1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

N.A. energy exporter in 2025

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by austingreen, Dec 11, 2012.

  1. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Exxon Sees Continent as Energy Exporter - WSJ.com

    That will slash ghg emissions from the electricity sector even with higher demand. High natural gas production makes it a very inexpensive transition to lower polluting electrical power. It also would mean on the electrical production side, carbon cap and trade are unnecessary, but a carbon tax and tighter unhealthy pollution policies can make it a smoother transition.



    Which means gas prices will continue to go up as canada will export the oil to China and India if the US doesn't pay, and oil will be more scarce. That seems to dictate a transition to phevs and lng trucks.
    Exxon's predictions not mine, so take them for what they are worth.
     
    #1 austingreen, Dec 11, 2012
    John Hatchett likes this.
  2. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    You know I am happy about coal being burned 'somewhere else' than in the US. The regional pollutants like mercury, particulates and acid deposit somewhere else. Remediation and health-care costs get to be a drag on somebody else's economy, not the US.

    The global effects of CO2 are unabated, but one can't complain about half a loaf.

    It's appropriate to follow the literature on hydrofracturing and ground water quality. But I am not going to, and hope somebody else here picks up the ball.

    This study just popped up

    Wind, solar power paired with storage could be cost-effective way to power grid

    and if they did not figure in a growing contribution by natural gas (and less from coal) then they are already out of date. They could do it again though :)
     
    #2 tochatihu, Dec 11, 2012
  3. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    There are a couple of things to observe here. First they are talking about 90% from renewables by 2030, which is far above any projections from the US. This puts it at odds with the Exxon study that came up with a 33% reduction in coal by 2030 from 2010. Coal was at about 45% in 2010, and assuming 20% increase in electricity in 2030 then we get coal at (45% x 67%)/120% = 25%. That number seems within reason to me. Nuclear is at about 20% today, and even if we close down some power plants we should still get at least 15% from this source in 2030. We get around 25% from natural gas today, and there are new power plants like the GE 61 which is around 60% efficient fast cycling for renewables between 40%-100% power. Lower natural gas prices should make this go up not down, which makes it at least 25% natural gas in 2030. That means 35% may be renewable but I would think it average lower in the country.

    Small places like hawaii with expensive fossil fuel may be able to get to 80% renewables by then, but I would not expect most of the country to be close. It would be great if Texas got to 25% renewable (mostly wind), 20% coal (most only run in the summer), and 43% natural gas, 12% nuclear.

    The other thing that does not make sense is projecting wind capital cost will be cut in half by 2030. In Texas capital costs have gone up with raw materials. Wind is about as inexpensive as it will get. Solar costs before subsidies may go down, but then if much more than 5% gets built, those subsidies will decrease also. The article did correctly point out that wind turbines are so inexpensive that you may want to build excess capacity on windy days to add more wind to peak.
     
    #3 austingreen, Dec 11, 2012
  4. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    I absolutely agree that US is not on a path towards 90% renewables by 2030. If the economy were great, and if a big chunk of Antarctica broke loose tomorrow, then there might be political will to do so. But, those are two large 'ifs' and we are talking about 18 years.

    I did look in the 'Annual Review of Environment and Resources' concerning hydraulic fracturing. That would be a very logical place for a review to appear. Not yet though, and not in the table of contents for the 2013 volume. I suppose therefore that the topic has not had a definitive review.

    From media etc. we know what the 'beefs' are: Large water requirements, fluids that end up on (or near) the surface need to be handled appropriately, fugitive methane release to the atmosphere. The appearance at least that the industry is getting special treatment w.r.t. the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. None of those make it evil in my view. Need a sober, even-handed assessment. Neither Industry Cheers nor Environmental Gloomies make a full meal for me.

    Looks like another one of those things: we are on the path and it will be some time before it is fully clear whether it is an excellent path, the opposite, or somewhere in the middle.

    I also agree that wind spinners are 'big things built from something' and how could they get cheaper? Steel and aluminum going to have massive price decreases? I can't see that...

    Photovoltaics are little things, with at least a potential for efficiency and cost improvements.

    US nuclear could increase (barely) within this time frame right? Is there just one plant (in Georgia) that has got a construction license, or are there more? It would be a shame for Westinghouse to only build AR1000s in China :)
     
    #4 tochatihu, Dec 11, 2012
  5. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,314
    3,588
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Westinghouse is now airing radio ads here in Wash DC touting SMR small modular reactors (which I like that idea). But the ad sort of implies the planned two new Georgia nuke plants are SMR and employ 7000 people. No way, rather a couple of AR1000's might employ 7000 to build though, so China may not be the only customer.
     
    #5 wjtracy, Dec 12, 2012
  6. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    8,995
    3,507
    0
    Location:
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    #6 tochatihu, Dec 12, 2012
  7. ETC(SS)

    ETC(SS) The OTHER One Percenter.....

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    7,674
    6,494
    0
    Location:
    Redneck Riviera (Gulf South)
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Dang.
    I wish they would make up their minds already!

    "We're running out of oil..." :(
    "We're going to be an oil exporter in a little over ten years..." :D
     
    #7 ETC(SS), Dec 12, 2012
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,533
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    There are different they's which is why it sounds confused.

    If Exxon is the they -
    US will be a net importer of petroleum, but will be able to satisfy imports with Canadian and Mexican oil. North America will have no net imports of petroleum, although there may be imports offset by exports

    According to EIA, the US will stop net imports of natural gas soon. It may export some. Part of the reason is projected use of recent oil discoveries, but also projected decrease in oil use.

    Currently the US exports coal, that is likely to continue.

    Summed up - North America will have net exports of energy.

    Exxon did not say that globally oil supplies will last a long time. Those that claim we are running out soon, like the oil drum have a different opinion then exxon about the speed of running out of oil
     
    #8 austingreen, Dec 13, 2012
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)