Guest contribution by Willis Eschenbach
After reading some information on Friends of Science, I had to think about how impossible it will be for us to do what so many people ask of us. By 2050, the phasing out of fossil fuels should reduce CO2 emissions to zero.
So let’s look at the size of the problem. People in general have little idea how much energy we get from fossil fuels. Figure 1 shows the global total annual energy consumption and fossil fuel consumption from 1880 to 2019, as well as the expansion of both trends into 2050. I find that my rough estimate of total annual energy consumption by 2050 (241 petawatt hours / year) is pretty close to that Business-as-usual estimate by the World Energy Organization for 2050 of 244 PWhr / year.
Figure 1. Primary energy consumption, 1880-2019 and extrapolation to 2050. One “petawatt hour” is 1015 watt hours
So if we want to stop producing emissions by 2050, we will have to replace around 193 petawatt hours (1015 watt hours) of fossil fuels per year. Since there are 8,766 hours in a year, we have to build and install around 193 PWhrs / year divided by 8766 hours / year ≈ 22 terawatts (TW or 1012 watts) of power generation capacity.
From today, January 25, 2021, there are 10,568 days until January 1, 2050. So we have to install around 22 TW / 10568 days ≈ 2.1 gigawatts / day (GW / day, install, test, commission and the Add network). or 109 watts / day) generating capacity every day from now until 2050.
We can do this in a number of ways. We could all go nuclear. In that case, we would have to build, commission, and commission a brand new 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day by 2050. Easy right? …
Don’t you like nuclear weapons? Well, we could use wind power. Now the wind doesn’t always blow. The typical wind “capacity factor”, the percentage of energy actually generated compared to the rating plate capacity, is around 35%. So from now until 2050 we would have to build, install, commission and put almost 3,000 medium-sized wind turbines (2 megawatts, MW = 106 watts) every day. No problem, huh? …
Don’t you like wind Well, we could use solar. The actual delivery of solar panels around the clock, 365 days a week is on the order of 2.75 watts per square meter, depending on the location. So we would have to cover 760 square kilometers with solar panels, wire up, test them and connect them to the power grid every day by 2050. Child’s play, isn’t it? …
Of course, when we work with wind or sun they are very intermittent sources. So we still need between 50% and 90% of the total generation capacity in the nuclear sector, for the all-too-frequent times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
In summary it can be said: In order to bring the world to zero emissions by 2050, we can either build, commission and commission:
• • A daily nuclear power plant with 2.1 gigawatts (GW, 109 watts) until 2050, OR
• • 3000 wind turbines with two megawatts (MW, 106 watts) per day by 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day and a half through 2050, OR
• • 760 square kilometers of solar panels a day by 2050 plus a 2.1 GW nuclear power plant every day for a day and a half until 2050.
I sincerely hope that everyone can see that any of these alternatives are not simply impossible. You’re pie-in-the-sky, flying unicorns, bull-goose looney impossible.
After all, the US consumes about a sixth of all global fossil energy. To keep the US out of fossil fuel by 2050, just divide all of the above numbers by six … and you’re still flying unicorn, Bull-Goose Looney impossible.
Mathematics. Don’t leave your home without it.
My very best wishes to everyone, stay safe in these troubled times
w.
PS: To avoid misunderstandings, please, as always, if you leave a comment quote the exact words that you discuss so that we can all be clear about who and what you are referring to.
Technical note: These numbers are conservative as they don’t include the energy needed to build the reactors, wind turbines, or solar panels. This is relatively low per GW of generation for nuclear reactors, but much greater for wind and sun.
Nor do they take into account the fact that wind turbines have a lifespan of around 20 years. After 20 years we have to double the turbine design per day. And with solar, the lifespan is around 25 years. For the past five years we have had to double solar construction per day. And then we have to shut down and dispose of hundreds of thousands of wind turbines and square miles of solar panels …
The figures also do not include the fact that if we opt for a purely electric economy, we will have to completely overhaul, expand and upgrade our existing power grid, which requires an enormous amount of time, money and energy.
They also do not include the cost. Nuclear power plants alone will cost in the order of $ 170 trillion at current prices. Wind or solar plus 75% nuclear power will be on the order of $ 275 trillion plus decommissioning and disposal costs for wind turbines and solar panels.
So it’s even more impossible. Speaking of which, is it possible to be more impossible?
Because if it is possible … it is.
Like this:
Loading…
