Comment

Comment by Willem Post on June 6, 2021 at 10:14pm

WORLD AND US PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CAPITAL COST

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-total-energy-con...

 

World energy consumption is projected to increase to 736 quads in 2040 from 575 quads in 2015, an increase of 28%, according to the latest from the US Energy Information Administration, EIA.

See URL and click on PPT to access data, click on to page 4 of PowerPoint

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

 

Most of this growth is expected to come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD, and especially from countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia.

 

Non-OECD Asia, which includes China and India, accounted for more than 60% of the world’s total increase in energy consumption from 2015 through 2040.

 

PARIS AGREEMENTS

 

China, India, and other developing Asian countries, and Africa, and Middle and South America need to use low-cost energy, such as coal, to be competitive. They would not have signed up for “Paris”, if they had not been allowed to be more or less exempt from the Paris agreements

 

Obama agreed to commit the US to the Paris agreements, i.e., be subject to its financial and other obligations for decades.

However, he never submitted the commitment to the US Senate for ratification, as required by the US Constitution.

Trump rescinded the commitment. It became effective 3 years later, one day after the US presidential elections on November 3, 2020.

 

If the US had not left “Paris”, a UN Council likely would have determined a level of renewable energy, RE, spending, say $500 billion/y, for distributing to various poorer countries by UN bureaucrats.

The Council would have assessed OECD members, likely in proportion to their GDPs.

The US and Europe would have been assessed at 100 to 150 billion dollars/y each.

The non-OECD countries likely would continue to be more or less exempt from paying for the Paris agreements.

 

SUMMARY OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR THE WORLD AND US

 

The analysis includes two scenarios: 1) 50% RE by 2050, and 2) 100% RE by 2050.

The CAPEX values exclude a great many items related to transforming the world economy to a low-carbon mode. See next section.

 

50% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $24,781 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 5.76%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $7,233 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 8.81%/y

 

100% RE by 2050

 

World CAPEX for RE were $2,652.2 billion for 2010-2019, 10 years

World CAPEX for RE were $282.2 billion in 2019.

World CAPEX for RE would be $60,987 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 10.08%/y

 

US CAPEX for RE were $494.5 billion for 2010 - 2019, 10 years.

US CAPEX for RE were $59 billion in 2019.

US CAPEX for RE would be $16,988 billion for 2019 - 2050, 32 years; compound growth 13.42%/y

 

SUMMARY OF "BIG-PICTURE" CAPEX FOR THE WORLD AND THE US

 

World More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The above CAPEX numbers relate to having 50% RE, or 100% RE, in the primary energy mix by 2050, which represents a very narrow area of “fighting climate change”. See Appendix for definitions of source, primary and upstream energy.

 

This report, prepared by two financial services organizations, estimates the world more-inclusive CAPEX at $100 trillion to $150 trillion, over the next 30 years, about $3 trillion to $5 trillion per year

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/news/research-and-markets/fundi...

 

NOTE: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that an average of $3.5 trillion per year will be needed just in energy investments between 2016 and 2050 to achieve the 1.5-degree target.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-must-halve-emission...

 

US More-Inclusive CAPEX

 

The ratio of World CAPEX for RE / US CAPEX for RE = 16,988/60,987 = 0.279

 

A more-inclusive US CAPEX could be $27.9 trillion to $41.8 trillion

 

The US CAPEX could be less, because, at present, the world is adding a quad of RE at about $58.95 billion, compare to the US at about $102.78 billion.

 

It is unclear what accounts for the large difference.

Part of it may be due to differences of accounting methods among countries.

 

NOTE: The CAPEX numbers exclude costs for replacements of shorter-life systems, such as EVs, heat-pumps, batteries, wind-turbines, etc., during these 30 years. For comparison:

 

Hydro plants have long lives, about 100 years.

Nuclear plants about 60 years

Coal and gas-turbine plants about 40 years

Wind turbine systems about 20 years

Solar systems about 25 years

Battery systems about 15 years

Comment by Willem Post on June 6, 2021 at 9:25pm

Thinklike,

EVs will not reduce CO2 nearly as much, as has been "predicted", because they are driven about 7,000 miles per year vs at least 12,000 per year for gasoline vehicles.

That is one major flaw of almost ALL studies.

In my studies, I have assumed travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years.

VERY FEW PEOPLE WILL DRIVE AN EV FOR MORE THAN TEN YEARS.

The vehicle will be worn out, and so will be the battery.; end of story.

No one would replace a battery in a 10 year old vehicle.

These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...

 

Here is an excerpt from this article.

HIGH COSTS OF WIND, SOLAR, AND BATTERY SYSTEMS IN NEW ENGLAND

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

APPENDIX 2

 

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Battery Systems

 

Buildings: A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.

 

Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.

 

Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.

 

Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:

 

1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs

2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings

3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles

 

Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

 

Vehicles: Vermont needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.

The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.

Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

 

RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

 

The above shows,

 

A NISSAN Leaf, a compact vehicle, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.

 

A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle

 

NOTE: EAN estimated 4.5 Mt/y, based on an artificial 25 g CO2/kWh electricity, instead of using the 300 g/kWh of the NE rid, calculated by ISO-NE on a rational basis. EAN neglected: 1) the CO2 of MAKING the battery, etc., and 2) LIFETIME conditions

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

NOTE: These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...

 

Any analyses by EAN, or VT-DOT, or Concerned “Scientists” (anyone can join), etc., using 12,000, or even 15,000 miles per year, would be GROSSLY in error and DECEPTIVE.

 

HUGE investments to implement EVs would be required, including:

 

Chargers everywhere,
Additional generation with HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, EXPENSIVE, VARIABLE, INTERMITTENT wind and solar,
Additional grid build-outs
Additional grid-scale batteries everywhere,

Additional costs for balancing
Worldwide battery materials supply chains

 

This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less than 50% of the CO2 envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

RE promoters of “GOING EV” are seriously deranged, if they keep spouting EVs have no CO2 emissions.

APPENDIX 3

 

Future VT Light Duty Vehicle Mix

 

If the VT LDV mix average mileage would become 40 mpg (by means of carrots and sticks), CO2 would become about 22.7/40 x 56.315 = 32 Mt over 10y

 

It would take minor changes to reduce the average CO2 from 56.315 Mt to about 32 Mt, an average reduction of 24 Mt per vehicle.

It would take major changes to reduce the average CO2 from 32 Mt to 27 Mt over 10y, by replacing gasoline vehicles with EVs, plus have chargers everywhere, plus more generating capacity, plus more grid, plus more batteries.

 

The future VT LDV mix, as EVS, likely would have an average of about 30 - 35 Mt of CO2, because it would include full-size SUVs with AWD, which have more CO2, than the compact NISSAN Leaf S Plus, without AWD.

 

Going the EV route would involve mega $billions, and would be unaffordable by already struggling households and businesses. See

 

NOTE: Toyota, a pioneer in hybrid vehicles, claims, wide-spread use of hybrid vehicleswould achieve almost the same CO2 reduction as EVs, without having to compromise on range and usability of the vehicle, and without turning upside down the automotive industry.