• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Energy Outlook 2016 sees broad transformations in the global energy landscape

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    World Energy Outlook 2016 sees broad transformations in the global energy landscape

    World Energy Outlook 2016
    World Energy Outlook 2016 sees broad transformations in the global energy landscape

    As a result of major transformations in the global energy system that take place over the next decades, renewables and natural gas are the big winners in the race to meet energy demand growth until 2040, according to the latest edition of the World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency’s flagship publication.

    A detailed analysis of the pledges made for the Paris Agreement on climate change finds that the era of fossil fuels appears far from over and underscores the challenge of reaching more ambitious climate goals. Still, government policies, as well as cost reductions across the energy sector, enable a doubling of both renewables – subject of a special focus in this year’s Outlook – and of improvements in energy efficiency over the next 25 years. Natural gas continues to expand its role while the shares of coal and oil fall back.

    “We see clear winners for the next 25 years – natural gas but especially wind and solar – replacing the champion of the previous 25 years, coal,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director. “But there is no single story about the future of global energy: in practice, government policies will determine where we go from here.”

    This transformation of the global energy mix described in WEO-2016 means that risks to energy security also evolve. Traditional concerns related to oil and gas supply remain – and are reinforced by record falls in investment levels. The report shows that another year of lower upstream oil investment in 2017 would create a significant risk of a shortfall in new conventional supply within a few years.

    In the longer-term, investment in oil and gas remain essential to meet demand and replace declining production, but the growth in renewables and energy efficiency lessens the call on oil and gas imports in many countries. Increased LNG shipments also change how gas security is perceived. At the same time, the variable nature of renewables in power generation, especially wind and solar, entails a new focus on electricity security.

    Global oil demand continues to grow until 2040, mostly because of the lack of easy alternatives to oil in road freight, aviation and petrochemicals, according to WEO-2016. However, oil demand from passenger cars declines even as the number of vehicles doubles in the next quarter century, thanks mainly to improvements in efficiency, but also biofuels and rising ownership of electric cars.

    Coal consumption barely grows in the next 25 years, as demand in China starts to fall back thanks to efforts to fight air pollution and diversify the fuel mix. The gas market is also changing, with the share of LNG overtaking pipelines and growing to more than half of the global long-distance gas trade, up from a quarter in 2000. In an already well-supplied market, new LNG from Australia, the United States and elsewhere triggers a shift to more competitive markets and changes in contractual terms and pricing.

    The Paris Agreement, which entered into force on 4 November, is a major step forward in the fight against global warming. But meeting more ambitious climate goals will be extremely challenging and require a step change in the pace of decarbonization and efficiency. Implementing current international pledges will only slow down the projected rise in energy-related carbon emissions from an average of 650 million tonnes per year since 2000 to around 150 million tonnes per year in 2040.

    While this is a significant achievement, it is far from enough to avoid the worst impact of climate change as it would only limit the rise in average global temperatures to 2.7°C by 2100. The path to 2°C is tough, but it can be achieved if policies to accelerate further low carbon technologies and energy efficiency are put in place across all sectors.

    It would require that carbon emissions peak in the next few years and that the global economy becomes carbon neutral by the end of the century. For example, in the WEO-2016 2°C scenario, the number of electric cars would need to exceed 700 million by 2040, and displace more than 6 million barrels a day of oil demand. Ambitions to further limit temperature gains, beyond 2°C, would require even bigger efforts.

    “Renewables make very large strides in coming decades but their gains remain largely confined to electricity generation,” said Dr Birol. “The next frontier for the renewable story is to expand their use in the industrial, building and transportation sectors where enormous potential for growth exists.

    #2
    Some of you need to relax. The world is not going to end because we adopt renewable energy. You will still be able to drive your diesel truck for a long while.

    Comment


      #3
      Chuck2, maybe you will answer my question. Properly located windmills have a 35% efficiency rating, meaning that over the period of a year they will produce on average 35% of their rated capacity. I believe solar is about 1/2 of wind. So there we can build 100% of our required capacity in wind, 100% of our capacity in solar and still on average only supply about 53% of our need. So we then have to build about 80% of our need with natural gas generation that is available when the other 2 aren't producing. Chuck2 without reprinting someone else's answer, just answer it yourself, does this seem logical or efficient to you? Imagine we now need 3 power lines instead of one. 3 forms of generation instead of 1. It also doesn't make sense to me that our primary finite source of heating fuel in this cold climate, natural gas, be used to generate electricity.

      Comment


        #4
        Good question Hamloc.

        I am not an expert in this area and this is a question for the planning team at Sask Power. But when ever you add additional renewable capacity then you can reduce the amount of fuel needed which reduces operating costs. So that will provide some savings.

        Coal plants run at about 85% duty factor as they require maintenance and rebuilding as well. Wind and solar are both more productive during peak demand times during the day.

        Base load from renewable hydro would be the best option which is available from Manitoba at lower costs than coal.

        Gas is a good option as it can be revved up quickly when needed. Gas is not in short supply and reserves are likely to be greater than expected. Coal is finite as well.

        If you have ever driven through oil producing regions there is alot of natural gas being flared. Obviously using it to generate electricity would be a better use.

        There will be some duplication in costs with having multiple generation systems. I am not sure what the additional costs will be. But with solar and wind being used more and more, this will allow smaller producers to produce their own electricity and reduce distribution costs. Wind is now as cost effective as new gas. Remember the LCOE I posted.

        The first and easiest option is reduce usage through efficiency gains. That is happening. But building codes are terrible when it comes to energy efficiency. Think of all the glass condos going up across the country. Hard to heat and hard to cool.

        Net zero housing is technically possible in Canada and there are some examples across the country. Which means that houses can produce as much energy as they can use. With high efficiency standards they can use very little to start with. Take a look at this story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-dodge/net-zero-homes_b_3313190.html

        We have a passive solar house for a family of four, 2500 square feet of living space, 1600 ft heated shop in floor heat, gas barbecue and cook top, gas water heat, 3 weeks of drying grain with a single dryair heat exchanger on 1 fan using a 150,000 btu boiler. Total annual cost $1200. I am not bragging, but I just wanted to show what energy efficiency can save.








        Chuck2, maybe you will answer my question. Properly located windmills have a 35% efficiency rating, meaning that over the period of a year they will produce on average 35% of their rated capacity. I believe solar is about 1/2 of wind. So there we can build 100% of our required capacity in wind, 100% of our capacity in solar and still on average only supply about 53% of our need. So we then have to build about 80% of our need with natural gas generation that is available when the other 2 aren't producing. Chuck2 without reprinting someone else's answer, just answer it yourself, does this seem logical or efficient to you? Imagine we now need 3 power lines instead of one. 3 forms of generation instead of 1. It also doesn't make sense to me that our primary finite source of heating fuel in this cold climate, natural gas, be used to generate electricity.

        Comment


          #5
          cc.

          Your comment of "relax, you can still drive your diesel truck for a long time", rubs me the wrong way.

          Only you would believe that static electricity off a human body is a usable energy source.

          You need to stop the gas promoted method that only you and he know how to cut back, and save energy in the business of ranching, and farming.

          Someone called gas, "a Lone Rancher". You don't want to become his sidekick.

          Comment


            #6
            Checking. Everything I say rubs you the wrong way. LOL Surely you can come up with better arguments and insults than that?

            Comment


              #7
              Another story on net zero housing.
              http://www.greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/net-zero-spreading-across-canada

              Comment


                #8
                cc.

                Now I know why peace treaties are impossible to enforce. lol

                Comment


                  #9
                  Yes it is best to agree to disagree and move on.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Chuck2 you sort of admit that triple generation could be a little costly but you go around the issue without really addressing it. As for your suggestion of importing hydro from Manitoba, it has also been suggested in Alberta to import hydro from BC. Our Alberta government keeps talking about all the new green jobs. In both Alberta and Saskatchewan importing hydro would effectively replace coal fired power but it wouldn't create any jobs. As for a net zero home. Geothermal heating is one way to heat without natural gas. I believe it has a min 25000 dollar price tag. How many years of natural gas savings would it take to save the cost. If you had a super insulated house with low heating costs this might take 20 or 30 years. As for putting up solar panels and selling excess power into the grid you still have transmission costs which in my case is about half my bill. No real answer but I am NOT confident that any present government will make the economy better with their existing policies.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Net zero homes don't need geothermal. Passive solar is enough if the design is done well as the thermal mass will release heat during the night. In our house the furnace doesn't come on during the day once the sun is shining. Cooking, lighting and other activities generate heat. We don't have enough thermal mass in our design. If your south facing glass to floor area ratio is too great, you will be opening your windows on winter days to cool down. We get a 1-3 degree gain above the thermostat with the sun alone in winter. The downside is without careful design, overheating in the spring summer and fall can be a problem. Thermal mass can help mitigate this problem as well, as mass will hold temperatures more steady like oceans or water bodies stabilize temperatures.

                      Net zero adds in the electrical generation with solar PV and can use solar thermal as well to add heat. All the technology is here it just needs to be applied.

                      The reason I can't answer the additional costs question is I am not in the business and Sask Power has the information. Why not ask them why they are installing wind and solar? There must be a good reason why they are considering wind and solar.

                      How many jobs are left in coal mining? Not many. The mines are open pit and the equipment is huge.

                      Manitoba has cheap hydro and lots of manufacturing because of it. Why can't we do the same?

                      Why not advocate smaller farms and keep more farmers farming. That would be good job creation.

                      Lots of value added industries would start here but the oil industry boom drove up the costs of labour.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Bringing it all together with a perso's own wordsnI am not an expert in this area and this is a question for the planning team at Sask Power. But when ever you add additional renewable capacity then you can reduce the amount of fuel needed which reduces operating costs. So that will provide some savings.

                        Coal plants run at about 85% duty factor as they require maintenance and rebuilding as well. Wind and solar are both more productive during peak demand times during the day.

                        Base load from renewable hydro would be the best option which is available from Manitoba at lower costs than coal.

                        Gas is a good option as it can be revved up quickly when needed. Gas is not in short supply and reserves are likely to be greater than expected. Coal is finite as well.

                        If you have ever driven through oil producing regions there is alot of natural gas being flared. Obviously using it to generate electricity would be a better use.

                        There will be some duplication in costs with having multiple generation systems. I am not sure what the additional costs will be. But with solar and wind being used more and more, this will allow smaller producers to produce their own electricity and reduce distribution costs. Wind is now as cost effective as new gas. Remember the LCOE I posted.

                        The first and easiest option is reduce usage through efficiency gains. That is happening. But building codes are terrible when it comes to energy efficiency. Think of all the glass condos going up across the country. Hard to heat and hard to cool.

                        Net zero housing is technically possible in Canada and there are some examples across the country. Which means that houses can produce as much energy as they can use. With high efficiency standards they can use very little to start with. Take a look at this story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-dodge/net-zero-homes_b_3313190.html

                        We have a passive solar house for a family of four, 2500 square feet of living space, 1600 ft heated shop in floor heat, gas barbecue and cook top, gas water heat, 3 weeks of drying grain with a single dryair heat exchanger on 1 fan using a 150,000 btu boiler. Total annual cost $1200. I am not bragging, but I just wanted to show what energy efficiency can save.



                        Someone else questioned


                        Chuck2, maybe you will answer my question. Properly located windmills have a 35% efficiency rating, meaning that over the period of a year they will produce on average 35% of their rated capacity. I believe solar is about 1/2 of wind. So there we can build 100% of our required capacity in wind, 100% of our capacity in solar and still on average only supply about 53% of our need. So we then have to build about 80% of our need with natural gas generation that is available when the other 2 aren't producing. Chuck2 without reprinting someone else's answer, just answer it yourself, does this seem logical or efficient to you? Imagine we now need 3 power lines instead of one. 3 forms of generation instead of 1. It also doesn't make sense to me that our primary finite source of heating fuel in this cold climate, natural gas, be used to generate electricity. Reply With Quote



                        And a certain admission that the yearly farm power bill was for some 50,000Kwh of usage


                        I'll believe 50,000Kwh at 11.23c/kwh is $5600 plus another 5% real soon and regular twice a year 5% increases for a long times; but a $1200 gas bill; probably omitting the approximately equal delivery charge seems a very reasonable cost; if not low.


                        Only problem is that natural gas is referred to as non renewable....and is bad; scheduled for taxes and ultimate cutbacks because of its property of burning cleanly to end products of water vapor and CO2. Just how are you going to rely on that dependable product and do nothing about your own CO2 pollution.

                        Sure is disheartening to see examples of those who don't practice what they preach for others to follow.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Advocate smaller farms? Really! Who would u actually get to do the work? All those college students crying over the fact Don Trump got elected. We are so screwed when u have people thinking up shit that they think we humans can control. Wasting money to fix problems we can't fix. My grandparents were more worried about eating and staying warm. Which is exactly what alot of people are still doing and you worry about putting up solar panels and windmills. Chuck u must be one of those wealthy trust fund babies that has to have a reason or a cause. Too much time to cut and paste internet shit. Will give u this tho. Joe Dales loves u.

                          Comment

                          • Reply to this Thread
                          • Return to Topic List
                          Working...