Tag Archives: renewable energy

Vaclav Smil

Leave a reply

New Yorker has a long profile of Vaclav Smil. His books have been on my list of too-many-books-to-read-before-i-die for a long time, and have occasionally been semi-finalists, but I have not yet gotten to any of them. The latest is called How the World Really Works.

Basically, he sees himself as bringing relentless rationality and quantitativeness to discussing the world’s energy situation, and is often characterized as an anti-environmentalist as a result. He points out how much energy we really use to make modern civilization possible and how fossil fuels mostly make this possible. For example,

…the power under the direct control of an affluent American household, including its vehicles, “would have been available only to a Roman latifundia owner of about 6,000 strong slaves, or to a nineteenth-century landlord employing 3,000 workers and 400 big draft horses.” He was making a characteristically vivid point about the impact of modern access to energy, most of it produced by burning fossil fuels. No one can doubt that twenty-first-century Americans’ lives are easier, healthier, longer, and more mobile than the lives of our ancestors, but Smil’s comparison makes it clear that most of us underestimate, by orders of magnitude, the scale of the energy transformations that have made our comforts possible.

New Yorker

Increases in efficiency and renewable energy technology are happening, but when he does the math he finds that they are not happening fast enough to bend the curve of consumption and pollution back downwards in the face of relentlessly increasing consumption, especially in the developing world.

The recent slowing of China’s rate of industrialization—S-shaped curves eventually flatten—has not ended its reliance on fossil fuels; the Chinese are still building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of roughly two a week. Not that long ago, Beijing was still a city of bicycles; today, it’s plagued by air pollution, much of it produced by cars. China is the world’s leader in the manufacture of electric vehicles, but it’s also the world’s leader in generating electricity by burning coal. India’s road network, which is already the world’s second longest, after ours, is growing rapidly.

China’s energy consumption will likely peak before 2030, Smil said, but India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and countries in sub-Saharan Africa, among others, are already aiming to follow its growth example. “Don’t forget that at least two and a half billion people around the world still burn wood and straw and even dried dung for everyday activities—the same fuels that people burned two thousand years ago,” he continued. For many years to come, he added, economic growth in such places will necessarily be powered primarily by coal, oil, and natural gas. “They will do what we have done, and what China has done, and what India is trying to do now,” he said. The rate at which the world decarbonizes, he continued, will be determined by them, not by us.

(still New Yorker, but I’m a good little intellectual property rights respecting monkey)

I had this sense when I lived in Asia, that Asia is just so vast and the potential for explosive growth is so enormous that what we do in the US and western Europe will be overwhelmed by their impacts.

I am definitely on the side of math, logic, and reason which are in short supply in this world. I don’t like cynicism disguised as realism to be a substitute for making and having a plan. If math, logic, and reason show that the sort of half-assed plan the world has is not going to work, then the world needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that is going to work. It’s like saying your train is headed for a cliff and the the breaks on your train are not strong enough to stop the train before the cliff. If you throw up your hands and do nothing, you are going off the cliff which is not really an option. Trying to do literally anything is a better option than doing nothing. You would find ways to try to slow down the train or improve the brakes even if you thought the chances of success were low, right?

August 2023 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: Immigration pressure and anti-immigration politics are already a problem in the U.S. and Europe, and climate change is going to make it worse. The 2023 WEF Global Risks Report agrees that “large scale involuntary migration” is going to be up there as an issue. We should not be angry at immigrants, we should be angry at Exxon and the rest of the energy industry, which made an intentional choice not only to directly cause all this but to prevent governments from even understanding the problem let alone doing anything to solve it. We should be very, very angry! Are there any talented politicians out there who know how to stoke anger and channel it for positive change, or is it just the evil genocidal impulses you know how to stoke?

Most hopeful story: Peak natural gas demand could happen by 2030, with the shift being to nuclear and renewables.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: There are a number of theories on why “western elites” have not been (perceived to be) effective in responding to crises in recent years and decades. Many have to do with institutional power dynamics, where the incentives of the individual to gain power within the institution do not align with the stated goals of the institution. Like for example, not killing everyone. The possible silver lining would be that better institutions could be designed where incentives aligned. I have an alternate, or possibly complementary, theory that there has been a decline in system thinking and moral thinking. Our leaders aren’t educated to see the systems and or think enough about whether their decisions are on the side of right or wrong.

December 2022 in Review

1 Reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The U.S. legalized political corruption problem is getting worse, not better. This was one of Project Censored’s most censored stories of 2022.

Most hopeful story: Space-based solar. This just might be the killer energy app, the last energy tech we need to come up with for awhile. Imagine what we could do with abundant, cheap, clean energy – reverse global warming, purify/desalinate as much water as we need, grow lots of food under lights in cities, power homes/businesses/factories with little or no pollution, get around in low-pollution cars/buses/trains, electrolyze as much hydrogen from water as we need for fuel cells to power aircraft and even spacecraft. Solve all these problems and we would eventually come up against other limits, of course, but this would be an enormous step forward. And space-based solar seems like much less of a fantasy than nuclear fusion or even widespread scaling up of new-generation fission designs.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: The Liver King, obviously. What is it about the Liver King I just can’t get enough of. Is it the abs? The huge pectoral muscles?

bouncing between layers of limits

Leave a reply

This Asia Times article is dramatically titled The Renewable Energy Transition is Failing. This seems overly dramatic to me, but the point to me is that if we overcome one limit, in this case the atmospheric sink for carbon dioxide, we will encounter other limits. In this article, the author focuses on availability of raw materials like metals. If we overcome that limit, we may have an issue of sinks for these metals and other waste products produced. So we bounce back and forth between sources and sinks being the limiting factor.

EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2022

Leave a reply

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has a new report out with projections through 2050. The graphs are worth staring at. Here are some takeaways for me.

  • Coal use has crashed from over 20% of energy consumption 10 years ago to around 10% now. The rise in renewable energy mirrors it, from less than 5% to nearly 20%. Natural gas also surged during this period to replace the decline in coal, from around 20 to 30+ percent. Oil just kind of bumps along in the 30-40% range. The projection in 2050 is something like oil 40%, natural gas 35%, renewables 20%, everything else less than 10%.
  • The carbon footprint of electric power generation a decade ago was greater than the transportation sector. It has declined significantly (I assume this reflects the substitution of natural gas and renewables for coal), and is projected to continue to decline. The carbon footprint of transportation and industry is projected to remain relatively flat.
  • The biggest gains in renewable energy are projected to come from solar. Solar is projected to grow regardless of changes in cost, whereas wind and other sources are shown as more sensitive to cost, meaning if cost is high their share stops growing. I assume this has a lot to do with the cost of solar being pretty low already.
  • They show solar energy and battery storage being used extensively to meet peak mid-day demand by 2050.
  • Somewhat disappointing and surprising to me, they show electric vehicles sales only slowly displacing a small portion of gasoline-powered (3%?) vehicle sales over the next 30 years. I hope they are wrong about this one.

I can imagine a past world where safe civilian nuclear technology had been used more widely over the last 50 years or so, and we are not in the climate mess we are in today. Maybe this is even a world where the proliferation of nuclear weapons is less prevalent, but I am not sure about that. This is not the world we live in.

I can imagine a near-future world where homes, businesses, industry, and vehicles are increasingly electrified, and electricity generation is increasingly shifted to renewables. I still think nuclear power might be able to play an important role in this world. But it does not seem like we are headed in the direction of this world, at least not quickly enough to avoid a major train wreck. I hope I am wrong.

green ammonia

Leave a reply

The idea behind green ammonia is to use renewable energy (solar, wind, etc.) to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be combined with nitrogen gas from the air in the Haber-Bosch process to produce ammonia. This is the same as what is done now, except that the most common process is to split the hydrogen off from natural gas, which results in carbon dioxide emissions.

Ammonia is used on a large scale as a fertilizer, so switching to this process would reduce emissions (and wouldn’t make the problem of excess nitrogen reaching our groundwater and surface water any worse, or better). I didn’t realize that ammonia could be burned for fuel. This article explains that even though burning it is less efficient than just burning the hydrogen gas, it is easier to move and store than hydrogen. Burning it does produce nitrogen oxide, which is also a greenhouse gas, but you can use a catalytic convertor to remove that.

It’s not mentioned in this article, but it should also be possible in principle to extract either nitrogen gas or ammonia directly from wastewater and farm waste, which if used as fertilizer would create a closed loop and actually help our ground and surface water at the same time it is helping our atmosphere. This sounds like a win-win-win for me, but it would have a cost, and the cost would have to be paid by the parties producing the pollution now rather than paid by all of us collectively in the future as we are impacted by the pollution, and that is the hard thing to explain and build political support behind.

are hydrogen fuel cells finally arriving?

Leave a reply

Not in the U.S., according to this article in Asia Times (a Hong Kong affair I don’t know a lot about), but maybe in China and Europe. Fuel cells have worked just fine on the space shuttle and on naval ships, but have not been close to competitive even with batteries for everyday vehicles. This article says that may change starting with commercial trucks. Government investment in refueling stations is a key.

Europe and Japan – Germany has declared 2021 the year of hydrogen technology – are running only slightly behind China. For the next decade or so, battery-powered passenger vehicles will dominate the market for low-carbon substitutes for the internal combustion engine. But batteries can’t power long-range freight transportation by truck and rail, and China is making a decisive commitment to hydrogen…

Already the largest market for Plug-in Energy Vehicles (PEV’s) with 3 million on the road, China projects a fleet of 50,000 fuel-cell vehicles (FCV’s) by 2025 and 1 million by 2030, from only 6,000 on the road in 2019.

Asia Times

In my utopian vision, long-range freight would be moved mostly by electrified rail, then delivered locally by small electric vehicles. Fuel cells would make sense for aircraft – much cleaner stuff than that nasty old jet fuel, and could maybe be made onsite at airports rather than shipping or piping all that toxic fuel around. They also seem attractive to me as backup generators for, say, hospitals, or any building/facility that can be solar-powered most of the time but needs a backup power source for cloudy days. Right now that often involves a tank of diesel fuel, which is a maintenance hassle at best and an environmental nightmare at worst. Small nuclear reactors, desalination plants, and fuel cells all seem to go together well to me, because you could use the excess nuclear power during low demand periods to electrolyze water, store the hydrogen in fuel cell form, and use it for peak electric demand or jet fuel or whatever you need.

more top Longreads of 2020

Leave a reply

Here Longreads.com collects their top story from each week of 2020, adding up to…I don’t know…counting on my fingers…50 stories or so. How many stories do they publish per week anyway? Here are a handful that caught my I (TLDRJS – too long didn’t read every word, just skimmed):

  • “You’re Likely to Get the Coronavirus” – published in February. An accurate story, I would say. The headline is all we need to read now.
  • “Shell is Looking Forward” – I’ve been puzzling over this for awhile. How does an oil and gas company “evolve” into a green energy company, when getting into the regulated electricity utility business, the nuclear business, or the largely decentralized renewable energy/energy storage business means basically shedding their entire business model and becoming a completely different kind of company, and there are already companies operating in those spaces that are going to better at it than some new entry from the outside? This article gave me some clues – modern corporations are somewhat agnostic about what they “do”. They are more like private equity investors. So they will just horde cash for awhile and use it to buy some other companies, including smaller companies and startups they hope will expand. Then they will hang on to the winners and shed the losers. So a company really becomes nothing but a brand name for an operation that can be doing absolutely anything, and the mix of what it is doing will change over time. I just question whether a big established company like an oil giant is nimble enough to pull something like this off. It seems more likely tech or finance companies would be successful at this game.
  • a pair of articles on mass migration driven by climate change – one international and one U.S. focused. These were really TLDR, but the long-term situation is just depressing. Coastlines are going to be inundated, the southern U.S. is going to get too hot, the western U.S. is going to get too dry, and places we grow a lot of food now are going to get too hot and too dry to continue yielding the amount of food we need. The article seems to point to the northeast and midwest. The big northeastern cities are coastal though, so that is going to require some serious commitment to coastal engineering and flood control if it is really going to work. The midwest might be the place to be. Internationally, I just don’t know. Beyond the obviously horrifying humanitarian implications, we’ve already seen migration trigger political instability in Europe and the U.S., and that process seems set to get worse.
  • “Inside the Early Days of China’s Coronavirus Coverup” – It seems there was some denial and censorship. It’s a little easy to judge in hindsight. Would earlier action or more open communication by China and/or WHO have prevented the virus from spreading to Italy? Hard to say. It spread to Korea, and they dealt with it effectively. Thailand, which has extensive travel to Wuhan, contained it through airport screening, contact tracing, and quarantining people in public hospitals. So western countries can point the finger if they want, but their response was just too slow and ineffective early on to contain the situation, and in the case of the U.S. just a completely incompetent non-response.

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Leave a reply

BP has put out its Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. I’m a little short on time so I’m going to quote CNN’s coverage of it. (At least I think this is the report CNN is referring to. I have noticed a trend recently where journalists talk about a “recent report” without naming it or linking to it.) At least, I’m going to try to quote it. WordPress’s block editor is getting harder and harder to use.

In a “business-as-usual” scenario, in which government policies and social preferences evolve in the same way as in the recent past, oil demand picks up slightly following the coronavirus hit, but then plateaus around 2025 and starts to decline after 2030.

In two other scenarios, in which governments take more aggressive steps to curb carbon emissions and there are significant shifts in societal behavior, demand for oil never fully recovers from the decline caused by the pandemic. That would mean that oil demand peaked in 2019…

”As difficult steps go, BP’s pirouette from traditional oil company to green energy giant ranks among the more challenging,” Susannah Streeter, a senior investment and markets analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown said in a note to clients.

CNN

What exactly is a “green energy giant”? Carbon capture might be a thing, eventually, but that seems like a risky bet as the only business strategy. If most things are going to electrify, it seems like the green energy giant will be the regulated electric utility business, at least in the United States, and it seems unlikely BP is trying to go there. They can try to supply that industry with things to burn, I suppose, like natural gas and liquid natural gas (coal and oil seem to be on their way out), but I am not sure that is a growth industry. Aviation might move toward hydrogen fuel cells eventually. There must be some tiny demand for rocket fuel. Chemicals, drugs, and plastics will continue to exist, of course, but I am not sure that would be a huge source of annual revenue growth for decades. They can manufacture solar panels, windmills, efficient transportation and electrical equipment of various sorts, get into the smart grid, smart buildings and materials, batteries, etc. But doing all sorts of little bits and pieces like this would seem to get them into industrial conglomerate territory, and there are plenty of companies already there. Maybe that is where they are headed – just make forays into lots of different markets and see if anything sticks.