# Deep dive into the Great Global Energy Transition



## woodgeek (May 16, 2021)

OK, I think its fair to say that I have been a bit of a techno-optimist on renewable energy for many years.  And the growth in renewable tech, and its collapse in prices has been impressive.  But US and global energy demand are HUGE, populations are growing AND demand per person is also growing.

I just found this 44 page report from an analyst at JP Morgan:


			https://am.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-am-aem/global/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/future-shock-amv.pdf
		


I think its pretty well done.  I've called BS on a lot of Oil Major 'World Energy Outlooks' over the years, and my opinions haven't changed.  I would say this report emphasizes the GAP between renewable energy as it exists today, which is CHEAP, but still very small, and the difficulties of meshing its energy into an existing grid and industrial user base.  It also talks about slow adoption of EVs and the behavioral limits (such as most people using their EVs as a low-mileage second car).

Take a look if you are interested.

I have one minor complaint: The use of 'primary energy' to compare renewable energy supply versus energy demand is unduly pessimistic.  electrification does reduce primary energy demand, period. There is no magic way around this, I just don't care too much about small headline numbers for renewable share of primary energy.

My major takeaway:  The electrical grid, fossil fuel infrastructure and built environment (houses, car fleets) grew up together and don't have a lot fo flexibility or spare capacity.  Example: retrofitting a house for a different heat source, and to be >2X as energy efficient is HARD and COSTLY, compared to building a new more efficient house (marginal cost increase for efficiency).  A similar issue appears when we talk about grids, or vehicles (which need to simply be replaced, but which have long service lives).  So even if the costs of renewable energy tech drop through the floor, and are capable of being scaled to meet primary energy needs, which I think has/is happening right now, the transition is still slow.

The transition will be faster to the extent that people can make money and jobs on the transition.  And the problem is that energy is already so cheap, that it caps how much money we can save by transitioning.

What I liked/learned:
--Oil exploration budgets are slashed.  Lots of folks say that undiscovered oil will stay in the ground.  On p 30 they show that projected production of existing fields has a natural decline that is waaay faster than any projected fall in demand in the most optimistic scenarios.  Makes sense but wow.  Author thinks oil stocks are a hold/buy.

--I have been down on 'Carbon Taxes' as an unnecessary ruse for extending FF companies business models.  After looking at this, I think we WILL need much more incentives than 'cheap renewables and batteries' to drive a rapid transition (for climate reasons).  And a carbon tax would both PAY for such expenditures AND induce a price signal to motivate retrofitting.  That is, assuming that all carbon tax revenue was used to fund decarbonization projects, and not raided for other purposes.


----------



## begreen (May 16, 2021)

I don't disagree, but population growth is finally slowing and in some cases, not growing. Time will tell whether this is a trend or a pandemic-caused anomaly.


----------



## woodgeek (May 16, 2021)

I think it is relatively easy to project:

1. Falling prices for new technology, based upon learning curve (decreasing the price over time) and the cost of raw materials and energy inputs (which put a floor under that decreasing price).

2. The scale that technology can reach based upon available renewable resources and land.

And the fact is that *grid solar* and *onshore wind* are both stupid cheap ways to make electricity in 2021, and very scalable, as I have been predicting for much of the 13 years I have been here.  Both are limited by battery storage costs, bare cell costs for Lithium batteries are getting close to that of basic lead acid batteries, while having way better properties, even for non-mobile applications.  But its not clear that grid batteries will get 'stupid cheap' anytime soon, given demand for their use in EVs.

So we can project that grid solar and onshore wind can grow freely up to the limits set by their intermittancy (b/c no storage), which is probably around 20-30% of energy (20% without fast ramping gas plants, maybe 30% with).  Nationally, onshore wind is almost 9% and grid solar 2% of energy.  Coal is uneconomic, and still provides 20% of US electrical energy.  We can phase that out, replace it with cheap (fracked) nat gas and renewables can double or triple in size, all without changing much.  But getting much past a 50% carbon free grid (30% wind and solar, 20% nukes) will require some heavy govt mandates or carbon tax incentives or both, to pay for grid batteries and transmission upgrades and big offshore wind projects (depending on the region of the country).

Turnover with the built environment is harder to project:

The issue with legacy tech (FF heated homes, ICE cars, etc) slowing adoption shows the power of govt efficiency regulations and building codes for new construction.  If more eff (or lower carbon) tech exists, and has lower projected cost of ownership (but maybe a slightly higher upfront) then mandate it.  Whether its a higher CAFE standard for vehicles, or a HPWH standard.  And then if people whine about the new thing, give them a rebate (e.g. on HPWHs) until it is the 'new standard'.

I also think that as the climate 'emergency' and awareness expands, esp among young consumers, they will start shopping with their feet....if they can choose an apt complex that has EV charging in the garage or not, they will; and apt owners will pay to have their parking wired (hopefully with a govt rebate).  If a young couple is looking at a 1960 vintage house that burns 1000 gals of fuel oil per year, or another one that has been retrofitted to be 'all electric' and runs on a heat pump, they will choose the latter, and then sign up for 100% renewable electricity.  I guess I think there is a tipping point there, when it comes to selling your house.  Its no different than going, 'Carp, I should have this radon thing fixed and the asbestos tiles taken out before I try to sell'.  So maybe some retrofits get done using home equity before it goes on the market...


----------



## begreen (May 16, 2021)

I don't see us getting there without the help of nuclear for baseload. I'd also like to see more geothermal locally.


----------



## woodgeek (May 16, 2021)

I:m fine with extending existing legacy nukes for a few decades, assuming that can be done safely.  Building more?  I haven't seen that pencil out cost wise, but who knows.  

China agrees with you, and is building new nukes that will total 6% of their electricity.


----------



## ABMax24 (May 16, 2021)

I hate always being the pessimist, but there's a lot that needs to happen to achieve a 50% reduction of 2005 emissions by 2030 as per the Biden administration goal. US carbon emissions are about the same today as they were in 2005, I don't see any possible way that can be cut in half in 9 years. The manufacturing facilities don't even exist to build enough wind turbines, solar panels, lithium batteries etc to achieve that timeline. The US is about to throw billions at the problem, but this doesn't solve the supply problem, solar cell prices could soon be like lumber prices, driven sky high by massive government subsidies where demand caused by subsidized projects far outpaces supply.

North America needs new lithium mines, new battery manufacturing facilities (I'm thinking 5 gigafactory sized facilities would be a good start), new solar cell facilities (also tied into energy independence, relying on China for this manufacturing isn't an intelligent move), copper mines, etc. If any of these facilities have to undergo the same regulatory and environmental scrutiny that fossil fuel projects currently face then shovels should hit the dirt in about 2030. IMO 2030 is gone, Canada and the US will miss most, if not all, the emission targets for that timeframe. We need to be realistic about this and create thorough plans for the 2035 and 2040 timelines.

The other item to discuss is carbon leakage, and it needs to be ensured manufacturing doesn't leave America for un-regulated zones, just to have those products manufactured in a carbon intensive manner and then imported back into the country.


----------



## ABMax24 (May 16, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> What I liked/learned:
> --Oil exploration budgets are slashed.  Lots of folks say that undiscovered oil will stay in the ground.  On p 30 they show that projected production of existing fields has a natural decline that is waaay faster than any projected fall in demand in the most optimistic scenarios.  Makes sense but wow.  Author thinks oil stocks are a hold/buy.



That's not at all what the article states. It predicts that there will be very little in the way of stranded oil and gas assets by year 2070, which is unlike the IEA sustainable development prediction that is predicting large amounts of stranded oil and gas reserves.

JP Morgan also had a bullish call on the oil and gas sector last year, and it turned out correct with large returns, on average outperforming the overall market, they are also telling investors to stay in oil and gas stocks. The have noted that the US shale oil stocks were underperformers, mainly because of poor management and a supply glut driving down revenues. I see no reason as an investor to dump oil and gas stocks, I hold 35% of my portfolio in oil and gas, I'm certain I will make very profitable returns on this investment over the coming years.

I think this is the point many need to take away from this article: "_Even in the IEA’s highly ambitious Sustainable Development scenario, world oil demand in 2040 is still twice the level of supply from existing fields. Is everyone sure that we should starve this industry of capital starting now?"_


----------



## woodgeek (May 17, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> I hate always being the pessimist, but there's a lot that needs to happen to achieve a 50% reduction of 2005 emissions by 2030 as per the Biden administration goal. US carbon emissions are about the same today as they were in 2005, I don't see any possible way that can be cut in half in 9 years. The manufacturing facilities don't even exist to build enough wind turbines, solar panels, lithium batteries etc to achieve that timeline. The US is about to throw billions at the problem, but this doesn't solve the supply problem, solar cell prices could soon be like lumber prices, driven sky high by massive government subsidies where demand caused by subsidized projects far outpaces supply.



Pessimism is the point of this thread.

Dave Roberts has a small discussion about the Biden energy plan...








						America is making climate promises again. Should anyone care?
					

Policy, not aspirations, will determine Biden’s legacy on climate change.




					www.vox.com
				




It links the following table:





It suggests that a 50% reduction from 2005 levels is technically and politically doable, and represents a continuation of current trends.  Mostly in reduction CO2 intensity of the US electricity sector: phasing out coal, and building out renewables, both of which have _already_ reduced CO2 intensity of the US grid 30% from 2005 levels.

You can argue that the gains of the last 16 years were easier, and not easily repeated over the next 9, but I don't think that so...in 2005 onshore wind was just getting cheapish, solar was expensive and derided, offshore wind was a fantasy, Tesla didn't exist, and Toyota engineers had decided that Lithium was not suitable for automobile applications.

You COULD argue that the light transport goals (presumably from CAFE and EVs), which comprise nearly a quarter of the needed reduction are unrealistic, since CO2 from that sector has been flat from 2005 to 2021.  That will require a scaling of EVs that may or may not be practical over 9 years (esp given the slow turnover of legacy vehicles).  The US electricity grid IS low enough carbon intensity that EVs on current US average grid power are running about 80 mpg CO2 equivalent. and the trend suggests that operating CO2 emissions of EVS will fall further to the point of being comparable to the embodied CO2 of EV manufacturing.  The auto majors are ramping their investments in EVs, but it remains to see how much of that is real vs. posturing for a current zeitgeist that could dissipate (along with Tesla's valuation) in a few disappointing years.

Anyway, the feasibility of the 50% by 2030 goals are very much the subject of this thread, Roberts thinks they are doable and not particularly ambitious, and will come down to (unknowable) followthrough by the govt after 2022 and 2024.  The US has reduced its CO2 emissions by 12% 2005 to 2019, while growing the economy significantly.  It seems likely that that trend can accelerate modestly 2019-2030.


----------



## woodgeek (May 17, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> That's not at all what the article states. It predicts that there will be very little in the way of stranded oil and gas assets by year 2070, which is unlike the IEA sustainable development prediction that is predicting large amounts of stranded oil and gas reserves.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think this is the point many need to take away from this article: "_Even in the IEA’s highly ambitious Sustainable Development scenario, world oil demand in 2040 is still twice the level of supply from existing fields. Is everyone sure that we should starve this industry of capital starting now?"_



I think we agree that oil demand in 2030 and 2040 is going to look a LOT like oil demand in 2019.  It could be a little higher in 2030 or the same.  It could be a little higher in 2040 or a little lower.  The peak in global oil demand is going to be very flat.

Global demand went from 85 to 99 (MMBbl/day) from 2006 to 2019, a 16% increase in 13 years, while the global population and economy grew much faster than that.  But even the oil majors agree that global demand will have a soft peak in the next 10-20 years.

But it remains to be seen which producers will be providing that oil, and at what price.  Over the long term, that will be those with the lowest (currency exchange corrected) cost of production.  The oil majors with the highest cost of production have a shaky future business model, esp compared to 2005, where they were unassailable TINAs.

It seems likely that we will see a few more price gyrations during the next 20 years while that shakes out.

I think the JPM pdf is calling BS on the "Amory Lovins' futurists projections on collapsing oil demand, and I (grudgingly) agree based upon current tea leaves.   So maybe there was some overshoot in conventional wisdom (happens) and there is a big exploration and development undershoot that spikes prices.  Or maybe Saudi can open the taps a bit and cap prices to limit US redevelopment.  But it is not clear that Wall Street, twice burned, is eager to pour cash on the US shale oil business the way it has in the past...

We shall see.


----------



## begreen (May 18, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> North America needs new lithium mines, new battery manufacturing facilities (I'm thinking 5 gigafactory sized facilities would be a good start), new solar cell facilities (also tied into energy independence, relying on China for this manufacturing isn't an intelligent move), copper mines, etc. If any of these facilities have to undergo the same regulatory and environmental scrutiny that fossil fuel projects currently face then shovels should hit the dirt in about 2030. IMO 2030 is gone, Canada and the US will miss most, if not all, the emission targets for that timeframe. We need to be realistic about this and create thorough plans for the 2035 and 2040 timelines.


That is assuming lithium-based batteries are the future.  There are developing technologies that may make our current best lithium-ion tech passé.









						Developer Of Aluminum-Ion Battery Claims It Charges 60 Times Faster Than Lithium-Ion, Offering EV Range Breakthrough
					

The graphene aluminum-ion battery cells from the Brisbane-based Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) are claimed to charge up to 60 times faster than the best lithium-ion cells and hold more energy.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## ABMax24 (May 18, 2021)

begreen said:


> That is assuming lithium-based batteries are the future.  There are developing technologies that may make our current best lithium-ion tech passé.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, and in my mind that's part of the reason to be hesitant on the rapid upscaling of current renewable tech, an improvement such as your example renders existing technologies and entire production processes and supply chain obsolete overnight.

The unfortunate thing is I can see corporate board rooms right now planning how to take advantage of this, the switch to renewable energy is their next target to make massive profits from planned obsolescence, just like cell phones, computers and automobiles already are today.


----------



## ABMax24 (May 19, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> I think we agree that oil demand in 2030 and 2040 is going to look a LOT like oil demand in 2019.  It could be a little higher in 2030 or the same.  It could be a little higher in 2040 or a little lower.  The peak in global oil demand is going to be very flat.
> 
> Global demand went from 85 to 99 (MMBbl/day) from 2006 to 2019, a 16% increase in 13 years, while the global population and economy grew much faster than that.  But even the oil majors agree that global demand will have a soft peak in the next 10-20 years.
> 
> ...



I think much of that will be proven true in coming years. Personally I am more for supporting domestic producers and ensuring jobs, incomes, taxes etc stay within North America instead of the import of oil from foreign entities, along with the security advantage of relying on domestic production.

The other concept I think others should consider is oil and gas companies should be looked at as energy companies. While there should be a push away from oil and gas, sentencing these companies to either die a slow death or having them dismantled and sold as the sum of their parts (as many people seem to wish for) seems like a wasted opportunity. Some of these companies have existing financial resources, and engineering and technological expertise that most renewable energy businesses could only dream of. Incentives (or reduced penalties) should be created to push these corporations to enter the renewables market, the capital and sheer productive effort behind many of these big players could make the renewable transition come much faster.

Alberta has some examples of these, where oil and gas companies have been pushed to enter the renewables market, and many of our first wind farms came about through this process. TC Energy (formerly TransCanada Pipelines) is the primary investor in Alberta's first pumped-hydro-storage facility, a facility not dissimilar to the industry in which they already operate and have construction expertise. A project that surely would never have been considered if not for the large capital investment from the oil and gas sector.









						TC Energy investing in 400-MW Canyon Creek pumped storage project in Alberta
					

TC Energy investing in 400-MW Canyon Creek pumped storage project in Alberta - Hydro Review - Pumped Storage Hydro




					www.hydroreview.com


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 19, 2021)

I feel like a broken record.     If you want to decrease carbon emissions, energy used, etc, insulate the houses.   Its not hard, or expensive to blow cellulose.   That accomplishes insulation and air sealing in 1 job.   You cut heating expenses, you cut cooling expenses.   This is realized immediately.

As a side benefit, there will be a healthier population too.   

How do you get people to do it?   Tax credits.    Remove all barriers such as owner occupied, income, wealth, etc.   Dollar spent, dollar credit.    

It's not as sexy as discussing power generation or batteries, but you're not going to hit your goals if thats the only thing you're looking at.


----------



## woodgeek (May 19, 2021)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I feel like a broken record.     If you want to decrease carbon emissions, energy used, etc, insulate the houses.   Its not hard, or expensive to blow cellulose.   That accomplishes insulation and air sealing in 1 job.   You cut heating expenses, you cut cooling expenses.   This is realized immediately.



Totally agree Matt.   This addresses one of the 'sticky' large FF primary energy demands the paper author is skeptical we can quickly fix: existing residential heating and cooling. 

I went from >1000 gal/year fuel oil for heat to a 4 ton ASHP and 10,000 kWh of windpower for heat.  Airsealing and cellulose were key to getting a 50% reduction in BTU/hr°F for my house first.  Without that, I would've needed 8 tons (at least when the wind was blowing) and used 15-20,000 kWh/yr.

When I did this in 2008-2010, all the contractors thought I was crazy, all this 'oil/hydronic heat is the best' and 'you'll regret it and go back' BS.  It was HARD to do this back then, bc the tech was more primitive (my installer wired the HP to turn off at 40°F outdoor temp and switch to strips, bc that was his career-long SOP, fewer callbacks, sigh).  I had to almost get a certificate in building science myself to manage the envelope improvements.

What is needed is a bunch of contractors who are well trained to do these kinds of retrofits, and to electrify more residential heating to low carbon grid power.  These people exist, but their numbers need to be expanded 10X.

Funding for just this IS in the infrastructure plan being discussed right now.

And honestly, getting people to do it in an age of very cheap nat gas is hard. It will not have a fast payback at all...it needs to be funded by the govt.  The only alternative would be a carbon tax on nat gas, that makes it favorable to switch.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 19, 2021)

I wouldn't even worry about the natural gas boilers and furnaces.    The insulation will require the old, inefficient units to short cycle and break.    Simply require a heat loss calc to be done and an appropriately sized unit put in.    

I added 50% to the size of my house by building out my attic, and was still able to go from a 115k btu to a 13-45k but unit.   Tuning further decreased it to where the max heat it puts out is in the mid 20s.    Repeat that and there will be a huge reduction of gas burnt.


----------



## woodgeek (May 19, 2021)

EatenByLimestone said:


> I wouldn't even worry about the natural gas boilers and furnaces.    The insulation will require the old, inefficient units to short cycle and break.    Simply require a heat loss calc to be done and an appropriately sized unit put in.
> 
> I added 50% to the size of my house by building out my attic, and was still able to go from a 115k btu to a 13-45k but unit.   Tuning further decreased it to where the max heat it puts out is in the mid 20s.    Repeat that and there will be a huge reduction of gas burnt.



What you are saying makes sense, but I think needs to be updated to realize near future climate goals.  Current plans are to at least significantly decarbonize the US grid the next 10-15 years, which is far less than the lifetime of a FF furnace or boiler.  The primer movers (wind and solar) feeding that new grid are going to be very cheap sources, marked up to an unknown degree by the costs of grid storage and expanded transmission.  So a ASHP space heating solution should be cost effective to operate going forward, or even cheaper in a (future) carbon tax environment than FF heaters.

In that situation, the cost of swapping equipment becomes the impediment (before the equipment fails from age).  Installing a new FF heating source is baking in emissions 20-30 years from now that could be avoided by choosing a HP in the next replacement cycle and in new construction.

I agree completely about the advantages of retrofitting the envelopes of existing houses, in particular houses built before 1990 or so. Dropping demand levels (and peak demand in leaky homes from winter winds) allows a smaller/cheaper HP to be installed, saving up front as well as operating costs.  And as you pointed out, improves health and comfort.  Dropping an underpowered HP in a drafty, poorly insulated house IS a comfort issue....after retrofitting, much less so.

The chart above says that Residential buildings are 10% of US CO2 emissions, and that is mostly space heating.

But older houses are only one one part of that...there are a TON of newer houses with decent insulation and air sealing that can't be easily improved by simple retrofitting.  And those will need to migrate to HPs at the next replacement cycle too.

Yup.  That's what I'm saying... we need to ditch FF heaters in new construction, and in lifecycle replacement in existing housing stock.  Either by subsidy (tax rebates), penalties (carbon tax) or regulation (install bans).  And even if we do all that, the transition will take until *2050*.


----------



## ABMax24 (May 20, 2021)

What I really struggle with is finding justification for using renewable electricity and heat pumps is in regions that experience extreme cold. Air source pumps simply don't work here when needed most in the depths of winter, which means using resistive electric further straining the grid, or using a fossil based back up. Ground sourced would be an option, but many of our city lots (including mine) are really too small to make practical use of ground sourced heat. On a small lot it raises concern if we could create a man-made permafrost of sorts after many years of extracting heat from the ground beneath the house, creating concerns with frost heaving and such. I guess it would be possible to use solar or air based heat extractors to rewarm the ground in summer, but this is becoming a convoluted system for a single family home.

Another issue I really see is pushing our provincial grid beyond 50% renewable generation on an annual basis. In the summer achieving high renewable generation is easy, PV and wind can do the bulk of the work with batteries and pumped hydro storing excess for times of need. The winter becomes a whole other matter, it's really difficult to generate considerable energy from PV with only 1/4 the solar energy of the summer spread over an 8 hour daily window with panels covered in snow. Wind works occasionally, but again not to the same level as in the summer time. Pumped hydro can also help store excess supply, but eventually when pumping the same water back and forth between 2 reservoirs in -40 temperatures the water becomes too solid to pump.

Without Nuclear power (which there is very little public support for here) fossil fuels in the form of natural gas become the backup source. Which is for now, why I'm against the use of electric heat in our region, it really doesn't make sense to generate electricity in a 40%-60% efficient natural gas plant just to use for heating. When I can burn that same natural gas in my 95% efficient condensing forced air furnace to heat my home, with much less required infrastructure and completely avoid the energy storage issues of electricity. Now this is where it would make sense to step in and suggest a heat pump and still gain an efficiency advantage over simple hydrocarbon combustion, but back to the start of this post, I can't find justification to believe there is a system that will work effectively in the majority of homes in this climate. Never mind once the costs of the system are factored in.


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 20, 2021)

You bring up a really good point.  

I wonder if a greenhouse like enclosure around a well placed heat pump would extend their effective range?   On a very cold day, in my area, -12F, if the atmosphere around the heat exchanger could be kept around 30, would the unit act as if it was a 30 degree winter day?

As a side note, we just witnessed what can happen to electric prices in TX when the weather gets bad, and gas prices/availability when the accounting office has software issues.  Is it really in our best interest to have everybody on the same fuel source?


----------



## woodgeek (May 20, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> What I really struggle with is finding justification for using renewable electricity and heat pumps is in regions that experience extreme cold. Air source pumps simply don't work here when needed most in the depths of winter, which means using resistive electric further straining the grid, or using a fossil based back up. Ground sourced would be an option, but many of our city lots (including mine) are really too small to make practical use of ground sourced heat. On a small lot it raises concern if we could create a man-made permafrost of sorts after many years of extracting heat from the ground beneath the house, creating concerns with frost heaving and such. I guess it would be possible to use solar or air based heat extractors to rewarm the ground in summer, but this is becoming a convoluted system for a single family home.



I agree completely that existing ASHPs are not currently real options for Alberta, the upper midwest or upper mountain states in the US, where a large fraction of heating BTU must be delivered at below 10°F air temp.  Getting to a 100% renewable energy system requires a different portfolio of technology in different regions.  And as you point out, the problem with renewables is not so much daily variation/storage as seasonal.

For example, in the 'greater NorthEast' say, East of the Mississippi and North of the Mason-Dixon line, the solar resource is dreadful during most of the heating season, bc of seasonal cloud cover.  And ofc, space heating is the largest seasonal energy demand.  And if there were high EV penetration, their demand ALSO peaks in the winter, by 40-60% higher kWh/mi.  Yet there is enough solar in the summer to qualify as a good solar resource on an annual basis.  So current solar owners can 'bank' kWhs by net metering, and 'get them back' for winter heating with ASHPs, but ofc this is NOT real seasonal storage, and not feasible in a future high solar, high ASHP penetration scenario.  

There are three projected solutions to this (1) reduce winter energy demand, e.g. by insulation improvements, as Matt describes (2) have large offshore wind arrays in the mix and (3) have inter-regional long distance electrical transmission, e.g. from solar farms in the southeast US or large Hydro in Eastern Canada (if they had any seasonal excess).

Unlike the relatively simple task of increasing solar and wind up to say 30% total electrical energy, implementing the (3) ideas above on the necessary scale is hard, expensive and slow.  So IMO getting to >~30% renewable US grid by 2030 IS doable, with a grid similar to what we have now, but getting to a 0% carbon grid by 2050 looks to be far more difficult.

Of those 3 solutions, demand reduction is possible, but will require lots of time, and needs to start sooner rather than later, and in conjunction with electrification of heating.  US Offshore is now penciling out at $0.10/kWh, which is high, but should fall considerably with learning curve and continued upscaling of the machines by the 2030-40s. (Upscaling works for onshore too, but transport of parts limits the current size of blades/towers/etc).  Inter-regional long distance transmission is a 'deus ex machina' solution IMO, and I am skeptical about it until I see it in practice at scale.

As for Alberta, I agree that geo as it currently done is not sustainable.  That said, I disagree about the idea of pushing heat into the ground in the summer (and dumping the coolth).  With any reasonable solar deployment, summer electricity costs would be CHEAP, and geos can easily be equipped with a small outdoor air coil and a simple controller.  Seasonal heat storage is actually possible, for a zero net BTU system, and warming the ground would boost winter COP.  Such systems could be engineered and at scale could have lower and more reasonable costs per ton than current 'bespoke' installs for rich clients. 

But of course significant demand reduction via superinsulation would bring system costs down.  And ofc ASHPs will improve...I think the best ones manage a real world COP of 2 or so at 10°F, and the thermodynamic limits are MUCH higher than that (>5).  I think their current poor cold weather performance is due to lack of a market for engineering better machines.

As for renewable energy, if you don't want to buy offshore from BC, you do have a lot of real estate for onshore wind.  Is that resource really so bad in the winter?

Beyond all of this, there is biomass (e.g. bulk delivery pelletized systems as in Scandinavia) or (gasp) hydrogen, which both the Germans and Japanese are betting on for seasonal storage.  I think the falling prices of wind+HPs will outcompete hydrogen.


----------



## EbS-P (May 20, 2021)

We can’t efficiently  size any single  heating system for the coldest 14 days a year.   I really don’t see thermal storage as residential solution so the green solution is resistive electric heat.  The greeness relies here on building code and mandates for greener power generation.    Texas this winter is going to be a very useful  case study.   Setting aside grid failures and just looking at how much heat they needed it looks like the weekly heating degree days for that terrible week were twice as many as the second coldest week that year.  Here is the link to get the data.  https://www.degreedays.net

roughly we could assume heating demand was doubled from that of the second coldest week.  There is no way a correctly sized heatpump could meet that demand.   I argue that if you are not a regular wood burner the best way to make up some of that demand is resistive electric. It is cheap to install and the equipment has a very long lifespan. Is it going to be to expensive run, yes but if it’s only two weeks a year we just need to come to terms with the extra cost. Make it green by using renewable power generation


Peaking power is now more critical than ever and making it green is important.  Last time I read up on Australia’s battery installation the economics arguments presented were very persuasive not to mention the green side.
Energy and infrastructure policy are critical and not given enough of a priority by many governments and citizens in general.  Having this be a top priority issue that outlasts any single administration is critical.  Consistent and comprehensive policy and regulations are the only way to achieve this and it will be expensive up front like any efficiency improvements but will pay for itself in the long term.
Evan


----------



## ABMax24 (May 20, 2021)

woodgeek said:


> I agree completely that existing ASHPs are not currently real options for Alberta, the upper midwest or upper mountain states in the US, where a large fraction of heating BTU must be delivered at below 10°F air temp.  Getting to a 100% renewable energy system requires a different portfolio of technology in different regions.  And as you point out, the problem with renewables is not so much daily variation/storage as seasonal.
> 
> For example, in the 'greater NorthEast' say, East of the Mississippi and North of the Mason-Dixon line, the solar resource is dreadful during most of the heating season, bc of seasonal cloud cover.  And ofc, space heating is the largest seasonal energy demand.  And if there were high EV penetration, their demand ALSO peaks in the winter, by 40-60% higher kWh/mi.  Yet there is enough solar in the summer to qualify as a good solar resource on an annual basis.  So current solar owners can 'bank' kWhs by net metering, and 'get them back' for winter heating with ASHPs, but ofc this is NOT real seasonal storage, and not feasible in a future high solar, high ASHP penetration scenario.
> 
> ...



Wind speeds here in winter can really follow the temperatures. Our lowest temperatures are usually brought about by artic high pressure systems, which come with periods of atmospheric stagnation and no wind.

I'd like to say we could rely on the hydro generation of Quebec or BC, but unfortunately politics get involved here and political motives far too often displace logical decision making in these scenarios. I know there is some rumblings of a coast to coast HVDC powerline to ease the strain on some areas of the country, and better utilize renewable resources. Quebec was even offered subsidies to build transmission connections to neighboring provinces to help share their hydro power, which their utility promptly turned down, rather wanting to sell power to the US.

Hydrogen is something being tried here as well, there is a pilot project in one city where hydrogen is being mixed with the natural gas supply to lower carbon intensity.


----------



## ABMax24 (May 20, 2021)

EatenByLimestone said:


> You bring up a really good point.
> 
> I wonder if a greenhouse like enclosure around a well placed heat pump would extend their effective range?   On a very cold day, in my area, -12F, if the atmosphere around the heat exchanger could be kept around 30, would the unit act as if it was a 30 degree winter day?
> 
> As a side note, we just witnessed what can happen to electric prices in TX when the weather gets bad, and gas prices/availability when the accounting office has software issues.  Is it really in our best interest to have everybody on the same fuel source?



Maybe in some areas, really depends on how insulated your greenhouse is and how much heat you get from the sun.

In my area the sun is a mere 32 degrees above the horizon at noon in December-January, there is very little heat in the short amount of daylight we get to do any appreciable heating.


----------



## EbS-P (May 20, 2021)

ABMax24 said:


> Maybe in some areas, really depends on how insulated your greenhouse is and how much heat you get from the sun.
> 
> In my area the sun is a mere 32 degrees above the horizon at noon in December-January, there is very little heat in the short amount of daylight we get to do any appreciable heating.


Air just doesn’t hold much heat.  So if you compressor coil fan  runs at say 1000 cfm ( may not be realistic but it’s easy math) a 20x20x10  green house contains 4 minutes of air.  Say it takes 4 exchanges to extract all the solar heat gains your compressor can only run 16 minutes before it has moved all the heat and now it’s just like being outside.  
 I think energy storage is really important but we need to think on the largest scale possible.  100s of mega watt hours.  Oh and insulate the crap out of our structures.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 11, 2022)

I was trying think of where to post this article.  Here seems to really be best.   My biggest take away is that true national energy independence is over.  It’s a good read covering multiple aspects.  I’m wondering what are big has changes in 15 months. 









						Europe's Energy Crisis Will Be Short-Lived & Reap Benefits
					

Anytime anyone uses the term 'energy independence', correct them to 'strategic energy interdependence'.




					cleantechnica.com


----------



## begreen (Sep 12, 2022)

I'm so glad to revisit this excellent thread and refresh my thoughts a year+ later. As correctly noted, we have an entire cultural and physical infrastructure built around fossil fuels. The sales pitch was that it's cheap, safer, and liberating (see the USA in your Chevrolet). It's going to take a lot to change the gluttonous habits of cheap oil. Cities, transportation networks, residences, and grid infrastructure all need major changes to reduce consumption. That is no simple task and it too, demands resources that bring along their own emissions issues. That said, I would love to see decent high-speed rail systems on both coasts to make a serious dent in air traffic. Most industrialized nations have done this. China has built 25,000 mi of high-speed rail in the past 2 decades, and yet we have none.  This should have as much priority IMO as the interstate system was in the 50s.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 12, 2022)

Agreed BG.  I guess my comment is that that longest journey starts with the first step.

All the movement in the latest IRA bill and California ICE ban and Mass climate bills is just a start.  It is just as far as we can see in the crystal ball.  As big as some of the changes and projections for EVs and solar are... they are just the first big step. 

We will not be 100% EVs on the road in 2032... the projection says we might be a bit over 50% of new cars, and a bit under 50% of used cars, and maybe 20-25% of cars on the road.

Similarly, if we build out an amazing 700 GW of new solar as projected over the next 8-10 years, that is not a plan for some pie in the sky '100% renewable' grid (with all its diurnal and seasonal storage issues), it just gets solar up to the level nukes or coal have today (about 20% of energy).  Or where solar is in California today.  Even if US wind went from 10% (today) to 20% of energy at the same time.... the grid would still be 30-40% fossil fired.

The transition, as in the OP of this necro-thread, will be SLOW.  We don't what twists and turns it will take along the way, or when we will get to the end.  And all the recent policy moves being discussed are just the START of that slow ramp.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 12, 2022)

If the last year has taught us anything it’s that external and unplanned  factors could hasten the change, or I just stop it in tire tracks.   Anyone care to speculate what happens if China invades Taiwan?  Will we do more than just sell out stockpiles of weapons?  What would need to be built and how quit and at what cost if it escalated into American boots on the ground?  Green house gas emissions will take a back seat and rightly so to WWiii.  

 The IRA and other legislative actions are the first steps.  Without some bipartisan support on some aspect of climate change we  will just keep crawling along.  I’m not even sure what the compromise the left could offer the right at this point.  

A year later I feel like I should really be celebrating the IRA.  I was almost certain nothing would get passed. But I’m only less pessimistic.  Show me how Texas and Florida use there IRA money well and I’ll raise my weekly glass of scotch to a job well done.  It sure feels Ike the ACA was a bigger victory to me.  I don’t realistically think that.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 12, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> A year later I feel like I should really be celebrating the IRA. I was almost certain nothing would get passed. But I’m only less pessimistic. Show me how Texas and Florida use there IRA money well and I’ll raise my weekly glass of scotch to a job well done. It sure feels Ike the ACA was a bigger victory to me. I don’t realistically think that.



Well said.  The thing is that the 'change' is happening organically without public policy in the US, and around the world.  Right now, the US is not leading the world on EVs or solar, nor will we be if the post-IRA projections manifest.

What I am excited about is a change in _thinking_.  Since Carter and his cardigan, the idea of an energy crisis and environmentalism has been about doing more with LESS.  People shaming themselves or others for usage. The **potential** of a scaled renewable energy system (with some sort of storage) is to break that connection.  The emphasis on renewable energy is not on the low-carbon... its on the sustainable part.  Go ahead.. use the energy!  It won't break the climate, or take energy from a poor person in India or Africa or your great grand-children.

We can quibble here about the price of kWh in 2030 or a gallon of gas in 2040... but my point is that a whole chit-ton of brand new, cheap, low carbon sustainable energy is gonna get injected into the global energy system over the next 10 or 20 years.  And that could bring us back something that we used to have decades ago... the simple enjoyment of using lots of energy for our needs and wants.  Without guilt from within, or from the sneers from others.  Energy could become apolitical again.

Stated still another way... at this point SOLAR and WIND power are POPULAR with folks on both sides of the political spectrum.  Something like 70% or people last time I checked, which as I like to say is up there with rainbows and puppies in approval factor.  Where we tend to disagree (aligned with politics) is about why we're doing it, or whether it will work, or whether it is being done correctly.  When these things are actually being done at (greater than now) scale... and the sky isn't falling, and our bills are affordable... what will we bicker about then?  OR will we just look at it and say we did good?


----------



## Ashful (Sep 13, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> When I did this in 2008-2010, all the contractors thought I was crazy, all this 'oil/hydronic heat is the best' and 'you'll regret it and go back' BS.


I've received similar comments and odd looks for suggesting the addition of an ASHP water heater to my too-warm boiler room.  Even the HVAC guy, who has no stock in oil, looked at my oil-fired system and told me "your system is exactly what I'd put in my own house, if I could afford it."  Those were the words of a guy who installs and maintains ASHP's for a living!



ABMax24 said:


> Without Nuclear power (which there is very little public support for here)...


There are historical reasons for this, which unfortunately paint nuclear energy in a very bad light, due to safety issues created more by finance and politics than actual engineering limitations.

To condense a very long story as much as possible, the nuclear power plants we have operating in the US today are not the safest option available for land-based nuclear power plants.  In fact, they weren't even one of the better options in the 1960's / 70's, when most of these plants were conceived and funded.

There were several good options for nuclear power plants conceived in the 1950's, but those most conducive to Naval applications received the most funding and R&D, with a desire to build nuclear subs and carriers.  So, these types of reactors were the first ready for evaluation and approval by the various nuclear regulatory agencies being formed at the time.

On their heels, industry and utility companies wanting to move into nuclear power generation for domestic use, found that adapting these Naval designs to land-based power plants was the only feasible option, rather than individual companies funding new R&D into likely-better designs, and then trying to overcome the utterly-crippling costs of seeking approval for completely new designs.

Many US companies have actually conceived, designed, and built much better and safer power plants than those we have operating in the USA today.  But due to regulatory obstacles, they cannot afford to deploy them here.  Some of these US-based companies have been building these safer and more efficient nuclear plants in other countries, where there is less history and there are lower costs associated with receiving approval.

PBS NOVA actually did an excellent special on this subject, several years ago.  I just Googled it, and came up with the following hit, but I'm not sure if it's the one I remember.  I actually thought I had seen it before 2017.









						The Nuclear Option
					

How will we power the planet without wrecking the climate?



					www.pbs.org


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 13, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> I was trying think of where to post this article.  Here seems to really be best.   My biggest take away is that true national energy independence is over.  It’s a good read covering multiple aspects.  I’m wondering what are big has changes in 15 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a great article. I never knew about the nuclear issues that are going on in France.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 13, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> That's a great article. I never knew about the nuclear issues that are going on in France.


Regular maintenance are refueling.  Timing sucks.  But with that many factors of similar design it will get done on time and probably on budget.


----------



## begreen (Sep 13, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Regular maintenance are refueling.  Timing sucks.  But with that many factors of similar design it will get done on time and probably on budget.


More on that topic in this interesting article:








						Europe's Energy Crisis Will Be Short-Lived & Reap Benefits
					

Anytime anyone uses the term 'energy independence', correct them to 'strategic energy interdependence'.




					cleantechnica.com
				




Meanwhile, China has announced that they have found extractable Helium-3 in the moon rock samples they brought back. Helium-3 is very rare on earth. You can bet their long-term goals will be to mine this source and bring it back for fusion reactors somewhere down the road.








						China plans moon mining to ‘power Earth for 10,000 years’ | Taiwan News | 2021-11-09 14:46:00
					

Outer-space mining to have astronomical impact on geopolitics | 2021-11-09 14:46:00




					www.taiwannews.com.tw


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 13, 2022)

I'm not sure He3 mining is feasible without humans present. The (to be closed) seals have to be more than perfect. 

I've worked with helium -3 and it's easy to mess it up.

The price is very high though, so that offers room. I'm not sure it's enough though. $140 million per 100 kg. (And that is a lot of gas. Not sure it can be cooled on the moon to liquefy it...)

But what is the price of a rocket launch?

Same order of magnitude I think.

And the price of the helium will go down if a decent supply is mined out there whereas the price of launches (to the moon and back!) is not likely to get halved.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 13, 2022)

Helium 3 is a McGuffin in popular press. Yes it could be worth billions (or trillions) but its ultimately dependent on fusion technology that is about 20 years down the road and has been that way for forty years. My guess is that it is a good employment project for post docs and probably spinning off derivative tech but as for actual power generation the money spent to date would probably have been better spent on far more practical renewable power. I think the fossil industry ignored fusion funding for decades as they bet that it diverted funding from more near time fossil replacements. 

BTW, the current nuclear power plants process was designed to be quite fuel inefficient on purpose. The military needed a source of weapons grade plutonium and that spent nuclear fuel is a source for it. There were more efficient cycles, like thorium based but they didnt produce waste that could be turned into weapons as easily.


----------



## begreen (Sep 13, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I'm not sure He3 mining is feasible without humans present. The (to be closed) seals have to be more than perfect.
> 
> I've worked with helium -3 and it's easy to mess it up.
> 
> ...


Reasonable questions, and perhaps the moon has more to offer where the He3 is a side benefit. My understanding is that the He3 is encapsulated within a crystalline rock structure. Mining should be much more straightforward than on earth in that regard. And I think the Chinese fully intend to have humans on the moon. 



peakbagger said:


> There were more efficient cycles, like thorium based but they didnt produce waste that could be turned into weapons as easily.


Yup.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 13, 2022)

begreen said:


> Reasonable questions, and perhaps the moon has more to offer where the He3 is a side benefit. My understanding is that the He3 is encapsulated within a crystalline rock structure.


But moving rock through space is reaaaally expensive. The helium has to come out of the rock on the moon to make it worth it.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 14, 2022)

Yeah, I'm not putting a lot of hopes on He-3, LOL.  Need to have at least paper designs for fusion reactors that are cost effective.... and I have never seen one of those.

As for fission... the existing fuel cycle is the way it is bc it is designed to minimize spent fuel reprocessing.  IF (big IF) you can do reprocessing, then a whole raft of stuff gets possible like breeders and thorium and exotic stuff.  But that reprocessing step... its really bad news.  Attempts to do it at model breeders have been super expensive, not really scalable and accident prone.

The funny thing is that 'simple' pass through reactors are already very expensive to build and operate (compared to other sources).  And then people like to talk about how breeders and thorium will be soooo much cheaper.  And then invent all kinds of narratives about why we never built them... like the car the runs on water or the lightbulb that never burns out!

Simple nuclear is expensive (and not very scalable above current levels bc of fueling concerns) and then breeders that get around the fuel problem... they are far more expensive still.

IOW, a safe legacy nuke is a nice thing to have while we are developing storage and long-distance HVDC lines... but a fleet of new nukes (simple/breeder/whatever) is not a solution.  Sorry guys!


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 14, 2022)

woodgeek said:


> Yeah, I'm not putting a lot of hopes on He-3, LOL.  Need to have at least paper designs for fusion reactors that are cost effective.... and I have never seen one of those.
> 
> As for fission... the existing fuel cycle is the way it is bc it is designed to minimize spent fuel reprocessing.  IF (big IF) you can do reprocessing, then a whole raft of stuff gets possible like breeders and thorium and exotic stuff.  But that reprocessing step... its really bad news.  Attempts to do it at model breeders have been super expensive, not really scalable and accident prone.
> 
> ...


How about the small modular reactors?  I have not looked into costs at all.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 14, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> How about the small modular reactors?  I have not looked into costs at all.


I haven't either tbh.  But usually with engineering, making things bigger makes them cheaper, but OTOH, the optimum size might be that of a modular.  Dunno.

The folks that DO know will be private investors.  IIRC, the latest modular proposals were not getting a lot of investor attention.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 14, 2022)

I think modular reactors will be more likely (initially, or only) in places like remote heavy energy users. E.g. (remote) national labs (e.g. with supercomputers - known energy hogs), where they also have an interest in studying their performance, their interaction with the grid, etc.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 14, 2022)

I have nothing to add, other than to be continuously impressed with the depth and breadth of woodgeek's knowledge.  I don't know where you find the time, or the spare memory cells, but you are a true asset to this forum.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 14, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I have nothing to add, other than to be continuously impressed with the depth and breadth of woodgeek's knowledge.  I don't know where you find the time, or the spare memory cells, but you are a true asset to this forum.


 Have often thought that I’d we spent 1/10 of the time we spend consuming sports and instead read something to learn some new, society would be in a much different place.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 14, 2022)

Modular is definitely the way to go. We've went that way with most items for oil and gas construction. Well pads are being built with typical skid assemblies. The wellhead will have a typical skid, so will the piperacks, and dilutant modules, etc. Initial design is more complicated, and (thankfully) forces engineers to actually think about the design, construction, operations, and maintanance personal working on the equipment.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 21, 2022)

Predicting US natural gas prices hit 9$ per MBTUs by  22/23 time frame. More supporting evidence that the gas will go the way of oil with a single global pricing solution in the future.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 21, 2022)

EbS-P said:


> Predicting US natural gas prices hit 9$ per MBTUs by  22/23 time frame. More supporting evidence that the gas will go the way of oil with a single global pricing solution in the future.


Not sure I follow.  Transport is a big issue for nat gas relative to oil.  Means different markets have different prices.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 21, 2022)

The issue is the availability of transport equipment. Natural gas is 55 MJ/kg, and crude is 44 MJ/kg. Liquifying natural gas and transporting it therefore makes economic sense. If enough ships and terminals are available, it could even out prices just like oil.

So it depends on whether enough infrastructure (terminals and ships) are built or not. This surely won't happen in 2023.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 21, 2022)

Oil is simple; pumps, tanks, pipes, and hoses and you have a delivery system.

Natural gas must be moved long distances by pipeline, it must be compressed and cooled to cryogenic temperatures at a terminal, before being loaded onto a ship to transport it. That ship must have insulated pressure vessels and either a method to keep the liquid cool, or a venting system to allow evaporative cooling to keep the liquid cool.

There is currently an LNG terminal being built on the west coast of BC in Kitimat, it is a $40 billion (yes with a B) project that will produce 6.5 million tons per year of LNG. Or the equivalent of about 115,000 barrels per day. A small drop in the bucket of global demand, and an immense cost for just the liquefaction terminal. LNG will help to level global prices, but it won't ever make them as equal as oil tankers have the price of oil.

I've worked with LNG equipment on more than a few occasions, it's a fickle product, and cryogenic liquids find leaks in heat exchangers and evaporators that will never be found at normal temperatures. I've spent days troubleshooting minute leaks that not even helium could escape from. Oil is easy, when it puddles on the ground you have a leak, and the source will be directly above the puddle.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 21, 2022)

ABMax24 said:


> Oil is easy, when it puddles on the ground you have a leak, and the source will be directly above the puddle.


Good post, and good points about CTE-driven leaks.

But I wish roofing systems were this simple.  Anyone who's ever chased a leak in a roof may already know that the leak in the roof could be half way across the house, from the wet spot on your ceiling.  Water can chase purlins and rafters in unintuitive ways, as I suspect oil can down the structural components surrounding a tank.


----------



## ABMax24 (Sep 21, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Good post, and good points about CTE-driven leaks.
> 
> But I wish roofing systems were this simple.  Anyone who's ever chased a leak in a roof may already know that the leak in the roof could be half way across the house, from the wet spot on your ceiling.  Water can chase purlins and rafters in unintuitive ways, as I suspect oil can down the structural components surrounding a tank.



Generally piping isn't enclosed, it's almost always free and open. Makes oil leaks pretty easy to find in most cases.

Fugitive methane emissions are a big target around here right now. For the last 50 years small chemical injection pumps have typically been powered by fuel gas, not using combustion, but like a normal pneumatic powered pump that vents the compressed air once the job is done, except with these there using natural gas which is mostly methane and that's what is vented. There are now substantial government grants to replace the fuel gas with compressed air, one of our clients has been doing this a lot, a couple months ago I installed 3 50 gallon electric drive air compressors on a wellpad to replace fuel gas in such pumps.

Tanks are similar most have commonly been vented to atmosphere, which always includes hydrocarbons such as methane. Now new facilities are built with VRUs (vapor recovery units, essentially a low suction pressure compressor) that keep the pressure in the tanks at a couple in of WC and capture these vapors and feed them back into the process. Older plants are being retrofitted with these systems too.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 22, 2022)

I'm assuming this is being done because methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 ? Now if I could just tell my cows to stop belching.


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2022)

Mix some biochar in with their feed.


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 22, 2022)

I read somewhere that mixing a small amount of seaweed in with cattle feed cuts methane emissions. New Zealand has been doing a lot of research on reducing livestock emissions as its the only way they can meet climate commitments.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

I remember reading of experiments with collecting methane from dairy barns, at least 10 - 15 years ago.  Obviously doesn't help when they're out of doors, and I don't know if this idea ever transitioned from research experiments to commercial usage, but it was interesting nonetheless.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

I wonder what unintended consequences it may have feeding seaweed to land animals. 
This issue of feeding animals stuff that not naturally is in their diet is common these (industrial) days, but has in the past resulted in severe unintended consequences. 

See mad cow disease; of course that was different, as it involved cannibalism, but the point is that stuff that animals don't normally eat can mess things up. I know a lot of bought feed is like this, but to my (uneducated) eye, seaweed seems "far out there" for cows?


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I remember reading of experiments with collecting methane from dairy barns, at least 10 - 15 years ago.  Obviously doesn't help when they're out of doors, and I don't know if this idea ever transitioned from research experiments to commercial usage, but it was interesting nonetheless.


In NL they have barns where the waste is put in a closed cellar immediately, to avoid ammonia from being released in the environment. (Nitrogen concentrations are too high in the country due to the highly-dense animal farming in NL.) Turns out they don't work well. I surmise that dairy barns are also not closed well enough for collection of methane that is pure enough for it to be an economically viable process.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

Are the majority of gasses of concern (eg. methane, co2) coming directly off the animals, or from their excrement?

My one of my great-uncle still operated a decent size dairy farm (180 cows) producing specialty milk products, when I was a kid.  Semi-automated waste, feed, watering, milking... likely the best of everything he could buy in the 1950's - 1960's, I was viewing it all as older hardware in the late 1970's and early 80's, as he neared retirement.

We used to be allowed to run around in the barn when the cows were out, playing hide-and-seek, jumping in the hay loft, the usual stuff.  I still remember once opening a very large set of rolling doors, and looking down 15 feet to a huge farm wagon filled with manure, deposited there from the chain-drawn system of paddles that swept the poop troughs behind each watering and feed station.  The other thing I remembered was the way the ceiling of the parking bay for that wagon was absolutely covered in inches-thick layers of mud wasp nests, it must have been heaven for them.

I can imagine that, if there were a goal to collect any gasses coming off that manure, it actually wouldn't be very difficult to enclose and tap off the small parking bay for those manure wagons.  I would agree that, given the typical air flow required thru a feeding floor, capturing it directly off the animals in any concentration would be a real challenge.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 22, 2022)

Ashful said:


> Are the majority of gasses of concern (eg. methane, co2) coming directly off the animals, or from their excrement?


As I understand it, the majority of the methane emissions comes from ruminants belching. What's funny is, deer, sheep, goats etc are ruminants but you never hear blame put on them.


----------



## Riverbanks (Sep 22, 2022)

Google Cow power


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> As I understand it, the majority of the methane emissions comes from ruminants belching. What's funny is, deer, sheep, goats etc are ruminants but you never hear blame put on them.


I suspect that's due to the unnatural population densities created by commercial farming, although I'm not going to argue that every household having their own cow tied to the rear porch would be better.  There's always economy in scale.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 22, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I suspect that's due to the unnatural population densities created by commercial farming, although I'm not going to argue that every household having their own cow tied to the rear porch would be better.  There's always economy in scale.


Yep, 3000+ head dairy farms and 100k beef feedlots come to mind. I agree with you on both of your other points also.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

I think the number of cows is so far larger than goats and sheep (not sure about deer - see the remarks by Ashful on another thread...), and their body size means their methane production is so far larger than that of a goat, sheep, and deer, that the total methane output by cows is very much larger than the total output by the other ruminants.

And I thought it was farts that provided the methane, but I might be wrong (given ruminant).

Regarding the barns and nitrogen; the problem was (as far as I understand) that the valves closing automatically after waste was conveyored (?) into the cellar, quickly became leaky due to stuff being stuck between them, allowing ammonia to escape.

Maybe they have a new solution, though:








						Forget buy-out schemes, Dutch dairy players look to innovation to cut nitrogen emissions
					

FrieslandCampina, Rabobank and Lely are teaming up a project to reduce nitrogen emissions on dairy farms in the Netherlands.




					www.dairyreporter.com


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2022)

Eventually, cow burps will be a moot point. No one has figured out how to control methane emissions from termites estimated at 20 million tons a year. And then there is the melting permafrost problem, hydrates storing massive amounts of methane.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

But that reasoning is not entirely correct. IF there would be a way to avoid "cow burps" there might be a way to avoid melting permafrost. Is the latter not the whole point about trying to avoid climate change? (Not saying the cow burps are the only reason, but they are a contributing one.)

Unfortunately cow burps are not "fixable" (other than having less cows by eating less meat).

The argument cow burps are moot as compared to ... is similar to "my car is a negligible fraction of CO2 put in atmosphere, so I don't care". I would disagree.

Though other than behavioral (diet) change, I see no solution to this.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 22, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> I think the number of cows is so far larger than goats and sheep (not sure about deer - see the remarks by Ashful on another thread...), and their body size means their methane production is so far larger than that of a goat, sheep, and deer, that the total methane output by cows is very much larger than the total output by the other ruminants.


For sure, just look at the USDA slaughter report and it will show you that. I wonder what it looks like in other countries though. In India I'd expect very few cows slaughtered but a higher amount of sheep and goats. A cow weighs about 10 times what a sheep or goat does so they have to eat 10 times as much as feed ( roughly 1 - 3% of their body weight a day in dry matter ) also.

Guess my point was, the finger is always pointed at cattle when there are other animals that are producing methane also. Are cows the biggest culprits when it comes to methane producing animals, I would say yes, but are they the only ones, no.

I agree, as a planet we need to eat less meat.


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

sloeffle said:


> Guess my point was, the finger is always pointed at cattle when there are other animals that are producing methane also. Are cows the biggest culprits when it comes to methane producing animals, I would say yes, but are they the only ones, no.
> 
> I agree, as a planet we need to eat less meat.



I am afraid the finger pointing is in part because the smaller animals are more relatable for many folks. 
(I see how my 12 y/o daughter picks up (small!) goats etc. but does not show any affinity for cows.)

Same as no one caring about spiders or bats.

Strange animals, those human beings...


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

begreen said:


> Eventually, cow burps will be a moot point. No one has figured out how to control methane emissions from termites estimated at 20 million tons a year. And then there is the melting permafrost problem, hydrates storing massive amounts of methane.


I'm way ahead of you, begreen.  We just need to milk the termites, and eliminate the cows!


----------



## peakbagger (Sep 22, 2022)

Back when my employer was looking into cowpower(anerobic digestion of cow manure) the general guidelines was think of cow with a 100 watt lightbulb in its butt, that's is the typical output from the digester, a hog had a 20 watts lightbulb and a chicken was somewhere around  3 watts.  Cowpower generated to power locally as there was a use for the waste heat around a dairy. 

The bigger concept is so called green natural gas, install an anerobic digester at the farm, concentrate and clean up the gas generated and inject it into natural gas line. Then downstream customers on the gas line can buy "green natural gas"


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2022)

IF there was good evidence we have moved in the right direction I might agree, but we haven't.
"Despite the increased awareness and commitments to climate change, Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, shared harsh truths at the opening ceremony. One stat that jumped out to me: 2022 has already passed the total emissions of 2019. And there are still three months left in the year. "








						Energy dispatches from Climate Week   | Greenbiz
					

Energy news from climate’s Fashion Week




					www.greenbiz.com
				



At this rate, cow burps may become a moot point and a distraction.


----------



## Riverbanks (Sep 22, 2022)

Goodrich farm, Salisbury, Vt. Look that up


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

A single cow produces 220 pounds of methane a year (https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustainable)

There are 1.5 billion cows in the world (google tells me, don't know its veracity, but I'm using the number here). 

That is 164,999,865 us tons of methane a year. So 165 million tons.

Given that methane is 28 times as "green-housey" as CO2, this equates to emissions of 4,620,000,000 us tons of CO2. 

4.6 billion tons.

How much CO2 do we emit annually as a world?
34 billion tons
(https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions)

If I did not make a mistake in the math here I posit that in fact this is NOT a moot point. This is significant enough.

(The problem is that a change in this will be small because we're not going to abandon all 1.5 billion cows.)


----------



## Riverbanks (Sep 22, 2022)

Goodrich farm, milk, cheese and power for a college, not bad


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

peakbagger said:


> think of cow with a 100 watt lightbulb in its butt, that's is the typical output from the digester, a hog had a 20 watts lightbulb and a chicken was somewhere around  3 watts.


Headed out the door to retrieve the kids from school.  They will get a kick out of this one.  The 12-year old in me had a chuckle over it.

Using stoveliker's (Google's) 1.5 billion cows, that's an awful lot of LED lighting equivalent.  Something nearing the power required to light 18 billion bulbs, based on current sales distribution by wattage.


----------



## begreen (Sep 22, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> If I did not make a mistake in the math here I posit that in fact this is NOT a moot point. This is significant enough.
> 
> (The problem is that a change in this will be small because we're not going to abandon all 1.5 billion cows.)


Point being that emissions from human activity, excluding ruminants, are still increasing. If that is not addressed and the global tipping point is reached, then cows are the least of our problems. (FWIW, I get just over 1 billion cows in searches).

Corking up a billion cows is no trivial task so maybe we just wipe out half of them and stop eating so much beef? (Note this does not address the over 1 billion sheep we are shepherding.) I say this with tongue in cheek, but it's not just the cow burps, but the huge amount of acreage under industrial agriculture that feeds them. Not to mention the Amazon forests that are steadily being decimated for this purpose. Ready to stop eating beef?









						How Many Cows Are In The World? | Farming Base
					

Ever wondered how many cows are in the world? There is a lot of speculation surrounding cattle population, people find it hard to know the exact figure.




					farmingbase.com


----------



## stoveliker (Sep 22, 2022)

My point was that simply discarding cows as a more than significant source of greenhouse gasses is utterly wrong.

And yes. We eat meat maybe twice a week.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 22, 2022)

begreen said:


> Point being that emissions from human activity, excluding ruminants, are still increasing. If that is not addressed and the global tipping point is reached, then cows are the least of our problems. (FWIW, I get just over 1 billion cows in searches).
> 
> Corking up a billion cows is no trivial task so maybe we just wipe out half of them and stop eating so much beef? (Note this does not address the over 1 billion sheep we are shepherding.) I say this with tongue in cheek, but it's not just the cow burps, but the huge amount of acreage under industrial agriculture that feeds them. Not to mention the Amazon forests that are steadily being decimated for this purpose. Ready to stop eating beef?
> 
> ...


Down to beef about 2-3 times a month.  It’s probably been replaced by pork and turkey.  I’m definitely pretty much done with regular hamburger.  Traded for higher end cuts.  (Sirloin top cap is way better than burger!)

My grandfather was a flying cowboy.  He loved his horses but his helicopter and planes were is pride and joy.  He could spot a sick cow from 200’ in the air. I was little when I flew with him and I never figured out what he was looking for.  The farm could feed about 600-800 head a day in our feedlot. We would then sell to the finishing bigger feedlots which sold to processors.  

He passed away over a decade ago.  I’d like to hear his opinions on the current situations we face.  The ranch land was all sold off to pay for a divorce 20+ years ago.  No more cattle.  Day to day operations got easier.  Profits probably dipped but a bad blizzard didn’t financially ruin the whole year.  Extra moisture for the wheat.  Everyone was happier.  No more chasing cattle on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day!   No more 4 am feeding.    

As cattle farmers we were happier without them and continued to run a profitable business, but changes had to be made.   Probably some take aways there. 

Evan


----------



## Ashful (Sep 22, 2022)

stoveliker said:


> My point was that simply discarding cows as a more than significant source of greenhouse gasses is utterly wrong.


I think you mean "udderly wrong". 





Sorry, someone had to do it, I just got here first.


----------



## EbS-P (Sep 22, 2022)

A year later and many years to come,  cows will still burp.  Got it I’m still going  to eat them but fewer. And probably but another BEV.  Here is an interesting take on pricing and ROI for EVs. 

It’s completely dependent on peak off peak pricing but  I don’t see how us “Americans” (you have to watch some of his other vids)  are going to be able to avoid the time of use billing.  “Dude” (gotta watch more of his vids) if my peak power hits 50-70 cents KWH my house in the summer is going to feel like a tent camping trip to “dingo piss creek”  (smart guy telling it like it is down under). 

Is vehicle to load going to be significant part of the global energy future?


----------



## tlc1976 (Sep 23, 2022)

Ashful said:


> I think you mean "udderly wrong".
> 
> View attachment 299287
> 
> ...


A bit earlier I got a chuckle as I read “cows” and “tipping point” in the same sentence.


----------



## sloeffle (Sep 23, 2022)

I always find it interesting that when people talk about doing their part to "save the environment" that they immediately talk ( not picking on anybody in this thread BTW ) about eating less beef.

The red herring in the room is, why don't we consume less milk ? Not to throw our dairy farmers under the bus, but humans don't need to drink milk. Humans are the only species on this planet that drink milk after they are weaned from their mothers. Humans were able to exist on the this planet long before we started milking animals. Do I like milk with my cereal, yep, do I like ice cream, yep. do I like butter, no, do the alternatives suck, yes ( I'm open to suggestions outside of almond milk ). I'm pretty sure a dairy cow puts off just as much methane as a beef cow does. And that hamburger you ate your favorite restaurant was more than likely an old dairy cow.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 23, 2022)

It's a moot point.  Our kids may be eating filet mignon grown in a lab, sans methane.









						Lab-Grown Meat Is Actual Meat and Has Several Benefits
					

Lab-grown meat is meat that is produced by growing living cells taken from real animals. It has several benefits, like its environmental impact.




					www.thespruceeats.com


----------



## MoparMan (Oct 5, 2022)

Ashful said:


> It's a moot point.  Our kids may be eating filet mignon grown in a lab, sans methane.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


soylent green


----------

