Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:41:19

Global renewable capacity has just exceeded coal's capacity: 2006 GW of renewable capacity vs 1965 GW of coal capacity. However coal still significantly outpaces renewables in actual generation: 40% of global generation for coal vs 23% for renewables(renewables generate electricity for a smaller fraction of the day compared to coal). Solar capacity additions hit a new record last year of 71 GW. Wind added 51 GW and Hydro 30 GW.

Global coal capacity:
2016: 1965 GW

Global renewable energy capacity:
2007: 1070 GW
2016: 2006 GW

Global hydro installed capacity:
2007: 989 GW
2016: 1094 GW

Global non hydro renewable capacity:
2016: 912 GW

Global wind installed capacity:
2007: 74 GW
2016: 484 GW

Global solar installed capacity:
2007: 8 GW
2016: 298 GW
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:50:33

kublikhan wrote:Global renewable capacity has just exceeded coal's capacity: 2006 GW of renewable capacity vs 1965 GW of coal capacity. However coal still significantly outpaces renewables in actual generation: 40% of global generation for coal vs 23% for renewables(renewables generate electricity for a smaller fraction of the day compared to coal). Solar capacity additions hit a new record last year of 71 GW. Wind added 51 GW and Hydro 30 GW.

Global coal capacity:
2016: 1965 GW

Global renewable energy capacity:
2007: 1070 GW
2016: 2006 GW

Global hydro installed capacity:
2007: 989 GW
2016: 1094 GW

Global non hydro renewable capacity:
2016: 912 GW

Global wind installed capacity:
2007: 74 GW
2016: 484 GW

Global solar installed capacity:
2007: 8 GW
2016: 298 GW

That illustrates that we need to start comparing the different producers by their yearly production not their maximum hourly potential. Once you discount solar for the number of hours the sun shines and how low in the sky the sun is mid winter and how often the winds are calm or lower speed then optimum and coal and large dam hydro still are the kings and will be for years to come.
Hear are the EIA numbers on the issue. Iceland and Sweden's states are interesting as are France and Germany's.
https://www.iea.org/media/statistics/su ... ty/mes.pdf
Last edited by vtsnowedin on Fri 07 Apr 2017, 15:03:32, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7619
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 14:58:46

vtsnowedin wrote:That illustrates that we need to start comparing the different producers by their yearly production not their maximum hourly potential. Once you discount solar for the number of hours the sun shines and how low in the sky the sun is mid winter and how often the winds are calm or lower speed then optimum and coal and large dam hydro still are the kings and will be for years to come.
I do that too. Haven't done it for last year but here was my post from 2015(data is from 2012 - 2013):

Energy Infrastructure Progress Report
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 15:19:37

k - True. But while renewables make up a good % they haven't done much to decrease ff consumption. Like Texas: our big wind growth hasn't reduced our ff burning capacity but has allowed us to not increase it. And without wind growth it's guaranteed we would have built more NG and lignite burners.

IOW the GHG is still being pumped out.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 16:18:35

VT, thanks for the link. Looks like this only includes OECD nations though. So I added 2014 data to my earlier post on global generation:

World electricity sector generation TWh
source___________ 2012 2013 2014
renewable______ 4,830 5,070 5,420
non renewable 17,797 18,063 18,345
total_________ 22,627 23,133 23,765

World electricity sector increase from prior year TWh
source_______ 2013 2014
renewables____ 240 350
non renewables 266 282
total__________ 506 632

Rock - True the amount of ff reduction we have seen is small. Just looking at US electricity generation:

US electricity sector generation TWh
source 2007 2016
fossil fuel 2,992 2,657
renewables* 352 609
nuclear 806 805
total 4,157 4,079

* renewables does not include rooftop solar.

A similar trend holds if you look at all US ff consumption:

US FF energy consumption:
2007: 86 quads
2016: 79 quads

The reduction in ff consumption in other OECD nations was even smaller than in the US:

Total production for the year‐to‐date was 10,373.3 TWh. Comparing this to the same period last year shows that:
‐ Total production was higher by 90.6 TWh, or 0.9%.
‐ Combustible Fuels production reduced by 0.2%, a decrease of 13.0 TWh
‐ Geoth./Wind/Solar/Other production increased by 9.5%, or 75.6 TWh.
Monthly electric statistics

And the picture is even worse globally. Tiny reductions in ff consumption in OECD nations were not enough to offset growing consumption in the non OECD nations.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 07 Apr 2017, 22:50:36

k - Yep. As they say: problems can have solutions. But predicaments, local the future global energy dynamic, don't have solutions: just ineffective responses and worse responses
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 09 Apr 2017, 18:57:00

Reliance on heating oil is highest in the Northeast, where about 22% of households use oil for space heating, down from 27% five years ago as an increasing number of homes switch to using natural gas and electricity for space heating. Nationwide, 5% of households use heating oil.

Although pipeline transportation constraints have eased somewhat in recent years, they continue to pose a challenge to natural gas markets in the Northeast. Basis differentials (the difference between a natural gas price at a given location and the benchmark Henry Hub price) last winter in major gas demand centers in the Northeast were lower compared with the winter of 2014-15, as mild temperatures and some pipeline capacity additions in the Middle Atlantic region helped limit price spikes. This year, additional capacity will be available to deliver natural gas from the Marcellus region in Pennsylvania to New England with the expected November 2016 start-up of the Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) Project. This expected incremental pipeline capacity has helped lower expected prices for natural gas delivered to Boston during the peak winter months by about $1/MMbtu compared with expectations from a year ago. However, pipeline constraints still exist in the Northeast, particularly into the New England market, contributing to significant basis differentials between New England prices and Henry Hub futures prices. These constraints could contribute to day-to-day price volatility during periods of cold temperatures.
Winter Fuels Outlook
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 15:05:43

The irony is thick: while some environmental protestors want this pipeline replaced others demand that no new pipelines be built. I can't find the link but I think this is one of the existing border crossing oil pipelines that President Obama issued permits to expand capacity at the same he was denying the permit for Keystone XL. Notice none of the politicians want to talk about abandoning the pipeline: It also delivers about half the propane used to heat Michigan homes. Apparently their concern over leak potential is limited to only those positions that WOULD NOT get them run out of office. LOL.

Reuters - The growing protest movement against U.S. oil and gas pipelines has so far focused on stopping or delaying new construction, with some high-profile successes. Now, in Michigan, a broad coalition of opponents is entering a new frontier: Pushing to rip out and reroute an existing pipeline - Enbridge Inc.'s Line 5, which crosses the Straits of Mackinac. They fear the pipeline will leak into the Great Lakes. Those concerns - which are shared by two likely candidates for governor - also have far-reaching implications for energy firms and consumers.

Spanning 645 miles, Line 5 carries 540,000 barrels per day of light Canadian crude and refined products between Wisconsin and Ontario, making it a key link in Enbridge's network transporting western Canadian oil to eastern refineries. Moving the pipeline, built in 1953, would cost Enbridge $4.2 million per mile - or about $2.7 billion total.

Enbridge spokesman said that the line is structurally sound and constantly monitored, tested and inspected to prevent leaks. The firm plans to add 18 additional supports in the Straits this summer, he said. The unprecedented demands to move an existing pipeline present steep political and regulatory challenges, said Dirk Lever, an analyst with AltaCorp Capital in Calgary. "Move it? The question is where," he said. "And good luck with building a new pipeline."
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 29 Apr 2017, 17:18:34

Interesting bit on DECOMMISSIONING technology.

http://gcaptain.com/giant-pioneering-sp ... -platform/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9087
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Energy Infrastructure Progress Report

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 05 May 2017, 21:53:13

At first when I read the title I figured it was just more RigZone bullsh*t exaggerating a small bump in the road. But then discovered there many tens of $BILLION truly shovel ready projects that are not pushing forward ASAP because of the NEW administration is not getting its act together in a timely manner. Essential not adding the needed appointees to get final authorizations. A hurdle candidate Trump would critisize President Obama for doing. From

http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/1 ... t_Projects

Trump Delay Stalls $50 Billion of Energy Investment Projects

"Until President Trump fills key vacancies at an energy regulator, Nexus and other sprawling energy projects are in limbo, unable to secure permits to begin construction. By the time Midwesterners fire up their furnaces this fall, the $2 billion Nexus pipeline is supposed to be pumping natural gas to heat homes from frosty Ohio to frostier Ontario. But six months out, the 255-mile pipeline exists only on paper. Until President Donald Trump fills key vacancies at an energy regulator, Nexus and other sprawling energy projects are in limbo, unable to secure permits to begin construction. For Nexus developers DTE Energy Co. and Spectra Energy Partners LP, each week that passes threatens the project’s ability to meet winter demands.

Nexus is just part of at least $50 billion worth of ventures slowed or stalled while the agency that approves them, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, awaits presidential appointments. For the first time in FERC’s 40-year-history, the agency doesn’t have enough commissioners for a quorum to vote on project applications. At least a half-dozen pipelines valued at $12 billion face imminent delays, while projects valued at $38 billion are slogging through an approval process that’s slow in the best of times. An additional $25 billion of proposed developments just beginning the application process also could be slowed if the situation persists late into the year.

Post-Inauguration Bottleneck - It’s a bottleneck that can be traced to the White House in the hectic days following the inauguration. Trump inherited a commission with three Democrats and two Republican vacancies and decided to shake things up. The president took the chairmanship from Norman Bay, an Obama appointee, and gave it on a temporary basis to Cheryl LaFleur, considered by Republicans to be a friend of the industry.

In February, Bay resigned. That left the commission with just two members, LaFleur and Commissioner Colette Honorable, whose term ends in June -- one shy of the quorum needed to vote on projects. That meant no approvals for new gas pipelines. No decisions on contested utility mergers. No clearance for new liquid natural gas terminals.

Other regulatory agencies that lack enough staff to vote on issues include the Federal Trade Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Export-Import Bank.

Stalled energy projects big and small include the $1 billion, 114-mile PennEast Pipeline, designed to run from Pennsylvania to New Jersey, TransCanada Corp.’s $850 million WB Express, and Chesapeake Utilities Corp.’s $100 million Eastern Shore expansion project, which expected approval in the first half of the year. Pipeline delays could hit consumers directly by driving up prices for the fuel. “You could see ongoing spikes in prices, in particular New England,” said Michael Kay, a Bloomberg Intelligence analyst.

Formal nomination is only the beginning of what could be a months-long process. The candidates still have to be confirmed by the Senate after approval from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The chairman of that committee, Senator Lisa Murkowski, said Thursday she would clear time for confirmation hearings as soon as Trump announces nominees.

It’s a political process that’ll take awhile, said Martin Edwards, head of government affairs at the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. “How much time is really unknowable,” he said. Confirming the last commissioner to join the panel in 2014 took six months.

{Given the ultra adversarial mood in DC the process may take much longer then normal if the D's persist in their stalling tactics. But that would be a serious risk to them if we have a harsh winter and a lot of consumers freeze in the dark. LOL}
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10451
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests