Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I think it is a a nuanced argument: cheap gas (from any source including fraking) will displace coal = good for CO2 but will also slow down renewable rollout = bad.

The US experience possibly suggests the good outweighs the bad but we don't have any counterfactual on what would have happened without fraking.

Oops, we both focused on gas, but the oil side of the US shale industry is, without doubt, an environmental disaster. The supply and demand profile of oil means it's very sensitive to small changes, and only about a 2% increase/reduction in demand or supply results in a massive swing in price.

The incredibly cheap oil prices we've now seen, since it more than halved in price in 2014 might feel good in our pockets, but has a massive influence on how we use or waste oil, what vehicles we buy, what vehicles companies invest in looking forward.

In the US we've seen a massive swing back in favour of much larger and heavier SUV's and pick ups, and enormous efforts to pushback against smaller, more efficient and electric vehicles.

Regardless of shale oil now, we can't expect oil prices to recover as we are now approaching 'peak oil price', not a high price, but the point at which supply will always be too great compared to demand. Approximately half the reduction in demand needed to reach that point has already been achieved by the electrification of Chinese bus fleets, and the rollout of EV's both commercial and just personal transport, is now accelerating.

Without a worldwide agreement to reduce oil production, we're now at peak price, giving us cheap energy, and the need to push through that point for the long term benefit of the planet/us.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Oops, we both focused on gas, but the oil side of the US shale industry is, without doubt, an environmental disaster. The supply and demand profile of oil means it's very sensitive to small changes, and only about a 2% increase/reduction in demand or supply results in a massive swing in price.

The incredibly cheap oil prices we've now seen, since it more than halved in price in 2014 might feel good in our pockets, but has a massive influence on how we use or waste oil, what vehicles we buy, what vehicles companies invest in looking forward.

In the US we've seen a massive swing back in favour of much larger and heavier SUV's and pick ups, and enormous efforts to pushback against smaller, more efficient and electric vehicles.

Regardless of shale oil now, we can't expect oil prices to recover as we are now approaching 'peak oil price', not a high price, but the point at which supply will always be too great compared to demand. Approximately half the reduction in demand needed to reach that point has already been achieved by the electrification of Chinese bus fleets, and the rollout of EV's both commercial and just personal transport, is now accelerating.

Without a worldwide agreement to reduce oil production, we're now at peak price, giving us cheap energy, and the need to push through that point for the long term benefit of the planet/us.

USA Per capita oil consumption is actually down 11% on the decade (2017 vs 2007) and this is despite the USA now producing much more energy than it did in 2007 (it takes energy to produce energy)

So the idea that lower prices = more consumption does not necessarily hold true
The end price of oil can be varied by the duties and taxes

GreatApe

michaels wrote: »

I think it is a a nuanced argument: cheap gas (from any source including fraking) will displace coal = good for CO2 but will also slow down renewable rollout = bad.

The US experience possibly suggests the good outweighs the bad but we don't have any counterfactual on what would have happened without fraking.

Fracking did not just displace coal mine output for power stations (although that was very significant), it also displaced tar sands, offshore oil and gas drilling, coal to liquid plants, gas to liquid plants and other 'conventional' oil and gas fields

I do not think it displaced much in the way of solar or wind because solar and wind are only alive by mandate not on economic competition with !!!!!!

It does not matter if Wind farms are competing against $9/mmbtu gas (Japan) or $6/mmbtu gas (EU) or $3/mmbtu gas (USA) in all cases wind/PV does not out-compete existing FF infrastructure despite any number of power point presentations that say otherwise the reality is remove the subs and deployment crashes so when it comes down to it clearly it is not economical at prices of $3/mmbtu or at prices of $9/mmbtu

So if renewables are deployed due to mandate then why not have cheap fossil fuels and not bleed money out of the country instead do domestic shale keep the jobs keep the money and keep up the renewables mandate (if anything with a stronger economy you can afford to do more more quickly)

EricMears

Green, ethical, energy issues in the news (last 2 weeks) !!!

Coastalwatch

UK large-scale post-subsidy pipeline soars 67% in just six months, topping 4.2GW

It would appear that at least large scale solar developments are still planned post Fit according to Solar Power Portal. The news is encouraging for the future of Solar renewable energy should all, or even most proposals come to fruition.

This growth has been driven by the return of established greenfield developers, experienced with the UK solar planning process, and sets up the prospect of strong post-subsidy build-out during the 2020-2022 time period.

https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/list

I wonder if this coupled with an announcement by The Renewables Infrastructure Group of successful fundraising for the initial offer on 7 March had successfully completed.
It said the initial issue was heavily oversubscribed, with applications totalling nearly three times the 150 million new ordinary shares initially available. TRIG predominantly acquire and manage Wind and Solar farms in the UK and further afield.
It may be that investors are no longer holding back when it comes to placing their investments in renewable energy.
Of course this will only continue if the sums invested offer the appropriate returns in the near and long term. Only time will tell if this is a one off or a growing trend!

But encouraging news all the same.:)

Martyn1981

We've all heard and read it, the grid can only cope with 20% RE before it collapses, OK make that 30% (as RE is closing in on 20%), OK make it 40% (as RE is closing in on 30%) ..... OK 50% OK 60% OK 70%.

But what about coping with 100% RE, surely Shirley you can't be serious, and if you are well you clearly don't know how the grid operates, nor how many many decades that will take.

So .................... what does the grid think, and how long will it take?

Zero Carbon Operation 2025

There soon will be times in the year when the market could meet the total demand for electricity through renewable generation only and these periods will increase as more and more renewables are connected and more load actively participates in the market. This is very different to the traditional model of power system operation and, to enable all of this low carbon generation operate unconstrained, requires us to address and solve some critical engineering challenges.

Today, to manage this system safely and securely, we need to bring on conventional power plants (typically gas or coal plant) to provide key system and balancing services such as voltage control, inertia and frequency response (high and low). Our ambition is that, by 2025, we will have transformed the operation of the electricty system such that we can operate it safely and securely at zero carbon whenever there is sufficient renewable generation on-line and available to meet the total national load.

Zero carbon operation of the electricity system by 2025 means a fundamental change to how our system was designed to operate – integrating newer technologies right across the system – from large scale off-shore wind to domestic scale solar panels to increased demand side participation, using new smart digital systems to manage and control the system in real-time.

We will identify the systems, services and products we will require to run a zero-carbon network and design the new competitive marketplaces needed to source these as efficiently as possible from both new and existing companies. We believe that promoting competition will ultimately lead to better value for consumers. The new products and services we will introduce will help reduce the overall cost of operating the system, driving down costs for consumers.

Please note, this stage is about coping with periods of 100% RE, not 100% RE all year.

zeupater

Hi All


Sitting here in anticipation of a third post which will show up on my thread as ...

This message is hidden because GreatApe is on your ignore list.

... where are admin when you need them, or don't they follow-up on what they post when changing thread titles ?!

GreatApe

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/us_oil.php

US Oil and Liquids FF production to reach 20mbpd next year and the USA to become a net exporter of crude and petroleum products form next year

~6mbpd growth over just 3 years 2017-2020

Once again the Americans save Europe,
This time in the form of ~$3 trillion saved on less expensive oil/gas imports into the EU during the 2010s

Exiled_Tyke

But this isn't a thread on oil production. It's for news on RE so has no place here.

silverwhistle

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I once defended this poster as I felt that we shouldn't become an echo chamber of similar views, but I've changed my mind in this case as the user never posts anything on topic or any positive posts about RE. I find it tiresome to scroll past the multi-posts so I'm following Mart and putting this poster on ignore.

Good idea, as the latest post shows..


Edit: So that's how you do it.. my first one ever on these boards.