Posted on 07/25/2015 8:42:31 AM PDT by ckilmer
On the surface, energy seems like a pretty stagnant industry these days. Oil has dominated transportation for most of the last century while natural gas and coal provide a vast majority of the electricity we consume. That's not all that different than the way things were at the turn of the 20th century.
But if you look at the overall energy mix over more than two centuries there's a lot more change in energy than you might expect. The question is: Could another shift be afoot within just the next generation or two?
The energy evolution timescale
You can see in the chart below that the U.S. was once a country that got nearly all of its energy from wood. The energy source was plentiful and cheap as far as fuels went at the time. But since 1850 wood has almost entirely been replaced by coal, petroleum, natural gas, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
What's surprising about this chart is how quickly energy sources can be replaced. Over the course of 50 years wood went from a main source of energy to a has-been compared to coal. In turn, coal's domination of the market has fallen from nearly 80% in 1900 to below 20% today, driven by the rise of petroleum and natural gas.
But keep in mind that market share and unit consumption aren't the same thing. Coal's market share has dropped since 1900 but we're using so much more energy today that its consumption on an annual basis is still up over that time.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
This began the question: What's next for the energy industry? We know that energy sources don't stay dominant forever and disruption can happen relatively quickly. But is that disruption already here?
I'll point you to the first chart and the green sliver showing up at the top right corner and then the second chart and the green line that doesn't even show up until about the year 2000. Doesn't renewable energy's trajectory look a lot like coal in 1850 or petroleum in 1900? Maybe it's time to consider renewable energy's disruptive potential rather than dismiss it as its market share grows.
Agree that subsidies are making solar viable in many parts of the country. However they have achieved grid parity without subsidies in the southwest —naturally. Likely they’ll achieve grid parity in 3-4 years with subsidies in the rest of the country.
That said the revolution in energy won’t come until the cost of energy drops to 1/4-1/10 the cost of cheapest coal/natural gas.
PS...re: Not understanding energy production.
I doubt there was very little understanding about it at all. I imagine it was a decision made in ignorance and pandering to the equally ignorant tree hugging electorate.
Stupid is as stupid does.
One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
.............
I don’t disagree with this but imho in a less than a decade solar and wind will reach grid parity. AND eventually they’ll cost less.
However, the real revolution won’t come until energy is 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal/natural gas. That will likely come byo some form of nuclear energy. The betas for that are +-5 years off and production is +-10 years off.
I agree with the article’s premise that its an interesting time for energy but not quite for the reasons they give.
On another related topic...Petroleum as a fuel source for vehicles is extremely clean when compared to electric due to batteries anther losses...etc. But that is another discussion.
fossil fuel replacement is rejected by the wackos.
all sorts of small nuclear units could be in existence were it not for the wackos.
if the wackos were in their graves, there would be an abundance of energy
You just nailed the biggest problem with all energy and environment related issues.
i do on electric cars put a scoop on the hood with a vortex fan hooked to a alt.but that would be to simple,i’m sure they would have to hook a dozen computers to it.
And I think that would be a good start to a viable solution to a bad problem.
In the final analysis, all energy is solar. Wood, petroleum etc. are just different forms of stored solar energy. Even hydro’s root source is the sun. The energy you expend walking originally came from the sun, was stored in plants that you consume directly or in the meat from animals who converted it from the plants they eat.
Eventually, solar energy and storage battery technology will mature to the point where it is more efficient and economical than fossil fuels. At that point, fossil fuels will cease to be the major source of energy.
No matter how much we like the smell of gasoline and the roar of turbocharged internal combustion engines (Nothing like the sound of an Offenhauser running at redline), they will ultimately be replaced by the clean silence of solar electric power and the culture will adjust. NASCAR will never be the same.
I’m very skeptical about coal NOT being burned or somehow heated with some source of energy to make “clean” oil. Even if you merely heat coal there is a lot of by-product waste to be dealt with.
I say “clean” oil because it is just not clean burning. There is always a by-product to burning. Small maybe, but always a by-product.
I do not want to slice at small amounts or points but just want an honest discussion.
Running steady state or not. What is not fuel is waste and it is irreducible.
And it’s true! “Liberal-Central” California divested of local generating plants, and imports electricity through every adjoining state border.
Also I disagree with your irreducible waste theory. History is replete with very ingenious ways of dealing with waste and turning a profit.
Don’t need the thorium breeder to implement a molten salt reactor program, as 95% of the energy content remains in the fuel bundle assemblies stored in cooling pools. MSR can burn bulk of remaining U235 and actinides content for many-many decades, and reduce the long term storage issues by 98%.
Fly ash works well in cement compositions.
Reduce the subsidies and find out.
The Left has always hated the idea of personal transportation. It gives the proles ideas that are above themselves.
'1984' is a Leftist wish list. The dimmer they are, the higher they see themselves ranked and honored in a Communist utopia. If everyone is absolutely equal, then the dimmest union floor sweeper is worth the same as a theoretical physicist.
Ponder this. It took 8 years to catch the serial killer Chicatilo because Marxist theory dictates that in the Communist Perfect World, good party members would only kill as a benefit to the Party.
With this in mind, I question the demand that all radioactive materials should be placed beyond reach.
It is also a great example of searching for one thing but discovering something completely different. ( the inventor was looking for a synthetic drug)
Yes, it does but you can only use so much of it.
One major difference. When coal and then oil ascended they did so because they were a cheaper better source. Alternatives are doing so more for political motives than economics.
................
Agree. But in the next five years of so alternatives will get cheaper. But it will be incremental.
The real energy revolution that will make the 21st century successful is the one that delivers energy for 1/4-1/10 the cost of current cheapest coal and natural gas.
That will come from some form of nuclear. in the near term thorium lftr designs will have betas out in five years and production in 10 years.
I don’t even begin to understand fusion well enough to predict a due date for that technology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.