2018 World Energy Outlook: Solar and Wind Grew by 11.24% in 2017; Gas by "Only" 3.32%!!!!

[NNadir]

We're Saved!!!!

Right? Right?

I have before me a PDF of the World Energy Outlook for 2018, which was released by the International Energy Agency yesterday.

I also have opened a PDF of the World Energy Outlook for 2017, which I have discussed in many threads in this space.

The data I will discuss here is collected from World Energy Outook 2018, Table 1.1 Page 38 and, for World Energy Outook 2017, Table 2.2 Page 79.

In each case, the data refers to the year before the title year, that is WEO 2018 refers to 2017's data; WEO 2017 refers to 2016. (In earlier editions of the WEO, the lag was 2 years and not 1 year, but reporting has apparently grown quicker.)

These tables give values in "MTOE," or "Million Tons Oil Equivalent." In my discussion, as my habit, all data will be converted to the SI unit the Exajoule, except of course, that wonderful "percent talk" used here by people who still believe that it was a good idea to bet the future of every generation to come, the climate, the planetary atmosphere on so called "renewable energy."

The tables break so called "renewable energy" into three categories, hydro, bioenergy, and "other," "other" referring to solar and wind primarily, with a little tidal and geothermal presumably thrown in. In the title of this post I have ignored tidal and geothermal - which I know to be trivial with respect to solar and wind.

In 2016, "other" renewables, again chiefly solar and wind, produced 9.42 exajoules of energy. In 2017, they produced 10.63 exajoules. In "percent talk" this represents the growth of 11.42% as described in the title. In terms of energy, the growth, which can be found by using an operator called "subtraction" was 1.21 exajoules. In 2016 dangerous natural gas produced 125.90 exajoules of energy; in 2017 it produced 130.08 exajoules. In "percent talk" this represents a growth of 3.32% as described in the title here. Of course, in absolute terms, dangerous natural gas grew by 4.19 exajoules.

In "percent talk," gas thus grew 100 * 4.19/1.21 = 345% faster than wind and solar combined.

Overall, world energy consumption grew from 576.10 exajoules in 2016 to 584.98 exajoules in 2018, or 8.88 exajoules.

World energy consumption thus grew 8.88/1.21 * 100 = 731% faster than solar and wind.

What I personally regard as the only sustainable form of energy on the planet, albeit an unpopular form of energy, nuclear energy, grew by 0.29 exajoules, or only 0.29/1.21 * 100 = 24% as fast as solar and wind.

The mistake of confusing what is popular with what is right is known as the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity or at other times the "Bandwagon Fallacy."

The example in the link just presented of the "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy is this:

A 2005 Gallup Poll found that an estimated 25% of Americans over the age of 18 believe in astrology—or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives. That is roughly 75,000,000 people. Therefore, there must be some truth to astrology!

In the last ten years, 2.3 trillion dollars has been "invested" in solar and wind energy:

Frankfurt School/UNEP Global Renewable Energy Investment, 2018, Figure 3, page 14

This is more than the gross national product of India, a nation with 1.3 billion people in in it.

On the planet as a whole, 2.3 billion people lack access to any kind of improved sanitary facilities; but no one is going to spend 2.3 trillion dollars to change that, not while we can all dream of solar and wind powered Tesla electric cars.

For the Week Ending November 4, 2018 (Accessed 11/14/18) the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory was 406.99 ppm. In the same week 10 years ago, the concentration was 383.80 ppm.

No one now living will ever see a measurement at this site of below 400 ppm again, no matter how many miles Bill McKibben drives in his Prius with a "350.org" bumper sticker on it.

We have not been saved by the 11.24% growth in solar and wind in 2017, and are not being saved by it, and no such "percent talk" announcements in the future will represent us being saved.

We are clueless.

Facts matter.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

[hunter]

1. Anti-nuclear activists are frequently, fecklessly or not, shilling for the natural gas industry.

Especially when they talk about batteries.

[NNadir]

2. And, of course, the mining industry...

The low energy to mass ratio for the so called "renewable energy" industry means lots and lots and lots and lots of metals and concrete, the former involving a fair amount of coal and/or (in the case of aluminum) petroleum coke.

Depending on the fuel for calcining, concrete may involve coal at worst, gas at best.

From a material utilization standpoint, the so called "renewable energy"/dangerous fossil fuel tandem synergy is particularly odious because it requires innate redundancy.

[Finishline42]

3. From an earlier post

This is from an earlier post.

It is important to note that the zero marginal cost of wind and solar generation will not discriminate between types of plants, knocking off whatever plants are the most expensive and must run the most to pay off their loans. This is why much of the 110 GW of gas plants planned for the United States may become stranded assets, if utilities and developers insist upon building them.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/11/06/renewables-reduced-wholesale-power-costs-by-5-7-billion-in-texas/

Batteries are replacing gas plants in CA. There are other functions for a power plant besides baseload. There is a lot of capacity sitting on idle, burning fuel, just in case there is a need on the grid. Batteries provide this function cheaper and quicker.

BTW, Natgas is up around 25% in the last year. Typical of commodities. Cheap on the build out then more expensive the more they are used.

[hunter]

4. The capacity of those batteries is measured in minutes.

Not the hours, days, or weeks imagined by wind and solar enthusiasts.

[Finishline42]

5. I don't doubt that there is some truth in what you say

But is it 15 minutes or 150 minutes? Why is PG&E buying battery packs and not building gas plants?

The grid had many contributors and many users. There is always a shifting load that has to be balanced by a generator. Simply put, batteries provide this function cheaper and quicker than any other contributor. It was proven in Australia by the Tesla battery pack and I've seen corroborating articles for CA and Scotland.

Even if the batteries are charged by coal, gas or nuclear, this can be done during periods of excess capacity when generators are spinning at less than full capacity off peak just as you would pump water into a reservoir to release later when needed.