Newfie wrote:Monte,
Interesting. You have a link for that graphic?
I wonder how he came to define the minimum required EROI.
The "Net-Energy Cliff" with EROI expressed as the number of the horizontal axis to one, i.e.e 20:1 (this figure is from Lamber and Lamber, adapted from Murphy and Hall (2010)). Concepty courtesy of Euan Mearns. Image by Josh Kearns.
Newfie wrote: How much lower do we truly need?
The real answer will be how the bottle neck survivors fare. And none of us will live to know that. So what do we do in the meantime? I’m stumped.
Newfie wrote:I agree storage is the killer.
ralfy wrote:According to the second link
Incorrect. There was a dip in US manufacturing in 2009 due to the financial crisis but it recovered and within two years was already setting new records again. There was actually an industrial renaissance in this country during the last decade where cheap shale gas encouraged a huge build out of the petrochemical industry. And overall US manufacturing output has grown over the past decade, not shrunk due to outsourcing or the financial crisis:MonteQuest wrote:Energy demand has fallen due to outsourcing of much of our industrial production to other countries. Energy demand is flat due to the GFC and declining GDP. Retired coal plants have been replaced largely with NG.kublikhan wrote:That's not what's been happening in this country. Total energy demand has been more or less flat for over the last decade. Coal plants have been retired.
Chemical industry split about the case for more US plantsThe surge in investment into the US petrochemicals industry over the past seven years has been one of the biggest spending booms in a developed country this century. A series of giant new plants that will make chemicals used to produce plastics, from companies including Dow Chemical and ExxonMobil, are about to come online. A second wave of projects is now being proposed, as some chemicals producers become increasingly confident that the cheap gas feedstock that makes their spending possible will last for a long time.
A decade ago, the US petrochemicals industry seemed doomed to long-term decline, eclipsed by rivals in the Middle East, which had cheap oil and gas for feedstock, and in Asia, where the market growth was strongest. The US shale revolution transformed that outlook, unleashing a flood of cheap natural gas liquids such as ethane and propane, which are key chemical feedstocks. Since 2010 $85bn worth of petrochemicals projects have been completed or started construction, with about a further $100bn proposed. “This is the place to be,” says Kevin Swift, the ACC’s chief economist. “We are the low-cost producer.”
The biggest new opportunity in the US has been for ethylene “crackers”: plants that take ethane and convert it into ethylene, a building block for plastics. Dow, Exxon, Sasol of South Africa, and CP Chem, the joint venture of Chevron and Phillips 66, have built large crackers along the US Gulf of Mexico coast that will be starting up in 2017 and 2018. US ethylene production is set to rise from 25.8m tonnes last year to 34.2m tonnes next year, an increase of 33 per cent.
Most of the additional output will go for export, typically after being converted to polyethylene pellets. As emerging economies adopt the habits of developed countries, their demand for plastics is growing 1.5 to 2 times as fast as their gross domestic product. “These expansions in the US are geared towards exports to Asia. What drives demand for plastics is the growing middle class in China and India.”
Energy Use and Energy Intensity of the U.S. Chemical Industry1994 - The U.S. chemical industry is the largest in the world, and responsible for about 11% of the U.S. industrial production measured as value added. It consumes approximately 20% of total industrial energy consumption in the U.S.
Energy use in industry2018 - Energy use by type of industry
Every industry uses energy, but three industries account for most of the total U.S. industrial sector energy consumption. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2018, the bulk chemical industry (the largest industrial consumer of energy at 28%), the refining industry, and the mining industry combined accounted for about 58% of total U.S. industrial sector energy consumption.
The old creaking grid infrastructure is not just a problem for wind, but for all power sources and consumers. The grid is in serious need of an upgrade anyway as transmission problems impact far more than just renewables.MonteQuest wrote:We also don't have the grid capacity to move renewable power if we had it. I have 155 large wind turbines 5 miles south of me. They often are not turning. I asked them why, and they said the line capacity does not exist to move the power generated. Just part of the boondoggle hype to sell wind turbines without the infrastructure to support them.
2017 Infrastructure Report CardOVERVIEW
Much of the U.S. energy system predates the turn of the 20th century. Most electric transmission and distribution lines were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s with a 50-year life expectancy, and the more than 640,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the lower 48 states’ power grids are at full capacity. Energy infrastructure is undergoing increased investment to ensure long-term capacity and sustainability; in 2015, 40% of additional power generation came from natural gas and renewable systems. Without greater attention to aging equipment, capacity bottlenecks, and increased demand, as well as increasing storm and climate impacts, Americans will likely experience longer and more frequent power interruptions.
kublikhan wrote:Incorrect. There was a dip in US manufacturing in 2009 due to the financial crisis but it recovered and within two years was already setting new records again. There was actually an industrial renaissance in this country during the last decade where cheap shale gas encouraged a huge build out of the petrochemical industry. And overall US manufacturing output has grown over the past decade, not shrunk due to outsourcing or the financial crisis:MonteQuest wrote:Energy demand has fallen due to outsourcing of much of our industrial production to other countries. Energy demand is flat due to the GFC and declining GDP. Retired coal plants have been replaced largely with NG.
kublikhan wrote:The old creaking grid infrastructure is not just a problem for wind, but for all power sources and consumers. The grid is in serious need of an upgrade anyway as transmission problems impact far more than just renewables.
Incorrect. Jevon's Paradox refers to introducing a new disruptive technology. Aka: Steam engine, electric motor, etc. So unless you are talking about introducing some brand spanking new disruptive technology(Fusion?), Jevons' Paradox does not apply. I have given you links to studies in the past when you tried this argument. We have also seen this first hand with the US switching from incandescent lighting to LED lighting. The Efficiency gains in lighting were not overwritten by greater use of lighting. Overall energy consumption in lighting fell:MonteQuest wrote:And therein lies our conundrum. Our system only works in one direction-growth. Conservation is a deathknell. It reduces economic activity. Efficiency gains leads to greater use-Jevons' Paradox. And there is no waste in our system that isn't paid for before it is wasted--it's part of the economy.
America’s Light Bulb RevolutionSolar panels and wind turbines get a lot of attention, but a more inconspicuous instrument is helping to reshape America’s energy economy right now: The humble light bulb.
Over the past decade, traditional incandescent bulbs, those distinctive glass orbs with glowing wire centers, have been rapidly replaced by more energy-efficient lighting. The shift has driven down electricity demand in American homes, saving consumers money and cutting greenhouse gas emissions. After climbing for decades, electricity use by American households has declined over the past eight years. “That’s a staggering change.”
In both residential and commercial buildings, lighting exhibits the greatest percent reduction in electricity intensity from 2018 to 2050[-51%]
Incorrect. If energy demand fell because of outsourcing our industrial production, we would see a decline in industrial output. We did not. We saw an increase. And while we did see demand fall because of the global financial crisis, it was temporary. Demand post financial crisis rebounded within two years. That means blaming the fall in energy demand on the financial crisis is incorrect as well. All you have to do is look at the numbers to find the actual cause: increases in efficiency. The drop in electricity consumption by switching to LED bulbs(See previous post) was particularly instrumental in keeping overall demand down.MonteQuest wrote:We are talking about overall USA energy demand. It has fallen for the reasons stated. That's hardly debatable.
Has U.S. Electricity Lost Its Spark?Well, it happened once again. Sales of electricity in the US declined in 2019 by a significant 2.8%, despite solid domestic economic growth with real GDP increasing 2.3%. Sales across all categories of users—residential, commercial and industrial— all fell. To put this in context electricity sales have fallen in five of the past ten years.
From 2010-2019 electricity sales actually declined by a slight 0.1% while real GDP rose 22%, the population increased 7% and industrial production rose 17%. Note especially the last number. It has been an easy (and we believe lazy) claim to attribute every slackening period of electricity demand to a weak or disappearing manufacturing sector. In this ten-year period of industrial growth, electricity sales to industrial customers nevertheless declined by 2%.
Server farms, pot farms, bitcoin mines and even electric vehicles—why don’t these new, supposedly prodigious consumers of electricity push upward electricity consumption in the aggregate? The annual drip-drip-drip of efficiency measures applied to electricity consumption throughout the economy offsets new sources of demand. Lower consumption due the switch to more energy efficient LED lighting by itself may have offset a large part or all of the growth in demand from the three new uses.
kublikhan wrote:Incorrect. If energy demand fell because of outsourcing our industrial production, we would see a decline in industrial output. We did not. We saw an increase.
Incorrect. We saw an increase in more energy intensive industrial production. In 1994, the energy intensive US chemical industry represented 20% of our industrial energy consumption. By 2018, this increased to 28%. In 2018 58% of US electricity consumption for industrial production is in three very energy intensive industries: chemical industry, refining, and mining. It was infact labour intensive, low energy intensive industries that got outsourced the most:MonteQuest wrote:We saw an increase in less energy-intensive industrial production. Much of the energy-intensive production had been outsourced before the GFC. My point is that conservation and efficiency gains are not solutions to an overshoot condition. In fact, they perpetuate it.
What industries outsource the most?Industries that outsource the most include:
Healthcare;
Law;
Business;
Accounting;
IT; and others.
I don't think that is a good idea. If people get used to having intermittent power supplies, that will just encourage them to go out and buy their own diesel generator. Portable diesel generators are much less efficient compared to a power plant. Plus they require more resources to build them, burn dity fossil fuels, etc.Sweeney wrote:In the long term we all simply have to use much less energy, maybe even get used to having intermittent power supplies.
The Dirty Footprint of the Broken GridThe Impacts of Fossil Fuel Back-up Generators in Developing Countries
About 1.5 billion people around the world live day-to-day with “broken” electricity grids and experience blackouts for hundreds and sometimes thousands of hours a year. For this population, reliance on distributed diesel and gasoline backup generators, or BUGS, is a common stopgap measure. These generators are deployed across the globe on a large scale both on- and off-grid, at homes, businesses, and industrial sites. They support access to energy but come with significant costs.
Major Findings
The fleet of generators in the developing countries modeled serves 20 to 30 million sites with an installed capacity of 350 to 500 gigawatts (GW), equivalent to 700 to 1000 large coal power stations. The fleet has a replacement value of $70 billion and about $7 billion in annual equipment investment. Electricity from backup generators is expensive, with $28 billion to $50 billion spent by generator users on fuel each year.
Backup generators are a significant source of air pollutants that negatively impacts health and the environment. As a pollution source, generators are often hidden from policymakers since their fuel consumption may be lumped in with the transport sector in official statistics. Generators consume the same fuels and also emit the same pollutants as cars and trucks, except they are used in closer proximity to people’s homes and businesses. Often, emission limits for generators are also less stringent than for vehicles. As a result, the pollutants emitted from generators may represent meaningful but largely unaccounted or misclassified impacts on population health and the environment. . Generators emit the same pollutants as cars and trucks, except they are used in closer proximity to people’s homes and businesses, and emission limits are often less stringent than for vehicles. In Sub-Saharan Africa, we estimate that generators account for the majority of power sector emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and fine particulate matter.
Overall, our results indicate a significant opportunity to reduce costs and negative health and environmental externalities by replacing diesel and gasoline generators.
kublikhan wrote: low energy intensive industries that got outsourced the most:
Why are you now talking about the 80s when my original comment was talking about the last decade:MonteQuest wrote:Not before the GFC. From the late 80's to the early 2000's many energy-intensive industries were off-shored to other countries, like steel.
And in the last decade, the energy intensive petrochemical industry has seen a huge surge in activity. Industrial energy consumption actually rose slightly between 2007-2019. However this was offset by slight falls in other sectors such as residential, commercial, and transportation.MonteQuest wrote:Energy demand has fallen due to outsourcing of much of our industrial production to other countries. Energy demand is flat due to the GFC and declining GDP. Retired coal plants have been replaced largely with NG.kublikhan wrote:That's not what's been happening in this country. Total energy demand has been more or less flat for over the last decade. Coal plants have been retired.
kublikhan wrote:Why are you now talking about the 80s when my original comment was talking about the last decade:
Economic growth picked up a little in the U.S. in 2017. But electricity use fell, according to data released Tuesday by the Energy Information Administration. It's now been basically flat for more than a decade. Measured on a per-capita basis, electricity use is in clear decline, and is already back to the levels of the mid-1990s. Electricity use rose and rose and rose and then ... it didn't anymore.
The 2017 numbers make clear that higher gross domestic product no longer necessarily requires more electricity. There's not a whole lot new to say about what's causing it: mainly increased energy efficiency (driven to a remarkable extent by the rise of LED light bulbs).
kublikhan wrote:GDP and industrial production grew during this time period. And they have far surpassed their pre-financial crisis peak. These facts conflict with your theory that the financial crisis caused those two to fall and have not yet recovered.
EIA: Total electricity sales fell in 2015 for 5th time in past 8 years
Total electricity sales in 2015 fell 1.1% from the previous year, marking the fifth time in the past eight years that electricity sales have fallen. The flattening of total electricity sales reflects declining sales in the industrial sector and little or no growth in sales to the residential and commercial building sectors, despite growth in the number of households and growth in commercial building space. Some improvements in energy efficiency have been market driven, reflecting the interest of consumers and businesses in reducing their electricity consumption and expenditures. Other improvements, mainly related to electricity use in homes and commercial buildings, have been driven by federal and state policies. Examples of policies at the federal level include energy efficiency standards for appliances and lighting equipment.
Residential
Standards such as the lighting standards to phase out incandescent bulbs during the 2012–14 time period decreased residential demand for electricity.
Commercial
Standards to improve efficiency for major end uses such as lighting and space conditioning equipment have helped to moderate growing commercial building energy demand. Total electricity sales in 2015 fell 1.1% from the previous year, marking the fifth time in the past eight years that electricity sales have fallen. The flattening of total electricity sales reflects declining sales in the industrial sector and little or no growth in sales to the residential and commercial building sectors, despite growth in the number of households and growth in commercial building space.
Industrial
Electricity sales have declined at an annual rate of 0.9% from their peak in 2007 to 2015. Electricity-intensive industries have grown at about the same pace as the rest of the industrial sector, and efficiency improvements in these industries have contributed to declining electricity sales to industry.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests