Roger Pielke Contributor
I research and write about science, policy and politics.
More than a decade ago, Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner characterized climate policy as an “auction of promises” in which politicians “vied to outbid each other with proposed emissions targets that were simply not achievable.” For instance, among Democrats competing for the presidency in 2020, several, including Joe Biden, have committed to achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Candidate Andrew Yang bid 2049, and Cory Booker topped that by offering 2045. Bernie Sanders has offered a 71% reduction by 2030.
One reason that we see this “auction of promises” is that the targets and timetables for emissions reductions are easy to state but difficult to comprehend. Here I’ll present what net-zero carbon dioxide emissions for 2050 actually means in terms of the rate of deployment of carbon-free energy and the coincident decommissioning of fossil fuel infrastructure.
To conduct this analysis I use the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which presents data on global and national fossil fuel consumption in units called “million tons of oil equivalent” or mtoe. In 2018 the world consumed 11,743 mtoe in the form of coal, natural gas and petroleum. The combustion of these fossil fuels resulted in 33.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. In order for those emissions to reach net-zero, we will have to replace about 12,000 mtoe of energy consumption expected for 2019. (I ignore so-called negative emissions technologies, which do not presently exist at scale.)
Another useful number to know is that there are 11,051 days left until January 1, 2050. To achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions globally by 2050 thus requires the deployment of >1 mtoe of carbon-free energy consumption (~12,000 mtoe/11,051 days) every day, starting tomorrow and continuing for the next 30+ years. Achieving net-zero also requires the corresponding equivalent decommissioning of more than 1 mtoe of energy consumption from fossil fuels every single day.
Another important number to consider is the expected increase in energy consumption in coming decades. The International Energy Agency currently projects that global energy consumption will increase by about 1.25% per year to 2040. That rate of increase in energy consumption would mean that the world will require another ~5,800 mtoe of energy consumption by 2050, or about another 0.5 of an mtoe per day to 2050. That brings the total needed deployment level to achieve net-zero emissions to about 1.6 mtoe per day to 2050.
The concept of an mtoe is pretty hard for anyone to get their head around. So let’s put the mtoe into a more comprehensible unit, a nuclear power plant and specifically the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in Homestead, Florida. The amount of energy reflected in 1 mtoe is approximated by that produced by the Turkey Point nuclear plant over a year.
So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 Turkey Point nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a Turkey Point nuclear plant worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.
I’ve found that some people don’t like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net-zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. The figure below illustrates the challenge.
Is the 1 mtoe 1500 2.5 MW turbines calculated at 100% operational efficiency 24/7 or is it factored realistically?
BTW, it’s not a good thing that I know a guy working for our utility that thinks it a good thing that we go 100% wind and consequently do without electricity. He thinks of it as natural rationing.
A worrying portion of society think like that. The whole climate change debacle is a lottery win for those people.
Many seem to be the ‘controlling’ types and often find their way into government too.
Wind turbines can’t be counted at full capacity, unliek a nuclear power plant, 5 to 10 percent is way more realistic. So the figure would be more something like 15000 to 30.000 new windmills per day
Regarding the calculations for wind turbines, the estimate given seems to assume that once built, each one will last forever.
But they seem to last only about 12-15 years, according to several analysts who have written about it.
And the numbers do not take into account the huge increase in the amount of energy/fuel needed to mine the materials and transport and manufacture everything involved in all of the construction, whatever form the CO2 free energy sources would be.
IOW…trying to go fossil fuel free would require burning more of them than ever, and increasing mining on an unprecedented scale.
And who is gonna build all of them?
Millennials with degrees in woman studies?
Good article.
But it should have mentioned:
“Batteries Not Included”
If those 1500 wind turbine units per day are name plate that needs to be multiplied by a factor of 5.
NOBODY would in their right mind build conventional nuclear reactors after molten salt reactors become available, which will happen in the current deacde. Small modiuler molten salt reactors such as Moltex Energy is devlopeing, are simple power plants which use parts (such as fuel rods) that have been used successfully for decades, so approving these designs is a simple matter. These plants will be built in factories, around the world, and 3 or 4 Moltex Energy SMR plants can produce the power of a Turkey Point conventional plant (1386MW) and occupy less space, with NO need for any nearby lakes of cooling watwr – the plants are air cooled. Nor is there any need for the massive site preparations which are requiired by a convenional power plant. Nor is there any need for much peak power generators,since the molten salt reactors have load following capability. These plants can burn either nuclear wastes (reducing the time required for background radiation levels to be acheived from 300,000 years to 300 years for the components which are not completely burned)
and can burn tegular low grade uranium or Thorium, whcih can supply energy for thousands of years. Meltdowns or explsoive ejection of radiactive material is physically impossible. And, best of all, these power plants can be built at less than half that of conventional plants of equal capacity.
They require very little land and are so sae can be located anywhere. Estinmated cost of power is 4 cents per kWh, levelized, cheaper than fossil fuel. Russia, China, India and the Westa re developing molten salt reactors and there will be enough build/install capacity to replace all existing fossil fuel capacity fairly quickly. The U.S. would require less than a trillion dollars to build enough molten salt reactors to replace all fossil fuel and renewable capacity, leaving current nuclear and hydro capacity (30%) intact. There would be enough power to also satisfy an all electric automotive fleet. Making arguments using characteristics of current comvemtional nuclear power displays excessive ignorance – once molten salt begins deployment, no fool would even consider building a conventional light water reactor powerplant. The future of nuclear (and of all power) is molten salt – nothing else makes any logical or exconomic sense.
“Another point of carbon budget error that Roger doesn’t include.. he treats these additional nuclear power plants as if they spring from the ground like trees. No massive input of fossil fuels, and mineral extractions to produce even just one plant. ” ???
Mull on this
“AWEA’s manager of industry data analysis, John Hensley, did the following math: 4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines. ”
How much fossil fuel, manufacturing, concrete for the foundation, transportation for every aspect involved from mining to building to providing security and maintenance be generated? And that number of wind turbines is only the amount needed for electricity. You need to multiply by three or four to eliminate all uses of co2 producing activities in manufacturing, transportation, mining, farming, etc.
Do the math, Use your brain.
As an engineer, involved with the construction of Nuclear power plants. when I read Rogers article I immediately conclude it is humanly impossible to achieve ZERO CO2 by RE, And ONLY NE makes it even theoretically possible. Worse, the numbers used are Annual total. That means that the power available is ONLY about 1/2 to 1/3 of the da to meet daily peaks, and 4 times that number for annual peaks.
Nuclear Power plants do not need “Backup Storage” systems RE will require, at minimum an equivalent amount of storage as generation just to provide 1 hour of storge, assuming all storage is available on the grid at all times. One hour of storage only allows you to do an orderly shutdown of manufacturing and does not eliminate the need for emergency generators in essently every facility that uses electricity.
I am even skeptical that replacing gas/coal with nuclear automatically means less GH gases. For example, here in Koeberg, all the fish in the ocean near to the plant died due to the fact that the water became considerably warmer. It seems to me nuclear uses a lot more cooling water than a gas powered plant. The cooling part of nuclear seems quite critical as all plants are built near rivers, seas or oceans. That being the case, my plausible (?) thinking is that the resulting warmer water also means a higher evaporation rate during the [sunshine] daytime. That means more water vapor in the air…. which warms the earth ….[if you believe that GH gasses warm the earth….]
Link, please. “All the fish died” should make a lot of news.
I cannot find the SA link anymore, but here is a USA link showing that fish being affected by altered water temperatures.
https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/energy-development/nuclear.html
You may have a valid point with the water, so go MSR/LFTR as ColMosby stated above.
Thorium LFTR’s do not require copious cooling. People utilize the Uranium/Plutonium reference to nuclear power, there are others available, but the US Dept. of Energy isn’t interested in a second fuel cycle.
https://youtu.be/K7AfnQ8BN6E Comment starts at 3:20 mark…
I recommend building a LFTR next to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility and do a head to head comparison of results…
“Thorium LFTR’s do not require copious cooling.”
How come? Do they operate with different laws of thermodynamics 🙂 or just start the heat engine at molten salt temperatures?
As far as I remember from ten years ago I last looked at it, LFTR operate at around 800 Celsius. Due to this high naturally stable temperature, you can use a closed turbine to heat exchanger cycle with helium. If the core temperature exceeds 800 C the process will slow down.
So, no magic here – no water cooling needed, although I suppose some air-cooling of the helium might be needed or you can use wet cooling. But importantly, the cooling is not safety critical and significant less cooling is needed for LFTR, compared to the more classic types.
There is a twelve page document, that may give you some insight:
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/LFTR.pdf
Thanks, I’ve gotten a bit out-of-touch with LFTRs, nice to see a current concept.
However, it looks to me as though the power side will be working with gas temperatures close to existing power plants because the document states “The supercritical carbon dioxide gas turbine employing the recompression cycle is proposed and can generate electricity at high efficiencies (approximately 45%).”
So, half the thermal output is waste heat, and will require typical heat engine cooling.
How do they get from hot helium to actual electrical power?
While the reactor may not need as much cooling, the water loop, where the generator is located will still be needing the same amount of cooling.
OTOH, “Oh, the Manatees!”
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060031090
They seem to really, really appreciate Florida power plants.
Problem has been solved for years. US does not allow any new power plant or manufacture us a river for a heatsink.
You keep repeating this claim. It’s almost as if you actually believe it.
The amount of cooling needed is based on the amount of power being generated. It has absolutely nothing to do with which technology is being used to boil the water in the first place.
re: “Requires A New Nuclear Power Plant Every Day”
Going full-in on (what will be) “stranded assets” …
They believe it’s a marsh mellow world. Fragile, easy to catch fire and on a hockey stick.
As Biden said truth over facts. And as Hitler said, to paraphrase, tell a lie often enough it will be the truth.
The incredibly unthinking will believe they will be saved by these say anything without knowledge politicians. Their truth over facts is deception.
Remember folks, it’s only the fossil fuel people who stand to gain. Nobody will make ANY money building 2 nuclear plants a day.
Well, the thousands of people working at construction site will make money. Once built, there will be hundreds of great jobs at each plant. And each plant will have a jobs multiplier effect, as dozens of outside contractors and salespeople call on the plants.
The Fed Govt should launch the building of a 1 GW nuke plant every month. Build them as military installations to keep the ecoterrorists away during construction. That will greatly reduce the time and expense to build the plants. (Nuke plants are 90% concrete and steel and represent thousands of shovel ready jobs).
They should then sell the plants to the Social Security Admin for Treasury Notes the SSA possesses. The Fed Govt should be required to burn the notes.
Keep breaking ground on a new plant month after month until we have doubled our fleet. Then keep going, replacing retiring dinosaurs with new generation plants.
Fairly quickly, the SSA will have traded a mountain of IOU’s for a fleet of highly valuable, highly productive nuke plants. And the country will have added hundreds of billions of dollars of value to its GDP. The SSA can then sell plants as needed to meet monthly retiree payouts or license them to contractors to run to make long-term income as a landlord.
re: “The Fed Govt should launch the building of a 1 GW nuke plant every month. Build them as military installations to keep …”
Quite likely this could turn out to be the BIGGEST ‘white elephant’ / stranded asset mankind ever builds.
I take it most of you ppl have NO idea what is taking place these days with respect to new energy developments? It doesn’t help that ppl like WUWT poster ristvan and the late (oops – still living!) Robert L. Park (of APS fame) have ‘poisoned the well’ on the subject of the Hydrino reaction …
Patronizing Adj, When someone disagrees with you, you immediately think they have NO idea about the topic.
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
We’ve been waiting an awful long time for hydrinos.
Which arrives first, do you think? A) Commercial application of hydrinos, B) Commercial use of fusion, C) Earth destroyed when its aging star explodes?
re: “We’ve been waiting an awful long time for hydrinos.”
Lets’ NOT be idiots; a lot of progress is being made now that reaction-rates allow utility-sized “scaling”.
Have you seen the latest – or do you assume progress stops when YOU don’t pay attention to a particular subject?
For instance, see: 1) https://brilliantlightpower.com/flash-boiling-powered-by-the-suncell/ and
2) https://brilliantlightpower.com/time-lapsed-two-hour-duration-steam-production-run-powered-by-the-suncell/
Are you at all familiar with how gas cromatagraphy works?
\GAS CHROMATOGRAPHIC ISOLATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF HYDRINO GAS PRODUCED BY THE SUNCELL®
https://www.reddit.com/r/BrilliantLightPower/comments/aw8r7i/gas_chromatographic_isolation_and_identification/
As I said above: Let’s NOT be idiots …
You just can’t help being patronizing. Maybe some day, when you grow up, you’ll do better. It’s officially a race between that, the commercialization of hydrinos, and the end of life as we know it… with the apocalypse currently in the lead!
Matthew Schilling re: “You just can’t help being patronizing. Maybe some day, when you …”
Advisory word (to all) is: Get off that ‘high horse’ and look at the experimental data available TODAY.
Everything else (from peanut galleries the world over) is conjecture and guesswork; The practical demonstrations to date indicate, work to confirm, the underlying theories proposed by Mills.
It’s part of the scammers basic tool kit.
If you can’t refute your critics, act like an a-hole and try to drive them away.
Got to get them to leave before they upset the marks.
MarkW re: “It’s part of the scammers basic tool kit.
If you can’t refute your critics, act like an a-hole and try to drive them away.
Got to get them to leave before they upset the marks.”
MarkW, you’ve become real idiot … but, you might can possibly still be saved, IDK, of course, that’s not up to me.
Matthew Schilling re: “We’ve been waiting an awful long time for hydrinos.”
Take a guess, wiseacre, at what is producing this “effect” seen burning through the sidewall in this reactor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srInBiYcOeU&feature=youtu.be
See, this is why I continue to suggest I call you guys “idiotes”, derived from the Greek word for “uninformed” and “stupid”, it is because it is true.
If only 30 seconds or less was all that was needed from his devices. But I think they have a problem with things, umm, what’s it called? Oh that’s right – melting!
Don’t get me wrong, I think Randall Mills might receive a Nobel Prize in my lifetime. But that doesn’t automatically mean he’s going to have a commercial product any time soon (as in the lifetime of a sequoia).
But, feel free to keep calling everyone else idiots and stupid – it’s a free country. Like I said, I’m sure you’re lots of fun at parties!
Telling the truth has become “poisoning the well”.
So sad when a good scam comes off the rails.
MarkW re: “Telling the truth has become “poisoning the well”. So sad when a good scam comes off the rails.”
Advice as penned earlier: Let’s NOT be idiots; I take it you are as uninformed as ever on this subject? MarkW, you seem to have a ‘head on your shoulders’, use it.
“Hydrogen to Hydrino reaction-based SunCell(tm) lecture given at Fresno State”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dCzVUnnL00
You wanna see a REAL scam, MarkW? LOOK UP the “Earth Engine” as I addressed WUWT poster “Sue” about.
Well, there’s always hydro (in some places). From https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/23/terence-corcoran-why-the-global-fossil-fuel-phase-out-is-a-fantasy-akin-to-time-travel/
I cannot find the SA link anymore, but here is a USA link showing that fish being affected by altered water temperatures.
https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/energy-development/nuclear.html
” Net zero carbon (dioxide) ” leaves the whole thing open to manipulation.
None of the politicians who espouse this know anything about science or engineering. They don’t care about the reality. They are pandering to their constituency. The calculations showing the foolishness of decarbonizing the world economy have been around for a long time
Time to think outside the box. Nuclear Power Plants? Wind Generators? Give me a break. Right idea; wrong approach. Here’s what we know:
“… if I add up the work accomplished by non-human energy—by fossil fuels and machines and by electricity from various sources and electric motors—I find that, on a per-capita average, that quantity is 100 times my annual work output. For every unit of work I do, the motors and machines that surround me do 100 units.” https://www.darrinqualman.com/energy-slaves/ Aug, 2018
See where I’m going with this? Forget energy slaves. The Earth is dying, people! We must have real, flesh and blood slaves. Problem solved. You’re welcome.
Haven’t worked out all the details and no doubt there will be issues to deal with like repealling the 16th Amendment. This is what I have so far: All elected officials get slaves and me because I thought of it. Perhaps similar to the military where a general has thousands of “slaves” who must do as he orders.
No impossible construction schedule, resource extraction, fossil fuel expenditure, no CO2. Think Egypt and the pharaohs. It worked once, it can work again.
Most pyramid builders weren’t slaves, but subjects paying their taxes via public works employment.
Sorry, truth over facts.
A fine distinction!
An interesting approach that the author takes, but I think I misses at least one important aspect: were using a lot of the fossile fuel in processes that are very inefficient. Urban mobility will en large not be based on cars and for sure not be based on combustion engines anymore. Not sure what the share of individual mobility in the overall scale is (5 or 10%?) But this will have an impact on the “increase” of the demand.
In general the author assumes that or energy consumption patterns won’t change, but it seem quite naive that this will actually be the case. Beyond mobility, buildings, the way we conduct business, or food supply, city and regional planning, all that will change. And one oft the many goals behind these changes will be to reduce our impact on all natural resources…
As the developing world gets more cars, the transportation portion of fossil fuel use is liable to increase. I see it every year in Latin America. Look at the data for Asia and Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle#Comparison_by_regions
Don’t forget all of the people switching to Electricity to operate Heat pumps (either air or ground source), Hot water heaters, and stoves with the banning of NG for these necessary items. My annual use of electricity doubled when I switched to a Heat pump. And I have a NG furnace as the backup/air handler. With NO FOSSIL I will have NO heat when it gets below 20 degrees F unless I have a electric resistance heat assist. Each one of the therms necessary to heat my house will now cost THREE times as much [average efficiency of the heat pump for 20 to 60 degrees air temperature] that means THREE times as much electrical load from every other person heating their home with a heat pump using air source. Looking at my bill that basically doubles the electrical load. That means the 4 Terawatts goes op to about 5 terawatts for just home heat alone – until there is no heat loss in any home with a heat pump. That means about 100 million homes need new insulation – and probably the expensive sprayed in foam and all of the health concerns that is going to create.
You’ll also be charging your electric car. You can do that overnight when other electrical use is low and get a price break from your smart meter. Uh, what time of day is that 20 degrees F?
If everyone starts charging their cars over night, that over night price break is going to disappear real fast. It might even turn into a time of surcharge if the new demand is high enough.
“Uh, what time of day is that 20 degrees F?” Last winter (not typical) we had almost a week where it was below 20 Degrees F every night and did not go above 22 Degrees F (needed to switch off of “Emergency” heat) each day. That meant I was using NG 24/7. My Electric bill for January was lower than April or May. My gas bill was over $250. And my home meets Heat Pump insulation requirements.
People have been predicting the death of cars in cities for decades. Yet the ignorant masses keep ignoring the academics have to say and live their lives the way that is most convenient for them.
Actually it is worse than that. Energy demand will keep growing, so the plants need to be built to feed that demand also.
1-2 nukes per day. Per day! Anybody who has ever been involved in a major infrastructure construction project at any level, knows that we would be realistically talking about 2 to 3 nukes every 5 years nationally. Really.
Won’t the wind speeds be slowed or the wind patterns be changed by all these windmills? If a hurricane suddenly appears in your backyard where none has ever appeared before could you sue the windmills? Is there such a thing as “wind rights”? Could the windmill “behind” another windmill sue the first windmill for theft? So many questions!
Another MAJOR problem and endeavor is the electrification of the 140,000 miles Railroad system?
Would be essentially impossible to run the railroad on batteries.
The U.S. rail network is comprised of nearly 140,000 miles of track and over 100,000 bridges.
Rail | ASCE’s 2017 Infrastructure Report Card
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org › cat-item › rail
If one is really serious about significantly reducing the burning of fossil fuels, then replacing aging fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power plants is the only viable alternative. The world has been spending quite a bit on wind and solar and they just are not doing the job. However we must all understand that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.
William
No!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/#comment-2811672
When you do the math, you realize that to achieve Net Zero CO2 from all human activities by 2020 [The Green New Deal] will cost more than double the total Global GDP. Who is going to pay for that? How far will the world go down that road before they realize that it is IMPOSSIBLE?
The USA alone would need 500,000 2 MW Wind turbines and an equivalent amount of Solar panels just to provide Todays electrical needs. To achieve Net Zero means five to ten times that number.
Then you need to electrify 140,000 MILES of railroad track and probably double the rail capacity to take the added freight from the trucking freight.
How much trucking, mining, manufacturing, excavation, MANPOWER does it take to build 16 Million Wind turbines a year for the USA and an equivalent amount of solar systems. AND a storage capacity to provide every major city with just one weeks’ worth of backup battery power?
Now multiply all those numbers by Five for the rest of the world. Only one real factual answer – It is impossible.
By the way I BELIEVE the earth is getting warmer, at least 1 degree C.
I also believe Renewables are NOT the answer.
Have I missed a point here? If we use 12000 mtoe per year then the amount used per day is 12000/365. That is a lot more than the 1mtoe/dsy used in the article.