I don't understand why anyone cares about energy efficiency. What does it matter at all, and how can you even compare the efficiency of a solar panel to the efficiency of burning coal? It's the ultimate apples to oranges comparison.
Fantastic look, Hannah Ritchie at the possibility that, like material usage of commodities, we may eventually reach “peak energy” usage as well.
I just wrote up a long piece looking at the thermal efficiency of engine technology since 1700, it’s incredible how much better we have gotten at harnessing energy over time. In terms of thermal efficiency:
~1710-Newcomen engine-1%
~1780-Watt engine-3%
~1810-Strong steam-10%
~1880-Steam turbine-20%
~1950-ICE-50%
~Today-Combined Cycle Gas Turbines-60%+
Further, each step along the energy “ladder” saw a significant reduction in pollutants and carbon emissions, from Coal to Petroleum to Natural Gas. There is no reason to think that we might not continue make progress in this regard in the future.
All these scenarios are taking a technology centric approach. for example, demand for energy for transport will fall because electric vehicles are 4 times more "efficient" than diesels.
Whilst that is part of the story, what about economics? Demand for energy will increase if the price falls. Demand for energy will fall if the price rises (which is less likely)
The optimistic view is that solar power will be (actually already is) so ridiculously cheap - when available - that demand should rise. Cheap electricity will fuel (wrong word?) a large rise in air conditioning use, but there is no reason this can't be met with solar power.
(@Dr Ritchie: The implications of 1TW of solar deployment per year is worth an article in itself)
The pessimistic view is that the big oil producers will insist on competing. As EVs reduce demand for oil, Saudi and Russia etc will just reduce the price of oil, meaning supply will stay the same.
As for miles driven - the biggest cost of motoring is the time wasted behind the wheel. If self driving cars arrive, that time could be put to good use. For example, sleep for an extra two hours on the commute to work; do your social media stuff for two hours on the way back?
As for solar prices: We already see this in Europe. Any sunny weekend day in the summer, European wholesale electricity prices are negative. And that is before the planned tripling of solar power by 2030., which will extend these negative prices to every sunny afternoon for eight months of the year. How to use this?
This is really rich -- with no play on words or pun intended.
Do any of you really know what "energy" means - where the word comes from - and what the original word means?
If you did- and understood the concept - which obviously is not the case -- you wouldn't use it -- because it has been so bastardized / incorrect.
The "paper" that Ms. Ritchie is suggesting isn't even "good info": -- it's a "thought experiment" - a "what-if"!
That's all.
Until we get serious and actively address the 800 pound Gorilla in "our corner":
--- the existing and continuous pollution spewed out for both from (24 / 7 - 365 day a year) "heat sourced" & water pressure dam site sourced (because of the recently documented Methane Gas emissions from the lakes behind the dams) electric power plants, and the;
--- constant (24 /7 - 365 days a year) pollution from internal combustion engine power vehicles -of all shapes and sizes;
--- we will continue to decrease our chances of getting in front of the Global Warming / Climate Change disaster that we have created by constantly and continuously burning fossil -fuels to produce electricity and power vehicles.
Mother Nature is a hard task master when hurt: -- and we continue to cause harm by the two polluting sources listed above.
Concerning renewables: i.e., wind and solar / low carbon -- they are mainly remotely located and dependent on either non-existent; or in the case of the US - aging and "stuffed to the gulls" intertie power grid - which has a FERC controlled 5 year backlog.
What is needed is a small / modular in make-up /non-polluting / electric power supply / that can be installed in multiples:
--- "at" each polluting power plant and dam site, and
--- "in" each polluting internal combustion engine (in any form) vehicle.
There is one such non-polluting / electric power supply available.
It's named the POD MOD for "P"ower "O"n "D"emand "MOD"ule"
It's technology is almost totally based on US Patent 464,666; with "over-unity electric power production" embedded (although unclaimed) -- granted to Nikola Tesla -- on Dec. 6th. 1891 -- over 132 years ago.
The technology was professional laboratory tested / producing continuous / sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / "over-unity" electric power while powering an AC motor;
--- at 293%;
--- 0n Sept 10th. 1984.
The POD MOD was granted US Patented - US 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with "regenerative feedback" / on Sept. 8th. 1992.
--- "over-unity" was specifically unclaimed, as it was known from previous attempts: -- that the US/DOE and / or US/DOD would have had the application rejected for containing such a claim.
--- however - careful reading of the Patent ABSTRACT/ followed by physically graphing out the multiple; singular; sequential circuit outputs "back to the source", i.e., "regenerative feedback" - one finds continuous "over-unity" electric power production:
--- because the US Patented / Tesla based circuitry used:
--- always "reduces the input power requirement to the absolute minimum";
--- while producing a constant output;
--- staying totally within the Physics definition for a power source:
--- that it can only produce it's maximum output".
True Fact.
The POD MOD is specifically designed to be installed either:
a.) "at" any existing or new "stationary" location, be it a home; commercial; or industrial-site -- world-wide, or;
b.) "in" any existing of new "movable" vehicle - by retrofitting - repowering any battery or internal combustion engine - through either direct power connection or AC motor power - be the vehicle on land / sea / or in the air as a private of commercial aircraft.
The POD MOD is the only environmentally clean electric power source:
--- that can have multiple units connected together for higher output levels;
--- can continuously supply any amount of required electric power:
--- "at" any individual site -- "stationary" or "movable";
--- Full Stop
The POD MOD makes literally "everything" we are using today - to both produce electricity and power our vehicles -- world - ide:
--- totally redundant and ultimately unnecessary.
But -- because the POD MOD technology has not been:
--- "commercialized in the standard manner", i.e., being affiliated with either a University or Commercial Entity, and;
--- "funded in the standard manner", i.e., had it's value "ginned-up" via multiple infusions of monetary funds -which have to be paid back or stock issued - to be fattened up for either an "IPO" or initial Stock Market entry:
--- the US Government has the present position; -- that because it has not been "commercialized in the standard, i.e., it doesn't carry any front-loaded debt -- it is not acceptable for any Federal monetary or technology aid.
Here is the real reason:
All electricity produced from POD MODS are to be "leased", at the monthly rate of;
--- $0.10 per hour - not per kW/Hr -- per hour - which equals $72 per 30 day month;
--- via long term (10 -30 year) / one set rate with no "add-ons" for variable times of the day;
--- no cost to the home owner (including installation and maintenance for he length of the lease), and;
--- negotiated prices for commercial and industrial sites.
The POD MOD is a total "disruptor" to the "status quo" -- because it would give each consumer the "choice" of choosing which power supply would be used for electricity and powering vehicles.
Can anything that is either presently in place / in use / or on some computer screen somewhere - accomplish the same.
You answer the question for yourselves.
The technology to start to eliminate fossil-fueled pollution is available.
And it doesn't really matter if Ms. Ritchie's evaluation of statistics is correct or not.
"Statistics" don't stop pollution or produce environmentally clean electric power production.
That's pretty disappointing for Africans, sub-Saharan Africans in particular.
I hope that this is a massive underestimate of African energy usage in 2050, for the sake of the well-being of Africans. Europe needs to do more to grow African economies.
Great book, but one exception. I worked in the Nuclear industry for decades and you just can't gloss over the waste issue. It is a critical item. As of today there is no reasonable way to rid the world of the spent fuel and low level waste, both of which are seemingly at the bottom of the list for solutions. I can see the spent fuel cask from the Connecticut Yankee station when I'm in my Kayak fishing in the Connecticut River. Does anyone think that's acceptable? Anyone have a solution? Let me hear it.
Excellent article... The focus seems to be reduction of energy use based on government efforts to decarbonize. My sense is that there will be a large reduction of energy use for three reasons:
1) Economic Incentives: It is cheaper/more economically efficient
2) Technological Acceleration: The innovation rate is rising rapidly.
3) Virtualization: As societies mature, more of the economy deals with non-physical goods.
This is possible but may not necessarily happen. Humans consume more if consumption gets cheaper. There was an article and thread by Ed Conway regarding this a few days back:
Great analysis, Hannah (as always) but I hope you are wrong that we'll be producing less energy globally.
https://www.mattball.org/2024/01/energy-abundance-is-most-important.html
I don't understand why anyone cares about energy efficiency. What does it matter at all, and how can you even compare the efficiency of a solar panel to the efficiency of burning coal? It's the ultimate apples to oranges comparison.
Fantastic look, Hannah Ritchie at the possibility that, like material usage of commodities, we may eventually reach “peak energy” usage as well.
I just wrote up a long piece looking at the thermal efficiency of engine technology since 1700, it’s incredible how much better we have gotten at harnessing energy over time. In terms of thermal efficiency:
~1710-Newcomen engine-1%
~1780-Watt engine-3%
~1810-Strong steam-10%
~1880-Steam turbine-20%
~1950-ICE-50%
~Today-Combined Cycle Gas Turbines-60%+
Further, each step along the energy “ladder” saw a significant reduction in pollutants and carbon emissions, from Coal to Petroleum to Natural Gas. There is no reason to think that we might not continue make progress in this regard in the future.
All these scenarios are taking a technology centric approach. for example, demand for energy for transport will fall because electric vehicles are 4 times more "efficient" than diesels.
Whilst that is part of the story, what about economics? Demand for energy will increase if the price falls. Demand for energy will fall if the price rises (which is less likely)
The optimistic view is that solar power will be (actually already is) so ridiculously cheap - when available - that demand should rise. Cheap electricity will fuel (wrong word?) a large rise in air conditioning use, but there is no reason this can't be met with solar power.
(@Dr Ritchie: The implications of 1TW of solar deployment per year is worth an article in itself)
The pessimistic view is that the big oil producers will insist on competing. As EVs reduce demand for oil, Saudi and Russia etc will just reduce the price of oil, meaning supply will stay the same.
As for miles driven - the biggest cost of motoring is the time wasted behind the wheel. If self driving cars arrive, that time could be put to good use. For example, sleep for an extra two hours on the commute to work; do your social media stuff for two hours on the way back?
As for solar prices: We already see this in Europe. Any sunny weekend day in the summer, European wholesale electricity prices are negative. And that is before the planned tripling of solar power by 2030., which will extend these negative prices to every sunny afternoon for eight months of the year. How to use this?
A tacit acceptance of Jevons’ Paradox at the end there in relation to transport but why wouldn’t the IEA apply that to other sectors?
You keep tra-la-ing past the political and social realities. "Strong decarbonisation" is a fantasy.
This is really rich -- with no play on words or pun intended.
Do any of you really know what "energy" means - where the word comes from - and what the original word means?
If you did- and understood the concept - which obviously is not the case -- you wouldn't use it -- because it has been so bastardized / incorrect.
The "paper" that Ms. Ritchie is suggesting isn't even "good info": -- it's a "thought experiment" - a "what-if"!
That's all.
Until we get serious and actively address the 800 pound Gorilla in "our corner":
--- the existing and continuous pollution spewed out for both from (24 / 7 - 365 day a year) "heat sourced" & water pressure dam site sourced (because of the recently documented Methane Gas emissions from the lakes behind the dams) electric power plants, and the;
--- constant (24 /7 - 365 days a year) pollution from internal combustion engine power vehicles -of all shapes and sizes;
--- we will continue to decrease our chances of getting in front of the Global Warming / Climate Change disaster that we have created by constantly and continuously burning fossil -fuels to produce electricity and power vehicles.
Mother Nature is a hard task master when hurt: -- and we continue to cause harm by the two polluting sources listed above.
Concerning renewables: i.e., wind and solar / low carbon -- they are mainly remotely located and dependent on either non-existent; or in the case of the US - aging and "stuffed to the gulls" intertie power grid - which has a FERC controlled 5 year backlog.
What is needed is a small / modular in make-up /non-polluting / electric power supply / that can be installed in multiples:
--- "at" each polluting power plant and dam site, and
--- "in" each polluting internal combustion engine (in any form) vehicle.
There is one such non-polluting / electric power supply available.
It's named the POD MOD for "P"ower "O"n "D"emand "MOD"ule"
It's technology is almost totally based on US Patent 464,666; with "over-unity electric power production" embedded (although unclaimed) -- granted to Nikola Tesla -- on Dec. 6th. 1891 -- over 132 years ago.
The technology was professional laboratory tested / producing continuous / sinusoidal AC waveform / 120 VAC / 60 Hz / "over-unity" electric power while powering an AC motor;
--- at 293%;
--- 0n Sept 10th. 1984.
The POD MOD was granted US Patented - US 5,146,395 / A POWER SUPPLY INCLUDING TWO TANK CIRCUITS / with "regenerative feedback" / on Sept. 8th. 1992.
--- "over-unity" was specifically unclaimed, as it was known from previous attempts: -- that the US/DOE and / or US/DOD would have had the application rejected for containing such a claim.
--- however - careful reading of the Patent ABSTRACT/ followed by physically graphing out the multiple; singular; sequential circuit outputs "back to the source", i.e., "regenerative feedback" - one finds continuous "over-unity" electric power production:
--- because the US Patented / Tesla based circuitry used:
--- always "reduces the input power requirement to the absolute minimum";
--- while producing a constant output;
--- staying totally within the Physics definition for a power source:
--- that it can only produce it's maximum output".
True Fact.
The POD MOD is specifically designed to be installed either:
a.) "at" any existing or new "stationary" location, be it a home; commercial; or industrial-site -- world-wide, or;
b.) "in" any existing of new "movable" vehicle - by retrofitting - repowering any battery or internal combustion engine - through either direct power connection or AC motor power - be the vehicle on land / sea / or in the air as a private of commercial aircraft.
The POD MOD is the only environmentally clean electric power source:
--- that can have multiple units connected together for higher output levels;
--- can continuously supply any amount of required electric power:
--- "at" any individual site -- "stationary" or "movable";
--- Full Stop
The POD MOD makes literally "everything" we are using today - to both produce electricity and power our vehicles -- world - ide:
--- totally redundant and ultimately unnecessary.
But -- because the POD MOD technology has not been:
--- "commercialized in the standard manner", i.e., being affiliated with either a University or Commercial Entity, and;
--- "funded in the standard manner", i.e., had it's value "ginned-up" via multiple infusions of monetary funds -which have to be paid back or stock issued - to be fattened up for either an "IPO" or initial Stock Market entry:
--- the US Government has the present position; -- that because it has not been "commercialized in the standard, i.e., it doesn't carry any front-loaded debt -- it is not acceptable for any Federal monetary or technology aid.
Here is the real reason:
All electricity produced from POD MODS are to be "leased", at the monthly rate of;
--- $0.10 per hour - not per kW/Hr -- per hour - which equals $72 per 30 day month;
--- via long term (10 -30 year) / one set rate with no "add-ons" for variable times of the day;
--- no cost to the home owner (including installation and maintenance for he length of the lease), and;
--- negotiated prices for commercial and industrial sites.
The POD MOD is a total "disruptor" to the "status quo" -- because it would give each consumer the "choice" of choosing which power supply would be used for electricity and powering vehicles.
Can anything that is either presently in place / in use / or on some computer screen somewhere - accomplish the same.
You answer the question for yourselves.
The technology to start to eliminate fossil-fueled pollution is available.
And it doesn't really matter if Ms. Ritchie's evaluation of statistics is correct or not.
"Statistics" don't stop pollution or produce environmentally clean electric power production.
That's pretty disappointing for Africans, sub-Saharan Africans in particular.
I hope that this is a massive underestimate of African energy usage in 2050, for the sake of the well-being of Africans. Europe needs to do more to grow African economies.
Great book, but one exception. I worked in the Nuclear industry for decades and you just can't gloss over the waste issue. It is a critical item. As of today there is no reasonable way to rid the world of the spent fuel and low level waste, both of which are seemingly at the bottom of the list for solutions. I can see the spent fuel cask from the Connecticut Yankee station when I'm in my Kayak fishing in the Connecticut River. Does anyone think that's acceptable? Anyone have a solution? Let me hear it.
Excellent article... The focus seems to be reduction of energy use based on government efforts to decarbonize. My sense is that there will be a large reduction of energy use for three reasons:
1) Economic Incentives: It is cheaper/more economically efficient
2) Technological Acceleration: The innovation rate is rising rapidly.
3) Virtualization: As societies mature, more of the economy deals with non-physical goods.
I just hope the governments don't get in the way.
This is possible but may not necessarily happen. Humans consume more if consumption gets cheaper. There was an article and thread by Ed Conway regarding this a few days back:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/22/opinion/vegas-sphere-energy-efficiency.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Yk0.Mmlf.fVFo0lGBE6tg&smid=url-share