GCC: IEA: global energy demand rose by 2.3% in 2018, fastest pace in the last decade; CO2 emissions up 1.7%

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/03/20190326-iea.html

Energy demand worldwide grew by 2.3% last year, its fastest pace this decade, an exceptional performance driven by a robust global economy and stronger heating and cooling needs in some regions, according to the IEA. Natural gas emerged as the fuel of choice, posting the biggest gains and accounting for 45% of the rise in energy consumption. Gas demand growth was especially strong in the United States and China.

Demand for all fuels increased, with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running. Solar and wind generation grew at double-digit pace, with solar alone increasing by 31%. Still, that was not fast enough to meet higher electricity demand around the world that also drove up coal use.

As a result, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (Gt) in 2018. Coal use in power generation alone surpassed 10 Gt, accounting for a third of the total increase. Most of that came from a young fleet of coal power plants in developing Asia.

The majority of coal-fired generation capacity today is found in Asia, with 12-year-old plants on average, decades short of average lifetimes of around 50 years. . . .

Electricity continues to position itself as the “fuel” of the future, with global electricity demand growing by 4% in 2018 to more than 23,000 TWh. This rapid growth is pushing electricity towards a 20% share in total final consumption of energy. Increasing power generation was responsible for half of the growth in primary energy demand.

Renewables were a major contributor to this power generation expansion, accounting for nearly half of electricity demand growth. China remains the leader in renewables, both for wind and solar, followed by Europe and the United States.

Energy intensity improved by 1.3% last year, just half the rate of the period between 2014-2016. This third consecutive year of slowdown was the result of weaker energy efficiency policy implementation and strong demand growth in more energy-intensive economies. . . .

Almost a fifth of the increase in global energy demand came from higher demand for heating and cooling as average winter and summer temperatures in some regions approached or exceeded historical records. Cold snaps drove demand for heating and, more significantly, hotter summer temperatures pushed up demand for cooling.

Together, China, the United States, and India accounted for nearly 70% of the rise in energy demand around the world. The United States saw the largest increase in oil and gas demand worldwide. Its gas consumption jumped 10% from the previous year, the fastest increase since the beginning of IEA records in 1971. The annual increase in US demand last year was equivalent to the United Kingdom’s current gas consumption.

Global gas demand expanded at its fastest rate since 2010, with year-on-year growth of 4.6%, the second consecutive year of strong growth, driven by higher demand and substitution from coal. Demand growth was led by the United States. Gas demand in China increased by almost 18%.

Oil demand grew 1.3% worldwide, with the United States again leading the global increase for the first time in 20 years thanks to a strong expansion in petrochemicals, rising industrial production and trucking services.

Global coal consumption rose 0.7%, with increases seen only in Asia, particularly in China, India and a few countries in South and Southeast Asia.

Nuclear also grew by 3.3% in 2018, with global generation reaching pre-Fukushima levels, mainly as a result of new additions in China and the restart of four reactors in Japan. Worldwide, nuclear plants met 9% of the increase in electricity demand.

Click to expand...

Direct link to study:

Global Energy & CO2 Status Report
The latest trends in energy and emissions in 2018

Click to expand...

https://www.iea.org/geco/

Quick questions.
If solar and wind are cheaper then why was 70% of the new generation capacity not wind and solar?
When I lived in Texas I had the option of buying wind power for an additional 1 cent a kwh. If wind is cheaper why does it cost more?
How can you be a leader in renewable energy when you open new coal fired power plants almost weekly?

Something doesn't add up.

Oilpan4 said:

Quick questions.
If solar and wind are cheaper then why was 70% of the new generation capacity not wind and solar?
When I lived in Texas I had the option of buying wind power for an additional 1 cent a kwh. If wind is cheaper why does it cost more?
How can you be a leader in renewable energy when you open new coal fired power plants almost weekly?

Something doesn't add up.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. As the article stated, PV/wind accounted for nearly half of the electricity generation capacity growth, while fossil fuels accounted for 70% of the total energy growth. As PV/wind are VR, their capacity factor is lower than fossil fuels, mass storage remains too expensive, and many countries in Asia, especially China and India, have built lots of coal plants for baseload: imported NG is making inroads in China and India, for electricity, heating and cooking. Both are angling away from coal and more towards nukes for baseload electricity in the future, but that will take time.

Thats capacity not total power generation.
Solar only produces as little as 15% in the winter up north, if I put solar panels on 2 axis trackers here I bet I could hit nearly 40% during summer and wind will do 50% in the best locations.
If a 1 Gw coal plant is built it will probably produce at least 70% of its capacity and it will work at night.
A utility size solar farm on fixed ground panels will typically run 25% to 30% throughout the year.
4 or 5 gigawatts worth of solar farms would need to be built to replace the power output of that one coal plant. Utility level solar installs costs just over $1 per watt in 2018. Last time I checked a coal fired power plant doesn't cost 4 or 5 billion dollars.
So how is it cheaper?

Oilpan4 said:

Thats capacity not total power generation. Solar only produces as little as 15% in the winter up north, if I put solar panels on 2 axis trackers here I bet I could hit nearly 40% during summer and wind will do 50% in the best locations. If a 1 Gw coal plant is built it will probably produce at least 70% of its capacity and it will work at night. A utility size solar farm on fixed ground panels will typically run 25% to 30% throughout the year.

4 or 5 gigawatts worth of solar farms would need to be built to replace the power output of that one coal plant. Utility level solar installs costs just over $1 per watt in 2018. Last time I checked a coal fired power plant doesn't cost 4 or 5 billion dollars.
So how is it cheaper?

Click to expand...

Did you just skip over the next sentence I wrote, which read "As PV/wind are VR, their capacity factor is lower than fossil fuels" (I'd add except possibly peaking plants, typically GTs)? Coal fired plants' CF varies due to age, efficiency and other factors, and may run 40-70%. Per kW/MW/GW of capacity, PV is now cheaper than new coal, especially now that many countries are including some of the externalities of coal in their costs (i.e., coal plants must have FGD and scrubbers or precipitators). We all know that PV's CF is lower than baseload plants (esp. nukes, which is the U.S. have been achieving around 92% CF for the past decade or so); to repeat, PV is a VR.

You may want to explain acronyms like "VR." I'm guessing at that one myself. Variable Return?

Yeah if a billion dollars worth of solar farms is built (in the southwest) and a billion dollars worth of coal plant is built the solar will produce more during day light hours.
So if there is not enough peak load solar can help.

Oilpan4 said:

Thats capacity not total power generation.
Solar only produces as little as 15% in the winter up north, if I put solar panels on 2 axis trackers here I bet I could hit nearly 40% during summer and wind will do 50% in the best locations.
If a 1 Gw coal plant is built it will probably produce at least 70% of its capacity and it will work at night.
A utility size solar farm on fixed ground panels will typically run 25% to 30% throughout the year.
4 or 5 gigawatts worth of solar farms would need to be built to replace the power output of that one coal plant. Utility level solar installs costs just over $1 per watt in 2018. Last time I checked a coal fired power plant doesn't cost 4 or 5 billion dollars.
So how is it cheaper?

Click to expand...

Here we go, another lesson in 4rth grade arithmetic:
If the capacity factory of coal is 70% and that of PV is 27.5% then it takes (70/27.5)x the rated power of a coal plant to be replaced by PV.
As usual though, you are pulling numbers out of your ass. Here is the national average coal factor capacity factor:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_a

And here is an analysis of the cost of a coal plant: $3.5 a watt in 2008
http://schlissel-technical.com/docs/reports_35.pdf

Building PV is cheaper than an already existing coal plant because sunshine is free.
Here is the delivered price of coal in 2018: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=coal_prices
Can you do the arithmetic to convert to $/kWh ?

SageBrush said:

If the capacity factory of coal is 70% and that of PV is 27.5% then it takes (70/27.5)x the rated power of a coal plant to be replaced by PV.

Click to expand...

The myth lodged in SageBrush's brain persists. No, you cannot replace all of dispatchable capacity (coal) with non-dispatchable capacity (photovoltaics) at the ratio which you have given, particularly in the Northeast. You won't produce enough electricity and the cost for batteries needed for the season shift in energy production (both in terms of money and natural resources), is simply too great. Trying to do so would make the destruction of our planet caused by digging up coal pale by comparison.

And, no, photovoltaics do not have a capacity factor of 27.5% in the U.S. They never have and they likely never will. Rather, they have that capacity factor in CA, but that does nothing to help the states in the Northeast:



No, there is NO renewable solution for the "Nor'easter problem" in existence today.

There is a reason you do not heat your house with off-grid photovoltaics in CO. I heat my house with photovoltaics in VA, but only due to the magic of net metering. (FWIW, the CF of my nearly-perfectly-pointed fixed PV array here in VA is 16%.)

^^ Yawn
Use the latest stats from the EIA. I saw 26.1% in 2018 but keep in mind that includes less efficient earlier years.

The northeast can easily be served by a combination of on-shore wind, off-shore wind, demand pricing, hydro, PV, and PV imported from sunnier areas. Oh, and a little battery for grid stability. Each area has its own best combination.

E.g., https://environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/wind-power-spare-enormous-energy-potential-atlantic-offshore-wind
The northeast is EASY to solve. In fact they are obvious candidates to be massive net clean energy EXPORTERS

SageBrush said:

The northeast can easily be served by a combination of on-shore wind, off-shore wind, demand pricing, hydro, PV, and PV imported from sunnier areas. Oh, and a little battery for grid stability. Each area has its own best combination.

Click to expand...

If this problem can be solved so easily and new PV is cheaper than operating coal-fired power plants, then it will happen quickly.

Given that, when do you predict the transition to 100% renewable electricity in the Northeast U.S. will be completed?
A) 1 year from now
B) 5 years from now
C) 10 years from now
D) 20 years from now
E) 50 years from now
F) 100 years from now
G) Never

I will check back in at that time to see if your predictions are anywhere close to reality.

If yoir so smart maybe you can answer me this.
If solar is almost free why does this almost free clean power only make up around 0.22% of total power generation (not installed capacity) in the US?

Must be other disadvantages if it's almost free but it makes up less than 1% of total power generation.

If solar is the answer to everything how much solar power generation capacity do you own?

The nimbys have successfully blocked all but 3 over the water wind proposal for the 25 years. One wind farm was built off RI and is only 30 Mw, not much of a wind farm. Virginia has 2 over the water turbines that just got built, they were talking about building these before I moved there in 2006 those 2 are the entirety of the project. The 3rd project the Fishermans wind farm, its the only one in the US that is going to be a real large scale wind farm.
More may have been approved since then.

Here are some approved wind projects killed by the nimbys:
The Cape(cod) wind project.
Delaware off shore wind
Fishermans wind farm, jersy (I thought this one was canceled, but it seems to have been brought back to life)
Multiple off shore wind proposals put forth by the university of maine when I was living there in the late 1990s and early 2000 and probably more since then, all dead.

How is new England going to switch to off shore wind if they keep killing the off shore wind farm proposals?
The fishermans wind farm could have been completed by now if the developers didn't have nimbys jerking them around.

I like wind power we have hundreds of Mw of capacity going up every year around me.
They had to slow it down for a year or 2 until the transmission capacity could catch up but it's good now.

RegGuheert said:

SageBrush said:

The northeast can easily be served by a combination of on-shore wind, off-shore wind, demand pricing, hydro, PV, and PV imported from sunnier areas. Oh, and a little battery for grid stability. Each area has its own best combination.

Click to expand...

If this problem can be solved so easily and new PV is cheaper than operating coal-fired power plants, then it will happen quickly.

Click to expand...

My crystal ball is murky when it comes to politics.
As a technical, financial, and environmental question though, the answer is "this is easy, saves money, and is the thing to do to slow down AGW."

The transition to clean energy is slow due to ignorance, stupidity, and reactionary conservatism, not due to merits. Read Oilpan's comments for typical examples of all three. Oh, I forgot to mention: special interests, often fossils but not only.

Oilpan4 said:

If solar is the answer to everything how much solar power generation capacity do you own?

Click to expand...

More than I use for my home and two EVs.
I would put up more but I am blocked by my HOA. A bill to allow community solar died in legislative committee this year.

SageBrush said:

Oilpan4 said:

If solar is the answer to everything how much solar power generation capacity do you own?

Click to expand...

More than I use for my home and two EVs.

Click to expand...

Same here except I only have one BEV and I heat my home with PV electricity. As I said, it is easy with the magic of net metering. Unfortunately, that says virtually NOTHING about solving the "Nor'easter problem". Neither does your "ignore the real issues" approach to the math.

Case in point: you don't produce more than you use in November, January, February, nor March. And you do not produce as much electricity as you use at night when it is 20 degrees Fahrenheit BELOW ZERO and the wind is blowing 50 MPH (assuming you even heat your home with photovoltaics).

On this forum, Zythryn comes close to the monthly numbers even including heat and electric vehicles in the winter in MN, but even his system does not provide his nighttime loads. He could, but the wear on the batteries would be very costly. And it wouldn't make sense to do that at the low values of PV penetration now on the grid. But that is what is required if we want to actually make such a transition to 100% renewables.

SageBrush said:

As a technical, financial, and environmental question though, the answer is "this is easy, saves money, and is the thing to do to slow down AGW."

Click to expand...

It is not easy. It is not cheap. As a result, it will take a very long time to make such a transition. Unfortunately, simultaneously moving transportation from fossil fuels to electricity will make the transition of electricity generation much more difficult. To me, that looks a bit like Jevon's Paradox in action.

As a result, the global rates of installations of fossil-fueled electricity generation (including actual capacity factors) are mutliples of installations of renewable electricity generation.

SageBrush said:

The transition to clean energy is slow due to ignorance, stupidity, and reactionary conservatism, not due to merits.

Click to expand...

I will grant that many people who have not installed PV on their homes to date have fallen prey to these things.* If you will stay in your home for some time to come, PV is one of the best financial investments you can make today. Compared to a ridiculously overheated market, it seems a no-brainer. Yet people argue the point with me, or even flat out refuse to discuss it. Perhaps we should have a thread just listing the dumb reasons people have given for not installing PV.

OTOH, that has little to do with a transition to 100% renewable electricity generation. It is a complete non sequitur fallacy to say that if it is good for me then it is good for everyone. Not only is that a fallacy, it is also incorrect.

* Don't get me wrong, there are many valid reasons not to, such as:
- I don't have the authority to do that because I rent, etc.
- I live in the woods.
- I am moving next month.
- etc.

First, a point of clarification: I recently moved from Colorado to NM. I installed a PV system in Colorado that I left in place when I moved. I currently use 100% grid electricity in NM.

Now, about Colorado: my home was served by a local co-op that bought electricity from a wholesaler (Tri-state) that provided mostly coal based electricity to its co-op members. It was increasingly clear to co-ops that TS was charging more for coal based electricity than it could have charged for wind based electricity it could buy on the wholesale market but TS refused to buy the cheaper wind because they owned the coal assets and shutting them down left them vulnerable to changes in debt financing they had taken on through the years.

In a free market, Tri-state would pay for its poor decisions to buy coal assets as recently as 3 years ago by customers leaving for cheaper supplies but the co-ops do not have that choice so coal generation continues. Tri-state's self-interests are quite different than the co-ops themselves, and the consumers the co-ops serve. Consumers continue to buy expensive coal based electricity because they are in a captive market.

What I tend to call 'special interests' is often stranded assets. It is a political question whether a stranded asset of a vendor is a customer's responsibility.

SageBrush said:

What I tend to call 'special interests' is often stranded assets. It is a political question whether a stranded asset of a vendor is a customer's responsibility.

Click to expand...

The issue of stranded assets is an important one. Investments are made that are based on the idea that an asset will pay for its cost over its useful lifetime. But government can rewrite laws that makes it impossible for a utility to ever recover its investment in a power plant. What to do then? In the case of a coal-fired power plant, I'm sure some here would say "Too bad!" But there was a similar case in Germany where the utility was forced to shut down the most efficient natural-gas-powered plant in the entire world because the laws there required it to convert to a peaker plant instead of a baseload plant. Does it make sense to shut down a brand-new, efficient plant in that case? That's not quite so clear.

I am not a fan of the utilities, partly because I don't like them having monopoly power. I would love to see most electricity generation (and storage) moved to the customer side of the system and let the utilities operate as merely a bourse which sets market prices to buy and sell electricity in order to balance the system. (I realize that is roughly what happens today, but I would like to see the transactions happen at a much smaller scale where the homeowner can participate with their own assets in a way which allows them to minimize their costs. (Or maximize their profits. Why shouldn't I be allowed to produce as much electricity as I can sell to the market?)

But while I am not a fan of the utilities, I also find that they are still quite useful to me today. If there is to be a transition of power (no pun intended), I would like it to be orderly. Bankrupting those organizations tomorrow will simply lead to a bailout in which we will pay way more than we would if they continue to operate.

Regarding utility scale PV capacity factors, this is an informative website:
https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors

Not that it matters that much, since PV costs drop by the year.
The last couple of residential installations I was involved in cost the homeowners 80 cents a watt, and that included pretty expensive inspection fees.

LeftieBiker said:

You may want to explain acronyms like "VR." I'm guessing at that one myself. Variable Return?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I assumed all involved here would recognize it. VR = Variable Renewable (as opposed to say Geothermal or Tidal, renewables whose output is predictable years in advance). Just in case, FGD = Flue Gas De-Sulphurization.

RE costs, I've recently been investigating the cost of PV on the property I rent, for my landlord. There's a main house (1 renter), and my studio (formerly a garage) also with just me in it, and a garage in between where the array would go (open rafters so easy install, best exposure). I've been playing around with PVWatts and another online solar estimator before contacting contractors, to see what the numbers should be. Thing is, between us we use so little electricity currently the payback's very long, with estimates of 16-20 years depending on some variables. My landlord's almost 70 and he tells me that his family isn't long-lived, so it's pretty hard to justify such a long break-even period, especially since my city recently changed to a CCA which provides options for 100% zero carbon or 100% renewable electricity - we currently have the former. It would boost the house's value, but as he isn't married and doesn't have kids that's not likely to be an issue for him.

IIRR, average household use in PG&E's service area is around 17kWh/day, but between both residences we average slightly over 5kWh year-round - I'd estimate my own usage averages no more than 1-1.5kWh/day, of which 500Wh is for the (recently replaced) fridge - one of the local libraries loans out Kill-a-Watt meters so I checked. Other than that, 1 light (CF or LED) on at a time and turned off when not in use, a TV (on a switched plugstrip), and a microwave or toaster oven occasionally, plus the shared washer and dryer and a couple of small vampire loads for the answering machine and phone.

December 7 - Jan. 7th's PG&E bill had a Tier 1 allowance of 395.5 kWh, but we only used 171 kWh. The bill was $25.39 to PG&E for transmission etc. , plus another $13.36 to EBCE (the CCA) for electricity. Payback improves somewhat with increased electricity use due to PEV charging, but even then the payback's around a decade. If he were my customer I'd recommend against this based on his situation and the financial issues, and he's not particularly motivated by ideology. I'll probably recommend that he just put in a charging circuit when I get a PEV, which he's agreed to do. He could save a lot more money by improving the efficiency of the NG appliances used for heat and cooking, which I'm going to recommend.

I had the gist of it then, just not the exact wording.