Percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar is 1.1%

So I'm just going to quietly wait over here for the cries of outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and assorted brickbats.

Another report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's low amount as it's just starting to break into markets. The journalist also seems too be unaware, cherry picking or totally making up his facts when saying "solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas". Looking at the world markets solar and onshore wind kick gas and coals arse. And the cost is falling for renewables (especially solar), unlike other fossil fuels (gas did fall a bit but as the cost of gas went up again that kills that). He has a go at batteries totally ignoring the facts that batteries are in fact to day cheaper enough to start taking a way business from gas peaker plants. He goes on about renewables not being reliable ignoring quite a number of markets that are getting large percentages of electricity from them and ignoring conventional sources can fall over quite often as well (looking at Belgium). Renewables are competitive now and are beginning to take over new installed figures for electricity.

This is just another bit of FUD written by a hack to feed an audience that wants to hear this. If this is the sort of place where fans of fossil fuel like to go to for their information then I suggest you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel and will of course only get the dreg's.

It's not so much "cries of outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and assorted brickbats.", it's more rolling of eyes and maybe a face palm.

 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that now solar and wind account only for a very small share of worldwide energy consumption but it's like like with EVs : if you just look at the current market share you can think it does not have an impact. But to get the real picture you have to consider also the exponential rate of growth.

Solar cumulative capacity is doubling every 3 years. So the current market share is expected to be multiplied manyfold in the coming years.

 

image.png.e21e847d50096236fab7d3b77656e659.png

This growth is sustained by the falling price of solar energy.

image.png.3c97cc93f454ee5dc4c9ec2a4e07473d.png

 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind and solar are used to produce electricity, so it's the share of wind and solar used to produce electricity that matters, not total global primal energy... There are no cars powered by solar panels (directly at least). The share of solar doubles not every three years but every two years and a few months. That pace is set to accelerate as it becomes the cheapest form of electricity generation everywhere in the world. It's little now, but it grows fast. By the very nature of exponential growth, most of the advances will be made in very few years, leaving people asking themselves how it went so fast.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, JunoTen said:

There are no cars powered by solar panels (directly at least).

Theres even a company that is or is about to make a car with panels. It should give it on a sunny day an extra 30km. Can't remember what they are called now.

Just saw it on Fullycharged tease video of their European jolly, Sono Motors.

Edited by DA?
more to say
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So I'm just going to quietly wait over here for the cries of outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and assorted brickbats.

Another report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

I dare say at some point coal only provided 1% of global energy supplies. How those firewood suppliers mocked Coals paltry contribution😉

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So I'm just going to quietly wait over here for the cries of outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and assorted brickbats.

Another report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but — as the report reluctantly acknowledges — an enormously disruptive mouse.

All that solar and wind generates electricity. How much primary energy in the form of coal, gas or oil is needed to generate electricity. You need to apply a factor of 2-3 to the solar/wind figure to give a fair comparison. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tHom really is an insignificant old fart with old views. he's the main contributor to a sham "energy website". All those years of knowledge really are finding the right place here. HA...That goatee is just something else as well

  • Downvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, wimposak said:

That goatee is just something else as well

That's taking it a bit far, insulting a mans facial hair is never cool

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, wimposak said:

tHom really is an insignificant old fart with old views. he's the main contributor to a sham "energy website". All those years of knowledge really are finding the right place here. HA...That goatee is just something else as well

Aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha

Somebody really doesn't like the Oil Price forum, but still takes the time to register and complain repeatedly about this forum and about me.  You have no idea how amusing I find your red downvotes and bluster.

As a moderator I should warn you about trying to troll, but I find your efforts at disparaging this Oil Price forum (and my old fart opinions) so amusing that I will instead simply remind you of my general views about this forum and about expressing opinions, which I laid out long ago in my profile on Oil Price forum:

 

*** Important !   I do *not* expect others to agree with my opinions.  I tend to have rather unusual opinions about international Oil & Gas.  I *do* hope that readers will fearlessly voice their own views about international oil & gas.

As a former moderator on the Oilpro forum, (and now a moderator here on the Oil Price Community forum) I *encourage* dissent, and *encourage* Freedom of Speech, and *encourage* others to freely voice their views and convictions about oil & gas. 

A diversity of global views is what makes the world a special place.  Conformity is just a slow, painful death of not speaking your mind.  So SPEAK UP.  Please don't be a jerk about about it, though.  If you want others to consider your views, please be willing to consider the views of others.

 

@Rodent

  • Like 6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, wimposak said:

tHom really is an insignificant old fart with old views. he's the main contributor to a sham "energy website". All those years of knowledge really are finding the right place here. HA...That goatee is just something else as well

Normally I would edit this post of yours but since Tom so graciously replied to your post I shall leave it. If you have different viewpoints feel free to share them here. If you have nothing to add other than personally disparaging comments to community members, you must find another community in which to do so. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !9_9

Edited by zerogrid
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2018 at 4:32 PM, wimposak said:

tHom really is an insignificant old fart with old views. he's the main contributor to a sham "energy website". All those years of knowledge really are finding the right place here. HA...That goatee is just something else as well

Somewhat unkind. 

While there is a lot Tom and I disagree on he is open to considering alternative views.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, zerogrid said:

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !9_9

Roof spaces are the best place because they serve no other function. 

A better system would be to support domestic solar and enable more direct use. A Uk company producers a diverter that uses surplus electricity to heat water rather than export the power. Even better if that power is used to drive a heat pump. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zerogrid said:

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !9_9

Roof spaces are great for domestic and some businesses. But depending where you live, many people live in apartments or large industries needing vast amounts of power, so land is used. In many places subsidises are given to encourage the use of renewables but now renewables are competitive with other energy sources this will change. Although one industries subsidy is another industries tax break or even just ignored. Having the panels lower to the ground is also cheaper and allows for easier cleaning. Occasionally agricultural land is used but this is normally low grade stuff that's not really missed. There is some experimentation in places like Japan placing the panels at height so crops can grow underneath, this can even increase yields.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2018 at 7:32 PM, Guillaume Albasini said:

It's true that now solar and wind account only for a very small share of worldwide energy consumption but it's like like with EVs : if you just look at the current market share you can think it does not have an impact. But to get the real picture you have to consider also the exponential rate of growth.

Solar cumulative capacity is doubling every 3 years. So the current market share is expected to be multiplied manyfold in the coming years.

 

image.png.e21e847d50096236fab7d3b77656e659.png

 

not exactly technology related but demonstrate what happens when resources become scarce: 803px-Bacterial_growth_en.svg.png

Plus appetite for EVs and PV may diminish somewhat once more folks realize they were manipulated into thinking CO2 is a substantial greenhouse has and humankind can do anything about changing it. Not to mention pitiful ERoEI of wind and solar (to avoid being called bias, shale oil is in same falls into same category although not as bad and can be used as transport fuel and take you places)

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Roof spaces are the best place because they serve no other function. 

A better system would be to support domestic solar and enable more direct use. A Uk company producers a diverter that uses surplus electricity to heat water rather than export the power. Even better if that power is used to drive a heat pump. 

I've recently installed 6.6KW solar panels on my roof (despite shading by gorgeous gumtree) - price after subsidies (>100% of my cost) become irresistible and there was a hope for payback in ~2-3 years time while increasing value of property. Agree on hot water; good way to store ~free energy.

But here is an example how government policy could ruin it for everybody, increasing realestate price (as it not at nosebleed level yet) and exacerbating duck-curve issue http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2018/11/17112018-california-rooftop-solar.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DanilKa said:

not exactly technology related but demonstrate what happens when resources become scarce: 803px-Bacterial_growth_en.svg.png

Plus appetite for EVs and PV may diminish somewhat once more folks realize they were manipulated into thinking CO2 is a substantial greenhouse(1) has and humankind can do anything about changing it. Not to mention pitiful ERoEI of wind and solar (2)(to avoid being called bias, shale oil is in same falls into same category although not as bad and can be used as transport fuel and take you places (3))

 

1. It is - anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for for approximately 65% of the increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere. 

2. Locality affects that but the EROEI for both solar and wind is pretty good and you need to consider they both produce electricity which has the highest fungibility of all energy sources compared to input energy which is predominantly primary energy.

This study (http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=62496) of contemporary wind turbines came back with a EROEI of 40 which is the high end but an overall EROEI for the whole industry of 18-20 would be reasonable. Solar is lower (probably around 10-15)  but it is effectively without limitation when it comes to scale. That low EROEI is partly due to the fact that much of the installation to date has been in wealthy countries that don't necessarily have the best solar resources (Germany being a good example). Were all that PV to be redeployed to desert regions the EROEI ratio would increase by 40-60%. 

Also the arbitrary '25 year rule' reduces EROEI as it assumes in all cases a lifespan of 25 years. Most turbines and panels will be operating well beyond that age albeit at a lower capacity. Wind turbine towers and foundations are desugned for 2-3 lifecycles so the energy input ont he 2 and 3 rd life cycle is going to be much lower as it only involves turbine replacement or refurbishment  

3. So can electricity with increasing range as batteries and motor efficiency improve. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, zerogrid said:

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !9_9

One advantage to onsite is you can get out of the large installation somewhere. Wind farms for example, require a huge infrastructure to deliver the electricity. So does just about every other utility scale power producer. Distributed power has it's challenges, but as technologies evolves, the mega project producer will become a stranded asset, IMHO. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to distributed power is who pays for the grid. Traditionally the power producers did. When a significant portion of power is made on-site, that trashes that economic model. Plus, when in history did the big established powers just roll over and concede wealth generation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Just like to point out this was published I think in 2014, since then the wind turbines have improved even more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2018 at 1:00 PM, zerogrid said:

I'm wondering if there is any value to placing solar panels on the roofs of people's homes and businesses ,opposed,to solar farms taking up valuable land for agriculture....anything to do with subsidies and tax money paying for solar farms and then charging us again for the energy, or am I just being naive, stupid and  conspiratorial.......surely not !9_9

 

On 11/26/2018 at 1:51 PM, NickW said:

Roof spaces are the best place because they serve no other function. 

A better system would be to support domestic solar and enable more direct use. A Uk company producers a diverter that uses surplus electricity to heat water rather than export the power. Even better if that power is used to drive a heat pump. 

Mega projects take up land, but they're remarkably cheap to purchase, install, maintain, and remove.  Commercial rooftop works because utilities charge commercial customers by peak demand; shaving that peak demand saves a disproportionate amount of money.  

There are places where roof installations are perfect, such as large commercial buildings with flat roofs and peak loads coinciding with peak sunlight.  E.g. a Wal Mart Supercenter located in the US Southwest, with its heavy A/C and refrigeration loads.  Tesla's Gigafactory in Nevada is another great example.  

By contrast, residential solar is harder to justify because:
1)  Sales, design, installation, & financing are more expensive - sometimes to the point where the cost of the panels is irrelevant.
2)  They're not aesthetic.  We can dismiss that all we want, but aesthetics matter in living spaces. 
3)  Roofs are rarely perfectly angled for sunlight, reducing total production.
4)  Homeowners may not want to take on the risk of expensive equipment breaking.
5)  Maintenance & cleaning of residential rooftop systems is difficult.  Another thing homeowners won't want to deal with.

Hence, residential rooftop solar hasn't taken off as expected.  This is a great example of how the free market sees all.  If it isn't happening voluntarily, there's almost always a good reason.  

As a side note, renewables are incredibly capital intensive.  I wonder what rising interest rates will do to their payback period.  

 

12 hours ago, NickW said:

1. It is - anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for for approximately 65% of the increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere. 

Out of curiosity, how was that 65% figure arrived at? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mthebold said:

 

Mega projects take up land, but they're remarkably cheap to purchase, install, maintain, and remove.  Commercial rooftop works because utilities charge commercial customers by peak demand; shaving that peak demand saves a disproportionate amount of money.  

There are places where roof installations are perfect, such as large commercial buildings with flat roofs and peak loads coinciding with peak sunlight.  E.g. a Wal Mart Supercenter located in the US Southwest, with its heavy A/C and refrigeration loads.  Tesla's Gigafactory in Nevada is another great example.  

By contrast, residential solar is harder to justify because:
1)  Sales, design, installation, & financing are more expensive - sometimes to the point where the cost of the panels is irrelevant.
2)  They're not aesthetic.  We can dismiss that all we want, but aesthetics matter in living spaces. 
3)  Roofs are rarely perfectly angled for sunlight, reducing total production.
4)  Homeowners may not want to take on the risk of expensive equipment breaking.
5)  Maintenance & cleaning of residential rooftop systems is difficult.  Another thing homeowners won't want to deal with.

Hence, residential rooftop solar hasn't taken off as expected.  This is a great example of how the free market sees all.  If it isn't happening voluntarily, there's almost always a good reason.  

As a side note, renewables are incredibly capital intensive.  I wonder what rising interest rates will do to their payback period.  

 

Out of curiosity, how was that 65% figure arrived at? 

 

onshore wind farms of any size  take up very little space relative to their output because they can be farmed close up to the turbine towers. Solar farms on land  in hot dry climates can actually improve agricultural output by providing shade. 

As for residential solar I agree in some part that commercial installations have economy of scale. Residential solar it may not have taken off in the USA but its been massive in Europe and Australia.

 

65% - from exec summary 

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DA? said:

Just like to point out this was published I think in 2014, since then the wind turbines have improved even more.

I would be interested to see the EROEI for the new generation of 8-9MW offshore turbines installed in large offshore farms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, NickW said:

1. It is - anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for for approximately 65% of the increased radiative forcing in the atmosphere. 

 

I’ve almost started to argue but noticed your other reply citing the source - there is no point for me arguing religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, NickW said:

onshore wind farms of any size  take up very little space relative to their output because they can be farmed close up to the turbine towers. Solar farms on land  in hot dry climates can actually improve agricultural output by providing shade. 

As for residential solar I agree in some part that commercial installations have economy of scale. Residential solar it may not have taken off in the USA but its been massive in Europe and Australia. 

If you add up the area of all those wind turbine bases, they probably consume more space than a conventional power plant.  Still, your point is valid: the effect on agriculture is minimal.  Personally, I would be more concerned about the negative health effects of living near turbines.  If you can site they away from people, they're fine.  Otherwise, we're toying with something we don't understand.  

Solar panels on marginal land could be good, esp. if you pair them with the right kind of agriculture.  

18 hours ago, NickW said:

At first, I thought maybe I had poorly worded my question.  However, upon scanning the executive summary, I realized the executive summary doesn't mention 65% of anything.  Even worse: this paper is a discussion of radiative forcing only.  @DanilKa questioned the role of CO2 in raising planetary temperatures, which is not the same thing as CO2's role in radiative forcing.  To respond to DanilKa's comment, we must first establish the link between radiative forcing & global temperatures.  That requires: 

1)  Knowledge of every variable that may affect temperature over every time scale.
2)  A temperature model that has demonstrated predictive capability.

The article you provided offers neither of those things.  In fact, in the very first sentence of the exec summary, it assumes anthropogenic warming w/o reference, skips any mention of temperature variables, and launches into the details of radiative forcing.  It doesn't address DanilKa's question at all.  

If you would like to prove your point, look for the total list of variables affecting global temperature and a validated predictive model (preferably not the one they used to predict global cooling in the 1970's...).  I'm not convinced scientists have produced either; prove me wrong.  

 

On 11/27/2018 at 7:07 AM, NickW said:

2. Locality affects that but the EROEI for both solar and wind is pretty good and you need to consider they both produce electricity which has the highest fungibility of all energy sources compared to input energy which is predominantly primary energy.

This study (http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=62496) of contemporary wind turbines came back with a EROEI of 40 which is the high end but an overall EROEI for the whole industry of 18-20 would be reasonable. Solar is lower (probably around 10-15)  but it is effectively without limitation when it comes to scale. That low EROEI is partly due to the fact that much of the installation to date has been in wealthy countries that don't necessarily have the best solar resources (Germany being a good example). Were all that PV to be redeployed to desert regions the EROEI ratio would increase by 40-60%. 

Also the arbitrary '25 year rule' reduces EROEI as it assumes in all cases a lifespan of 25 years. Most turbines and panels will be operating well beyond that age albeit at a lower capacity. Wind turbine towers and foundations are desugned for 2-3 lifecycles so the energy input ont he 2 and 3 rd life cycle is going to be much lower as it only involves turbine replacement or refurbishment  

18 hours ago, NickW said:

I would be interested to see the EROEI for the new generation of 8-9MW offshore turbines installed in large offshore farms

When presented with a fact, the first question we should ask ourselves is, "Why does that matter?"  Just because something is a fact does not mean it's relevant or that it supports an argument.  To wit: a technology can have good EROEI and still be an expensive boondoggle.  EROEI is like Carnot efficiency: it may have some utility to the R&D community whose job is to hypothesize & develop new technologies, but it's useless to the rest of us.  Renewables advocates like it because it's emotionally appealing and allows them to ignore financial unpleasantness.  Nonetheless, it's not a basis for making capital decisions.  EROEI is only relevant in a discussion of future technologies we're researching or would like to be researched.  Outside that context, it's a red herring.  

That said, there are rhetorical techniques that make use of misdirection and assuming a point in contention.  The use of EROEI in this conversation could easily be considered a rhetorical technique.  I.e. it could be considered an intentional attempt to mislead and sway opinion.  Given your incorrect use of an IPCC reference, I'm inclined to believe you are, in fact, intentionally misleading people.  It's difficult to discern intentions over the internet, however, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's try this one more time.  

Edited by mthebold
Typo.
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites