EIA annual energy outlook 2022 2

[GregLocock]

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_ReleasePresentation.pdf

Well this is baffling. Apart from shutting down nuclear and a lot more renewables, the recipe seems to be more natural gas. Cars in particular rather belie the government fantasy, by 2050 they'll still mostly be boring old gasoline.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

Thanks Greg... a nice reference... I have no idea where this is going, but it could get really ugly and their future curves may not be representative of anything.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Do you feel any better?

-Dik

 

Good report - clear, concise and impactful.
I hope people read it and absorb the message.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

What is their definition of renewable? It seems that if you define everything but petroleum as renewable then only renewable or petroleum could be the fastest growing.

 

[LionelHutz]

That strikes me as being about what the reality will be.

Nuclear will be declining because nothing new is being built and some of the half-decade old stations will go offline one day.

The demand for electronics and batteries will restrict EV production despite desires to stop ICE production.

 

Nuclear is declining only in the US, and even that is only true for conventional PWRs.
Everybody is getting on the SMR bandwagon.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

I've always wondered, our Navy was able to build its first nuclear ship in 2 years in the 1950's. There has never been an accident of significance aboard a nuclear ship among all nations. Yet somehow our Navy can't build a functioning diesel plant (Freedom class). Anyways, maybe we should start building many marine style reactors as they have such a good track record. Lots of smaller reactors would be easier to earthquakes harden than a big one.

 

[rb1957]

"Nuclear is declining only in the US" ... what about Germany ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

Germany can't really decline since it's been flat at zero for so long.

Apologies for the omission.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[TugboatEng]

Has Japan built a reactor to replace any lost capacity in Fukushima? If no I think we can count them in decline as well.

 

Don't think Japan is acting by choice. They are lacking in natural resources so nuclear must be a part of their mix for some time.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

The cancellation of Nord Stream 2 and consequent increase in sea shipments concerns me, from the point of view that LNG containers will become big fat easy targets for terrorists.
(Of course the cancellation had to happen; I'm not arguing it should not have been.)

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[LionelHutz]

LOL, yes or course the USA will run away from SMR while everyone else embraces it....

First nuclear ship took about 3 years to construct using a reactor that took about 8 years to build. Impressive, but more than 2 years on both counts.

USS Nautilus

 

[JoshPlumSE]

One of the "energy economics" aspects of natural gas is that it is very much more efficient (in terms of MegaWatts of power per ton of CO2 emissions) than coal. So, when energy economists look at this (at least the ones who think like my Dad) they tend to think that the easiest path forward is to replace as much of the coal burning plants with more efficient natural gas power plants....

I'm not talking just about the US, but world wide. It's tough to convince a country that is limited in economic power that burning coal is bad for that country. Especially when they don't have the economic strength to go solar or wind or nuclear.

When I talked to my Dad about this years ago (when he was in the process of writing a book about the subject), he specifically mentioned that the book did not intend to even mention nuclear. Except for maybe in the prologue where he and his co-author would discuss their intent and assumptions. Why? Because nuclear was so clearly an obvious solution. But, an obvious solution that had all kinds of other political implications outside of global warming. Not wanting refined nuclear materials (or even spent nuclear waste) to fall into the wrong hands, wide-spread opposition from environmentalists and such. That doesn't even mention the long lead time for nuclear (at least in the US). We're probably talking about 10 years of planning, environmental reports and such. Followed by another 5 or 10 years of construction and testing and such before it's fully operational. During that 15 or 20 years, the project is wide open to an assault from political opposition with party in control of congress, senate or presidency constantly changing.

 

[TugboatEng]

On the subject of LNG shipment, there has been no increase in sea shipments. There has been no talk of new vessel construction and the current vessels were already on scheduled routes.

 

I'm going by what the US has said about supplying Germany in the absence of more pipelines. I don't know that industry, but I can only see it growing over time.

Apart from leaks, which are very poorly managed by the O&G industry, I see natural gas as a bridge to lower carbon hydro generation. The carbon footprint is significantly lower than coal, and it burns very clean. There are few of the environmental impacts of coal, which frankly are appalling, from mountaintop blasting destroying Appalachia to SO2 emissions to downstream mercury falling from the sky. Cycling gas plants only have a 20 year life anyway, and can work well alongside renewables.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Apart from leaks, which are very poorly managed by the O&G industry,

I have the same concern about leaks. Though not as much with the industrial power plants.... More like the pipelines into our houses and appliances and such. Or, even the natural gas powered cars.

In the industrial plants, I've been to they often have occasional "flares" to burn off natural gas. My presumption was that it was intermittent because it was a way to limit pressure build up and prevent leaks.

 

The amount of flaring and outright losses in the gas fields is enormous, but it happens out of sight.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[GregLocock]

My common sense pathway would be nuclear replacing gas and coal for baseload, and then initially nat gas for peak loads, with renewables+ storage substituting for nat gas as things progress.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?