:
Discussion - August 2010
By how much should we expect renewables to replace fossil fuels over the next 20 years?
19 Comments from our contributors
19 Comments from our contributors
Leave a Reply
Registered users must log in to post a comment. New users can register with Comment:Visions, and begin to leave comments once approved.
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Consultant
Sol Shapiro Consulting
said: On 02/08/2010
In our society what we will achieve is driven much more by what makes good business than what makes good policy (though there is often some common ground).
And so let me modify the question to treat what I think makes good policy. And here I am dealing with the electric grid only.
Good policy should put us on a path on which we can get to, not just 20 or 30% but to 80% and more of our grid. As such we need to consider not only total energy generation, but also the critical issue of storage.
And so I see the backbone of good policy as requiring that renewables be configured to include storage and that the cost of energy is then that which can provide dispatchable power.
A wind farm or pv resource would be required to include such storage as compressed air – if not physically, then to provide cost to build such storage when judging its competitive performance, say with a concentrating solar thermal plant.
Good policy would then provide incentives – rps on a national basis – with physical plants where the resources are best, but ownership of such resources to include the user community.
To transmit the energy from generation to consumption, a national high voltage dc grid should be configured and paid for by the nation – using taxes – possibly as an adder to all of our electric bills.
Doing this (which makes sense but won’t happen) could achieve in the order of 10% of our electricity from new these new renewables in 20 years – but with a steep curve to 50% in 40 years.
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 02/08/2010
I can only really speak to the state of power production in the US over the next 20 years. Depending on the source the current mix in the US is something like 50% coal fired, 20% nuclear, and the balance made up from natural gas, hydro and alternative/renewable energy. Many would say the US is on the order of single digit percentage of wind/solar today with a major injection of federal funds to stimulate growth of wind and solar many expect that percentage to increase dramatically but I seriously doubt that once the federal stimulus funds and tax credits expire over the year couple of years that that momentum will be sustained
If one’s definition should include nuclear with the inclusion of 96% efficient fuel reprocessing I could see a 100% increase to possibly 40% nuclear, directly displacing that percentage from coal. I am also seeing a needed resurgence in the development of hydro electric power. There are literally thousands of existing dams without installed generation and many are likely candidates. Just recently a new hydro generator was put into service on the Ohio river on a decades old flood control dam.
So all said I would envision an energy portfolio in 2030 in the US to be roughly 20% coal, 40% nuclear, wind/solar to possibly 10%, and increase in hydro as well to possibly 20%. The remaining covered by natural gas, some biomass, etc.
CEO
Clean Fuels Consulting
said: On 02/08/2010
The answer will differ on a country-by-country basis and will depend upon each country’s perceived need to reduce dependence on fossil energy, whether it is to reduce the impacts of global warming, diversifying the energy mix, improving energy security, achieving a better balance of trade or to improve the quality of life. Two key factors to the success of renewable energy and the rate of its adoption will be the long term price and availability of oil and natural gas. When fossil energy prices are high then the motivation to develop substitutes is strong. As these fossil fuels become cleaner, this also will affect the adoption rate of renewable energy.
Government support also is a key component in the success of the adoption of renewable energy technologies. Looking at the 27 European Union countries as an example (where there is an EU-legislated target of 20% renewable energy use by 2020) many countries are adopting renewable energy policies that will help drive them to the EU targets*:
• 21 countries have feed-in tariffs for electricity;
• 24 countries provide a variety of grants, capital subsidies and rebates for renewable energy technologies;
• 18 provide renewable energy investment or tax credits;
• 22 have created incentives through sales tax, energy or excise tax, or VAT reductions.
And the achievements of some of the leading European renewable advocates are already impressive, judging from some of the national reporting to the Directorate General for Energy in response to the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive:
• Austria anticipates 34% of gross final energy consumption to be based on renewables by 2020;
• The Swedish Energy Agency forecasts 50.2% renewables energy use by 2020;
• Germany claims it will reach its national target of 18% share of energy from renewable sources in gross final energy consumption by 2020 and may exceed that to 18.7%.
• Other countries are less ambitious, however, the concept of replacing fossil fuels with renewable resources is ‘on the agenda’ and there will be more governments hopping on the renewable energy bandwagon, even if it is only to help solve employment problems by creating new industries.
To answer the question of ‘how much’ is a matter of speculation, however, it is clear that policies and actions relying strictly on fossil fuels will change. Fossil fuel technologies will improve and be cleaner (look at the automobile industry as a prime example); the price of renewable energy technologies will drop significantly; energy networks over time will adapt to be energy consumers as well as energy delivery systems (i.e. natural gas and electricity networks); and fossil fuels, so long as their industries are not overly subsidized, will become more expensive.
Renewable energy could follow a steady upward trajectory before it achieves a leveling off to parity with fossil fuel production and consumption, a balance that is inevitable. Putting a “finger to the wind” it would not be surprising if, on a global scale, 20% replacement of renewable energy could be possible by 2030; 30% by 2040; and 40% by 2050, assuming there continues to be a basic balance in world economic systems and geopolitical order. But renewable energy alone is only part of the story. Fossil fuels will continue to hold a powerful share of the energy markets and energy efficiency and energy conservation, in balance with renewable energy, should result in an improved pathway for world society into the future.
*(“Renewables 2010 Global Status Report,” Renewable Energy Policy Networks for the 21st Century, (www.ren21.net ) )
Board Member
Asian Development Bank
said: On 02/08/2010
As home to some 800 million people who lack access to electricity, the Asia and the Pacific faces the difficult challenge of raising its people out of poverty while at the same time reducing its high consumption of abundant but highly polluting fossil fuels.
As economies grow and incomes rise, the vast majority of new global emissions will emanate from Asia’s vehicles, power plants, disappearing forests and other sources. And, while per capita emissions remain low, the region is consuming more energy than ever before. The share of total emissions from Asian developing countries could easily top 40 percent by 2030, making Asia the main global driver of climate change.
Getting energy security right for countries in the region is of a paramount importance and discussions should now favor a shift to renewables. It is clear that the viability of fossil fuel investments will decrease over time, both as the carbon price rises but also as natural resource endowments deplete.
In addressing the causes of climate change, an aggressive push for greater energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to reduce growth in energy demand and to lower greenhouse gas emissions. This will have the advantage of also reducing the region’s reliance on expensive fossil fuel imports. It will also be important to accelerate the role of a carbon price and emissions trading in driving investment into renewables.
President
Alter Nrg Corp
said: On 02/08/2010
There is a lot of information available now about development and production of energy from renewable sources. There are technologies that are commercially demonstrated which are not only environmentally preferable than fossil fuels but also economically viable without government incentives.
What we should do and what we will do as a society are not always in alignment. We know that we need to have less of a reliance on fossil fuels, we know that it is a possibility; but it requires the kind of cultural shift that happens through education, government policy and social will.
Renewable energy technologies have made important and dramatic technical, economic, and operational advances and what we now require are consistent government policies and evergreen community and country based 5 year targets in order to ensure markets for these renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency programs are realized successfully. Unfortunately, for the most part, individuals aren’t going to make changes to the energy systems in their homes or lifestyles if it doesn’t make economic sense for them to do so or they do not have access to choice. In order to see any significant replacement of fossil fuels by renewable sources we need an increase in the government through setting of aggressive policies and targets that will incent entrepreneurs, change and support the necessary change.
Though there is a shift to embrace technologies such as geoexchange, biomass, wind, energy from waste and solar energies as a way to benefit the environment and our energy security, most people and organizations will not change unless they are forced to – and in our world, that only happens through clear, measurable and strong government policy. Conceptually, as more and more people understand that there are commercially proven renewable energy models that offer a good risk-reward for the investment more and more people will adopt them. For example, with geoexchange, if it were widely understood that for every unit of electricity used to run the heat pump, 3.5 to 5 units of free energy are transferred to the building for heating and cooling. In other words a geoexchange unit represents a savings to homeowners of up to 80% in the heating mode and up to 50% in the cooling mode – it starts to makes sense for the individual and society to embrace this approach to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
In short, we should expect renewables to replace fossil fuels proportionate to the success of public awareness and strong and visible government policies for targets that ensure the business environment for material change by both the corporate world and the people within our community.
President
ArchEnerg Cluster
said: On 02/08/2010
As far as my comment on the topic is concerned it is indeed just an educated guess and pertains to the CEE region and to Hungary where I have the most experience in this respect. Hungary is in a relatively strong position vis a vis potential geothermal and biomass resources. The conditions for wind generated or solar power are really not favourable in this country and both require serious financial investments, hence few line up to promote the latter ones. Currently Hungary has achieved between 5-6 % ratios in renewable energy production of the total, and the expectation by EU guidelines is only 13% by 2020. Not too ambitious but achievable unless the current hard economic situation prevent substantial investments in the area.
It is my humble opinion, that renewable energy production will make only a small indentation in replacing fossil fuel use for the next 20 years. The reasons are mostly economic ones and not technological or scientific ones. The delivery of cheap fossil fuels is still prevailing all over the world and it will take a lot more expensive oil price to change the mind of investors.
On the other hand if we look out further, let us say 30-50 years renewable energies and energy conservation could be the winner of our century for the sake of sustainable life, the next generation and mankind.
Senior Chief Consultant
Ramboll
said: On 02/08/2010
Oil and gas will still play a significant role in 20 years. Globally we will probably see an increase in the total energy demand mainly due to increased energy consumption in China, India and other countries today considered as developing countries.
In the developed countries a slight fall in energy demand may be seen. This decrease in energy demand is possible through:
• More energy efficient transportation
• Better thermal insulation of buildings and houses
• Energy optimisation of industries and industrial processes
• Increased energy prices and better understanding of energy saving in private households
• More efficient and less energy demanding production of oil and gas
Worldwide we will see electricity being transported over significantly larger distances than today through high voltage DC cables.
The global net increase in energy demand will come from a mix of sources, of which some are renewables such as:
• Geothermal energy
• Wind power
• Nuclear power
• Coal
• Biomass and waste
• Solar power
Coal, biomass and waste are traditionally converted through incineration. Here we will probably see a shift to conversion processes (Coal-to-Liquid (CTL) and Biomass-to-Liquid (BTL)) enabling cleaner liquid fuels such as aviation fuel, diesel and gasoline to be made from these processes.
There is large-scale development potential in the solar energy. However, the cost of solar cells needs to be significantly reduced and at the same time the efficiency of the cells needs to be increased by substantially. Both scenarios will certainly develop within the next 10-20 years.
Geothermal energy as well as solar energy combined with long-distance transportation of electricity opens for new perspectives in the years to come.
Fusion based energy is another energy source which has extreme potential. It may be a long term solution for the world, but the development of this technology is much more difficult than foreseen 30 – 40 years ago. It is progressing so slowly that it will not be of any importance in 20 years, but focus should be kept on the development of this technology. Significant investments from the developed countries will be required in the continued development.
A prerequisite to ensure that the energy demand in the developing countries will not explode during the next 20 years, but only increase slightly, is that the increase in population in these countries is brought under control. This is a real challenge to the energy consumption forecasts.
Director of the Advanced Energy and Materials Systems Lab
University of Canterbury
said: On 02/08/2010
We should expect the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy resources to be irrelevant to the rate at which we expect to grow energy demand, inconsequential to changing the economic impacts of declining oil and gas supplies, and insignificant in reducing carbon emissions to meet either the 450ppm target or national Kyoto Agreement targets. All current IEA data and projections provide the numbers that can be used to define “irrelevant”, “inconsequential” or “insignificant” with more precision. On the other hand, political rhetoric, fossil fuel industry advertising, media coverage and popular attention will continue to raise expectations of some kind of meaningful substitution of fossil fuels with renewables.
The current energy services supplied by fossil fuels have developed over the past 70 years precisely because fossil fuels were low cost and abundant. A new energy system will emerge and it will develop in ways that reflect increasingly expensive and uncertain fossil fuel resources. The new energy system of the future will not develop in a way commensurate with last century fossil fuel expansion expectations because renewables are not available in the same quantities, with the same certainty, or with the same Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of fossil fuels. Renewable energy will be developed over the next 20 years (with significant fossil energy investment) resulting in more wind farms and more solar generating stations than now. And still, the experience of the energy customer over the next 20 years will be of relentlessly increasing prices, and all sectors will devote focused attention on reducing their energy loads, improving their efficiency, and improving their flexibility and resilience.
It is not a problem to develop this new lean, efficient, frugal energy service and supply system that is highly adaptable and responsive. Those who will do well in the future, will be the first to understand the realities of the exponential growth of load and demand reduction, and can provide this market with services and technology. The renewable energy sector will continue to grow, but it will only fuel the growth of the demand reduction market as real effect will be high price pressure in all energy end-use sectors.
Non-Executive Director
National Renewable Energy Centre (Narec)
said: On 02/08/2010
In the European context the question would be answered differently in say France or Sweden where fossil fuels for electricity generation would be around 10% compared to the UK where it might be 75%. The proportion of nuclear generation further complicates the answer.
Nevertheless, the proportion of renewable generation in all EU countries and elsewhere will rise under universal government pressures for both political reasons, e.g. climate change, and the extent to which each sovereign nation wishes to distort the market by subsidy in wholesale electricity. Targets have been set for a percentage for each EU country to achieve in renewables and there are wide variations not least because of the historical and current plant mix.
The main obstacle to answering the question is that apart from onshore wind, we do not have proven, deployable renewable technologies. This implies that we do not have a clear understanding of mature capital costs or operating costs. For this reason and the fact that only onshore wind has been de-risked, we must speculate on the future. Nevertheless, observing progress to date shows that many technologies, particularly marine, have no commercial future at scales required and that those technologies which may succeed e.g. offshore wind, will take much longer than most governments and investors assume. Renewable technologies (again apart from onshore wind), have yet to be fully engineered and therefore have significant inherent risks. Optimism has surrounded renewable generation for 20 years but full scale reliable economic solutions are still awaited. Furthermore, the role of new nuclear appears to be gathering pace and may well overtake some of the nascent technologies that we discuss today. Going back to the question, the only answer we can give is that renewables will replace less fossil fuel than current estimates and targets suggest.
President
Tigercomm
said: On 02/08/2010
We should expect at least a 50 percent replacement within 20 years by
doing things that are obvious, common sense and popular. Given the
price we are paying for our current reliance on dirty energy, people
around the world should expect a positive change to clean energy,
driven by national and regional leadership from the public and private
sector.
Renewable technology is ready to get the job done now, and several
key technological advances are on their way. The solar company
executives we’ve talked to have dramatically improved the storage
capacity that will enable solar to power homes and businesses at night
and on cloudy days.
There are several straightforward steps we can take to speed the
move from dirty to clean energy. Just cutting the amount of wasted
energy in developed nations would substantially relieve the escalating
global energy appetite, which by itself is a barrier to scaling
renewables. The United States is the second largest energy consumer
in the world, and it’s the most energy inefficient nation on earth. For
example, we have 100 million energy inefficient homes. They can
made far more energy efficient – and save homeowners money – just
through skilled labor, inexpensive and readily available materials, and
the removal of a few market barriers to allow energy efficiency
entrepreneurs to scale their businesses. Just yesterday, Pike Research
released a study that showed the United States could save more than
$41.1 billion dollars by performing energy efficiency retrofits on the
entire U.S. commercial building stock.
There are several credible paths to majority renewables within a few
decades laid out by a range of organizations, from Google to Scientific
American to nonprofit think tanks and advocacy groups. Many are far
more ambitious than the 50 percent goal I’ve suggested above.
Google’s founders have a proposal that weans the U.S. off coal and oil
by 2030. In last November’s Scientific American Mark Z. Jacobson,
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford
University and Mark A. Delucchi, a research scientist at University of
California Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, charted a
path to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. The WorldWatch
Institute have a proposal that will have renewables replace all coal,
and nearly all oil and natural gas, by 2020.
Now if the question is: Can we expect it to be a significant
replacement, that’s a very different matter.
As a public relations service provider to cleantech and renewable
energy companies of various sizes, one thing we increasingly see is
propaganda by defenders of dirty energy that fall along the
predictable lines: renewables are “too expensive,” too “subsidy
dependent.”
This is laughable, particularly coming from oil, coal and natural gas
corporations that enjoy the equivalent of over $550 billion U.S. dollars
in financial pampering by national governments annually. These are
some of the richest corporations in the history of the world. Why do
they need to be underwritten with people’s tax money?
If these industries want to start throwing around nonsense that
renewables are “expensive,” and, by implication, dirty energy is
“cheap,” we should take three steps to the answer the questions of
how much we can expect to replace dirty energy with renewables:
1.) Take away all the subsidies, tax breaks and government
bureaucracies that cheerlead and service the oil, coal and
natural gas industries.
2.) Use half of that money to pay down deficits that are threatening
national economies. Then, apply the other half of the money to
lower costs of capital to scale clean energy systems and
accelerate research in next‐generation renewables technology.
3.) Charge reasonable rates to fossil fuel companies for the damage
they are doing to the global commons that we need to live off in
perpetuity. The Gulf of Mexico will not be “restored,” or
“cleaned up” for thousands of years. BP has poisoned a key
global fishery, recreation and livelihood asset permanently, and
they aren’t going to pay a fraction of what that damage will cost
Gulf of Mexico states. They should.
If we stop underwriting the oil, coal and natural gas industries, then
the cost conversation becomes a lot more accurate. It will sling shot
the conversion to renewables by asking the market how much it
values clean energy over dirty energy. I think we’ll be pleasantly
surprised by the answer.
Senior Advisor
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
said: On 02/08/2010
Possibly a more appropriate way to pose the question is to ask how much can renewables displace fossil fuels over the next 20 years? Without any doubt, the world will consume more fossil fuels in 2030 than it consumes today. This is primarily due to the rapid growth in energy consumption in emerging economies, particularly the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China.
The displacement that is occurring is a result of a major shift in government’s acceptance of renewable energy as a significant contributor to a country’s energy mix. While most countries rely on oil and gas, they now recognize that renewables are a domestic resource that don’t need to be imported. Therefore, renewables have an energy security role in that they displace oil & gas imports (or for some countries renewable energy allows a country to increase oil & gas exports). At least 83 countries have some type of policy to promote renewable power generation.
Take a look at China, they are the world’s largest renewable energy country while at the same time they are the world’s largest coal fired power station country. Last year China added 37 GW of renewable power capacity, more than any other country in the world, to reach 226 GW of total renewables capacity. Globally, nearly 80 GW of renewable capacity was added in 2009, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity.
Wind power additions reached a record high of 38 GW. China was the top market, with 13.8 GW added, representing more than one-third of the world market — up from just a 2 % market share in 2004. Global solar PV additions reached a record high of 7 GW. For the second year in a row, in both the United States and Europe, more renewable power capacity was added than conventional power capacity (coal, gas, nuclear).
It is virtually impossible to predict how much renewable energy will be added over the next 20 years, as population growth and GDP growth are major drivers in energy consumption. Additionally, without implementing energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption the world will not be able to supply future energy demand. Energy efficiency acts as a virtual power plant in that it allows countries to avoid building additional power generation capacity. By extrapolating on the trends of the previous decade and considering future technological improvements, cost reductions, and the impact of public-private partnerships, one could hypothesize that at least 3,000 GW of renewable energy capacity could be added globally by 2030.
Board of Directors
Sustainable Business Network of Washington
said: On 02/08/2010
The real transformation is likely not going to come from those developed, oil-dependent nations shifting the majority of their power consumption to renewable energies – although this will happen, it may only account for 10-15 percent of their total energy consumption.
The real opportunity may be in those developing countries where established power grids and structures are not as firmly entrenched – making a strategic decision to obtain a significant portion of their power from renewable energy sources – much as many developing nations moved directly to wireless and cellular technology without first implementing a wired infrastructure. This is why we see China and India making the pledge to use renewables as part of their development.
Because of this, it is hard to answer the question with a definitive percentage, since the ‘baseline’ of energy use is increasing, the actual amount of fossil fuels consumed is likely to increase as well but at a slower rate than if renewable energy sources were not more prevalent and accepted. The percentage figure, therefore, may be misleading or provide a false sense of either accomplishment or failure without reflecting the true reality.
Managing Director
TBD America, Inc
said: On 06/08/2010
The transition from a fossil fuel-based to a renewable energy-based economy is rather complex. It must be understood in terms of market demands, fuel types, government legislation and initiatives as well as global, technological, socio-political and economic factors. For simplicity and relevancy, this discussion is limited to the U.S. economy only.
The energy markets considered in this discussion include four major sectors: electric power generation, transportation, industrial and residential/commercial. For the most part, the type of fuels discussed include the big five; petroleum, natural gas, coal, nuclear power and renewables. Renewables embrace: conventional hydrothermal, geothermal, solar, wind, and biomass.
To make a fact-based rather than perception-based answer, this discussion develops a foundation comprising background information, industry-recognized data, trend analysis, and modeling. Use of anecdotal and unconfirmed information was kept to a minimum.
Historically, the paradigm shift towards “renewable energy” is a much older discussion than most realize. It has taken the U.S. some 30 years to become aware of the need and another 30 years to do something about it. Add to that an additional 10 to 30 years for a new technology to have a major commercial impact, the entire cycle time becomes 70 to 90 years from awareness to large scale deployment. Putting this in perspective, from the fist piloted power airplane flight in 1903, an America first walked on the moon some 66 years later. This extremely rapid advancement from a rudimentary technology to a revolutionary achievement is unparallel in the ascent of man.
Additionally, government initiatives put in place for renewable energy some 20 years ago. The Matsunaga Hydrogen Research, Development and Demonstration Act of 1990 directed the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) to establish a Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP). The HTAP’s mandate was to facilitate the development of hydrogen as an energy carrier and to make recommendations on the implementation and the associated economic, technological and environmental impacts of hydrogen-based energy systems. Complementing this Act, the DoE established short-, mid- and long-term national objectives to replace conventional energy with hydrogen, an inexhaustible source of clean energy. The transition goals were:
[Note: A quad is a unit of energy equal to 1015 (a short-scale quadrillion) BTU, or 1.055 × 1018 joules.]
At that time, California enacted legislation requiring that 2% of new, light-duty vehicles offered for sale within the state be non-polluting, zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) by 1998 and 10% by 2003. Battery- powered electric vehicles were frequently identified as the technology option that would meet this requirement. I could go on ad nauseam with other examples from the past.
Overall, the U.S. government with its highly volatile initiatives, which come and go, lacks the interest of the country, insight, courage and will to do so.
To form an estimate of where the U.S. will be in 20 years, an analysis of current data is essential. The most comprehensive and recognized data comes from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical agency of the DoE. The EIA was created by Congress in 1977 to support the government’s decision-making ability by providing policy-neutral data.
The EIA reports that the Electric Power and the Transportation sectors of the economy absorb about 67% of all fuels supplied in the U.S. (see figure 2). The other two sectors, Industrial and Residential / Commercial use about 33% of all fuels used in the U.S. These last two sectors play a minor role on energy demand in the overall economy. For this reason, this analysis will focus on the Electric Power and Transportation industries.
Seventy percent of all the fuel used by the Electric Power industry are non-renewable “fossil” fuels, such as petroleum, coal, and natural gas which are found below the earth’s surface (see Table 1). Renewable fuels considered by the EIA include; conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass and others such as natural gas. Note, natural gas pumped from the ground is considered a fossil fuel. Natural gas generated from renewable sources such as landfill gas and water/sewage treatment is considered renewable. Currently, “renewable” natural gas is supplied erratically, and therefore, not supplied when needed. Reliability is one key factors that differentiates some renewable fuels from other more reliable sources of energy.
For 2004 and 2009, about 70% of all electrical power generated in the U.S. was sourced from fossil fuels. For the same period, only about 9% of all electrical power generation came from renewable fuels. The major type of renewable fuels is hydroelectric, which constituted about 98% of all other renewable fuels. The remaining 2% of renewable fuels includes geothermal, wind and solar. Over the five-year period from 2004 to 2009, there was a 6% decrease in the use of fossil fuel and an 18% increase in the usage of renewables. The trend toward increased utilization of renewable fuels for electrical generation is subtle but potentially real.
Another piece of highly relevant information is the energy consumption as a function of source (type of fuel) and sector (see Table 2, http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/aer.pdf, page 37). This somewhat complex-looking Chart 2 is relatively easily to understand. Each Supply Source and Demand Sector is listed in a bubble or rectangle, respectively.
On the Supply side (left), the number within each bubble is the relative percent any given Source was used by the overall economy, i.e., petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy and nuclear power comprised 37%, 24%, 22% 8% and 7% of all fuels used in the U.S. Therefore, at 37% Petroleum was the predominant fuel used in the U.S.
On the Demand side (right), the number within each rectangle is the relative percent any given Sector demanded energy in the overall economy, i.e. electric power generation, transportation, industrial, and residential/commercial comprised 40%, 28%, 21% and 11% of the energy demand in the U.S. Therefore, at 40% Electric Power generation was the predominate user of energy in the U.S.
Looking at the chart, the five Supply Sources are shown with lines connecting various Demand Sectors. The small number on the line indicates the percent that particular fuel was supplied to any given Sector. Similarly, The four Demand Sectors are shown with lines connecting various Supply Sources. The small number on the line indicates the percent of fuel source used by any given Demand Sector.
For example, the chart shows that of all the petroleum used in the U.S. in 2008, 71%, 23% 5% and 1% went to the transportation, industrial, residential/commercial and electric power sectors. On the other hand, of all the fuel used by the transportation sector in 2008, 95%, 3% and 2% came from petroleum, renewable energy and natural gas, respectively.
In summary, the above data suggests that for renewable energy to have an impact on the economy, the following must occur (ranked from highest to lowest impact):
1. The transportation sector must reduce its usage of petroleum.
2. The electric power industry must reduce its usage of coal.
3. The industrial sector must reduce its usage of petroleum.
Other changes in supply and demand may reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, but in the long run will have a lower impact than any given above.
Finally, to answer the question three models were formulated. The first two models, “Steady State” and “Accelerated,” (see Tables 3 and 4) consider:
(Note, date used for 2010, was that given for 2009 from Table 1.)
The Steady State Model is based on a constant compounded 5-year rate of change of -6% and +18% for petroleum/coal and renewable fuels only. These rates were derived from the Changes given in Table 1.
The Accelerated Model is based on the Steady State rate factored with an additional 66% to arrive at a 5-year compounded rate of change of -9% and +27% for petroleum/coal and renewable fuels only. All other assumptions were similar to the Steady State model.
To cover all the risks and uncertainties, a third or Average Model was developed to derive a reasonable answer. The Average Model averages all data points from the Steady State and Accelerated models (see Table 5).
To the extent that our government legislates and incentivizes renewable fuels, the rate of adoption may retard or accelerate from conventional wisdom. In the near term, the political news for increasing demand of renewable fuels is less than favorable. In a recent announcement, the Senate decided to abandon all efforts to pass a comprehensive climate change bill. This leaves utilities, vehicle owners, businesses and homeowners with no direction and no reason to adopt more expensive renewable energy. As long as fossil fuel prices remain low largely due to tangible and intangible government subsidies, it is difficult to make a strong financial case in favor of renewable fuels.
As a counterpoint, whether one believes or disbelieves in climate change or global warming, the issue of reducing our reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels is as much a domestic economic issue as it is an environmental one. The U.S. spends about $1.3 million per minute, $57 billion a month and more than $685 billion a year to feed its addiction of foreign oil. It seems the U.S. government is myopic to its economic and environmental impact.
In closing, it’s about us, humanity and our future. We must find the leadership, courage and conviction to get off petroleum in order to keep our dollars in the U.S. by using clean, abundant and domestically produced energy sources. Only by these actions can we ensure our children’s children will have any measure of hope for the future.
My predictions for how much renewables are expected to replace fossil fuel over the next 20 years are shown in the Average Model, Table 5.
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 06/08/2010
Barry,This is an EXCELLENT collection of data in one place on the diversity of energy sources and their uses. I do question a couple of assertions. One area in particular is the heavy shift to natural gas. The extreme volitility of natural gas pricing on the commodities markets has been demonstrated quite painfully in the past decade. The run up of NG from about $3.5 per MMBTU to $14 in 1999 to 2000 was one precursor (in my opinion) to the 2001, 2002 recession. And then again Summer of 2007’s run up to $14 per MMBTU added fuel to the recessionary fire along with the mortgage crisis, real estate bubble, etc. The other assertion about gas related to expanding domestic supplies probably relies heavily on expanded use of fracking and recent reports are demonstrating that there are huge risks in this practice that are only just coming to light. The other area I question is the flat level of nuclear generation on your charts. You statement that demand will remain flat does not take into account recent indicators that a rapid growth in nuclear may be forthcoming. The Obama administration’s halting of funding for Yucca mountain for example. Many people see this as an obstacle to expanded nuclear generation and only a politcial ploy to get Harry Reid re-elected. I may be overly optimistic but I think halting funding for Yucca Mt. is actually first step towards moving the US towards the inevitalbe need to start reprocessing spent fuel. Obama’s State of the Union address also included a statement of a commitment to a nuclear power renaissance and the kick off of Energy Secretary Chu’s Blue Ribbon panel is a third step towards what I believe will be a major kick start of nuclear energy growth in the US, following the lead of many others on the planet. t present there are 20 applications for new licensed before the NRC and I am personally aware of a number of agressive efforts to develop an action plan to address the issues of funding, regulatory modernization, fabrication capacity and workforce development. I also believe that many people are being overly optimistic about the growth of renewable energy sources. I believe that as federal deficits drive out incentives and supports for renewables there true costs will shrink growth to a percentage that reflects where they can be best applied. Solar PV in Ohio, maybe not, but the desert southwest, absolutely!
Chief Operating Officer
European Wind Energy Association
said: On 06/08/2010
Renewable energy is growing much faster than the traditionally dominant fuels of coal, oil and gas and still has a huge untapped potential. In 2009, 62% of new power capacity built was renewables, which now provide over 10% of the European Union’s energy. For the last two years, more wind energy capacity alone has been installed in the EU than any other type of power source.
On a policy level, the EU has set a target to reach a 20% share of renewables in the overall energy mix by 2020 (equivalent to 34% of electricity), and a report earlier this year by the European Renewable Energy Council demonstrated that by 2050, Europe could have an energy sector powered 100% by renewables. According to the same report, over the next twenty years – that is, by 2030 – renewables could provide over 40% of the EU’s.
Europe needs to keep pushing the development of wind energy and other renewables to ensure these targets are met. Moreover, as we are constantly reminded, time is running out in the battle against climate change, and replacing fossil fuels with zero carbon renewable energy is the only way to alleviate the heavy pollution the fuels cause. This is also crucial for meeting the EU’s 80% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2050. In addition, renewables ensure Europe’s independence from expensive fuel imports, and are building a home-grown green energy economy with thousands of jobs.
Key to ensuring renewables’ continued growth is that we build no new fossil-fuel power stations as from 2020, and that we replace the nearly 50% of the EU’s electricity capacity that is out of date with renewable energy capacity. We must also extend and upgrade the electricity grid to open out the power market and transport power from renewables to where it is needed. Only then can we be sure to gain the maximum benefit from all renewables have to offer, while fossil fuels become relics of a less enlightened past.
Senior Advisor
Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Water Management General Directorate, Romania
said: On 13/08/2010
Each type of renewable energy needs to be discussed separately.
The subject is wide and has to be quantified in cost-efficiency evaluation; already many public funds have been dedicated to this subject.
Replacing fossil fuels in the next 20 years depends on how much emphasis will be put on political aspects, of course based on an agreement at international level in the context of climate changes, or to another millennium goal that has to be identified and unanimously accepted with greater impact and interest also from the private sector.
However these political decisions need to be based on in-depth research that have to reduce the actual investment costs in renewable energies and to increase their efficiency.
Energy stocking technologies still need more developments. It would be very useful to find a sustained mechanism to stimulate the process and the financial involvement of the private partnership for research efforts, but it is recommended that this should be coordinated with incentives from the governmental levels.
In conclusion, it is difficult to give a certain percentage regarding this question; the issue can be seen as an open lottery where the one who’s estimation is closer after 20 years should win a prize.
Editor
Culture Change
said: On 18/08/2010
Renewable energy cannot go very far in replacing today’s fossil fuels use, and just how much depends on changes in lifestyle and population size.
Only 25% of energy needed today is in the form of electricity, and renewables just produce electricity (excepting biomass which has limited potential if a whole systems approach is taken, e.g., the need for food).
Renewable energy systems also depend on petroleum-derived components and much oil-dependent transportation. But there is a future for renewable energy on a local, decentralized basis. The real answer to oil-addiction, peak oil, and greenhouse gas emissions lies in using much less energy per capita. This will also come to pass in the aggregate with a smaller population size, as present petroleum-oriented agriculture cannot be sustained. The challenge ahead is already here, so an event like the BP-Gulf disaster has triggered a grassroots effort to rapidly wean consumers off oil: World Oil Reduction for the Gulf ( http://www.WorldOilReduction.org ), a coalition.
In a recent report on http://www.CultureChange.org, “Can the world run on renewables, nuclear energy and geo-sequestration? The negative case”
author Ted Trainer assumed a global energy supply in a year-2050 scenario of about twice the present amount. This would feature a saving of one third of demand by energy conservation, improved efficiency and general technical advance, with a “safe” greenhouse gas emission rate of 80% of emissions that can be captured and geo-sequestered. If all possible renewable energy were maximized, solar would comprise about 75% of it:
solar electric and solar thermal investment would have to be $377 trillion. When averaged over an assumed 25-year plant lifetime this would be 33 times the present amount of world annual energy investment, $450 billion. (see http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/658/66/ )
Communications Chair
United Soybean Board
said: On 30/08/2010
Through U.S. farmer funding for research and promotion over the past 20 years, the United Soybean Board (USB) helped develop biodiesel into a viable alternative to petroleum-based diesel fuel in the United States. This cleaner-burning, homegrown fuel represents a renewable, nontoxic alternative to the oil we over-rely on from other countries. Perhaps most importantly, biodiesel performs similarly to, if not better than, petroleum-based diesel.
With USB’s support, biodiesel production increased from 25 million gallons in 2004 to a high-water mark of more than 700 million gallons in 2008. A relatively new U.S. federal government standard provides a baseline expectation for the United States’ use of renewable fuels and the amount of fossil fuels it can replace in the future.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s expanded Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2), which requires minimum use of qualified advanced biofuels, went into effect earlier this year. According to the U.S. National Biodiesel Board (NBB), biodiesel represents the first fuel to qualify as an advanced biofuel under the RFS2 to be commercially available in the United States. The rule requires the use of at least 1 billion gallons of biodiesel per year between 2012 and 2023. Overall, the RFS2 requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be used by the time the rule is fully implemented in 2022.
State renewable fuel requirements have also proven effective in promoting the use of biodiesel. An Illinois state diesel fuel sales tax exemption offers a 6-cent discount for a B11 biodiesel blend (11 percent biodiesel mixed with 89 percent petroleum diesel). For farmers and truckers who use thousands, if not millions, of gallons of diesel, that makes a big difference and puts our soybeans to work for us. Pennsylvania requires all diesel fuel sold in the state to contain 2 percent biodiesel, and Minnesota increased its requirement to 5 percent from 2 percent earlier this year.
USB-funded research also helped prove biodiesel to be capable of replacing fossil fuels in heating oil systems. An alliance of home heating oil providers in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern parts of the United States recently agreed to begin incorporating more biodiesel-based Bioheat® into the supply. Again, states have taken it a step further. Massachusetts was the first state to require the use of Bioheat inside the state. Connecticut and New York followed suit earlier this year. The U.S. uses about 8 billion gallons of heating oil per year. Mixing just 5 percent biodiesel into that supply works out to an additional 450 million gallons of renewable fuel usage.
Admittedly, for a country that consistently uses more than 60 billion gallons of petroleum diesel fuel in a year, the use of biodiesel called for by these government actions will represent, shall we say, just a drop in the barrel. The U.S. biodiesel industry, along with the U.S. soybean farmers who grow the soybeans that produce the oil that continues to be the dominant feedstock for U.S. biodiesel production, will continue to promote the benefits of biodiesel in order to expand our usage of renewable fuels well beyond this baseline, thus replacing significant amounts of fossil fuels.
The American musician James Taylor wrote and recorded a snappy tune titled “Traffic Jam” during my younger days that concludes with a warning that in many ways still applies today:
Now I used to think that I was cool
Running around on fossil fuel.
Until I saw what I was doing
Was driving down the road to ruin.
Biodiesel can help turn the fossil fuel “road to ruin” into a “road to opportunity.”
Vice President of Membership & Corporate Relations
American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)
said: On 06/12/2010
U.S. renewable energy markets have experienced tremendous growth over the past five years and it looks like the trend will continue long term. Photovoltaics and wind markets have experienced the largest growth. Many in the industry are in agreement that the U.S. could get 25 percent of our energy from renewable resources like wind, solar, and biofuels by the year 2025. Most Americans support an increasing role for renewable energy especially since renewable energy comes from local resources, so it improves national security, creates jobs in rural America and in manufacturing and provides energy at stable prices that will never run out.