves. After that, oil production declines and cannot keep up with growing demand as the population continues to rise.
We used to think about Peak Oil like this – the reserves are finite, we know where they are and how long they will last, and we will start running out soon. But with recent technological innovations, we keep finding new oil deposits that are now recoverable and a peak won’t happen for a century or more. Source: Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas (ASPO)
In Hubbert’s time, most of the conventional oil reserves had already been discovered. Hubbert went on to predict that U.S. production would peak in 1969, and it did appear to peak in 1970. World reserves were supposed to peak around 2010 (see figure).
However, about 20 years ago, the industry really leapt forward on the technologies to find oil and to extract it. Particularly fracking.
This changed everything.
BP’s Spencer Dale summed it up nicely, “For every barrel of oil consumed over the past 35 years, two new barrels have been discovered.” And this shows no sign of slowing down any time soon. Peak oil has probably moved out a hundred years or more.
While we talk about decreasing our fossil fuel use, it’s easy to forget that humans find it really hard not to use what they have a lot of. And we have a lot of oil. And gas. And coal. In fact, the United States has more oil, gas and coal together than any other country in the world.
Fossil fuels are deposits of hydrocarbon materials in the earth. The conventional types are petroleum or crude oil, coal and natural gas. These deposits form from the organic materials in bodies of long-dead organisms trapped in accumulating sediments, and buried for geologic time.
For petroleum, these were primarily marine organisms such as plankton deposited over the last 600 million years, although most of the petroleum left formed between 65 and 2 million years ago.
For coal, it was plant material primarily from forests deposited during the Carboniferous between 350 and 270 million years ago before microbes had developed that could breakdown lignin, the real hard parts of wood.
Fossil fuels form when these organic materials are heated and pressed as they are buried deper in the Earth. Natural gas consists of the volatile components coming off of petroleum, mainly methane (CH4) but also some ethane, propane and butane. Conventional oil and gas are rarely found at the original site of formation. Coal does not migrated from its original site of deposition.
Because petroleum and gas are fluid and less dense than rock, both migrate laterally and vertically through more permeable rocks until they are trapped beneath dense impermeable rocks that have been folded or faulted into an advantageous shape for trapping. Petroleum and gas are extracted from these conventional traps, or reservoirs, through wells drilled from the surface.
However, unconventional deposits are primarily those where the oil and gas could not migrate to conventional traps, but are stuck in the very tight and tiny pores and fractures in these tight rocks, mainly shales and tight sandstones, or are not very fluid like heavy oils and tars. The ability to seriously exploit these unconventional reserves did not exist practically before 2000.
Think of conventional versus unconventional oil like jelly donuts versus tiramisu (see figure). Drilling into conventional sources is like sticking a straw in a jelly donut – the petroleum is trapped in a large single formation that just flows out under pressure.
Drilling into conventional sources is like sticking a straw in a jelly donut – the petroleum is trapped in a large single formation that just flows out under pressure. Drilling into unconventional sources like oil and gas shale is quite different, more like tiramisu – the petroleum is in many layers that have to be individually tapped using horizontal drilling and fracking methods to open up the rock. Source: Jim Scherrer
Drilling into unconventional sources like oil and gas shale is quite different, more like tiramisu – the petroleum is in many layers that have to be individually tapped using horizontal drilling and fracking methods to open up the rock.
Saudi Arabia has a bunch of really big jelly donuts. The United States has lots of tiramisu, plus some pretty good jelly donuts as well. But we keep finding more tiramisu.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of these rocks has allowed us to recover gas and oil from these tight rocks, and horizontal drilling, as well as drilling many-directional strings from a single well, have allowed pinpoint targeting of these deposits, making recovery economic. If the crude is think and tarry, and won’t flow at all, like the Alberta tar sands, it must be removed by using heat, steam or solvents and mixed with more fluid crude for transport.
Unfortunately, the environmental cost of unconventionals is even greater than for conventional sources.
World oil and gas reserves are estimated in four ways:
1) those that are economically recoverable (this is what is used most often), also known as proven reserves,
2) those that are technically recoverable (we think we could recover these in the future),
3) total or in-place reserves (the total amount of oil and gas we know of but know we can’t get it all out yet), and
4) Unknown reserves (those we do not know about yet, primarily under ice sheets).
We still only use the first two to estimate global oil reserves, and so they keep changing as we develop new technologies and find new unconventional reserves.
Surprisingly, access to so much oil does not mean the price will go down or stay down. The price of oil is political and is set by the big players, particularly by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, in a way that maximizes profits and controls supply and demand.
Too much oil on the market means the price drops and oil-producing countries don’t make as much money as they want to. Too little oil on the market means the price skyrockets and people begin to use less oil, become more efficient and move towards non-petroleum sources like electric vehicles. Bad for oil-producing countries
So it is a tightrope walk for oil producers.
As you would expect, these new technologies, and the flood of unconventional sources, have caused some political and economic disruptions. Oi prices had been about $100/bbl for several years running up to 2014. But as shale oil began flooding the global market, the price began to fall in 2014. Usually, when that happens, OPEC cuts production to get the prices back up.
Instead, Saudi Arabia initiated an economic oil war against the United States by refusing to cut production in November of 2014. This was an attempt to drive U.S. shale oil producers bankrupt and slow the flow of North American shale oil onto the global market.
In fact, OPEC increased oil production further, which drove oil prices down even more, eventually dropping to about $30/bbl in 2016, a price at which shale producers can’t even break-even.
Initially, this oil war made the U.S. shale oil industry leaner and meaner as the big guys like Exxon bought out the small guys going bankrupt. But eventually, even the big guys had to decrease shale oil production, and even some conventional reserves have been closed down.
So the oil war seems to have worked out for the Saudis and OPEC. According to Chris Helman of Forbes, the Saudi’s tactic has brought a halt to the shale boom and has also potentially scared off a whole generation of exploration into the deepwater and arctic. “75% of America’s drilling rigs are in mothballs and fracking crews have been tossed to the wind.”
Oil prices are back up over $50/bbl and holding steady.
The unconventional oil is still there, it’s just that OPEC will not make it very economic to recover until we really need it.
But certainly, Peak Oil is no longer in sight.
Dr. James Conca is a geochemist, an energy expert, an authority on dirty bombs, a planetary geologist and professional speaker. Follow him on Twitter @jimconca and see his book at Amazon.com
65 Comments on "No Peak Oil For America Or The World"
Davy on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 6:33 am
I am not going to read the noise that is forbes my time is too valuable.
Hello on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 6:34 am
Mmm. jelly donut.
onlooker on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:17 am
Forbes is Cheerleader for BAU
paulo1 on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:40 am
Scary to think there are hundreds of thousands of people reading Forbes and believing everything they say.
Then again, it’s scary to think about the people knocking on my door on saturday afternoons with religious tracts proclaiming only 160,000 people get to ‘heaven’, (I guess they’ll be one of them), or __________. Do robed kids still sell flowers at airports?
Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 7:54 am
Britain alone can provide the world with centuries of fossil fuel via the (environmentally) disastrous underground coal gasification method:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2015/04/07/fracking-is-for-amateurs/
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/01/underground-coal-gasification/
Thank God the UK government has for the time being rejected that option:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/uk-government-rejects-ucg/
The real limiting factor is environment, not running out of fossil fuel.
Everybody worrying about running out of fossil fuel is like somebody worrying about his old age while falling from the Empire State building.
Revi on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:09 am
Nice! Tiramisu!
David de Roche on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:12 am
There is far too much oil, gas, and coal. We are drowning in all that carbon and are reduced to wishful thinking that it might run out. It won’t.
Best to plan your actions based upon your reality not your fantasy. Bold moves not cringing echo caves.
tita on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:14 am
Proven reserves define the rate of extraction, which is the metric that defines peak oil. Whatever is the amount of the other reserves, if you can’t account them to the proven reserves, you can’t increase the rate of extraction, and so you are in a peak oil situation.
And this happened and will happen again. It usually leads to an increase of the price of crude oil, so a part of technical reserves can be accounted as proven reserves and we drill and pump it. Some technical innovation can do that, but recent shale development was a consequence of the price, not technical. Other countries did the same.
What changed everything is not shale oil, but the lack of proven reserves under 40$ per barrel.
penury on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:30 am
I wish that I had the ability to believe that “no matter what we do,whatever humans need or desire will be provided by a infinite source located within a finite planet. It would be so comforting to know that nothing can go wrong, nothing can go wrong. If I keep repeating it, does that make it true?
Mark Ziegler on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 8:55 am
If I were an investor I would be wary if there was that much more oil to be had. The price would never go up.
Cloggie on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:32 am
Peak Oil Society = Flat Earth Society
Peak conventional oil may be true but at the same time it is not as significant an event as the Heinberg crowd led us to believe in 2005.
#ThirdCarbonAge
http://tinyurl.com/j6mxap5
rockman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:37 am
Even if they can’t get the definition correct you think they could get the date correct from wiki: it wasn’t 1938. Nor is it defined as “having extracted half of the recoverable, conventional oil reserves.” Amazing Forbes can’t understand such a simple metric.
Here’s one of the best summaries of his analysis I’ve run across especially since it highlights more subtle points some folks miss:
The Hubbert peak theory says that for any given geographical area…the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.”
Yes: a given geographic area at a point in time. There was a previous PO date in the late 1800’s as production in one geographic area, PA, declined. There was another PO date when the geographic area of the Texas oil trends (which were the primary stats Dr. H used) in the 1950’s time frame. And that is the same geographic area, but different time frame, where a PO will be established for the Eagle Ford Shale peak. And today we may be at the PO of another geographic area, the offshore Gulf of Mexico, which has just reached an all time high of daily oil production.
The confusion comes when folks start lumping different geographic areas over different time periods. The shale plays came very close to establishing a new US PO date. But even if it had it would not invalidate Dr. He’s analysis: it was primarily based upon one geographic area over one time period. And his project proved very accurate and would have still been correct had the shales established a new US PO date.
And it continues: “The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and decline.” And this is the second misconception many have: the “bell-shaped curve”. BSC’s may be symmetric or not. A BSC may be very asymmetric…which is extremely common for individual oil well, oil fields, oil trends and even specific oil producing geographic regions. The trends Dr. H used in his analysis are still producing. In fact they represent a big % of the 80% of the US oil wells producing at stripper rates. IOW that BSC is very asymmetric and thus the 1971 inflection point does not represent the 50% mark of the ultimate recovery. So while ultimate recovery of any stat will be a function of the area under that curve the peak point of an ASYMMETRIC BSC does not represent the midpoint of the ultimate recovery of that particular stat.
Of course those FACTS won’t prevent folks like Forbes and others from redefining aspects of such analysis in order to support the particular spin they’re trying to sell.
Antius on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:48 am
Plentiful oil that no one can afford.
If you think about it, if cost and EROI are no object, we could manufacture oil from water and limestone and electricity. There would be no theoretical limit to supply.
At some point, the cost of oil would be such that fewer and fewer users could afford it as an energy source. At that point, peak oil occurs. It will occur for the entire world when interest rates go up in the world’s biggest economies and we can no longer afford to burn capital expenditure on non-productive investments. Expect new renewables to die at about the same time.
Midnight Oil on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:53 am
If this Guy from BP is correct…KISS the climatic system we know and love goodbye..
We are toast…
Davy on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 10:01 am
We are toast anyway the question is a story about the journey there.
Boat on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 10:29 am
Over time oil has set many new peaks and will continue to do so. Demand keeps going up setting the stage for the next peak. Climate change, electric cars or geopolitics is a more likely cause for the last peak before depletion becomes a concern.
POD is another myth. Spikes in the price of oil is more a testament of humans not being able to live in peace.
ERR on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 10:51 am
GREAT PLOT Marxist-Stalinist = cornucopian
The aim of the Marxist-Stalinist (cornucopian) conspiracy is to give the impression propaganda, with the world held fast scientific and technical progress enables exponential population growth towards infinity.
Opponents of this type of propaganda, and in particular scientists studying the problem of overcrowding and its consequences, to announce the “enemies of the people”.
The elements of this propaganda is the assertion that:
– Reverend T.R.Malthus (which did so much to explain the root causes of poverty!) And his followers are “enemies of the people”, and they are the cause of poverty,
– In the world there is a huge progress in agricultural productivity.
– There are great resources of oil and other raw materials concealed by the “enemies of the people”
– Spreading false information about the discovery of new energy resources,
– Spreading false information about discoveries of minerals and substances with extraordinary properties,
– Overestimating the possibility of conventional energy and alternative
in particular wind and solar,
– Spreading false information about: the rapid development of electric cars-long range, including (importantly)
– The development of electric storage batteries with high energy density.
As part of this policy is to falsification of statistical data on the state of the economy and standard of living (which particularly became apparent in the case of the former Soviet Union and more recently other countries.)
One of the main objectives of the Stalinist regime was the total destruction of the layers of the intelligentsia and their replacement element completely drunken and degenerate.
This Stalinist “modern” society was without batting an eye, and the slightest objection to accept the most harmful decisions of the authorities, and even the most mendacious and falsifying history and reporting activities.
With great apprehension must consider whether such a policy is not carried over.
Is this a system that tried on the population of the USSR is not now introduced in the US?
jjhman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:08 pm
ERR:
You need to work on your grammar skills. I have no idea what you said.
GregT on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:12 pm
Some very good comments here.
Especially from the Rockman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:37 am
“The Hubbert peak theory says that for any given geographical area…the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve.”
and
Antius on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 9:48 am
“At some point, the cost of oil would be such that fewer and fewer users could afford it as an energy source. At that point, peak oil occurs. It will occur for the entire world when interest rates go up in the world’s biggest economies and we can no longer afford to burn capital expenditure on non-productive investments. Expect new renewables to die at about the same time.”
Anonymous on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:41 pm
I can see why forbes used cartoon of a jelly donut. It was to put the subject in terms their neo-liberal readership and retards like boat could actually grasp. Well sort of understand, the pictures were pretty at least, isn’t that right boat?. So naturally, he (boat) couldn’t resist commenting. Retard.
Jan on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:49 pm
Over the last 35 years we have replace 2 barrels for every one used. This is true but most of it is Orinoco heavy oil and Canada tar sands.
The reality of replacing quality with quality is much more grim.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-oil-exploration-idUKKBN1521TA
Once the oversupply has worked through the system in 2 years we will really see what can be produced at a reasonable price and rate.
rockman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 12:52 pm
“…the cost of oil would be such that fewer and fewer users could afford it as an energy source. At that point, peak oil occurs.” No, not necessarily true. We may actually be at global PO this year…time will tell. And a great many more can afford oil today then a few years ago. Which once more emphasizes the fact that the date of GPO has little relevance to life as we know it.
The affordability and availability of oil at any time in the future will be a function of the POD and not some circled date on a calendar. The last 10 years stand as rather good proof of the assertion.
rockman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 1:01 pm
Jan – “The reality of replacing quality with quality is much more grim.” So true especially when you factor in the costs. Which is why most in the oil patch had a view more then 4 decades ago of the PO path before us. The “quality” reserve replacement problem was well understood by the oil patch in the 70’s. After all, we were the ones tasked with actually doing it.
You kids just got to the party late. LOL
Hubert on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 1:10 pm
Huge Radioactive Cloud Over Europe – Exposion at French Nuclear Plant 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhNF7QL5pF0
Hubert on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 1:19 pm
FUKUSHIMA STILL LEAKING…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CHuj34Aen8
________________________________________ on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 3:50 pm
Is this a fake news site? Forbes is a fag that keeps faking it no matter how much he gets drilled.
onlooker on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 3:59 pm
I like that ____________!
rockman on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 5:36 pm
3:50 – “…no matter how much he gets drilled.” He? You do understand Forbes is not a person, right? It’s a publication.
I assume our leaders often post its reports here just to give up some red meat to chew on. IOW Forbes is meant to be “drilled”. LOL.
antaris on Thu, 2nd Mar 2017 10:24 pm
Cloggie could alone supply the Netherlands with gas for a while. I’m glad Forbes didn’t show the cartoon of Clog with a drill pipe shoved up his ass.
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 2:16 am
Oops, the gloves are off with antaris. And only because I don’t support his nuclear vision that the entire world should become one giant plutonium dump. Fukushima writ large.
Nice try, antaris.
peakyeast on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 3:28 am
Taking the broad view oil production sure isnt rising as fast as it once did. That alone indicates a peak.
If one then takes into account the enormeous work done to get the past 10 years rise the indication is clearer.
If one then takes into account the quality of the ressources and the places of extraction then the indication gets very clear.
We are nearing the bottom of the resource pyramid now. The one with good quality in small amounts at the top and bad quality at the bottom.
It is interesting to see if it is viable to burn the coal in situ amongst other crazy ideas to delay our decline. I suspect we will. We have had absolutely no Qualms about exterminating one beautiful species after another. Destroying vast habitats. Poisoning our own food.
I see absolutely no argument as to why we would not destroy earth in other ways than what we already do…
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 4:08 am
Mixed up Antius and antaris in my previous post.
My apologies.
Jan on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 5:20 am
Cloggie
There are alternatives to high pressure reactors. The tragic reason why molton salt thorium was not developed is because it did not make bombs.
http://thmsr.nl/#/in-depth/lftr
dave thompson on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 5:42 am
This is a good read http://energyskeptic.com/2017/shale-light-tight-oil-from-the-etp-model-qa/
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 5:49 am
‘Oops, the gloves are off with antaris. And only because I don’t support his nuclear vision that the entire world should become one giant plutonium dump. Fukushima writ large.’
Cloggie, you don’t come here to learn, you come here to attempt to indoctrinate. You don’t know much about what you are talking about and you don’t want to know. It doesn’t matter either way. Nothing you or I say will make any difference in the real world.
But the great thing about nuclear power is that the whole world does not need to become a dump in the same way fossil fuels treat the atmosphere. We are talking about a very small volume of material. A 1GW nuclear reactor produces about 1 tonne of fission product waste each year. It is easy to vitrify this and store it in deep rock formations.
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 5:52 am
There are alternatives to high pressure reactors. The tragic reason why molton salt thorium was not developed is because it did not make bombs.
You could very well have point here. I’m not necessarily against fission/fusion if it can be done in a none-risky fashion, but that’s currently not the case.
My attitude: we have almost all the necessary renewable technology we need, apart from storage, but that gap will be filled as well.
Thorium fission/fusion perhaps in the 22nd century.
For now: solar panels on every roof, giant wind parks in shallow water for NW-Europe, or onshore for less densely populated land mass like North-America/Russia. Mongolia can deliver all the electricity China will ever need from wind.
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 5:54 am
Cloggie, you don’t come here to learn, you come here to attempt to indoctrinate.
At least we have something in common after all.
The difference is that you fight for your nuclear career and have a personal financial horse in this race, where I don’t.
Nothing you or I say will make any difference in the real world.
Let’s hope so, because as things stand now, renewable, not fission, has won the battle globally.
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 7:32 am
Taking the broad view oil production sure isnt rising as fast as it once did. That alone indicates a peak.
Peak demand only.
Renewable energy now constitutes the largest share of new installed energy production capacity, at least in the West and perhaps world-wide.
Revi on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 7:54 am
I like the way that he shows a graph for Peak Oil, and then disproves it with the jelly donut/tiramisu graphic.
I’m convinced! Peak Oil is a thing of the past!
Time to get on to other things, like buying and equipping a monster truck. I need a wave runner too! And a couple of trips around the world in a big Jet Plane! I want to see the penguins before they all die from global warming! I feel unfulfilled, and I need to soothe it with some fossil fuel use! Now I can do that!
Thanks!
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:30 am
My posts don’t seem to be reaching the board.
Here is an excellent article by Euan Mearns showing the relationship between GDP per capita and electricity consumption. You can basically plot wealth as a linear function of electricity consumption.
http://euanmearns.com/electricity-and-the-wealth-of-nations/
With that in mind, is expensive renewable electricity really a good idea?
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:38 am
Here is another study from Gail, linking GDP to energy consumption.
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2011/11/15/is-it-really-possible-to-decouple-gdp-growth-from-energy-growth/
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:39 am
Why wind and solar will not save us:
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/01/30/the-wind-and-solar-will-save-us-delusion/
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:42 am
Here is an excellent article by Euan Mearns showing the relationship between GDP per capita and electricity consumption. You can basically plot wealth as a linear function of electricity consumption.
Here is country ranking of how much energy a country needs to make a buck:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/energy-efficiency-country-ranking/
Interesting that the countries able to make the most from a kWh have opted for renewable energy.
With that in mind, is expensive renewable electricity really a good idea?
Is anybody paying you to sell us your plutonium economy?
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:44 am
Why wind and solar will not save us:
Gail Tverberg, another laywoman and professional bean counter with an opinion.
One libtard low hanging fruitcake Richard Heinberg is enough, thank you very much.
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:48 am
This is what wind power is doing to the UK electricity grid:
http://euanmearns.com/parasitic-wind-killing-its-host/
How renewable energy is pushing up the price of UK electricity:
http://euanmearns.com/brave-green-world-and-the-cost-of-electricity/
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:51 am
‘Is anybody paying you to sell us your plutonium economy?’
I don’t get paid to support anything. I am a safety engineer working in the naval sector. I generally come out in favour of nuclear power because I know that when the fossil fuels get dear, it is the only way that western countries will maintain half decent living standards. I happen to live in a western country.
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 8:52 am
‘Gail Tverberg, another laywoman and professional bean counter with an opinion.
One libtard low hanging fruitcake Richard Heinberg is enough, thank you very much.’
Did you even bother reading her article? Or do you dismiss it because it says something you don’t want to hear?
Antius on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 9:03 am
‘Here is country ranking of how much energy a country needs to make a buck:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/energy-efficiency-country-ranking/
Interesting that the countries able to make the most from a kWh have opted for renewable energy.’
Erm…Not really. Countries with a high GDP per capita tend to have higher energy use and a greater proportion of that energy will be end use electricity. Electricity is simply more efficient at generating additional GDP than anything else. We only need so much low grade heat in an economy, but electricity does all sorts of high productivity things.
And cheap electricity is better than expensive electricity. Germany’s growth rate isn’t exactly spectacular is it? About 0% for the past 15 years. The US, with lots of cheap coal, nuclear and natural gas based electricity, has been growing at a healthy rate. Cheap electricity always wins.
Jan on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 11:00 am
Cloggie says
“My attitude: we have almost all the necessary renewable technology we need, apart from storage, but that gap will be filled as well.”
Cloggie can you tell us how you would fill very large gaps when there is no solar and little wind?
The actual data shows exactly what the challenge is.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/en/topics/-agothem-/Produkt/produkt/76/Agorameter/
Germany already has more installed wind and solar than it’s peak demand. But production from these is rather feeble. look at 7 day graphs
http://euanmearns.com/uk-electricity-part-3-wind-and-solar/
http://euanmearns.com/green-mythology-adding-different-types-of-renewables-smooths-output/
Cloggie on Fri, 3rd Mar 2017 11:14 am
Cloggie can you tell us how you would fill very large gaps when there is no solar and little wind?
In Siberia life comes to a complete standstill during 6 Winter months. Go to bed and read books during daytime.
That’s the worst case “solution”.
The reality will probably much less drastic.
Again, below 40% renewable share you don’t need to worry too much, provided the grid has a continental scale, like in the EU or US.
Pumped hydro in Norway can provide the entire EU with ca. 3 days electricity. And then there is the possibility of converting renewable electricity in fuel, which you can easily store.