Fossil Fuels and Global Energy Demand:
Do we have a breakthrough in the development of renewable energy sources? If not, what will be the approximate fraction of the global energy demand that will be supplied by oil and gas in the next few decades?
To what extent nuclear energy and solar renewable energy would really hinder the growth of oil and gas firms?
Whether the projected growth of solar, onshore, offshore, wind and hydro energies would really make an impact in meeting the global power generation of approximately 30,000 TWh by 2030?
Whether the energy demand for the sustained economic growth of the increasing global population can afford to ignore fossil fuels citing its contribution to the so called anthropogenic climate change? Will it be feasible in practical sense even by 2030?
With an expected global electricity consumption of nearly 30,000 TWh (terawatt-hours) by 2030, will it be really feasible to suppress the oil demand well-below 200 million tera-joules by 2030 anticipating that the natural gas demand and coal demand will not exceed 150 million tera-joules (individually)?
While oil and gas have not yet peaked yet (probably by 2030 for oil and 2040 for gas), and with the expected power consumption of nearly 60,000 TWh by 2050, have we really started ignoring the fossil fuels citing the anthropogenic climate change or is it just a momentary fall of fossil fuel demand due to COVID19?
Whether the climate change problem will remain solved just by sidelining fossil fuel consumption? Will the global annual CO2 emission will be reduced by 50% by 2030; and say, to 80% by 2050 (from its current level of emission: nearly 35 Gt CO2 per annum) – just by suspending the fossil fuel consumption?
I found an interesting article on this topic
Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/nuclear-energy-and-sustainable-development.aspx
Generally speaking, I do not think that we have sustained growth of oil & gas since these are fossil fuels which once consumed, they will not be renewed in thousands of years let alone continued. By 2075, most of the petroleum & natural gas will be gone from this World.
Nuclear energy (E) & solar E are considered as alternative E sources to fossil fuels and these did not hinder the oil & gas, in reality. Nuclear produces a huge amount of E but it will not last for long time since the rare transition elements, employed in nuclear reactors, will be used up.
So far, solar energy is fine in meeting part of the global E demand but the progress in this field is slow & we do not see real "breakthroughs" here.
Wind, geothermal and hydro energies are also fine in meeting part of the global E demand but they have their own pitfalls.
7 Years ago, I asked this question at Research Gate (What hinders the utilization of algae as source of renewable sustainable energy?) and the link is below. A very useful discussion went on. I believe that these "creatures" can offer reasonable contribution to global E supply.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_hinders_the_utilization_of_algae_as_source_of_renewable_sustainable_energy
Dear, Suresh Kumar Govindarajan
The answers to all the interesting questions you have asked are answered in the publications and statistics of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) database and the International Energy Agency (IEA) database. On the official websites of these databases you will be able to find up-to-date and truthful information. I hope this information is useful for your research. If you think I can help you in another way, please feel free to contact me. I want to add that, the researchers, Nizar Matar and Tanveer Ahmad offered correct answers as well.
Dear Suresh:
You can benefit from these valuable attachment articles:
"GLOBALRENEWABLES OUTLOOK"
.......
"GLOBAL ENERGY TRANSFORMATION"
I hope it will be helpful ..
With my best wishes ...
Fellow researchers:-
Renewable technologies have a very limited future role in the global energy equation.
They are and will remain suitable only for miniscule scale applications in boutique and niche circumstances. Renewables lack the necessary attributes for future mainstream energy science and generation.
I understand that global climate change is largely fuelled by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel energy generation, and gasoline powered engines. I also understand that well over half of the world’s population are energy starved; and as such are denied opportunities to aspire to reach the modern standard of living enjoyed by those of us fortunate enough to exist in an energy abundant society.
It is axiomatic surely that the energy deprived must do whatever and by any means possible, to redress this imbalance. The math around this premise is astonishing.
The current world’s total power generation output by all forms will need to increase by a factor of between 50 to 100 times (at least) and be steadily rolled out systematically and globally over the next 50 years, to begin to definitively redress this energy imbalance and moving societies forward into the next century!
Moving the world forward technologically; is not only about (1) stabilising GHG at insignificant levels permanently, but also and simultaneously (2) “powering up” the entire world’s population to enable the pursuit of a modern era of prosperity and standard of living by and for all peoples.
The key point is that GHG mitigation concepts and technologies, are intrinsically linked with “global societies equalising power generation technologies”.
Let us not forget: the current global population of 7 billion will increase to over 10 billion by 2050, irrespective of whatever scientific and technological advances brings forth in the near foreseeable future; or worse, does not bring forth. It will still be around 10 billion with or without the right technological solutions put in train about now.
Energy commentators and readers might benefit from pondering a bit on the simple term “the new age global energy generation imperative”; it has a books worth of meaning in its few words. The “new age global energy generation imperative” demands a massive and enduring energy science technological solution that:-
1. Must be an energy dense power generation technology able to deliver massive, safe, clean, and low-cost power; and be one occupying the apex of the energy science technology pyramid;
2. Reduce power generation global greenhouse gas emissions GHG [from combined sources] to insignificant and ongoing manageable levels permanently;
3. Be of scalable and modular design, and easily deployed systematically and cost effectively; to power ‘’new age energy intensive industries and businesses’’ throughout the world;
4. Cost effectively enables all individuals, families, communities, states, and nations, throughout the world, the opportunities to aspire to achieve (1) prosperity through industrialisation and modernisation, and (2) a modern standard of living; and particularly post 2200.
The key takeaway phrase is: “massive, safe, clean and low-cost power”; and nothing less than this technological pursuit and outcome will cut it.
The technology that gets that right – will precipitate a falling into line of all other critical technological imperatives including: stabilising the worlds peoples and societies, and most certainly be regarded as “global in-perpetuity energy science technology” enabling all things that follow.
In closing: I recommend that global thinking scientists, researchers, and commentators, focus on my comments above and if applicable switch ideas from a narrow focussed “here and now” argument, to a more expansive global energy perspective moving forward; and one that is a more quantitative and purposeful viewpoint in which MODERN SCIENCE takes precedence over misguided REAR VIEW IDEOLOGY.
Lawrence Coomber
The concept that nuclear energy or solar or wind competes with oil & gas is an apples and oranges argument. Nuclear, solar, and wind, along with coal are strictly sources for utility electric power. Oil is used for mechanical power for transportation via gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. The only competition overlap is natural gas, and currently natural gas is extremely abundant and extremely cheap, basically the same dollar amount it had in the 1960's at under $3/MTBU, even cheaper when inflation is factored in. Both oil and gas are vital for plastics and chemicals and even if they are artificially prohibited for energy, they are valuable as a material. Oil may be economically recoverable for 100 years as there are large areas of both conventional and shale undiscovered worldwide. Natural gas worldwide has 200 years to go. Both solar and wind have a physical limitation most advocates ignore, the material required to manufacture the huge number to completely replace all the mechanical power for transportation with electrical power. Even worse is the rare earth materials to make everything from the new solar cells, to the power electronics, to the magnets are both expensive and located in remote, politically hostile areas of the world. Manufacturing all the solar cells and batteries will require a lot of hazardous chemical processing for both the initial devices and to recycle them as they deteriorate with heavy use under constant exposure to the sun and weather. Wind turbines have a limited life as the mechanical generator wears out while exposed to hot summers and cold winter. The turbine and generator are essentially one unit that must be disassembled and replaced. The fiberglass blades can not be recycled and must be buried in landfills. Not the nirvana solution advocates claim. Making the transition over the next 20 years, let alone 10 years is not going to be as feasible or as practical as they think no matter how many trillions are spent, it a problem of the limits of physics and chemistry not technology. That leaves nuclear as the final stage in the evolution of energy. It will be vital to develop new nuclear technology, like thorium reactors, breeder reactors and eventually fusion. Even fusion must evolve from radioactive neutronic reactors to non-radioactive aneutronic reactors.
Rene thank you for your insight.
It is true that nuclear power in the context of this debate means electric power.
But the key point when comparing nuclear with all other possible generation technologies, is that nuclear science sits permanently ad-infinitum, on top of the energy science pyramid, now and forever.
Further, the immutable laws of physics, and thermodynamics teaches us that nuclear science, once fully mastered and exploited in new age ‘’massive, safe, clean, and low-cost power generation technologies’’ the outcomes [from the physicists point of view] will be as massive as is scientifically possible: and continue to be so for the rest of human history.
This is why the world’s best and brightest physicists, researchers and engineers will and must now turn their total focus to mastering the "new age global energy generation imperative " through nuclear scientific breakthroughs.
And once mastered, this massive power availability will usher in a “new paradigm of global energy intensive technologies” [which is an intense and exciting new debate emerging] covering just about every technology sector we know of, but notably the sciences and engineering surrounding molecular syntheses/deposition from raw base elements, of most of what is important and needed for human life to prosper and flourish for example, including synthesizing protein and nutrition from unrefined base elements at a local level, and at very low cost for all communities.
The future has outstanding promise for all, contingent of course in having massive energy available at very low cost, to power critically needed new age energy intensive technologies and industries, to be developed globally.
We can and will of course learn new aspects around physics science over time, and we can all agree on that, but the key determinants in molecular physics that we should strive to master and apply to nuclear power generation science moving forward, are already well known and indeed immutable.
Lawrence Coomber
@Suresh
The primary error is the assumption that global energy consumption (and the infinite growth paradigm) are inevitable and immutable.
Kurt an infinite growth paradigm is a fantasy or a poor choice of words at least.
There are limits to growth in everything. Fit for purpose is a better term that describes quantities and this of course applies to global energy quantities looking forward.
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence Coomber
well, the current cronyCorpiratist neofeudalist trickle-up Capitalist kleptocracy
which literally grinds up human and natural resources, extracts the wealth and monetizes/aggregates it into capital while externalizing the dregs combined with the quantitatively-eased usury-racket and the Bernays-ian psyop-sell-gamery requires continuous un-regulated un-restrained growth
My point is that the current hyper-consumptive hyper-emissive energy-intensive paradigm upon which our dominator cult-ure DependS has been in Overshoot since before Catton wrote about it 40 years ago.
Most of the incrementalist energy/resource ball-juggling presumes this BAU-Normality will continue ad-infinitum.
To avoid a global catabolic EasterIsland catastrophe requires a determined engagement with
DrawDown
DeGrowth
De-industrialized Agriculture -> Regenerative Permaculture
Doughnut Economics
De-colonization
Deep Adaptation
We are literally like a bunch of alcoholics who have to knock off the booze before our collective livers turn to leather
As an engineer, I associate "Fit For Purpose" as functional - not-over-engineered complete with all the bureaucratic baloney.
Can you point to a single sector of the Western Economies which accepts "fit for purpose" in the "flatline growth" sense ?
Check out the very title of this question:
"To what extent nuclear energy and solar renewable energy would really hinder the sustained growth of oil & gas?"
Sustained growth is the Primary Good
Wouldn't want to hinder that in any way, eh ?
The sheer energy-density of billions of years of sequestered solar energy is the fundamental driver of our society
Dear Suresh Kumar Govindarajan ,
The fact that more we develop, the more we need energy.
It is an illusion to think that renewable energy will supply our demand. I would like to, but based on facts it is possible to note that this will not happen in a short period of time (https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-data-animation-meeting-climate-goals-as-countries-embark-on-nuclear-power).
Therefore, it will be necessary to have everything until a paradigm break can occur.
I believe that ITER (www.iter.org) is this paradigm break.
Obert a practically inexhaustible source of energy is the dream of mankind. Thinking about replacing all other energy sources with one that is much more efficient than everything we have is something to think about.
Nuclear fusion, unlike nuclear fission, has much broader security parameters and should open a great path to human prosperity.
My best regards,
Wiltgen
Ooops:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-largest-energy-sources/
Dear Suresh Kumar Govindarajan ,
I am working on feasibility studies on renewable energy. In my opinion, solar energy is going to displace other forms of energy production. Moreover, solar energy has potential to increase global energy production by a factor of 100. This will lead to a new Industrial Revolution.
Some of my research about history of energy technology and future implications is in the article
Preprint History of Prime Movers and Future Implications
Best Regards,
Mikhail
- Badges
- Science topic