SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the instead-of-batteries-just-use-a-very-long-extension-cord dept.
The future is not looking bright for oil, according to a new report that claims the commodity would have to be priced at $10-$20 a barrel to remain competitive as a transport fuel.
The new research, from BNP Paribas, says that the economics of renewable energy make it impossible for oil to compete at current prices. The author of the report, global head of sustainability Mark Lewis, says that "renewable electricity has a short-run marginal cost of zero, is cleaner environmentally, much easier to transport and could readily replace up to 40% of global oil demand".
[...] The report, Wells, Wires, And Wheels... Eroci And The Tough Road Ahead For Oil, introduces the concept of the Energy Return on Capital Invested (EROCI), focusing on the energy return on a $100bn outlay on oil and renewables where the energy is being used to power cars and other light-duty vehicles (LDVs).
"For a given capital outlay on oil and renewables, how much useful energy at the wheel do we get? Our analysis indicates that for the same capital outlay today, new wind and solar-energy projects in tandem with battery electric vehicles will produce six to seven times more useful energy at the wheels than will oil at $60 per barrel for gasoline powered light-duty vehicles, and three to four times more than will oil at $60 per barrel for light-duty vehicles running on diesel," says Lewis.
As fossil fuels phase out, will battery technology improve quickly enough to support the transition to renewables?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 04 2019, @11:49PM (2 children)
The dead birds are not a serious problem, it's something trumped up by the oil industry. The windmills do kill some birds, but not enough to make an impact (they kill many fewer birds than pet cats, for example) and the birds are not generally from threatened species. Similarly the effect on temperature is only at ground level, where the windmills are. It isn't likely to affect the weather (although I have wondered if enough energy is tapped from the wind, whether there could be some kind of climate impact, and what that would be).
Batteries for grid applications don't have to be high tech, expensive lithium-ion batteries. Cheap but heavy lithium iron phosphate or even nickel-based chemistry are fine.
Hydroelectric power doesn't produce CO2 (although you do need to produce a bunch to build the dam). But solar and wind are much better options today. Especially because you need a river for hydroelectric power, but everywhere has sun and wind.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 05 2019, @06:01AM (1 child)
If dead birds aren't a serious problem, then maybe salmon isn't either? Maybe both are trumped up by the oil industry? Because salmon can easily get past dams, and have been doing so for 50+, 100+ years, with ladders, walkways, and other man-provided methods. In terms of weather, it DOES affect local weather, see referenced article (and search for the variety of others about the same).
Doesn't matter though. Solar is more polluting in terms of creating the panels, compared to what you get out of them, and their lifespan. Wind isn't so bad, but you do need a large structure, generators, and so on too.
Yet both solar and wind are very mercurial, compared to hydro power. You don't get 24x7 from solar and wind. You don't get power every day from solar and wind. So you either need massive batteries, or a storage method, OR you need to rely on something else as a 'main power system'.
If you rely on batteries, you're mad to think that 'normal batteries' haven't any environmental cost. So much metal refined, dug up, smelted, chemicals (acid, etc) produced for one tiny battery -- which, barely holds any power realistically. And li-on batteries are far worse. Batteries, along with (especially solar) install costs and replacement costs, makes solar/wind "not that great".
And if you instead of batteries rely upon some other form of power, but exclude hydro? Welp. Now your solar and wind depend upon massive pollution to "be stable". And in many places, the BIGGEST draw for power is in the winter, when it's -40C outside. During the winter, when the sun is only up 6 hours a day, dim when it shows, and yes that's a lot of the world.
Hydro beats it all. All of it. One plant, as others have commented on this thread -- the last a VERY long time, can be refurbished, compared to anything else hydro is a god send.
In terms of 'getting power when you need it", that's where the true power of pipes come in.
Currently, we ship oil and natural gas all over the place with pipes. Imagine instead, generating H2 locally, at the power plant, and then sending it via gas / pipes. FYI, 768V power transfers lose very little traveling thousands and thousands of kilometers, so you don't need dams everywhere, for example Hydro Quebec powers almost down to Washington DC, with moderate power loss, from dams 4000km away.
But people could move to H2 for their cars, and even H2 for power generation in each home! Those natural gas pipes could be entirely re-purposed.
All you need is clean power. And a dam is the cleanest we have.
(Score: 2) by Gault.Drakkor on Friday September 06 2019, @12:56AM
Hydrogen as energy storage?
Hydrogen tanks: Are you going to put your it in high pressure tank with a mass of 30+Kg? or are you going to store it in cryogenic tank? With all the fun that that has? Staged refrigerators needed to keep things stable aren't cheap or light.
H2 for energetic, safety, transport, handling reasons is a practically a non starter. It can be done, but not cheaper then known alternatives.
Excess energy from renewable will be more likely be used to from hydrocarbons in the kerosene range. Much better storage and handling characteristics then batteries or hydrogen.
Hydrocarbons use as energy storage is far from over.