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 Thursday September 05 2019, @05:44AM (2 children)
yes, woefully. i recommend looking out a window and start counting:
numbers of cars
numbers of solar panels
the ratio is like 100 to 1, sure.
just consider how the percent numbers would change if every household with one car had 5 solarpanels connected to grid also?
you ask the correct question and the answer is obvious: people dont care. once enough people buy and love their electrical cars you can bet that tight electrical supplies will embrace more nuclear waste ... with window down and wind blowing thru hair.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Thursday September 05 2019, @02:09PM (1 child)
You are horribly
the power generated by solar panels even when then sun is unobscured and directly overhead. You are also woefully
the amount of electrical energy consumed by an electric vehicle.
You would need at least 10 solar panels exposed to bright mid summer sunshine for a full day to get just 25 miles of range out of a Tesla 3. 25 miles. And only on sunny days. That might work great if you had space for 10 solar panels on your roof, the money to buy and maintain them, and limit yourself to trips to the grocery story. But if you try to use this as a daily driver you're going to come up way short.
And the ironic thing is, solar traps heat from the sun far better than CO2 ever could. You're talking about paving every available space with black solar panels to meet the electrical needs of the nation. It's a giant heat conductor. Anyone who has tried to walk barefoot on black pavement on a mid summer day knows what I'm talking about. So if you have a concern for global warming then solar is not gonna help you.
And here's one more fact that will blow your mind. A solar power plant capable of generating 1GW of power would require over 400 square kilometers of area. For comparison, that's about 3% of the entire state of Connecticut. Also for comparison, the modular Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant design requires a few hundred acres to generate that same 1GW and it can do it 24/7 whereas your solar plant falters at night and on cloudy days.
Nuclear is the only answer today. Generation 3 reactors are incredibly safe, far safer than any other power generation method - and I'm including solar and wind in this. More people have died from solar and wind generation than in the history of nuclear. If not for the tree huggers and their irrational fear of nuclear, we would be CO2 free today. Yea you heard me - the hippies shot themselves in the foot on that one.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/nuclear-is-still-cheaper-and-safer-than-solar-and-wind.html [nextbigfuture.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday September 06 2019, @04:38AM
I wonder what the heat footprint is of solar per acre? Not to mention that the facilities are scorched-earth.
I used to live in the desert about 10 miles due downwind from one of those zillions-of-panels solar facilities. It must have made one hell of a heat column, because our normal summer-afternoon cooling completely disappeared, and as a result average nighttime temps went up about 10F degrees.
Not to mention that it also made for a lot of blowing dust (not previously a big problem in that area).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.