Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 04 2019, @05:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the instead-of-batteries-just-use-a-very-long-extension-cord dept.

Forbes:

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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:10AM (2 children)

    by Reziac (2489) on Thursday September 05 2019, @03:10AM (#889831) Homepage

    So how long do dams last compared to say, commercial windmills?

    Remembering we have working dams closing on 100 years old, and the average age, per this site, is 64 years.
    https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30312 [eia.gov]

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by legont on Friday September 06 2019, @01:47AM (1 child)

    by legont (4179) on Friday September 06 2019, @01:47AM (#890340)

    Windmills are worse than dams, no question here. As per the useful age of dams and the state of affairs, here is the "bible" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert [wikipedia.org]

    A science fiction version of how it will look like within a generation - very good one - is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife [wikipedia.org]

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday September 06 2019, @03:53AM

      by Reziac (2489) on Friday September 06 2019, @03:53AM (#890375) Homepage

      Consider: various dystopias have been predicted for about 70 years now, yet none of the predicted disasters has come to pass; quite the contrary. (As to the fictionalized versions, I expect I've read far more dystopia lit than most younger folks, given SF from the 1950s was loaded with it. Y'all ain't discovering anything new here. For a good scare, try some Philip Wylie.)

      As to the "disappearing" Western water -- blame California politics for creating an illusion of drought; Sierra Nevada annual snowpack typically is about 150% of CA's total water needs (and the past few years there's been so much excess snow that new glaciers are forming). Yet most is allowed to drain into the ocean in the name of preserving an invasive species (this despite the funding for new reservoirs was set aside decades ago, and that in every case, a reservoir becomes a haven for all manner of wildlife, and insurance against totally dry rivers in dry years). Meanwhile L.A. has essentially confiscated, er, I mean purchased the Owens Valley's water -- before that, it was lush, not a desert (and a few untouched pockets still exist).

      Nevada's aquifer is gallon-for-gallon stable (tho there's an ongoing effort to drain it for the benefit of Las Vegas, which would indeed damage all the surface ponds and springs). Oregon and Washington have more surface water than they can use, if not well-distributed. Montana is stable water-wise, both surface and subsurface. Wyoming is partly arid, but lacks the population and arable land to draw much from aquifers. The Dakotas sit atop an aquifer that is presently being a nuisance by flooding the area around Devils Lake. All across the upper plains, floods are more of a problem than drought. How do you control floods? By storing water in reservoirs and sending the surplus out for irrigation and generators.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.