Nach Tony Sebas Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation und wenn ich mich richtig erinnere kommt er auf rund 2$ pro kWh wenn man eben die Risiko-Versicherung für AKWs mit einbeziehen würde.
> We can't consume our way out of climate change.
I don't want to be completely dismissive of your statement (I know your heart is in the right place), but there is a strong argument that, paradoxically, consumption is exactly how we're going to solve climate change, because the more solar and wind are bought, the more the price goes down and the more lithium ion batteries are bought, the more the price goes down.
The fossil fuel and ICE car industries are being disrupted by cheaper renewables and electric vehicles, and it could be happening much more rapidly than anyone thinks. Please see this book if interested, by a Stanford professor who has researched this subject very deeply:
www.amazon.com/Clean-Disruption-Energy-Transportation-Conventional/dp/0692210539/
By 2030, it's likely that almost all new vehicles sold will be electric. See http://www.amazon.com/Clean-Disruption-Energy-Transportation-Conventional/dp/0692210539
EDIT: I guess ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers pay people to downvote things in the environment forum lol
It's quite rare for peer-reviewed papers to get something wrong by an order of magnitude ;) If you add the CAPEX and 50 times the yearly OPEX, you get 7.7+1.3x50=72.7€/kWh, which is in line with your range.
Some analysts like Ramez Naam and Tony Seba were much closer to the truth. The former has a whole paragraph about the IEA, which is more generous than my criticism. What I found shocking about the IEA is how they kept predicting a flat deployment of solar, while it clearly became exponential years ago. There's something fundamentally wrong with their analysis.
Other organizations like Shell, Exxon and the Australian government also have net-zero plans. They involve stuff like reforesting an area the equivalent of Brazil, and environmentalists don't take them seriously.
True that they find new ways of extraction, so technically we may never run out. And true the cost curves of oil continue to rise over the past 30 years. Tony Seba has great presentations on youtube, or check out his book: Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030
And then there's climate change: We only have a 5 percent chance of avoiding ‘dangerous’ global warming, a study finds - the problem is that the fossil fuel companies are able to utilize corruption (broken) of the democratic system to prioritize lawmakers to slow the transition, rather than accelerating it.
Do you have current sources for this? Would like to 2x check it, in light of market changes. Tony Seba is claiming Clean Disruption with video, and I'm not sure if they've factored this into the assertion. It was true before, but hard to say if it will hold out in say 5-10 years. (IMO)
Hmm...good question. What is the market opportunity and risk long term? (because that's what most investors will be interested in after considering this short term...)
I've quoted Tony Seba's work a few times (especially this 1hr presentation) - can you refute any of his numbers or analysis? (and isn't it an exciting/scary/inspiring future!!)
Wow. I think you need to provide more info for education of the populace or you'll give Trump the scare campaign he wants.
> banning mineral imports
Isn't that drastic? can we phase in standards rather than banning?
>railroad
I wouldn't support railroad expansion - I would support Hyperloop because it might even end up paying for itself with an energy surplus! Improve the existing network if you like, but let's get hyperloop working too...
> sanctions/bans
I'm not sure that will be popular - you need more education and a better economic case I suspect
> road tolling
Do you need to do road tolling if the transport sector moves to a renewable based car as a service architecture?
> nuclear
What do you mean reconstruction of nuclear? What are you proposing?
> steel
Do you mean switching to renewables for mining and smelting?
> grants for biofuels
Biofuels are very energy intensive, and are more expensive than finding better alternatives - couldn't we focus less on them and more on alternatives? Read Tony Seba's book and he pretty much hammers biofuels as a bad idea.
You never know. What if governments try to maintain their 5 trillion dollar subsidies for fossil fuels in spite of public opinion, and very powerful technological and market forces? Hard to say how much it will slow transition to green power.
However it might happen sooner than you think, according to Tony Seba. The Solar Disruption - Why Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Will be Obsolete by 2030. More background around disruption at the longer presentation Oslo, March 2016
he also has a book on Amazon
Im not so sure... There is an interesting assertion from Tony Seba regarding fossil fuels and nuclear going obselete. He's saying that solar & battery are technologies and will continue to drop in price, like they have done for the last 30 years, and that the cost of fossil fuels will continue to be static or rise. When the cost of solar & battery drops below 6c/KWH, it will be cheaper for many people to produce their own power than to buy off the grid, because the cost of delivery of electricity over the grid is around 6c/KWH. There is still a place for utility generation and the main method of production will be solar & battery.
His book Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030 discusses this in detail.
Here is a Short presentation and a long presentation .
Useful: Nuclear has a negative learning curve for the past 30 years - The more we research and deploy the technology, the more expensive the technology gets. Not sure if Thorium or new technologies are going to change this assertion, or if they can do so before Solar elipses them completely. Tony lays it out here
There is an interesting assertion from Tony Seba regarding fossil fuels and nuclear going obselete. He's saying that solar & battery are technologies and will continue to drop in price, like they have done for the last 30 years, and that the cost of fossil fuels will continue to be static or rise. When the cost of solar & battery drops below 6c/KWH, it will be cheaper for many people to produce their own power than to buy off the grid, because the cost of delivery of electricity over the grid is around 6c/KWH. There is still a place for utility generation and the main method of production will be solar & battery.
His book Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030 discusses this in detail.
Here is a Short presentation and a long presentation .
Useful: Nuclear has a negative learning curve for the past 30 years - The more we research and deploy the technology, the more expensive the technology gets. Not sure if Thorium or new technologies are going to change this assertion, or if they can do so before Solar elipses them completely. Tony lays it out here
edit: added link and formatting
Actually, reading Tony Seba's book Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030 this was a major point he made. > About 15 percent of the world’s freshwater withdrawal goes for energy, according to the World Bank.
and
> [wrt China] Despite the current crisis, total water use is expected to increase from 599 billion m3 (158 trillion gallons) per year in 2010 to 670 billion m3 (177 trillion gallons) per year in 2020.
and
> Here’s another way to look at how the government in China protects the coal industry. From 2010 to 2020, China will increase its freshwater consumption by 71.9 billion m3 (19 trillion gallons). Of that increase, 49.9 billion m3 (13.2 trillion gallons) will go to the coal sector. That is, 69 percent of the increase in valuable freshwater in China will go to the coal industry.
and
>The Chinese government support for coal is all the more vexing because coal is found in the most water-stressed parts of the country: the north and northwest. Sixty percent of new proposed coal plants in China are concentrated in just six provinces (Inner Mongolia, Shaanxi, Gansu, Ningxia, Shanxi, and Hebei) that together account for just 5 percent of the freshwater in China, according to the World Resources Institute.
and
> To alleviate water concerns in the drying north, China is building some of the largest water projects in its history. The fitfully called “South North Water Transfer Project” is a $ 62– billion, multi-decade project to divert 44.8 billion m3 (11.8 trillion gallons) of water from the Yangtze River basin in the south to the arid north.
and
> In other words, the “South-North Water Transfer Project” could be also known as the “Water for Coal Transfer Project.”
and finally
> The costs of building the South-North Water Transfer Project will not paid by the coal industry. The $ 62 billion water project is not directly reflected in the “cost” that they charge, but it is a real cost. As usual, the industry (and friendly governments) socialize their costs while privatizing their profits.
and
> In the meantime, China has taken 8.5 million hectares (21 million acres) of farmland out of production since 1998.519 The country also suffers from desertification on a grand scale.According to China’s State Forestry Administration, 27 percent of the country (2.6 million square km, or 1 million square miles) now suffers from desertification. 520 Soil erosion impacts the lives of four-hundred million people and causes economic losses of $ 10 billion in China, according to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (see Figure 10.7). China is literally sucking country the country dry to feed its coal industry.
How about Why Oil will be Obsolete by 2030 from 2010?
Compare the electricity market in 2010 to what it is now. Have there been any changes?
1) Energy wants to be distributed -tick - source
2) energy is going to be scalable - tick -
3) energy will be grid independent -tick
4) it's going to be embedded - the fabric of buildings will change - still in engineering development/phase mostly, except for the building in my initial posting
5) it's going to be clean, and social - clean -tick, social not sure yet. In Germany there is huge community solar.
6) energy wants to be free - there is a trend of downward prices...not sure what it means either...
Is any of the data in the cost curves off base? They're updated from his book, which you can buy on Amazon
edit: Many told him he was very wrong when he predicted the market would change...the IEA World Energy Outlook has been wrong consistently for the past 14 years.
edit2: The move to solar is underway - 69% of companies are going solar
In 2009 he said in his Solar Trillions book he predicted that solar will be 3.5c/KWh by 2020., and it is now below that in Abu Dhabi.
> Your argument would be better if you could provide some numbers.
There are numbers on the slides in those talks. I also recently read Seba's book Clean Disruption and I'm almost done with The Grid. Both have ample sources. All of the talks refer to specific real-world cases where deals have already been made, investment and divestment decisions already made, based on the current state of the technology and the economics of the issue. There is no hippie stuff in any of this. All of these talks use exclusively economic arguments.
>There is potential for future improvements, but this assumes R&D and time spent on that.
I consider R&D a given, unless/until our society collapses. All technology comes from and depends on R&D. New nuclear plant designs and new extraction and refining methods for natural gas also assume R&D and time spent on the problems.
Don’t take my word for it:
Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation: How Silicon Valley Will Make Oil, Nuclear, Natural Gas, Coal, Electric Utilities and Conventional Cars Obsolete by 2030 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0692210539/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_zk.7Ab6XXDYSB