Electrical energy past and future

Y’all know that electrical-energy supply figures largely in recent human activity. Here is my perspective.

In 2010 global electrical was about 330 watts per person. Does not mean that each one had 3, 100-watt bulbs burning, instead that all electricity use summed to that. It was about 67% fossil-C, 16% hydro, 13% nuclear, and 3% all other renewables.

Consider year 2050, with more people and an aspirational goal to increase electricity per person to 550 watts. If one extrapolates electricity sources from recent trends we would actually get there. Sounds good.

But here is a possible problem. That path would double fossil-CO2 emission, at take the atmosphere to about 600 ppm CO2. Presently we are above 400 ppm which was never happened before during human life on earth. Direct and indirect effects of such higher levels are difficult to anticipate and remain very controversial.

Reducing fossil-CO2 emissions to zero over this time scale is absurd and I don’t consider that. I do consider holding them at current levels. Taking 550 watts as a goal, how could renewable-E growth provide the difference? It is easy to calculate that a 17% growth rate per year would be required.

That growth rate looks achievable from 2010 to 2016 where both wind and photovoltaic grew much faster. But caution is required. Recent growth rates of renewable-E start from near zero, and this inflates rate-bigness.

We can return to fossil-E history and see that through its mature phase grew at 2% per year. This was with (perhaps lavish) financial subsidies. It would take ‘unusual’ financial policies to grow renewable-E more rapidly to 2050.

There are a range of futures to consider. One is that renewable-E will grow fast. Many people hope for that, but it would be novel. Another is that fossil-E will continue to grow (at a slower rate) and 2050 will have about 500 ppm and we would deal with that. Another is that energy efficiency will be improved, and 330-ish watts per person suffices for global economic growth. We all want that growth, right? People selling things to each other.

Seriously, there are only 2 futures to hope for: 1. Everybody does better. 2. Only rich people do better. These are not entirely disconnected.

Besides whatever +CO2 might do, there are two problems with expanding fossil-E. Burning -> air quality -> human health. Steam as working fluid makes water less available for agriculture; important wherever water is not available in excess.

There will be a world in 2050; as yet undefined by our current decisions. Does not matter at all at all, how I might want that world to be. Matters a lot, what everyone else wants.

 

Calculations based on 365.25 days per year and 24 hrs per day.

I only mentioned efficiency in one sentence. How to 'scope' energy efficiency into my simple-minded framework? Very open to suggestions, or for that matter, making the framework more complicated.

There is a wiki page that lists countries in these (watt/head) units. There global average (in 2012?) was 339. a few others:

China 492
USA 1378
EU 615
UK 547
India 87

 

In US recently there has been economic growth and flat energy overall. Not sure if electrical production has also been flat. That info must be available.

Seems likely to be that this could happen in any 'high watt/head' country. Much further down the list? Need to delve into local factors.

My point here is that global electricity is on a growth path to looks good (to me). To stay on it would lead to much higher CO2 (much evidence that would cause problems). Or, to grow renewables at a multi-decadal rate that may be unrealistic. Energy efficiency would certainly help (and in many cases is pure cost saving), but unclear how workable that is in countries with very little electricity now.

 

Coal vs. NG. The most extreme comparison indicates half CO2 per energy produced - I was not expecting it to be so different.

More subtle is whether the NG just spins turbine. Or if that waste heat also is used in 'combined cycle'. Latter is more efficient but consumes water.

Water is a second-order issue for this discussion. In places where energy generation competes with agriculture, it would seem sensible to give preference to generation schemes that don't consume water. If you have water available in excess, then it is a marvelous working fluid.

 

Perhaps obviously, I'd want this discussion to lead us towards fulfilling human needs for energy/water/food/OK climate/adequate environmental aspects in a very broad sense.

One can use a time-slice to suggest that energy requirements can be very nicely handled through 2050 mostly by fossil-energy growth. But that neglects other matters. Or, if we aspire to hold fossil-energy flat, it is hard to anticipate enough renewable-E growth to fill requirements.

It is my point (stated too many times here) that we want (or aspire towards) having 9 billion people doing better than now in 2050. Unless some new energy source pops up, we'll do it with sources we are using now, with their water and CO2 and climate implications.

Best regional energy mixes will be strongly influenced by available water - how could they not be?

Best global energy mixes may be influenced by CO2/climate but I must say earth is not going to get all that much hotter by 2050. It is but one factor to consider among several.

In my opinion we miss the point by narrowly arguing CO2/climate/2050. It would seem better to start from how to we want Earth 2050 to be? As that may differ from now, what political/economic nudges would help?

Burning a lot of fossil carbon has obviously been a great help to humanity and it is now our largest money industry. This highlights a difficulty in finding an optimal future path but does not prevent finding. Just promote a desired path, get people to agree on that and go from there.

No reason at all to suffer from misunderstanding watt hours per year - everybody knows how how many hours there are in a year.

 

US is now about 1380 watts per person. There is no effing way (absent political misadventure ) to mess that up by 2050. Much of the N. hemisphere is also in good shape. One might focus attention on countries with low energy supply now, and with anticipated population growth.

And also challenged on food and water supply. If you look at such places as somebody else's problem I have no time for you because there is nobody else. Rather, it seems reasonable for high-energy, high-water and high-science countries to lead.

Lead how? Your optimistic reporter says to offer options along energy/water/food gradients, and let affected folks choose whatever they like. In this bear in mind that growing economies will buy your blue jeans and handbags and whatever else you have on offer. So, you want them to do well, eh? Alternatively, they will be still stuck in famine and war. Downside is a dragging need for 'foreign assistance'. Upside is selling weapons thereto. I have no ability to sort that out. But I do express my opinion attempting to do the 20th century again is less than what we might aspire to.

 

By analogy to historical fossil-E growth I suggested above that renewables can't come online really fast.

The link below argues otherwise:
Terawatts of solar power are within our reach | Anthropocene

5 to 10 terawaats and 9 billion people means 556 or 1111 waters per person

 

Growth of cars as additional electrical appliances will become important as the fleet expands. Seems like a reasonable question so I gave it a shot.

Nissan Leaf may/may not be ideal example. It take 35 kwh for 100 miles travel. For 15,000 miles driven per year it works out to be a 600 watt appliance.

With a very large electric vehicle fleet, included batteries may offer some of that grid storage which will become more necessary. That is, if they are parked and plugged in at helpful times.