The developed world maybe be flattening out, but they only make up like a fifth of the global population. The majority of the growth is in developing countries...and the share of people living in those countries is increasing. According to the UN, the share of people living in developing countries has increased from 66% in 1950 to 83% now, and should reach 86% by 2050.
Top 10 countries by population:
1. India
2. China
3. US
4. Indonesia
5. Pakistan
6. Nigeria
7. Brazil
8. Bangladesh
9. Russia
10. Mexico
In terms of future population growth rate, the top countries tend to be in Africa and Asia, typically places that have room to grow in terms of quality of life. These people want the same things we do... burgeoning economies and industry, stable electricity grids, cars, air conditioning, electronics, roads, airplanes, etc. All things that require a ton of energy.
There is of course some theoretical global energy demand maximum, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
Is it possible that developing countries will satisfy their increasing energy demands with a higher proportion of renewables? Like they jumped straight to mobile telecoms?
Is it possible that developing countries will satisfy their increasing energy demands with a higher proportion of renewables? Like they jumped straight to mobile telecoms?
Developing countries need reliability long before they can afford to be worried about emissions.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleK For This Useful Post:
Is it possible that developing countries will satisfy their increasing energy demands with a higher proportion of renewables? Like they jumped straight to mobile telecoms?
If the renewable alternates are cheaper, and feasible to source and run, sure, why not? If they aren't, I doubt they are adopted at scale. Either way, my guess is that these decision will be made with a heavy bias towards cost, stability, and practically (and a little capitalist greed)... not environmental goals. As of right now though, even rich western societies are having trouble demonstrating a stable transition to renewables, so I have my doubts about developing countries going all in, especially with their relative infrastructure deficits. Poor countries, and their leaders, tend not to have the luxury of making decisions based on soft wants and future targets. Their needs tend to be more immediate.
I imagine the order of priority for anyone in charge of energy policy in a developing country probably goes something like this:
Is it cheap?
Is it available?
Is the supply reliable/friendly?
Does it scale/transport?
Is it energy-dense?
Do we have the infrastructure?
Can we maintain the infrastructure?
What's our backup?
What's my kickback?
.
.
.
How will this affect the arctic ice shelf in 20 years?
I can't see this being an issue if done properly. If you use an old reservoir it is already proven to be sealed(speaking in generalities), or there wouldn't be gas there.
Leakage in this sense doesn't mean from the injection wells (frankly that would be a massive problem on it's own.) It's more leakage at every step of the process along the way; is a fitting leaking a small amount of gas earlier on? Magnify this by 1000 fittings and that's where the problem might be.
If the renewable alternates are cheaper, and feasible to source and run, sure, why not? If they aren't, I doubt they are adopted at scale. Either way, my guess is that these decision will be made with a heavy bias towards cost, stability, and practically (and a little capitalist greed)... not environmental goals. As of right now though, even rich western societies are having trouble demonstrating a stable transition to renewables, so I have my doubts about developing countries going all in, especially with their relative infrastructure deficits. Poor countries, and their leaders, tend not to have the luxury of making decisions based on soft wants and future targets. Their needs tend to be more immediate.
I imagine the order of priority for anyone in charge of energy policy in a developing country probably goes something like this:
Is it cheap?
Is it available?
Is the supply reliable/friendly?
Does it scale/transport?
Is it energy-dense?
Do we have the infrastructure?
Can we maintain the infrastructure?
What's our backup?
What's my kickback?
.
.
.
How will this affect the arctic ice shelf in 20 years?
Sure they will. Renewables are growing much faster than coal/gas in India. 10 years ago that would be zero. And India is the definition of an developing economy. The renewables are being built out because they are cheaper or soon will be cheaper.
Leakage in this sense doesn't mean from the injection wells (frankly that would be a massive problem on it's own.) It's more leakage at every step of the process along the way; is a fitting leaking a small amount of gas earlier on? Magnify this by 1000 fittings and that's where the problem might be.
I guess if the leakage added up to that much, but fugitive pipeline emissions are way worse than leaking CO2 would be, and we don't do that poor a job with those(debatable, I'm sure!). As long as >90% of it gets under ground, it's still a pretty big win.
Sure they will. Renewables are growing much faster than coal/gas in India. 10 years ago that would be zero. And India is the definition of an developing economy. The renewables are being built out because they are cheaper or soon will be cheaper.
And that's pretty much what I said.... if the renewables are cheaper and practical, they will be adopted at scale...if not, they won't. India seems to be going with an "all of the above" solution as they develop...renewables, coal, nuclear, LNG, etc...it's all on table. Which I think is the right way to go, as each energy source has its own benefits and drawbacks depending on the circumstance.
If the renewable alternates are cheaper, and feasible to source and run, sure, why not? If they aren't, I doubt they are adopted at scale. Either way, my guess is that these decision will be made with a heavy bias towards cost, stability, and practically (and a little capitalist greed)... not environmental goals. As of right now though, even rich western societies are having trouble demonstrating a stable transition to renewables, so I have my doubts about developing countries going all in, especially with their relative infrastructure deficits. Poor countries, and their leaders, tend not to have the luxury of making decisions based on soft wants and future targets. Their needs tend to be more immediate.
I imagine the order of priority for anyone in charge of energy policy in a developing country probably goes something like this:
Is it cheap?
Is it available?
Is the supply reliable/friendly?
Does it scale/transport?
Is it energy-dense?
Do we have the infrastructure?
Can we maintain the infrastructure?
What's our backup?
What's my kickback?
.
.
.
How will this affect the arctic ice shelf in 20 years?
Interview with an African leader from the linked article:
Quote:
”How do I justify to voters taking away subsidies, school funding and health care to build a waste-processing plant or a big sea wall?” asks a finance minister. “In 20 years of course it will be useful, but it is the cost now that is concerning.” He reckons that the cost of building a school in his capital city has doubled in the past decade, because of the need to make facilities green and resilient. “What about when we have to choose between hospitals treating lung disease and swapping to electric buses?”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I'll believe it when I see it. Given the increasing electrical demand, and necessity to backup a lot of intermittent renewables with reliable sources, I'm not convinced renewables are going to offset so much as add to.
In 2022, according to the IEA, there were more renewables added than the total increase in global electricity generation. Meaning, all of the growth was provided by renewables. Yes, China is adding lots of coal plants, but most are sitting largely unused and are due to a complicated local incentive scheme on increasing generation capacity.
And while this is about China, it's going to be a similar story about global electricity generation:
Quote:
Despite impressive acceleration in clean energy installations, annually added power generation still hasn’t reached the level where it matches growth in electricity demand, resulting in continued growth in demand for power generation from coal. However, the point when all demand growth is covered from clean sources is likely to be reached soon, as the targets for annual wind and solar installations, in particular, are increased.
This is likely to happen in China in 2024
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
It's always tough talking about installed capacity, because renewables have to be discounted so much. Solar is only about 1/5th of installed vs productive capacity. Yearly amount generated is a lot easier to compare.
But still, as your graph shows, coal is increasing in absolute numbers, and I don't really see how it decreases in absolute numbers for a long time going forward. But the reality is, the only important bit is emissions generated by the sector per year, I'm not really sure it matters where those emissions come from. And by averaging over a year, you smooth all the demand and generation issues and can have a good idea of the trend.
So growth is still ~ 1% per year, though probably higher given 2022 was probably a bit pandemic constrained still. Particularity in China. Like I said, I'll believe it when I see a few years of it.
2023 data still shows significant thermal power growth for China, on pace for annual growth of 400 TWh and reaching the 6000 TWh mark. A lesson of the last 20 years should be that one should never underestimate Chinese hunger for energy.
It is dependent on asset depreciation. Yes, the pie grows but you can see with your own chart that less favorable energy sources do decline in growth and stabilize as a proportion of the energy production bucket. But not included is the depreciation timeline on these power producing assets; especially with recent incentive regimes in the west, the next generation of power producing assets that replace coal/ng generators as those assets reach their lifespan are likely going to be nuclear or another renewable source.
The ultimate LNG Market imo depends on society's willingness to accept CCUS technology. Do we believe that this tech is as effective as billed at reducing carbon intensity at point source? Or is the leakage value much higher than anticipated, resulting in less abatement than hoped for in the near term?
If we can get society to view NG with CCUS produced energy as a carbon neutral or ultra low carbon intensity source, we will have our market. But if we fail then we will see NG become as unpopular as coal.
The biggest trouble with Nat gas CCUS is that 10-40% of the energy produced is used to trap the gas. And reliability has become a big hurdle as targets are never hit due to downtime.
The developed world maybe be flattening out, but they only make up like a fifth of the global population. The majority of the growth is in developing countries...and the share of people living in those countries is increasing. According to the UN, the share of people living in developing countries has increased from 66% in 1950 to 83% now, and should reach 86% by 2050.
Top 10 countries by population:
1. India
2. China
3. US
4. Indonesia
5. Pakistan
6. Nigeria
7. Brazil
8. Bangladesh
9. Russia
10. Mexico
In terms of future population growth rate, the top countries tend to be in Africa and Asia, typically places that have room to grow in terms of quality of life. These people want the same things we do... burgeoning economies and industry, stable electricity grids, cars, air conditioning, electronics, roads, airplanes, etc. All things that require a ton of energy.
There is of course some theoretical global energy demand maximum, but don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
I think you just sort of repeated my point? Basically all of the ten countries you listed are at or below replacement birth rates, besides Nigeria. Nigeria's birth rate trend has turned down, and it's now headed on the same path.
All of the developing nations with the highest birth rates peaked between ~1990-2000, and basically all birth rates are essentially now in a down trend for the most part.
Most of the mainstream projections of peak world population have it happening at ~9-10B people. We're at 7.9B now.
All that needs to be done on the energy front is to install enough capacity to lift the rest of the world out of poverty. We already have the technologies to do this in a not-so-terrible manner.
Some sobering reading on the future of SMR nuclear by a fairly knowledgeable person. She was Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has had fellowships at places like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard
[B]The end of Oppenheimer’s nuclear energy dream: Modular reactors supported by ideology alone[b]
Quote:
With large nuclear power plants struggling to compete in a deregulated marketplace against renewables and natural gas, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer the promise to save the nuclear energy option.
In the past few years, investors, national governments, and the media have paid significant attention to small modular nuclear reactors as the solution to traditional nuclear energy’s cost and long build times and renewable’s space and aesthetic drawbacks, but behind the hype there is very little concrete technology to justify it.
Quote:
Recent construction experience in the US and Europe does not herald success for SMR new builds. The two French-design evolutionary power reactor (EPR) builds have been far over budget and schedule.
The EPR in Finland was originally supposed to cost €3 billion and open in 2009. It finally began producing electricity in 2023 at a cost of €11 billion.
There is a similar story in France, where the EPR at Flamanville was set to begin operation in 2012 at a cost of €3.5 billion. Instead, it is still under construction and costs have ballooned to €12.4 billion.
And Europe is the rule, not the exception. US – based Westinghouse’s AP-1000, a robust design with passive safety features has suffered similarly.
Quote:
With all these potential drawbacks and delays, why would anyone invest in an SMR company? I put a similar question to Ray Rothrock, a venture capitalist, at a meeting of a committee of the National Academy of Engineering that was studying the potential of these new reactors (and of which I was a member).
If these reactors won’t be commercially available for a decade or more, how do investors make money?
His response? “Even before they sell [energy], they go public and that’s how early investors make money…it fits the model – the company hasn’t made money, but the investors have made money.” He goes on to say that going public opens the door to much more money that is needed
Some sobering reading on the future of SMR nuclear by a fairly knowledgeable person. She was Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and has had fellowships at places like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard
[B]The end of Oppenheimer’s nuclear energy dream: Modular reactors supported by ideology alone[b]
Build reactors that can meet the demands of cities. Put containment buildings around them.
If we ever want to live in a world where fusion reactors are a thing, we need to have more nuclear scientists working on improving existing fission reactor technology.
Like, The automotive industry couldn’t make all their vehicles electric even if they wanted to - the materials don’t exist. So if they can’t do that, how are we going going to “improve storage capacity” of renewable energy to compensate for the electrical demands of 21st century cities when the sun goes away?
We’re not.
So if the problem is “there’s too much carbon in the atmosphere”, then we need a foundational power source that doesn’t put carbon into the air.
The answer usually lies in the place we don’t want to look, and the solution to climate change is no different.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
Rowan Roy W-M - February 15, 2024
The Following User Says Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Suspect a good portion of the storage issues will be resolved by using those electric cars themselves in the long run. For most people on most days - they use their car at most 1-2 hours. The other 22-23 hours its just sitting there.
You'd need to build out infrastructure - but if you can get a two way connection to those cars - they take power during low demand and then sell their stored power during peak demand - you've got a bunch of storage immediately available from cars that are just sitting around all day.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
We don’t have anything close to the battery manufacturing capacity yet. And most of that capacity is in the hands of China, which poses major geopolitical risks akin to Russia’s dominance of Europe’s natural gas supplies.
Quote:
Yet the speed of the transformation is running into supply constraints and geopolitical headwinds. The supply of the minerals required to make lithium-ion batteries must grow by a third every year this decade to meet the estimated global demand. Tens of millions of batteries will be needed in America alone to meet its ambition to ensure half of all American vehicle sales involve electric vehicles by 2030. And yet its great rival, China, is by far the biggest processor of battery metals, producer of battery cells and manufacturer of finished batteries.
… Indonesia’s dominance in nickel is itself a potential bottleneck. An estimate last year by pwc, a consultancy, suggests that 2.7m tonnes of the stuff will be needed annually for evs by 2035. Indonesia currently produces only 1.6m tonnes, most of which is used for stainless steel. A huge amount of capacity to mine and process the metal is being planned, or under construction
This amounts to a sobering picture. Expanding the battery supply chain to match the enormous global demand for electric vehicles represents one of the greatest industrial challenges ever attempted. Even the current order of bottlenecks in the industry will make it difficult. Pulling it off—for the good of the climate, human health and much else—without the country that, by most measures, dominates the battery industry may very well be impossible.
