Switching World to Renewable Energy Will Cost $62T, Payback Would Take 6 Years(cleantechnica.com)
cleantechnica.com
Switching World to Renewable Energy Will Cost $62T, Payback Would Take 6 Years
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/06/switching-the-world-to-renewable-energy-will-cost-62-trillion-but-the-payback-would-take-just-6-years/
70 comments
Great…
Except Steel, Concrete, Plastics, and Ammonia production all require fossil fuels and we do not have any alternative.
We also do not have a viable alternative for air travel, or large scale shipping.
While I think it is a worthwhile goal to pursue clean energy technologies, we are a very long way (with no known alternative) from getting rid of fossil fuels.
Regarding steel, it is being made carbon free by LKAB in Sweden. https://lkab.com/en/press/hybrit-the-worlds-first-fossil-fre...
We aren't getting rid of fossil fuels though, so this concern is a distraction from the real work that needs to be done.
Yes of course we will still need fossil fuels even after we finish transitioning to renewables, for some of the cases you mention, and for edge cases.
It's a valid point for you to raise since they made the mistake of making their article about renewable energy, not about the larger encompassing solution of which renewables are only a part, namely sustainable energy. But raising this point doesn't begin to dismiss the fact that a huge component of transitioning to sustainable will be transitioning much of our energy sourcing to renewables.
Yes of course we will still need fossil fuels even after we finish transitioning to renewables, for some of the cases you mention, and for edge cases.
It's a valid point for you to raise since they made the mistake of making their article about renewable energy, not about the larger encompassing solution of which renewables are only a part, namely sustainable energy. But raising this point doesn't begin to dismiss the fact that a huge component of transitioning to sustainable will be transitioning much of our energy sourcing to renewables.
Yeah. Except that just building the factories to build the solar panels and wind turbines would take longer than that. And that statement ignores the whole supply chain.
The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed. It's just that that same economy has so much inertia that it will take decades to make that switch. But the second half will not take nearly as long as the first.
The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed. It's just that that same economy has so much inertia that it will take decades to make that switch. But the second half will not take nearly as long as the first.
> The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed.
bold statement - can you back this up? I find it very hard to believe
bold statement - can you back this up? I find it very hard to believe
Prices and lead time for solar power projects. Right now, solar power is a no-brainer for pretty much everyone in the industrialized world. No one does not invest into solar because they're stubborn or stupid. The pipeline is simply sold-out.
It's similar for wind power, but somewhat distorted by the very long time it takes to build a wind farm (from planning to first watt-hour). Notably, noone can put a wind turbine on their roof.
It's similar for wind power, but somewhat distorted by the very long time it takes to build a wind farm (from planning to first watt-hour). Notably, noone can put a wind turbine on their roof.
Not GP, but here highlight the issue:
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
Our bottleneck right now is processing, not mining (because of the energy crisis).
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in...
Our bottleneck right now is processing, not mining (because of the energy crisis).
> The thing is, despite what extinction rebellion et. al. tell us, the global economy is moving to renewables pretty much full speed.
No, no. Until there's still a drop of oil or a lump of coal to exploit, there will be no "full speed". Corps want you to believe they are thinking green, while they just don't care. Events like the energy crisis in Europe might open a few eyes, but nothing more.
No, no. Until there's still a drop of oil or a lump of coal to exploit, there will be no "full speed". Corps want you to believe they are thinking green, while they just don't care. Events like the energy crisis in Europe might open a few eyes, but nothing more.
Yeah I very much doubt that. Until last year, the energy policy of Germany, one of the richest countries in the world, depended on cheap gas from Russia. It took Russia's invasion of Ukraine to force them to reassess their policy.
And their short-term solution? Buy gas from other countries.
And their short-term solution? Buy gas from other countries.
If it is one thing I've learned from Hacker News it is that the gut feelings and knee-jerk reactions of anonymous posters always and invariably trump whatever "researchers" publish in their peer reviewed so called "journals".
Like being spammed around 2015 that self driving will be common around 2020
or electric cars cheaper than ICE any moment. BEVs are now more expensive than ever, expected to suffer battery shortages for next decade and are economically unviable thanks to expensive energy.
Not sure if you're aware, but the first self driving taxis are publicly operating in San Francisco.
I am aware of that, and they are more than useless.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/a-swarm-of-self-driving-cruise...
https://www.thedrive.com/news/a-swarm-of-self-driving-cruise...
Gas vehicles aren't necessarily more affordable if you factor in all their externalities.
When you will do it for gas and BEVs, then you will ends up with same difference in price between them or even worse difference if your grid is running on coal.
Easier to change a few power plants to cleaner sources than every vehicle on the road.
I can see how easy it is, when Germany is now facing energy crisis and will rather open coal power plants than get going more renewable ones.
Compared to replacing every vehicle on their roads I think they'd rather install cleaner power sources. Of course their poor planning has put them in a bind. Still, not a situation better served by continuing to produce ICE vehicles.
Agree Energiewende is dead end, because Germany is missing energy storage to fill out intermittencies, which is now substituted by gas. And that energy storage kind of does not exist. (aka something what can keep lights on in whole country at least over night, not few minutes like batteries)
Comrade! I have figured out renewable energy. Let me tell you of my top down plan to solve it! Wait in this line. No that's the bread line, wait in the other line for your energy then get back in the bread line.
With that out of the way, the glaring miss here is that gasoline or coal burned at utility scale is quite efficient and while far from perfect, that is a different calculation than, wow somehow like there are hundreds of millions of gas cars everywhere. That's pretty inefficient.
Also with all this renewable energy, how are you going to light up the forges that need massive amounts of energy to make the materials for wind capture? Will lithium, iron, and phosphate mining really do less harm at scale than fracking and mining for coal? If shipping and logistics use more energy than individual consumers, and consumers buy their home energy from their utility companies, why are you trying to hard sell individuals if you actually have a solid value proposition for utilities and shipping/logistic companies? They have the assets to leverage for loans and investments to deploy new means of energy at scale. Why do you need to preach to individuals that their gas car is evil, when your economies of scale at the corporate level should make a consumer option more affordable and accessible?
With that out of the way, the glaring miss here is that gasoline or coal burned at utility scale is quite efficient and while far from perfect, that is a different calculation than, wow somehow like there are hundreds of millions of gas cars everywhere. That's pretty inefficient.
Also with all this renewable energy, how are you going to light up the forges that need massive amounts of energy to make the materials for wind capture? Will lithium, iron, and phosphate mining really do less harm at scale than fracking and mining for coal? If shipping and logistics use more energy than individual consumers, and consumers buy their home energy from their utility companies, why are you trying to hard sell individuals if you actually have a solid value proposition for utilities and shipping/logistic companies? They have the assets to leverage for loans and investments to deploy new means of energy at scale. Why do you need to preach to individuals that their gas car is evil, when your economies of scale at the corporate level should make a consumer option more affordable and accessible?
A typical EV uses about 30kg of lithium. A typical gas car will use 50 tons of gasoline. And that lithium is recyclable while the gasoline isn't. Even if that lithium mining and processing is dirty, is it >1000x dirtier?
At that point, the minute we start taxing scope 3 emissions, every single EV company goes bankrupt.
Surprise: mining runs on diesel and natural gas. Now add in all those emissions to those 30 kg of lithium (and let's not even count all the other extremely environmentally hostile elements needed). Now we ship them accross the world, usually to China, and then from China to somewhere else. Then we burn coal (Germany today) to build that shiny "green" Tesla.
If we were serious about this green thing we would be focused on urban planning, public transit, and retrofitting existing vehicles to be greener. The greenest car is a car you don't have to manufacture.
Surprise: mining runs on diesel and natural gas. Now add in all those emissions to those 30 kg of lithium (and let's not even count all the other extremely environmentally hostile elements needed). Now we ship them accross the world, usually to China, and then from China to somewhere else. Then we burn coal (Germany today) to build that shiny "green" Tesla.
If we were serious about this green thing we would be focused on urban planning, public transit, and retrofitting existing vehicles to be greener. The greenest car is a car you don't have to manufacture.
If you tax scope 3 emissions, all industrial processes would be approximately equally affected. So let's say you double the price of lithium, adding a few hundred dollars to the price of an EV, and you double the price of gasoline, adding tens of thousands to the price of operating a gas car.
Also keep in mind that both lithium and gasoline are currently supply constrained rather than demand constrained. The price of lithium is currently 8x the cost of production, and the price of oil is currently about 2x the cost of production. Lithium producers will still be quite profitable at current prices if costs double, but oil producers would not be.
Taxing scope 3 emissions would help public transit even more than it would help EV's.
Also keep in mind that both lithium and gasoline are currently supply constrained rather than demand constrained. The price of lithium is currently 8x the cost of production, and the price of oil is currently about 2x the cost of production. Lithium producers will still be quite profitable at current prices if costs double, but oil producers would not be.
Taxing scope 3 emissions would help public transit even more than it would help EV's.
Understandably so much negativity to this article, and I stopped reading after a few paragraphs, it's mostly garbage.
However, let's take a look at it another way.
If it would take $62T to convert to 100% renewable, how much would it cost to get to 80% renewable?
I'm trying to get a read on how much of the current energy is from renewables, and I'm seeing figures in the 8-30%. It's a big spread, but it is showing how far we may have come.
However, let's take a look at it another way.
If it would take $62T to convert to 100% renewable, how much would it cost to get to 80% renewable?
I'm trying to get a read on how much of the current energy is from renewables, and I'm seeing figures in the 8-30%. It's a big spread, but it is showing how far we may have come.
If this is the situation why isn't any country just unilaterally going for it?
cui bono, indeed
The next election is less than 6 years away.
This isn't an explanation at all. I can tell you that, for example, the UK's renewable energy push is operating on a timescale rather longer than that - a good six years elapsed just between the government deciding to focus on offshore wind and the industry getting good enough to build it that it was cheaper than onshore (something which was predicted at the time) and it'll be a few more years before enough is built that we get substantial benefit from those lower costs. The more likely explanation is that it just isn't as easy as they're claiming.
Admittedly, the government here seems to be getting zero benefit politically or in the public opinion from that long term planning.
Admittedly, the government here seems to be getting zero benefit politically or in the public opinion from that long term planning.
Not in a dictatorship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable...
12 countries are listed as over 90% renewable currently. Iceland at 100%; Norway at 97.2%.
12 countries are listed as over 90% renewable currently. Iceland at 100%; Norway at 97.2%.
Ah hydro... Explains most cases, not really realistic in others. Though there is some interesting cases, but likely even those are hard to replicate.
Sure. You do hydro in Norway. Solar in Spain. Wind in the North Sea. Geothermal in Iceland. Different places, different forms of generation. Trade regionally for redundancy.
The question was “why isn’t anyone doing it”; the answer is “they are”.
The question was “why isn’t anyone doing it”; the answer is “they are”.
But other than hydro and geothermal do those run 24/7/365? And is the storage in place? Or do they rely on some others to fullfil those? What if that isn't an option lets say middle of desert?
Yes, wind runs 24/7/365. And cars have their own storage, so that's solved for cars at least.
Let's say in the middle of the desert… Well, if there are no people there, then perhaps there is no need for power.
And if there are people, they can choose to live a primitive lifestyle, or they can buy batteries and solar panels and wind generators, or (shocker) they can continue to use petroleum products for energy, that is also an option even if the world switches to renewable energy.
Let's say in the middle of the desert… Well, if there are no people there, then perhaps there is no need for power.
And if there are people, they can choose to live a primitive lifestyle, or they can buy batteries and solar panels and wind generators, or (shocker) they can continue to use petroleum products for energy, that is also an option even if the world switches to renewable energy.
Wind runs at night.
Solar doesn't, but demand is correspondingly lower at night, too.
Storage will evolve as the need evolves, just like cell phone batteries did.
Solar doesn't, but demand is correspondingly lower at night, too.
Storage will evolve as the need evolves, just like cell phone batteries did.
I call B.S. There is NO reason to believe this. Unrealistic confidence in the progress of battery technology is not new - it's been the state of things for well over a century now. (See Edison's Nickel-Iron battery, for one...)
Sometimes real breakthroughs are required in science, engineering, or both. In the case of really useful batteries, which we do NOT have today, it's definitely both.
These BREAKTHROUGHS (not incremental improvements!) are REQUIRED to do the things envisioned in the article. These breakthroughs may come tomorrow, OR we may be in the same situation with battery technology that we are with nuclear fusion: It's the energy of the future, and always will be - We've been "only 30 years away" from a fusion breakthrough and "power too cheap to meter" for at least 75 years now!
Sometimes real breakthroughs are required in science, engineering, or both. In the case of really useful batteries, which we do NOT have today, it's definitely both.
These BREAKTHROUGHS (not incremental improvements!) are REQUIRED to do the things envisioned in the article. These breakthroughs may come tomorrow, OR we may be in the same situation with battery technology that we are with nuclear fusion: It's the energy of the future, and always will be - We've been "only 30 years away" from a fusion breakthrough and "power too cheap to meter" for at least 75 years now!
If Norway included carbon exports then it wouldn't be anywhere near 97%.
Norway has hundreds of fjords, which can be dammed. It is hard to compete with that for example for Poland.
What fjords has Norway needed to dam to reach their current 97% rate?
Denmark in particular is, but lots of European countries are. Reality is it takes time to align markets, development permits and supply chains with government policies…
All studies that I read about 100% reneweables point out that you need a large, meteorologically diverse catchment area and a highly interconnected grid. That will balance out local fluctuations and will massively reduce the need for storage. Problem is, it will require lots of countries to cooperate - except if you are a very large country. The US should be able with its coastlines, deserts, hydropower and so forth.
Also that is rather worrying scenario looking back at USA attacks on NS pipelines. What if the target where these grid interconnects? That would be catastrophic.
About the article headline, the real concept that I would prefer to see articles written about is sustainable, not renewable. Not every part of the solution is going to be technically renewable in the short term according to strict definitions. But the overall energy picture needs to be sustainable. Or else, it cannot be… sustained.
An article that talks strictly about renewables is fine (just not great); that's their right to write such an article if they want, but the transition to renewables should be understood in the context of the encompassing transition to sustainability. Sustainable solutions would, for example, include some reasonable and needed use of fossil fuels, for certain situations where they are still the best solution even accounting for their adverse effects.
An article that talks strictly about renewables is fine (just not great); that's their right to write such an article if they want, but the transition to renewables should be understood in the context of the encompassing transition to sustainability. Sustainable solutions would, for example, include some reasonable and needed use of fossil fuels, for certain situations where they are still the best solution even accounting for their adverse effects.
Lol
We have no effective way of storing energy. If you only want energy on sunny windy days during daytime, this is fine. Enjoy the power going out at night and when the wind slows down.
Hopefully we will get much cheaper storage and production soon, but it's not completely viable now.
We have no effective way of storing energy. If you only want energy on sunny windy days during daytime, this is fine. Enjoy the power going out at night and when the wind slows down.
Hopefully we will get much cheaper storage and production soon, but it's not completely viable now.
We can store plenty of energy in car batteries as EVs become more common.
And that is energy that whether it’s available for putting back in the grid or not, (usually not, which is fine) replaces a gas pump.
And that is energy that whether it’s available for putting back in the grid or not, (usually not, which is fine) replaces a gas pump.
Take number of cars, multiply by storage capacity of an EV battery, compare to daily energy requirements, fall incredibly short.
This is not a solution.
This is not a solution.
> Take number of cars, multiply by storage capacity of an EV battery, compare to daily energy requirements, fall incredibly short.
This argument falls incredibly short by assuming every EV gets 100% drained daily.
This argument falls incredibly short by assuming every EV gets 100% drained daily.
not to mention given today's technology and growing opposition to car centric cities, there won't ever be as many BEVs as there are cars today.
Fewer cars, less need for energy. It works out, so no problem even if your theory is correct.
So are you claiming it’s not part of the solution? If not, then what is your point?
It's clearly not part of the solution as napkin math demonstrates, and that's not even including losses into and out of the batteries, which pushes the numbers into the realm of ludicrous.
If you want to argue otherwise, demonstrate it with an estimate of the energy amounts used.
Because I did the check. I don't think you have.
If you want to argue otherwise, demonstrate it with an estimate of the energy amounts used.
Because I did the check. I don't think you have.
The energy is used to drive the cars, replacing gasoline.
I suspect your napkin math is probably calculating a different use case which is not the most common intended use case of car batteries, but rather, if even practical at all, only a trifling convenience, the scale of which will be lost in the noise when compared to actual driving usage.
Again, what was your point?
I suspect your napkin math is probably calculating a different use case which is not the most common intended use case of car batteries, but rather, if even practical at all, only a trifling convenience, the scale of which will be lost in the noise when compared to actual driving usage.
Again, what was your point?
I have yet to find ANY EV owners who are willing to let the power company slash their car's already pitiful range by draining their battery (at the grid's convenience) to power the grid. The greediest people I know are EV owners, whose lives must center around keeping their car's batteries constantly topped off.
I've got better things to do with my life that worry about that crap - I can just refill in well under 5 minutes nearly anywhere, and even adding an unreasonable number of chargers (at about $500K/POP, BTW) doesn't get EV users to that kind of worry-free transportation.
I've got better things to do with my life that worry about that crap - I can just refill in well under 5 minutes nearly anywhere, and even adding an unreasonable number of chargers (at about $500K/POP, BTW) doesn't get EV users to that kind of worry-free transportation.
My charger cost $0 — its a regular 220v outlet that came with my house.
Where do you get the $500k number btw?
I saw the Chargepoint price list a while back when they still had it posted and a single Chargepoint charger station with two connectors was around $11k and a fast charger with two connectors was around $50k.
Where do you get the $500k number btw?
I saw the Chargepoint price list a while back when they still had it posted and a single Chargepoint charger station with two connectors was around $11k and a fast charger with two connectors was around $50k.
You utterly misunderstand, but you’re not alone. Cars will store energy in the form of electricity instead of storing gasoline. Whether they give some back to the grid or not, this represents a huge storage of energy.
Your refill takes you 5 minutes but my refill takes me 5 seconds. Which is faster?
Your refill takes you 5 minutes but my refill takes me 5 seconds. Which is faster?
there are effective ways of storing energy, but there isn't a silver bullet that has high efficiency, low cost, long storage duration and high storage capacity
Energy storage is a part of the problem. The good thing is, if we combine multiple energy production methods and connect it to a smarter grid with a smarter consumption profile, we can do with storing much less. The solutions are already known and are feasible.
The ultimate problem is, the transition takes a lot of time, certainly given it needs to be smooth, we don't want too many outages. And we seem be be running out of time.
Cost competition is biggest aspect in my mind. Is the storage competitive compared to alternative if power is free is good benchmark in my mind to start with.
And what are political and ecological implications of them. As I doubt even the Greens prepared to build up most effective pumped hydro locations anymore. Effectively flooding quite large areas. And also I take there is questions where to get the water from in parts of the world...
And what are political and ecological implications of them. As I doubt even the Greens prepared to build up most effective pumped hydro locations anymore. Effectively flooding quite large areas. And also I take there is questions where to get the water from in parts of the world...
Cost must include environmental costs such as direct destruction of the environment and greenhouse gas emissions.
Competition on the basis of today's market prices which don't include this, is nonsense.
Competition on the basis of today's market prices which don't include this, is nonsense.
We can fill large water dams and store energy easily that way.
This is what Switzerland is focusing on right now to make sure they have enough stored power for January and February when production doesn't suffice the requirements and purchasing electricity from abroad may not be possible.
This is what Switzerland is focusing on right now to make sure they have enough stored power for January and February when production doesn't suffice the requirements and purchasing electricity from abroad may not be possible.
Do we have locations we haven't build those yet? Is there any concerns about building there? Environmental or existing communities? Where to get the water to fill those? Does that have effect downstream? If it is build on existing rivers, is there some minimum amount of water that has to be passed? Or maximum capacity after water has to be passed?
All valid concerns but if you can find a location that has a small impact on the environment it is hugely beneficial.
It can be stored as heat in stone or sand. There are companies building and selling both solutions. They hold the heat for months, long enough to last through a winter.
It appears you haven't taken a thermodynamics or heat transfer class: Heat has a property called "quality", and low quality (roughly, low-temperature) heat such as you're describing is not really useful for much outside of warming water a bit - you're certainly not going to be generating power that way!
All current heat engines as defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics require a DELTA T to run, and the small delta T provided by low-quality heat sources cannot generate much power, and drastically slashes the efficiency possible from the system. (Interestingly, there does appear to be a part of the 2nd law which only applies in the quantum realm and has no classical heat engine analog - if that turns out to be true, then it changes things up quite a bit...)
All current heat engines as defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics require a DELTA T to run, and the small delta T provided by low-quality heat sources cannot generate much power, and drastically slashes the efficiency possible from the system. (Interestingly, there does appear to be a part of the 2nd law which only applies in the quantum realm and has no classical heat engine analog - if that turns out to be true, then it changes things up quite a bit...)
This is so dumb it takes superhuman levels of restraint for me to not swear.
We literally don't have the tech nor capacity for make this transition: - we dont have the rare earth minerals - we don't have the metals - with exception of nuclear all these alternatives are extremely inefficient.
It takes years of sustained exponential demand to even let capacity catch up and thats if we can even feasible find new reserves (for rare earth).
Let alone the game theoretic situation where u can only achieve this with a tyranny. It will cost significantly less to adapt and change..
We literally don't have the tech nor capacity for make this transition: - we dont have the rare earth minerals - we don't have the metals - with exception of nuclear all these alternatives are extremely inefficient.
It takes years of sustained exponential demand to even let capacity catch up and thats if we can even feasible find new reserves (for rare earth).
Let alone the game theoretic situation where u can only achieve this with a tyranny. It will cost significantly less to adapt and change..
> Ford is spending $40 billion to transition to making electric cars. Volkswagen, Mercedes, GM, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota are doing the same. Does anyone think that money is just an expense or that the managers of those companies have not calculated the expected return on their investment down to the fraction of a penny?
This statement really annoyed me and undermined their credibility
This statement really annoyed me and undermined their credibility
Add this to the list of the article titles that are obvious bullsh*t without bothering to RTFA.