The energy and climate debate

[ArtM72]

Nat gas is not the driver toward the PC move toward lower emissions it was just a couple years ago. Gas is being politically bypassed to subsidized renewables. Just check out the move by our omniscient President. And don't forget the nukes. Cost matters, but being the most PC matters even more when you're spending other people's money and our Asian LNG market is PC. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environ...imate-rule

Here's a quote from the link YOU provided that states NG will be a major part of the new energy policy:

"EPA head Gina McCarthy maintained that the administration is not trying to favor any power source over others.

“I don’t want you to get the impression that we are putting our finger on any particular type of energy generation,” she told reporters when asked about the role of gas. “If you take a look at the energy mix you’ll see that natural gas still remains a very strong part of the energy mix.”

And Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, argued that because gas generation will increase under the rule, the industry should be thankful."

My suspicion is many complaints about the new energy policy and NG's future role in America and the world's energy future are from the same people who six years ago claimed the new administration would shut down America's hydrocarbon industry.  Ironic isn't it that this industry's current crisis came from within the industry itself as a result of the flood of new hydrocarbon production that has occurred in the USA over the past six years.

US demand and use of NG will continue to grow, notwithstanding renewables, albeit eventually at big coal's expense.  Bottom line...many people will always find something to bitch and moan about, and far too many not finding something will just make it up.

[Getitrt2]

You got it right, Art!

[Palm]

Have to be careful and a lot has to play out yet, but by them saying NG will continue to be a "very strong part" of the energy mix, and "gas generation will increase" under the plan, the expectation is from those analyzing the 1,600 page document (grew from 645 pages) that NG will not grow all that much. The EPA is predicting that renewables will account for 28% of the nation's generating capacity by 2030, up from 22% in the original proposal. Again, long way to go and there will be many legal challenges, but coal is expected to drop, NG not change much and renewables are to be much larger % of energy mix.

[Putncalls]

The EPA is a political animal. The physics don't match the goal. 24% is the the efficiency limit on PVs. That isn't going to change unless photons start mating.

[Getitrt2]

This might be a good time and place for a quote from this morning's OPEC/quiet moments:

'With the global population rising from 7 billion to more than 9 billion by 2050 and total energy demand nearly doubling, “hydrocarbons are going to be needed for an awfully long time,” Pickard says.' (Bloomberg Business) Pickard is Shell's top executive for the Arctic. It sure sounds to me from that that the need and demand for natural gas is going to increase big time in spite of increasing proportions of renewables.

[admin]

The EPA is a political animal. The physics don't match the goal. 24% is the the efficiency limit on PVs. That isn't going to change unless photons start mating.

Put, that's not the first time that you mention it, but I have to disagree here..

A new world record for the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity has been established. The multi-junction solar cell converts 46% of the solar light into electrical energy and was developed by Soitec and CEA-Leti, France, together with the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, Germany.

New world record for solar cell efficiency at 46% — Fraunhofer ISE

There are all kinds of tricks to increase efficiencies (materials, designs, concentrating light, etc.):

Comparing to the best efficiencies of solar panels on the market today is not really fair, as these solar panels are cost-competitive. A better comparison would be against other research cells in NREL’s Best Research Cell Efficiencies.

The last record (44.0%) was set by the NREL III-V Multijunction Photovoltaics Group in November, 2012.

And this really isn't even terribly irrelevant as cell efficiency is only one amongst many metrics at which solar panels improve and can be summed up with price per watt, which has decreased from $25 per watt a couple of decades ago to $5 per watt 10 years ago to $0.50 today. There are literally hundreds of companies and labs around the world on the trail of improvements like:

University of Exeter researchers have discovered techniques for generating photovoltaic energy by mimicking the v-shaped posture adopted by Cabbage White butterflies to heat up flight muscles before take-off.  The results could increase solar panel power by almost 50 per cent. By replicating the ‘wing-like’ structure, the power-to-weight ratio of the overall solar energy structure is increased 17-fold, making it more efficient.

Butterflies help boost solar panel power by 50 per cent - Electronics Eetimes

I've covered a tiny fraction of these here (I have a much bigger private collection of articles but even that is just a fraction of what is happening in the real world). No, not all these approaches will pan out and develop into commercial products that can compete, this is a large trial-and-error effort of hundreds of companies and labs trying different things sustaining the improvements.

[Getitrt2]

Thanks, admin, for addressing the "physics" part of putn's claims I figured were bogus, and I guess I'll comment on the other part. Anyone who says the EPA is just "a political animal" and does not have numerous scientists and other technical personnel and have some important non-political objectives, I would say does not know what he's talking about or is expressing an ideological political viewpoint without caring about the facts. The EPA has accomplished a tremendous amount of good for this country that has benefited the lives of our people, even if one does not agree with every single thing about it.

[Palm]

Solar is for real and a bit depends on where you are doing the projects. SW U.S. is going to get you much better results. I've seen the numbers on current projects being built and they just keep getting better. Look at Hawaii and you see amazing numbers. But they are also doing projects in Minnesota and the results are better than projected. Of course that's new and the panels lose about 1%/year; so after 20 years you are at about 80%. But in the next 5 years the technology will be even better.

[Putncalls]

I stand corrected with the multi junction cells.

[admin]

Thanks, admin, for addressing the "physics" part of putn's claims I figured were bogus, and I guess I'll comment on the other part. Anyone who says the EPA is just "a political animal" and does not have numerous scientists and other technical personnel and have some important non-political objectives, I would say does not know what he's talking about or is expressing an ideological political viewpoint without caring about the facts. The EPA has accomplished a tremendous amount of good for this country that has benefited the lives of our people, even if one does not agree with every single thing about it.

Well, to refine the point, these physical claims are not bogus as such, however:

1. There are ways around the physical limits (new materials, new cell designs, etc), like the example shows microlenses to concentrate light and you get well beyond that theoretical limit, or using more of the light spectrum, etc. etc.
2. It isn't really all that relevant a metric. What matters is cost/watt and there are so many ways to reduce that. For instance, you might have materials that give you low efficiency, but are so cheap that the cells are still interesting. For instance, the cells from First Solar are generally a bit less efficient as its a different tech, but they are considerably cheaper to manufacture so they can still compete (very well, as per the latest quarterly figures).

Insofar as regulation is concerned, there is usually some trade-off. If you regulate to little (or not enforce), you end up somewhere in northen China or New Delhi where the air really is toxic. Regulate too much, or too specific, and you can stifle industries.

What is I think more important is to regulate smart. One way to do that is to set targets and let companies figure out how to comply, this can act as a trigger for innovation and even whole new industriesat the same time you address a market externality (pollution), killing several birds with one stone. An example is the targets for mileage for cars, which has been an important trigger in improving mileage of combustion cars and even been instrumental in bringing about the electric car industry.