Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[svetz]

...I think you have bad data....

FYI: Using a bigger font in your post doesn't actually bolster your arguments any.

Co2 emissions are 32% lower over a 15 year span since 2005 That is bad data, more proof you can find anything on the internet if you look for it. From the U.S. EPA data you'll see the U.S. has been reducing emissions since 2007, but it's not a 32% reduction: ​

But worldwide the PPM of CO2 continues to increase. Other than the "covid-dip", no slow-down from the PPM data.... So, if we're reducing, who's to blame? Read on....

China was exempted from the Paris agreement and that's why Trump refused to sign it.

You know what they say about a politician when his mouth is moving... It's just more half-truths, from fact-check:

Rick Scott: The Paris Climate Agreement is “bad for America,” because it "does nothing to hold real polluters, like Communist China and India accountable."​

PolitiFact's ruling: Mostly False​

It is true that China said they can't meet the 2050 date, instead, they've committed to 2060. The Paris agreement let's poor countries slide to 2060. By and large most poor countries don't produce that much CO2 anyway. China & India just happen to fall under the bar.
Can we force them to uphold their treaty agreements? Yes, but not in the way most think... read on!

Our enemies want us to commit economic suicide.

Nope, that's typical fear-mongering.

But first let's answer who's making all that CO2:

#	Country	CO2 Emissions (tons, 2016)	1 Year Change	Population (2016)	Per capita	Share of world
1	China	10,432,751,400	-0.28%	1,414,049,351	7.38	29.18%
2	United States	5,011,686,600	-2.01%	323,015,995	15.52	14.02%
3	India	2,533,638,100	4.71%	1,324,517,249	1.91	7.09%
4	Russia	1,661,899,300	-2.13%	145,275,383	11.44	4.65%
5	Japan	1,239,592,060	-1.21%	127,763,265	9.70	3.47%
6	Germany	775,752,190	1.28%	82,193,768	9.44	2.17%
7	Canada	675,918,610	-1.00%	36,382,944	18.58	1.89%
8	Iran	642,560,030	2.22%	79,563,989	8.08	1.80%

So, we're still making a lot. But as to the economic suicide, note the 1-year change column. The "shameful" countries are those not reducing.
Don't expect anything from Iran, they've not signed onto being carbon net-neutral like the rest of the countries.

But as of 2016 China and Russia were already reducing. I know, they're the "evil" countries and yet they're being more responsible than others.
Since 2016 Russia dropped quite a bit but has plateaued the last few years (see image).

India is in a really hard place.
From the 1 year change and total amount they look horrific, but by the per capita you can see they are so far behind other countries it's ridiculous. Yet from this image showing some country's annual emissions you can see that even India has turned the corner.

Long Term Economics
Economically, I believe renewable energy tech will be more favorable in the long run. Solar & wind are already both cheaper than gas, oil, or coal - the only tech holding them back in our capitalist society is Energy Storage, but once that price falls we'll see a rapid switch.

The IPCC report estimates:

They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near-commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure.

So using a 21 trillion GDP that's $1.26 to $7.56 trillion over 30 years for the U.S. That sounds low to me.

The Wall Street Journal estimates becoming carbon neutral will cost from $7.8 trillion to $13.9 trillion over the next 30 years.

You think that's a lot? Would it surprise you to know a Yale study found Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion in subsidies in 2020 alone?

In 2020, total consumption of fossil fuels in the United States, including petroleum, natural gas, and coal, fell to 72.9 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), down 9% from 2019 (ref). At an average of $2.50/mBTU (2015 ref), that's 72,900 trillion BTUs x $2500/trillion BTUs = $182,250 million the U.S. spent on fossil fuels in 2020. So, that's how much Americans will save per year by not burning fossil fuels.

Stop using coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas? Are you kidding me ?

Nope, and most countries are all on the path to be neutral by 2050.
Note that "neutral" doesn't mean we stop using them altogether. We just need sinks for what we do consume.
Some have other uses too, for example, oil is used for plastics.

 

[Hedges]

In 2020, total consumption of fossil fuels in the United States, including petroleum, natural gas, and coal, fell to 72.9 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), down 9% from 2019 (ref). At an average of $2.50/BTU (ref), that's 72,900 trillion x $2.50 = $182,250 trillion we spent on fossil fuels. So, that's how much Americans will save per year by not burning fossil fuels.

Is that figure $182,250 Trillion?
or $182.250 Trillion?
(We in the US use a dot to distinguish parts less than zero, I think people elsewhere use a comma. We use a comma between groups of 3 digits)

Total US GDP was about $21 Trillion annually.
So $182 Trillion energy expenditures over all time is plausible, but $182,250 Trillion is not.

The Top 25 Economies in the World

Learn which countries are among the top 25 economies in the world. The United States has been the largest for over a century, but China may soon overtake it.

www.investopedia.com

You started with "72.9 quadrillion" and then got 72,900 Trillion moving the decimal point, so I think your math has slipped units.

And certainly not $182,000 Trillion to be saved "per year"

 

[svetz]

Is that figure $182,250 Trillion?

Thanks for the check, as it says in my signature calculators hate me. You're right something isn't adding up in there.
Update... found it... the $2.50 is cost per million BTUs.... let me rerun that calculation.

 

[summit]

a Yale study found Fossil Fuels Received $5.9 Trillion in subsidies in 2020 alone?

this report doesn't seem to include the huge military cost, in the name of defense spending.

Recently reading about green ammonia, very hopeful. With its 3 hydrogen atom and easier storage/transport, it can serve as hydrogen carrier.

I very much appreciate the occasional thread recaps.

 

[svetz]

Thanks again @Hedges, appreciate your noticing & mentioning the math error. Despite some thinking I'm pro this or that I'm really just trying to get to the truth of it and I'm not a scientist or a math wizard (obviously). Hopefully, I've updated those posts correctly.

Economics II
I noticed two other things from the prior post. First, the $2.50/mBTU average was from 2015 when natural gas was cheaper, so the $182 billion is probably low for 2020. Next, the U.S. doesn't spend as much on fossil fuel subsidies as other countries. Wikipedia has a nice plot for it, showing renewables have been getting the lion's share for a while.

The math fix certainly makes the economics worse than I was thinking. In fact, they don't look good at all so makes me wonder if something isn't still wrong beyond the $2.50 being low. In fuel costs the $182,250 million x 30 years = $5.5 trillion, so no savings from WSJ's the $7.8 to $13.9 trillion 30-year cost (see post #283 for references). But, the DOE numbers show the economics flipping when ESS prices come down which is projected to happen in the next decade. I guess if you double fuel costs the numbers work out.

The IPCC report says:

They met all forecast U.S. energy needs at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP in 2050, using only commercial or near-commercial technologies, and requiring no early retirement of existing infrastructure.

So using a 21 trillion GDP that's 1.26 to 7.56 trillion over 30 years for the U.S. which does fall into the savings ball-park.

At a guess, I suspect the variance depends on fuel prices and how much "social justice" is built into it ; -).

 

[Hedges]

Hopefully, I've updated those posts correctly.

Now $0.182 Trillion for energy out of $21 Trillion GDP.
The economy can live with that.

When the money was spent on our people extracting and processing our natural resources, it was part of the economy, and beneficial.
Just like paying people to build the trans-continental railroad, or to be lumberjacks. (non-renewable though, so not sustainable indefinitely.)

Once we started exporting money to OPEC in order to feed the addiction we had and survive, it became a drain on the economy.
We can't go on for ever with a trade imbalance and federal deficit spending, although there are some who claim borrowing causes us no harm at all and can be corrected with a stroke of the pen (in the ledger books). I think such people are dangerous.

My thoughts on dumping and tariffs is that if China wants to sell us solar panels for below manufacturing cost, we should buy them and use to eliminate our reliance on Middle East oil.

"ESS" - I keep saying that regulating loads to match production is a far better way to address renewables (and conventional capacity) than storage. e.g. it takes a $0.25 relay to switch a thermostat or pump on/off vs. $10,000 of battery to keep it operating with no generation.
For anyone with a PV/battery system (e.g. my Sunny Island when grid is down), you either need excess battery and PV capacitor, or else implement "load shed" to disconnect all loads before system shuts down and you can't "black start". Plus, a second load shed at higher SoC which turns off discretionary loads. For instance, only let A/C run if above 80% SoC. With A/C periodically shut off, house runs hotter, consuming less power, but all surplus power so you enjoy as much cooling as is possible. And balance of loads keep operating.

 

[curiouscarbon]

this video focuses on specific claims that are presented as factual, i have not reference checked any of them. i am lazy today.

the sun is a nuclear fusion reactor that sheds energy in all directions.

it has fueled this planet for many time.

dear Sol is 1 Astronomical Unit away. that is, 149,597,900,000 or 150 Billion Meters away.

There are people on Earth who command 1,000,000,000 or more USD. that is, 1 billion united states dollars of power.

And yet, at 150 Billion Meters from Earth, the Sun still provides 1,000 Watts per Square Meter here.

How fortunate we are to receive this donation from the universe.

Without it, we would be in the dark.

 

[curiouscarbon]

some who claim borrowing causes us no harm at all and can be corrected with a stroke of the pen (in the ledger books). I think such people are dangerous.

indeed.
claiming debt can be erased with a pen stroke tantamount to claiming war can be begun with a penstroke. not trust. sun more reliable.

My thoughts on dumping and tariffs is that if China wants to sell us solar panels for below manufacturing cost, we should buy them and use to eliminate our reliance on Middle East oil.

YES!
a one time (per install, excluding maintenance upkeep burden) investment in a 20+ year autonomy play is valuable..

"ESS" - I keep saying that regulating loads to match production is a far better way to address renewables (and conventional capacity) than storage. e.g. it takes a $0.25 relay to switch a thermostat or pump on/off vs. $10,000 of battery to keep it operating with no generation.

interesting juxtaposition.

to regulate the flow of energy, few costs.

to store the energy itself, many cost.

For anyone with a PV/battery system (e.g. my Sunny Island when grid is down), you either need excess battery and PV capacitor, or else implement "load shed" to disconnect all loads before system shuts down and you can't "black start". Plus, a second load shed at higher SoC which turns off discretionary loads. For instance, only let A/C run if above 80% SoC. With A/C periodically shut off, house runs hotter, consuming less power, but all surplus power so you enjoy as much cooling as is possible. And balance of loads keep operating.

Large Battery
or
Disconnect With Time To Run (Load Shed)

Allowing a Computer to Prioritize and Disconnect Loads can allow Intelligent Reliability!

 

[Hedges]

To do that optimally at a single-house level requires variable speed A/C or heat-pump. And I think their efficiency is reduced when not running at optimum speed.
City wide, the same can be accomplished by transmitting to each thermostat an on/off duty ratio, e.g. "you may run 30% of the time. Gentlemen, start your random number generators!"

 

[summit]

From #238 ..."But first let's answer who's making all that CO2: " it is surprising that the US is only 2x larger carbon per capita than China, guess they've caught up.

Stumbled on this site by Harari, who published Sapiens, sounds doable, but we already knew that:

2% More

Calling on politicians to invest an additional 2% of Global GDP in preventing catastrophic climate change.

www.sapienship.co

 

[Johnson]

Solar is already the cheapest source of electricity, in a truely free market we can expect more solar. Traditional sources will either sell at a loss or cut production during the time the sun does not shine. They are going to have to make up for the lost sales during other times which will make batteries and wind more economical. A partial fix is a smart grid, something I do not expect industry to be keen on building. Governments tend to be slow not react so we can expect a lot of power outages and highly costs. People who can afford to will be installing batteries as they will be dropping in price while electricity prices will go up.

 

[svetz]

Solar is already the cheapest source of electricity, in a truely free market we can expect more solar. Traditional sources will either sell at a loss or cut production during the time the sun does not shine.

The FERC regulates that, it's not a simple problem as "traditional" sources can't turn themselves on/off easily and solar without ESS provides no night-time power. FERC knows if the "traditional" sources go out of business (because they can't compete), then there would be night-time shortages when those companies failed.

 

[Johnson]

The FERC regulates that, it's not a simple problem as "traditional" sources can't turn themselves on/off easily and solar without ESS provides no night-time power. FERC knows if the "traditional" sources go out of business (because they can't compete), then there would be night-time shortages when those companies failed.

It is not like those companies will fail quickly, prices for the electricity will go up, in order to make up for the loss in sales as they still have fixed costs like labor and loans. The rise in cost will make batteries more competitive, even more so as prices for batteries are expected to drop drastically.

 

[curiouscarbon]

another fringe TECnology to be aware of

still only claim of 1/4 the efficiency of modern PV. the materials composition are different, perhaps more metal less semiconductor, which has tradeoffs.

 

[Bob B]

Here's a guy who is excited about what he does. Ronnie Cummins ... OCA

It's better at 1.5 speed.

Annual Update for Regenerative Agriculture Week- Interview with Ronnie Cummins and Dr. Mercola

It’s our annual Regenerative Agriculture Week again, and to give you an update, I interviewed Ronnie Cummins, co-founder and international director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). OCA is o

rumble.com

 

[summit]

as terrible as things are on the other side of the pond, am hoping for a silver lining that more human wakes up the addiction to the ancient fuel. Heard one statistic that those tanks get 1 mile/gal., so incredibly stupid.

is it ignorant to think that if one household can be practically carbon-neutral, that it can be scaled up all over ?

 

[12VoltInstalls]

s it ignorant to think that if one household can be practically carbon-neutral, that it can be scaled up all over ?

It’s not ignorant. War equipment is about doing a job dependably almost regardless of cost.

For civilians, the carbon-neutral is somewhat of a moving target with lies. Mostly because “we” have this “do it right now!” social climate. Yes we can and should move in that direction with a good plan, but one lesson “we” can take from the military is to consider the costs and methods to transition to the goal.

Yes, we need to get away from petroleum- just not all at once! Things like shutting down the new pipeline construction was very short-sighted and ill-advised. The money being siphoned out of the economy now by petroleum cost increases could have been more wisely spent developing solar further, but in my opinion - as odd as it sounds- killing the pipeline actually serves to delay transition to a ‘carbon neutral’ future. Because all the ramifications weren’t considered. My opinion anyway

 

[summit]

No matter when and how, there is going to be pain and unfortunately always more later. Just think of people trying to get out from an addiction. The big problem is the "we", due to alternative motives and interests. The collective "we" failed to act responsible after the 70s oil embargo, we could be so far ahead now. Our pain is nothing in comparison to the insane suffering of war. We're a bunch of lazy asses, we will only re-act. I relish to see our rise to the occasion with $300/barrel or $10+/gal at the pump.

For some of us with roof-top solar, heat pumps and EVs; the current inflationary pain is mostly curbed or minimized, all the while not polluting etc...

 

[12VoltInstalls]

relish to see our rise to the occasion with $300/barrel or $10+/gal at the pump.

Except for this I agree with your post. $10/gallon says so many other things and one of those consequences is likely to be social upheaval. Whether war or severe economic depression I don’t think we have to or should be limited to those choices.

 

[A.Justice]

Except for this I agree with your post. $10/gallon says so many other things and one of those consequences is likely to be social upheaval. Whether war or severe economic depression I don’t think we have to or should be limited to those choices.

Unfortunately, I think it's going to take one of those "painful" events to get people off their asses. People don't generally change for reasons that don't affect them, I think it will take some sort of very PERSONAL hardship to convince people that there is another way.

Then there's the problem of the OTHER group, who isn't nearly as affected by whatever event is happening to you (ex: rich people by gas prices, or US citizens on foreign sanctions). Those people have no reason to change either, so they more than likely won't. I think that means it's going to take international scale problems, or physical violence to remove the "other" group, and their interests. It's unfortunate, but I think it's inevitable.