Coal, nuclear, natural gas, renewables, and oil are all going head-to-head for dominance of the energy market - will we see a shift in the balance of power next year? Bloomberg looks at energy trends to watch in 2016.
Staggeringly naive. Coal is king, Oil is king, Gas is king.. each in their own way. Please by all means tell us where in the world solar is cheaper than coal without subsidies, penalties, taxes and restrictions to artificially de-incentivize coal and advantage solar.
Last month my electricity bill was $300. Which was outrageous. Something was needed. Through the generating power technique “boma fetching unique” (Google it), my electricity bill is now diminished by approximately 60% because I was able to produce power, also. The great thing about it is this method can last forever and not just after a couple of weeks.
*This book [link here ::**https://plus.google.com/112513270274515701022/posts/MqjxhE9Hj25** ] got me thru the design and installation of a complete off-grid system for my lake cottage. The process of site evaluation, system component selection, wiring, etc. is complex, but with a lot of study and this book, I ended up very happy with the results. Everything you need to know is here. I recommend it for anyone who is starting with little solar panel knowledge and wants to end up with a whole house system.*
EV and dronecars will be the future. the IC engine cars will be gone forever. car manufacturers not realising this transformation will be left behind. EV cars are powerful, with less engine components, clean and very cheap to operate. it's really really awesome.
The moron lost be when she said climate change. The non existent lie of humanity. She forgot to mention how Germany's cute wind fans failed to provide enough energy and they had to use oil. When she says there will be no direct transition to a new source but many, what that really means is we will stick to what works, oil.
Someone tell these guys that the Global Warming thing is last year's scam. The US Government will no longer be funding the UN or any other scammers expecting $Trillions from US Taxpayers. We are one with this decision so don't expect a return of Obama to dole our tera-bucks once more. Try getting it from your good friends the Communist Chinese. I hear they have lots of money these days (though citizens are still starving for some reason).
Absolute, pure, completely bullshit, maded by idiot economist who think they are intelligent, and because more money is spent in renewables produces more energy than nuclear or natural gas
let me explain, a 30MW photovoltaic or even csp power plant needds around 100MW of installed capacity, because the sun just shine really strong at 1/3 of the time in the evenings and before sunset doesn't shine that much, and that's 30% of energy output is using sun-tracking solar panels. just the cost of the solar panels for the 30MW plant is around 440 or 500 million dollars, without incluiding transport, instalation, maintenance, thyristors to convert from DC to 3 phase AC, or the frequency converters, or transformers, or the most important, the lithium batteries, with all of the stuff would be like 1 BILLION DOLLARS
And to take a reference point a combined cycle 800MW natural gas powerplant with the buildings, transformers, generator, all the stuff cost 550 million dollars, maybe 500 if you re good and clever to make business, the powerplant Specific consumption is around 100g/kwh and uses 80 tons of natural gas every hour 1920 every day, 700800 every year, full power the 24 hours of the day the 365 days of the year and taking in mind that the natural gas prices is like 150 dollars or so per metrical ton that gives 105,000,000 dollars in fuel everyear, so with the price of a 30MW pv powerplant is possible to get a 800MW natural gas plant and enough fuel for 4 or 5 years.
In fact with the initial cost of a 800MW solar panels, photovoltaic plant with the batteries you can buy the gas plant and enough natural gas for 200 YEARS, YES, TWO HUNDRED YEARS.
The only power that can compete with fossil fuels is nuclear, energy, and that's the only one the molten salt breeder reactors are just much more capable than any kind of solar, tidal or wind energy, but of course shitty press with idiot economist like CNN, bloomberg, etc... preefers talking about "investment in renewables the energetic revolution, the invisible market hand" and forgot to do the basical and simple math
Its funny how many people think wind is a cheap source of energy, At its best wind cost more than double what the equivalent nuclear plant does at the industry norm wind cost 4 times more than nuclear and at its worst it is over ten times the cost over the expected life of a nuclear plant based on installing the most cost effective turbines available today. Fukushima and Chernobyl were both designed at about the same time as the Ford Pinto, No one in their right mind would base their car purchase on the performance of a car designed in the 60's yet so many people think it is fine to base their ideas of nuclear on plants designed on drafting tables.
thorium nuclear power plants were almost developed back in the 50's to 70's. instead they went with the uranium-based ones. although thorium uses a uranium isotope it has a really safe byproducts and low dangers. 100X less waste, enough thorium in the US to fully power the US for 1000 years.
A plant was about to be built in Idaho, by a Japanese company. But it went under, half finished plant still sits there. The price crash was contributed by Chinese government dumping loads of cash in their businesses to dump solar panels on the market.
Much like the Chinese government and a few other countries have done with many manufacturing; they're able to sell at a loss. China and other countries like that are more concerned at giving any job, even shitty jobs to their peasants, and pricing out any capacity from any other country. Low wage peasants and can sell at a loss... it's dumping.
Also, there was a slight decline in demand for some solar recently that hasn't helped. Solar panels today are still not all that great, and can only be used for so much energy production.
Now it's 2017 And coal is what runs Germany! With all their windmills and solar panels they still use even more! mostly coal for their electricity generation.Let alone the rest of their total energy usage that's 100% gas and oil.Looking at just the electricity is looking at only 20~25% of total energy demand!Germany gets less than 2% of it's energy from all those very expensive windmills!
When scientist and engineers work out how to harness fusion in a stable, safe, and productive manner I could see a potential replacement. I know it wont be coming any time soon, but there is a possibility.
China under took a 10 year program starting in 2014 to do much safer and much less nuclear waste (in fact they can burn the waste instead of store it) thorium plants LFTR.
Deuterium fusion plant research is advancing:
Wendelstein 7-X is already in experimental phase.
Iter will be begin its experiments by 2020.
Won't necessarily be soon. LFTR perhaps by 2024.
And Fusion tokamak designs 10 years later by 2034.
Those truly have energy density that out performs fossil fuels by orders of magnitude; and is orders of magnitude more abundant.
Nuclear energy is the only alternative powerful enough to replace fossil fuel power plants. Wind and solar are great but can't even compare to the energy output nuclear is capable of. New reactors and fail proof safety equipment is the only way we can completely faze out fossil fuels with out a revolutionary battery.
You wouldn't stop riding on planes just because one crashed, so why do the same thing to the most powerful source of electricity.
Nuclear energy isnt stored. The nuclear fuel rods boil water. The boiled water turns to steam. The steam is then turned into electricity. Nuclear energy is just expensive steam. There are other ways to create steam my friend.
As for recently, scientists have revealed a new discovery that allows for batteries to store far more energy than conceived. Which is going to catapult solar energy even further this year. Duracell is going to be mad. Lol.
Thorium could power the world for thousands of years, with a much higher energy-flux density than conventional fuels. We would be able to develop even more dense forms of energy, such as fusion, during this time.
I heard China made some investment into testing Thorium.
On another note fusion is getting fairly close now because of all the advancements in superconductors meaning they can now operate with higher field strengths. It's really not looking that far away now.
Renewables are next to useless without large-scale energy storage. Solar is reasonably predictable but only produces peak power under the midday sun, with the rest of the time producing less or no energy at all. Wind is totally chaotic. One moment you may be generating thousands of MW and a few hours later zero. As attractive these renewables seem on their own, they are not adequate for a national power grid without some sort of thermal/gas/diesel supplementation or large-scale energy storage.
Closing nuclear plants because of Fukushima is like wanting to phase out the automobile because there's been a crash on the highway.
Instead of... you know... learn from the crash and make both the highway and the car safer. But we don't need cars, we have bikes to replace them, right?
Solid Fission Pressurized Water is Utterly Stupid Outdated concept that should of been abandoned decades ago. Problem is Nuclear Innovation has be stifled due to incumbent Fuel Cycle Ecosystem. A system that is inheritaly unstable under pressure, requires active powered systems to shut down, massively inefficient leaving high reactive fuel not burnt up. Fukushima is just a symptom of the idiocy. There are many awesome options to develop other forms of Nuclear. But Solid Fission Pressurized Water need to die.
zolikoff There are thousands of gallons of nuclear waste stored in Hanford Washington. Some of it has leaked from double-lined steel tanks and is heading for the Columbia River. US taxpayers are currently spending 2 billion dollars a year to clean it up. That is expected to continue for the next 25 years, at least. There has already been millions of dollars in cost over-runs, and if history is any guide, there will be plenty more in the future.
Meanwhile, Westinghouse has declared bankruptcy in the middle of building two of their new, "low cost" modular nuclear power plants. They have also seen millions in cost over-runs and delays.
Excellon is trying to get government subsidies for its nuclear plants in Illinois because is can't compete with the cheap wind power from Iowa. It's doing the same in Pennsylvania because it can't compete with all the cheap fracked natural gas there.
India cancelled 13.7 GIGAwatts of coal plants because they signed a deal for PV solar because the contract price for the electricity was 30% cheaper than from the coal plants.
Uruguay is already 95% renewable in electricity generation, and they have 0 nuclear plants.
In Texas wind power is so cheap you can sign up for a plan that gives you FREE electricity between 9:00pm and 5:59am.
Renewables are starting to compete with non-renewable sources on cost alone, even without subsidies, and prices are continuing to drop.
Before too long, people will realize nuclear is just way too expensive. All that hype about them giving us "electricity too cheap to meter" was pipe dream.
Oil as a fuel source may dwindle but we have so many oil based products, plastics, lubricants, roads, etc. It's ironic turning to wind as a source of "clean" renewable energy considering how much oil is used in the gear boxes and lubricants.
1. If no fuel for Cars /Trucks would be needed, the refineries would just find new ways to get more kerosene out of oil. Afaik, kerosene is a somewhat higher refined / cleaner version of gasoline anyway.
2. If ther would be no other way to generate kerosene, there would be a chance Air traffic could go back to some more reasonable volume as prices would go up (a flight for 20€ is just not reasonable / realistic)
3. Solar planes are in the making. 100 years ago, when normal planes where in the starting stage, noone would ever imagine thatthey became as common as they are now. I think the same applies to solar planes / other systems. Planes mostly fly at daytimes and above the clouds ... thus, solar is not the least reasonable power source...
4. No traffic form needs to be hold alive just for its own sake. Maybe, with incereasing environmental awareness (and technical breakthroughs..), more reasonable forms of travel will get more important again. Like trains... or not transporting everything around the globe at all.
+TheArfdog Sorry. I left that unfinished. As is, the fuel for cars is a waste product from the jet plane fuel production. That is to say, if all cars were to become electric, we'd end up with massive amount of oil in storage that wouldn't have much purpose. Which probably means that it'd be burned one way or the other.
Might, could, maybe.
If i don't speak in definitives no one could ever say I am wrong... or that i didn't pull this whole article out of my assThere might be a special new... turbine that maybe runs on .... gravity ... and could fix... planes.
I DID IT!
Nuclear is the only alternative that is as cheap as coal and switching to thorium fueled molten salt designs solves most of it's problems.
In fact forgoing nuclear energy could leave a country with a severe economic disadvantage compared to those who embrace it.
masive economic down turn is the result of a quick shift away from oil. a lot of jobs go away with oil , that dont exist in other forms of energy. venezuela is a good example , & when this happens companys left over will get away with so much just so they will stay
masive economic down turn is the result of a quick shift away from oil. a lot of jobs go away with oil , that dont exist in other forms of energy. venezuela is a good example , & when this happens companys left over will get away with so much just so they will stay
Energy prices will rise more or less in tandem because of game-theory driven supply-side coalitioning. When it does, private demand for solar panels will grow and the threat to trees will grow with it as property owners seek to clear away obstacles for sunlight to reach their solar arrays. Treed areas that could be used for solar arrays if cleared will be in danger once solar electricity becomes a profitable commodity due to diminishing hardware costs and rising fuel prices.
Because trees are more important environmentally than solar power, regulations are needed to protect trees against trimming and removal. Installing solar arrays on cables suspended between high tree limbs so that tree canopies can flourish below the solar panels will be key to forging an environmentally-friendly solar-power supply that doesn't compete with trees for sunlight exposure.
"China will add coal plants, but coal share of US electricity production is down"
How about you say coal use in China is down, and its share in electricity production is way down. You are presenting it as if China is doing nothing, and it is misleading.
Rick Smith, poverty kills, then you have progress and don't care so much about pollution, it is more important not to starve first. Then as wealth grows you do the next step and replace dirty coal by clean coal or nuclear. So they had smog. Who cares?
China has gone from 3% of world coal to almost 50% of world coal in just a decade. It is now on a strategic path to replace all this coal by nuclear power. It has just build 30 nuclear power plants and will have 110GW of nuclear power in 2020. But fake news sites such as CNN, BBC, NPR etc will not tell you this.
The west is just asleep at the wheel. Hope Trump fixes this. Coal and fracking and microwave extraction are great, solar and wind are shit and modern nuclear is the cleanest and safest and also cheap.
low oil is driving dow the cost of renewable energy. Once oil prices rise again, renewables will be much more attractive. Tesla will be producing millions of cars by 2017, the game will be over in 2021.
solar power is only an option in deserts... land is way more valuable for agriculture.... btw energy from biomass (solar energy converted to chemical potential) is storable and way more efficient than solar pannels (don't believe studies that "prove" otherwise, they are based on ethanol production from grain, corn etc. and represent a very small percentage of the actual energy captured by the plant)... in humid regions algae in water or plants like bamboo and some grass species grow so fast, they beat solar panels by far in terms of energy accumulation
While biomass might offer a higher power density, unless it can soak up vast amounts of Carbon, there may come a time when burning anything for power which generates carbon in an already carbon toxic atmosphere is banned. Much like burning garbage instead of burying it and just capturing the methane from organic decomposition. Deserts might offer the ideal location but they are generally far from demand, incur transmission losses and dust degrading solar performance. Why does every manmade flat surface not generate power. Its power direct from the Sun without the intermediate steam to crank phase.
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING:
NASA satellites have confirmed that there has no temperature increases for the past 19 years. The polar ice is NOT melting and there are more Polar Bears than ever before (much of the chagrin of Eskimos - their favored food source).
Fusion is nuclear.
What you mean is Fission LFTR (thorium) and especially fusion tokamak designed fusion plants; better safer, non-weapon forming nuclear is rapidly advancing. And it has the energy density to power the world for several tens of thousands of years.
The non demand for nuclear power is a misconception of the dangers of Nuclear power. Both the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters were 1960's generation of nuclear power. Modern nuclear generators have failsafes that could easily handle or prevent situations like those and Thorium is even better since it never reach pressures that can cause a rupture of its nuclear vessel. Thorium can be found in dirt that yields rare earth minerals like neodymium, which would be in great demand in the new electric age. Aside from reliability and safety, nuclear power is active 24/7 which solar and wind can never guarantee.
Thorium is going to be entirely too expensive once the next generation of photovoltaics lands. The only reason solar panels are expensive is the silicone substrate. There are polymer-based replacements on the way that are going to drop the cost of solar by a factor of 100. You can't compete with that. Thorium is fantastic, and certainly would be the next thing in nuclear power, but there is just no market for nuclear right now.
LFTR and especially the ultimate tokamak deuterium-tritium using lithium breeding walls like Iter and Wendelstein 7-x.
China started their 10 year project for an operational LFTR plant.
Wendelstein 7-x is already in its plasma experimental phase.
And Iter will be online starting its experiments by about 2020.
Both of those nuclear capacities have enough energy density in such a small volume of fuel, the abundance of which dwarfs that of any fossil fuels.
The reason they're saying there's a bunch of sources is because they're not thinking too far ahead, other than what has already started to grow: natural gas, wind, and solar.
Problem with gas is it's still a fossil fuel.
Wind and solar contribute very small to the amount of material needed to make them and maintain them; they're not carbon neutral in their life cycle. They simply don't produce enough output compared to their input. It's just while they're finally producing some output, that output isn't emitting CO2. Until they breakdown. Or have to be refurbished or replaced.
Ultimately, nuclear methods using thorium and especially deuterium will be the next primary fuel source.
Can't talk about hydro in terms of future switch to alternate energy generation, because hydro is by default the cheapest and thus automatically already used up to nearly 100% capacity in the world. There aren't many places left where you could expand on hydro.
Yes Conventional hydro does not have the same potential to fast ramp up. However there is plenty of potential to retrofit existing hydro plants to extract more power than was generated when the plant was fitted originally. The US Dept of Energy has some examples on their website of upgraded dams but their budget was relatively small and aimed at older smaller dams.
However using water as a offset power storage medium vs hoping an as yet new battery tech with no commercial or reliability track record will bridge the renewable gap, has a better chance. The engineering is straightforward, the medium is as close to battery as converting back into power, the conversion back from stored water to power is quick and there is no degradation of the conversion apart from slow mechanical wear and tear. Coal presumes there is no carbon tax and gas presumes fracking and deep sea drilling platforms can provide long term cheap gas (that or there is a large effort to capture natural methane from land, landfill or sewerage works ).
Solar cannot displace everything. Population growth means larger cities and thus more high rise living ie less roof space for solar. We know Solar needs offpeak storage and there is yet no winning storage medium without high cost, long term conversion losses etc. Large solar farms are constrained by location of sun vs demand, water usage to clean the panels as global warming and humans generate more airborne particles and the willingness of China to make panels at either near or below cost to hold/gain market share with the Chinese government paying for the loss vs spending it on healthcare, education etc.
Florida is sinking due to a combination of an increasingly demanding population sucking out fresh water from underground reserves, rising sea levels which push more sea water into the aquifers and a higher water table which sinks the land which is water permeable. That and more frequent stronger storms which wash away the coastline including any sand. Its not rivers that generate the most sand, its coastal erosion and tides.
The video mistakes that once any of these energy sources hits a tipping point, more money will go into research. If solar can be good enough with existing technology it will get more efficient and surpass all of these sources. No it won't happen over night and night itself is a problem, but we've never seen solar hit any real economies of scale where it was mass produced. We may go through a phase with solar during the day and some combination of natural gas and oil at night until battery technology undergoes a revolution. None of this is happening next year, but it may not be far off at all.
If fukushima isn't an option, then neither is fracking. Fracking pollutes underground reservoirs and harms wildlife. We can't frack in our backyard, and we shouldn't frack in what would might be our backyard come 20 years. The reason why it's so cheap is because it's not regulated, so you don't need a permit that makes certain you're not about to kill off an endangered species' habitat. Fracking covers as much area as deforestation. Cheap doesn't mean good.
weird how the introduction is wrong, and then the end somewhat corrects it. Coal hasn't given way to oil, thats valid for trains, but not much more. Coal is still one of the main energy sources on the planet, and as you said, coal and oil are to different kinds of energy, as they are used very differently, one to outputs electricity to the grid, and one is used in transportation.
did you not play SimCity (2000) ?!? .. don't you know, what could happen?
On the other hand, such sattelites would make up for very good always availlable weapon systems to convince you neighbours of your greatfulness!
No more energy bottle necks suffocating global manufacturing! We can light up the world and bring everyone every conceivable material good but we have to eliminate manufacturing bottle necks like limited energy supply.
Global warming is the vehicle being used by the power players to control energy. Solar power will probably never be more than a fraction of the energy provided by most power grids. That being said, individuals could become more energy independent by using solar and wind, and reducing their energy use.
This video might have had some credibility if you checked your facts properly. Wind power is not as cheap as coal in the UK. In fact it costs twice as much for onshore wind power, and three times as much for offshore. These energy sources are highly subsidised and the actual subsidy is added to consumer bills, making UK electricity twice as expensive as in the USA. Even worse, some coal fired plants are now subsidised when they were not before, because they are needed for back up for when the wind doesn't blow. This is a disaster for consumers, especially pensioners who are now dying from cold in winter because they can not afford to heat their houses anymore. As for Germany, as a result of the dash for renewable energy, electricity is twice as much as in the UK, and 4 times as much as the USA. Because of this German industry, which is the mainstay of their strong economy, is shutting down plants and moving production to other countries where electricity is much cheaper. Having realised this the German government is now back tracking on renewables and building new coal fired plants in a vain effort to save the German economy.
Wind is a cheap energy source in places like the plains states in the US, but not so much in places with a low average wind speeds such as England and much of Germany.
The most important part of renewable energy is location.
Any wind turbines in the UK should be located in Scotland where the average winds speed are higher.
coal has an expense, c02 and other carcinogenic emissions. If coal played for some cost of the climate change repair and mitigation costs as well as pay those who live local to coal plants for health care damage, then coal generated power would be alot more realistically priced but hey like city smog, it's just the cost of cheap power.
Yup... BYD though use Lithium Iron Phosphate. Low Cost, non-toxic, long-living and very safe.... but heavy and not as energy dense as NCA (which is what Tesla use in current products). Rumor has it that the M3 battery might be a new low cobalt chemistry with silicon in the anode (Tesla would have to have resolved the issue of mechanical stress in silicon enhanced anodes).
As is gasoline. How much energy does it take to make a gallon of gasoline? It has to be refined, that takes energy, it has to be transported, and pumped out of the ground, all of which are energy intense.
H2 is made from water. It can be made with solar or wind power, anywhere on earth exactly where you need it. A vastly superior energy storage medium, and 100% pollution and CO2 free.
You have missed one of the most important aspects of electric vehicles. They can be used as grid storage devices for electricity. If every electric car held back 10% of its battery capacity for grid storage of renewable electricity we would be able to bring renewables on-line much more quickly. Storage of intermittent energy production is critical.
The second problem is the almost universal attitude that renewable energy is simple, clean, effective, and compact. This leads people to thinking stupid ideas such as installing photovoltaic arrays (solar panels) here in Canada where they simply don't work well at all. We have to be aware of what is available for renewables and what is not. Fortunately the house I live in has a PT or photothermal array on the roof. We can collect heat for the house and hot water supply even on cloudy and cold winter days. Here in BC we have access to hydroelectric power however that is something only very few places in the world can achieve and it creates a lot of damage to the natural areas that are modified to hold the water reservoirs. Renewables are available however their use is limited by their environments.
All forms of energy harvesting and storage are destructive and dangerous. This is a fact of the world we live in.
Sean Nanoman yes but there isn't a lot of point trying to create a solution for a system that is not in place. What do you think is the answer for that system though? Obviously hard capitalism doesn't work ;people suffer. What is the solution in your opinion?
Just to clarify, the most powerful driver is economic however only because we live in a capitalist system. Change the system and the driver changes as well. Don't forget to move your thoughts outside of your current surroundings to get a more realistic picture of reality. Other than that I agree with you.
Sean Nanoman the most powerful driver towards a technology is an economic one. By 2020 it should make economic sense pretty much anywhere in the world. That will spark a revolution. Then we just need energy storage to come down enough to help supplement the intermittent nature of renewables. Which is certainly happening what with all the battery researching being done right now, particularly for electric vehicle batteries.
+NZJacobNZ This appears to be true judging from some of the articles I have read in the last week. Solar panel prices have in fact dropped significantly and currently hover somewhere around 70 cents per watt with a panel recently setting a world record of 55 cents per watt. That's impressive.
A second point is that we need to absorb the cost even if it is higher as it is 'the right thing to do'. Of course it will be very difficult to get the whole world on board with renewables however it needs to be done.
There's always hope that the true heroes of the day will be able to save us. I am of course talking about engineers and scientists of today and tomorrow. Stay in school kids!!