[kublikhan]

Renewable gains were only a small percentage of new energy demand. It retired zero existing FF use.

Incorrect. Fossil fuel capacity peaked in the US in 2006. Added fossil fuel capacity is currently negative:

The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) is projecting that 13.4 GWac of utility scale solar power, and 5.1 GWac of small solar power will be installed in the U.S. in 2020 — a 95% increase over 2019. The 18.5 GWac total, with a standard 1.3:1 DC to AC ratio, suggests 24 GWdc of solar power will be installed in 2020. The prior record, set in 2016 as the investment tax credit was set to expire, was just under 15 GWdc of solar power installed.



In addition to solar power being installed in massive amounts, the EIA noted that there would be a net negative volume of fossil fuels installed in 2020. This net negative volume fossils goes back to 2006, when fossil generation capacity peaked in the U.S. A third piece of good news is the 18.5 GW worth of wind generation expected to be installed. Between wind and solar, we’re expecting 32 GW of new power generation facilities to be installed – a true record year for the U.S.

EIA projects US solar power market to install 24 GW in 2020, blowing away prior records

But since “worldwide energy intensity” has declined, where have energy-intensive activities been outsourced to? While many countries have shifted to service industries, somewhere, manufacturing is still taking place. This disparity leaves a lot of questions.

There is a paper that explores this issue in China for a selected time period(1980-1988). I didn't read the whole thing, but the authors generally highlight two points to explain this:
#1 Between 1949 and 1980, China emphasized growth with little attention to energy efficiency. They even subsidized energy, which retarded incentives to save energy and lower intensity. In 1980, China started emphasizing energy efficiency. Since their energy efficiency starting point was so horrible, they could make gains on the energy intensity front even as they added more industry.
#2 Between 1949 and 1979, China's planners focused disproportionately on energy intensive heavy industry. This caused a rapid rise in the energy intensity of their economy and yet did not provide enough jobs nor goods for it's growing population. In 1979 they started adding less energy intensive light industry, which lowered the overall energy intensity of industry.

[kublikhan]

Thus efficiency gains going forward are only enough to “partially offset” new energy demand. What accounts “largely” for most of the decline in energy demand growth?

I think the way to interpret that statement is: "Falls in energy intensity are not enough to entirely offset economic growth." The earlier statement indicated the economy was projected to grow 1.9%. However the fall in energy intensity is only 1.5%. Thus the 1.5% fall in energy intensity only partially offsets the 1.9% in economic growth.

Something is missing from the equation to account for the decline in energy consumption in the face of growing GDP, now, and into the future. Is it the continuing migration of economic activity away from making tangible things and toward providing services and virtual products such as games and binge-watchable TV series driving the decline?

Depends what sector of the economy you are talking about and what time period. Remember that everything consumes energy, not just industry. In the residential, commercial, and transportation sectors, it is mostly efficiency gains we are talking about. However in the industrial sector we are mostly talking about shifting industries, making less energy intensive widgets. Less coal mining, more transportation equipment and plastic. Most of the decline in industrial energy intensity is from this. Time period is also a variable. During recessions, industry tends to focus more on cost cutting and energy saving. So you will see efficiency's contribution to falling energy intensity rise during recessions.

The energy intensity of U.S. manufacturing has continued to decrease, according to the latest data from EIA’s Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). From 2010 to 2014, manufacturing fuel consumption increased by 4.7%, while real gross output increased by 9.6%—or more than twice that rate—resulting in a 4.4% decrease in energy intensity.

Although many manufacturing establishments are taking steps to reduce their energy consumption, the energy intensity decrease for total manufacturing is mostly the result of a shift of manufacturing output from energy-intensive industries, such as the manufacture of metals, chemicals, paper, and petroleum and coal products, to less energy-intensive industries. If major industries had maintained the same proportions of the manufacturing sector, the energy intensity decline between 2010 and 2014 would have been 0.7% instead of 4.4%.

Intensity of U.S. energy use in manufacturing decreases as output outpaces fuel use

Take coal as an example. Since 2011 coal mining employment has fallen by over 40%. Doesn't mean we outsourced our coal jobs and started importing coal though. We just switched to domestic natural gas and renewables. Although this does explain some of the fall in industrial energy intensity. And it was the smaller, less efficient coal mines that closed. The ones that remain are more efficient and less energy intensive:

Most U.S. coal is consumed in the electric power sector and has faced increased competition from electricity generation from natural gas and renewable technologies. U.S. coal mining employment fell from a high of 92,000 employees in 2011 to 54,000 employees in 2018. In 2008, the United States produced 1.2 billion tons of coal from 1,458 mines. Since then, coal production has fallen and many mines have closed: in 2018, U.S. coal production was 756 million tons from 679 mines.

The decline in operating mines has been steeper than the changes in employment and production. EIA’s review of operating mines showed that smaller mines have had greater difficulty competing in the current market and have been the first to close. As smaller, less productive mines were idled or closed, overall coal labor productivity, measured in tons per labor hour, gradually increased from 5.2 tons per labor hour in 2011 to 6.2 tons per labor hour in 2018. The large surface mines in the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming and Montana have much higher productivity.

U.S. coal production employment has fallen 42% since 2011

Is GDP being measured differently or factoring in debt-driven and speculative assets like real-estate sales that are spent not on goods and services, but on more speculation?

No.

Things not included in the GDP are government social security and welfare payments, current exchanges in stock and bonds, and changes in the values of financial assets.

What is Counted in GDP?

Efficiency gains can't seem to account for the decline in aggregate demand, and if they did in the last decade, they won't going forward. The Law of Diminishing Returns at play.

Efficiency gains are projected to continue for decades:

• In the United States, the amount of energy used per unit of economic growth (energy intensity) has declined steadily for many years, while the amount of CO2 emissions associated with energy consumption (carbon intensity) has generally declined since 2008.
• These trends are projected to continue as energy efficiency, fuel economy improvements, and structural changes in the economy all lower energy intensity.
• Carbon intensity declines largely as a result of changes in the U.S. energy mix that reduce the consumption of carbon-intensive fuels and increase the use of low- or no-carbon fuels.
• By 2040, energy intensity and carbon intensity are 37% and 10% lower than their respective 2016 values in the Reference case, which assumes only the laws and regulations currently in place.

Annual Energy Outlook

[MonteQuest]

Renewable gains were only a small percentage of new energy demand. It retired zero existing FF use.

Incorrect. Fossil fuel capacity peaked in the US in 2006. Added fossil fuel capacity is currently negative:

You are talking about power generation. I'm talking about ALL energy demand.

Renewable gains only met a small percentage of new total energy demand. It sure can't replace existing FF use as well. Perhaps in some electrical power generation, but not in overall energy use. Its contribution is minuscule. You have to look at total energy market capture, not just power generation. You also have to look at modern renewables like wind, solar and geothermal--because they are what will be the displacers if at all. This has been one of my pet peeves. People trumpet the massive gains in installed capacity of wind and solar PV and ignore the minuscule .3%/yr gain in overall market share capture. Because the new demand for energy nearly outstrips all gains from renewables. The only way renewables will gain more market share is if there is a cap on energy use or FF's decline in availability.

[MonteQuest]

In 1979 they started adding less energy intensive light industry, which lowered the overall energy intensity of industry.

That explains that era, but not the last decade we are discussing. From 1980 to 1996, the US embarked on a steady reduction in energy intensity that wrought the biggest gains in efficiency. We also outsourced many industries. We knew where the energy-intensive activities been outsourced to.

[kublikhan]

Renewable gains only met a small percentage of new total energy demand. It sure can't replace existing FF use as well. Perhaps in some electrical power generation, but not in overall energy use. Its contribution is minuscule. You have to look at total energy market capture, not just power generation. You also have to look at modern renewables like wind, solar and geothermal--because they are what will be the displacers if at all. This has been one of my pet peeves. People trumpet the massive gains in installed capacity of wind and solar PV and ignore the minuscule .3%/yr gain in overall market share capture. Because the new demand for energy nearly outstrips all gains from renewables. The only way renewables will gain more market share is if there is a cap on energy use or FF's decline in availability.

Better check your data again. There has not been any new energy demand in the US, total energy demand in the US has shrunk. It peaked at 101.5 quads in 2007 and last year total energy demand was 100.2 quads. Total fossil fuel energy consumption, not electrical consumption, has shrunk by 7%. I don't know about you, but to me seeing fossil fuels consumption shrink by 7% is a meaningful contribution.

US fossil fuel energy consumption
2007: 86 quads
2019: 80 quads

[MonteQuest]

Is GDP being measured differently or factoring in debt-driven and speculative assets like real-estate sales that are spent not on goods and services, but on more speculation?

No. Things not included in the GDP are government social security and welfare payments, current exchanges in stock and bonds, and changes in the values of financial assets.

I'm not talking about changes in financial asset values. I'm talking about the profits from the sale of inflated assets from speculation. If an investor sells that inflated asset (like a house), I'm pretty sure it is counted as profit from the sale of a "good" and an expenditure as part of GDP. Speculation profits via cheap debt are a huge part of GDP.

Efficiency gains can't seem to account for the decline in aggregate demand, and if they did in the last decade, they won't going forward. The Law of Diminishing Returns at play.

Efficiency gains are projected to continue for decades.

The Law of Diminishing Returns says otherwise. Wind turbine blades are already at near max. (The Betz limit) Solar PV isn't far behind.(The Shockley Queisser Efficiency Limit) Perhaps in some other system areas gains can still be had.

BTW, Kublikhan, we might butt heads here, but thanks for being very civil in the debate.

[MonteQuest]

Better check your data again. There has not been any new energy demand in the US, total energy demand in the US has shrunk.

In that case, the gains by modern renewables are shrinking and not expanding market share on FF's at all. If they are, why isn't it being reflected in the data?

[MonteQuest]

Total fossil fuel energy consumption, not electrical consumption, has shrunk by 7%. I don't know about you, but to me seeing fossil fuels consumption shrink by 7% is a meaningful contribution.

Which brings us back to the debate at hand. Given renewables minuscule contribution to the total energy pie (1% to about 4%) the drop is due to the other factors we have discussed. How much is due to outsourcing that energy consumption and how much is less intensive activities, consumer consumption choices, and efficiency gains?

[asg70]

The Law of Diminishing Returns says otherwise. Wind turbine blades are already at near max. (The Betz limit) Solar PV isn't far behind.(The Shockley Queisser Efficiency Limit) Perhaps in some other system areas gains can still be had.

Perhaps? Are you so lacking in imagination? I suppose in the interest of doomer pessimism you have no incentive to imagine. A theoretical complete switchover of transportation to electicity ala the infamous Hirsch Report would reap huge gains over persisting the internal combustion engine in spite of the embodied energy and the need to produce electricity. Also, telecommuting is the great "negawatt" which we're now normalizing and may stick after COVID restrictions ease. I could go on listing more items, HVDC transmission lines, utility-scale energy storage, etc...

[MonteQuest]

Perhaps? Are you so lacking in imagination? I suppose in the interest of doomer pessimism you must be.

I"m not a "doomer." Never have been. I am a realist. I was referring to the EROEI of renewables. Those efficiency gains are nearly maxed out in making contributions to the overall energy pie. Wringing more gains out of the systems is marginal at best.

As to what you mentioned, that is another discussion altogether. Try being a bit more civil. I don't take adhoms as part of any discussion I wish to be involved in.

[asg70]

As to what you mentioned, that is another discussion altogether.

Not exactly. It's part and parcel of the larger GDP discussion.

[kublikhan]

I'm not talking about changes in financial asset values. I'm talking about the profits from the sale of inflated assets from speculation. If an investor sells that inflated asset (like a house), I'm pretty sure it is counted as profit from the sale of a "good" and an expenditure as part of GDP. Speculation profits via cheap debt are a huge part of GDP.

No, goods are only counted once in their life. They are not counted during resale. Creating a new house and selling it is captured in GDP. However reselling that same house is not. Selling your stocks is not counted, but purchasing a new boat using your profits is. That's what I meant when I said it doesn't matter if energy is not used to inflate assets, energy is still captured on the consumption side of the equation. That new house, that new boat, they took real energy to make them.

Most home sales are actually excluded from GDP measures. Specifically, only new home sales are included in GDP. All property resales are excluded to avoid counting a sale more than once.

The interplay between home sales, GDP and employment

In that case, the gains by modern renewables are shrinking and not expanding market share on FF's at all. If they are, why isn't it being reflected in the data?

It is reflected in the data. In 2007, renewables produced 6.8 quads of energy out of a total 101.5 quads. For a share of 6.7% of total energy consumption. In 2019 renewables generated 11.5 quads out of 100.2 quads. For a total share of 11.5% of total energy consumption. Renewables(includes hydro and biomass) increased their share of total energy consumption from 6.5% to 11.5%. Or going from 1% to 4% if you want to only talk about wind, solar, and geothermal.

[kublikhan]

Total fossil fuel energy consumption, not electrical consumption, has shrunk by 7%. I don't know about you, but to me seeing fossil fuels consumption shrink by 7% is a meaningful contribution.

Which brings us back to the debate at hand. Given renewables minuscule contribution to the total energy pie (1% to about 4%) the drop is due to the other factors we have discussed. How much is due to outsourcing that energy consumption and how much is less intensive activities, consumer consumption choices, and efficiency gains?

Fossil fuels shrunk by 6 quads. Non fossil fuels grew by 4.7 quads. Total energy consumption fell by 1.3 quads. So switching to non fossil fuels was responsible for 78% of that reduction in fossil fuel usage, with 22% coming from a reduction in total energy consumption.

However that is only part of the picture. The economy grew 22% during that time period. With energy consumption actually shrinking, that means a reduction in energy intensity also occurred. How does this reduction in energy intensity compare to the increase in non fossil fuel usage? Well lets assume for the moment that reduction in energy intensity did not happen. That means we have to increase total energy usage by 22%. Let's assume that it's an across the board increase of 22% in all energy sources, so fossil fuels go from 80 quads in reality to 97.6 quads if there was no energy intensity improvements. That means energy intensity improvements have given us 17.6 quads of fossil fuel energy savings. According to ACEEE, 60% of lowered energy intensity is efficiency gains and 40% structural changes. That gives efficiency improvements 10.6 quads and 7 quads for structural shifts. Plus the 4.7 quads from non fossil fuels we calculated earlier, giving us a total savings of 22.3 quads. Breaking that down into percentages and putting everything together in a table we get:

Sources of us fossil fuel savings 2007-2019
48% efficiency improvements
31% structural shifts in the economy
21% shifts from fossil fuels to non fossil fuel energy sources

[ralfy]

GDP is measured in money, together with the global credit market, which has a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars. In which case, if the issue is growth measured in dollars, we should not have major problems because if there's anything we're good at, it's increasing numbers in hard drives, and more so as financial speculation leads to fallout, leading to even more credit created.

Energy and material resources, on the other hand, is another matter. Average ecological footprint per capita has exceeded biosphere capacity, and that's wreaking havoc on the environment. And that's for the current world population and its current economic make-up, where around 80 pct earn only around $10 a day.

That large group has to be lifted out of poverty because it doesn't want to be poor, and the remaining 20 pct want the same because they can only maintain their own status by selling more goods and services to that 80 pct. In order to ensure that, we will need an additional earth.

Meanwhile, we will need additional resources to minimize damage caused by getting additional resources.

Then the population is expected to increase to around 10 billion, which means more resources. And more still because the additional number of people have to avoid poverty, too.

Finally, those numbers in hard drives, which continue growing mostly because of financial speculation, will have to be backed up too with more resources and energy. If the latter cannot be increased considerably, then all those numbers will become increasingly worthless.

Given all that, any "green new deal" will ultimately be made between man and physics.

[REAL Green]

Total fossil fuel energy consumption, not electrical consumption, has shrunk by 7%. I don't know about you, but to me seeing fossil fuels consumption shrink by 7% is a meaningful contribution.

Which brings us back to the debate at hand. Given renewables minuscule contribution to the total energy pie (1% to about 4%) the drop is due to the other factors we have discussed. How much is due to outsourcing that energy consumption and how much is less intensive activities, consumer consumption choices, and efficiency gains?

Fossil fuels shrunk by 6 quads. Non fossil fuels grew by 4.7 quads. Total energy consumption fell by 1.3 quads. So switching to non fossil fuels was responsible for 78% of that reduction in fossil fuel usage, with 22% coming from a reduction in total energy consumption. However that is only part of the picture. The economy grew 22% during that time period...

Sources of us fossil fuel savings 2007-2019
48% efficiency improvements
31% structural shifts in the economy
21% shifts from fossil fuels to non fossil fuel energy sources

There are facts presented here without links so hard to check but I have been following these issuses now for years so I get your point. I don't believe fossil fuels have shrunk in the key area of transport. Fossil fuels in electricity production have fallen some because of renewables. One important point is renewables are a great addition to the grid where they are placed in sweet spots for generation but also where the grid accepts them with room for intermittency. Those places heavily into renewables are facing the cost curve of intermittency with the need of high cost grid changes and storage strategies. The best wind and solar generation spots are generally exploited first. There are already wind spots being phased out like onshore wind in Europe that is not cost effective anymore.

I breifly looked at ACEEE but I am always suspect with these sites cherry-picking facts and weaving them into their agenda. I am not sold efficiency gains are that high becuase of the way GDP is calculated. Lots of GDP increases were abstract financial increases that do not represent Main Street of real activity and things but let’s assume good growth but not 48%. I see the structural shifts becuase the economy did lots of shifts with China post 2007 when China built so much infrastructure out which actually lifted the global economy out of that recession. Some think central banks did that but it was actually China with central bank help. Easing and repressed rates needed actual activity and that came from China. Let’s now agree that kind of growth in China is over with globalism shifting value chains and debt saturation issues.

The economy grew by 22% but how much of that was real growth and how much malinvestment? That might become more apparent in the covid recession. So much was ghost infrastructure and excess industrial capacity in China but also the US in the form of bricks and mortar retail may be rationalized by a recession. Maybe you need to do a new evaluation of the numbers when the period of growth is 2007-2021. The 22% might be 5%-10% lower.

I can follow your display of figures but my point would be a reduction in how impressive they are with nit picking of all those factors that were not real or hitting diminishing returns. The world is carbon trapped in path dependencies. Yet, there was room for technology and China post 2007 to do significant changes to the global economy. Now post covid we will see new numbers reflecting decline. In my opinion renewables and efficiency will stall with a financial stalling. Fossil fuels are now relatively cheaper putting more pressure on renewables and efficiency gaining technology. Governments will have less resources for these technologies in the future in the form of policy support.

I see a mixed bag of good and bad ahead in this area. I have renewables and have done efficiency steps over this same time period but I am at diminishing returns to efforts. I think the greatest changes could occur with behavior but I doubt people will be up for behavioral changes with all the pain ahead with a post covid recession.

[MonteQuest]

In that case, the gains by modern renewables are shrinking and not expanding market share on FF's at all. If they are, why isn't it being reflected in the data?

It is reflected in the data. In 2007, renewables produced 6.8 quads of energy out of a total 101.5 quads. For a share of 6.7% of total energy consumption. In 2019 renewables generated 11.5 quads out of 100.2 quads. For a total share of 11.5% of total energy consumption. Renewables(includes hydro and biomass) increased their share of total energy consumption from 6.5% to 11.5%. Or going from 1% to 4% if you want to only talk about wind, solar, and geothermal.

I focus on modern renewables because they are going bear the burden of any transition away from FF's. Their ability to capture market share is critical. So, if FF use declined 7% since 2007, and modern renewables only gained 3%, they must have contributed very little if the other reductions are from outsourcing, efficiency gains, and changing to service industries. You maintain that most of the reductions came from efficiency gains. Most is at least 3.6%. That leaves 3.4% to be divided amongst the other players. While I don't have the data for the USA, ALL renewables only met 25% of new energy demand (the IEA hopes for 40%--mostly from biomass). Wind, solar, and geothermal met even less. In fact, the IEA sees biomass as the leading renewable contributor during that period and going forward.

"While the growth in solar PV and wind is set to continue in the electricity sector, bioenergy remains the largest source of renewable energy because of its widespread use in heat and transport, sectors in which other renewables currently play a much smaller role. Its share in the world’s total renewables consumption is about 50% today, in other words as much as hydro, wind, solar and all other renewables combined. We expect modern bioenergy will continue to lead the field, and has huge prospects for further growth. Bioenergy in the form of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels will account for 30 percent of the growth in renewable consumption from 2008 through 2023."--Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director.

The problem with this forecast & mindset (which I was going to address in this thread) is that much biomass energy is not sustainable on an ecological basis. Humans already appropriate 40% of net primary production from photosynthesis to human use. Advocates trumpet that they are using "waste." But as the Planet of the Humans movie showed, they are mostly burning trees. In Nature, there is no such thing as "waste." What we consider "waste" is other living things food, from fungi to detritivores that break it down for soil tilth. We are even feeding our food to our machines in the form of ethanol from corn. How much more can we divert from other living things to feed our machines?

Modern bioenergy leads the growth of all renewables to 2023, according to latest IEA market forecast

[MonteQuest]

Which brings us back to the debate at hand. Given renewables minuscule contribution to the total energy pie (1% to about 4%) the drop is due to the other factors we have discussed. How much is due to outsourcing that energy consumption and how much is less intensive activities, consumer consumption choices, and efficiency gains?

Sources of us fossil fuel savings 2007-2019
48% efficiency improvements
31% structural shifts in the economy
21% shifts from fossil fuels to non fossil fuel energy sources

I say most of the savings was from the outsourcing of energy-intensive industries and a move to a more service-oriented economy, coupled with a consumer consumption change away from garage fillers to electronics.

[MonteQuest]

I have renewables and have done efficiency steps over this same time period but I am at diminishing returns to efforts.

I liked your post. You made a lot of good points. I concur with your diminishing returns argument.

We can cite numbers and trumpet installed capacity until the cows come home, but there is really only one data set that matters: How much transition away from fossil fuels is occurring globally and how fast? Any increases in biomass extraction is unsustainable. Hydro is pretty much maxed out and nuclear is still stillborn. That leaves modern renewables like wind, solar, and geothermal to carry the load. How are they doing?

Worldwide, those 3 comprise just 2% of our energy needs and are growing about .1%/yr. Last year, .3%/yr

In the US, they comprise about 4%, growing only .5% last year.

The REN21 2020 Global Status Report on Renewables will be out in June. Let's see what the report says.

[kublikhan]

There are facts presented here without links

The links were listed multiple times earlier in the thread:

US fossil fuel energy consumption
2007: 86 quads
2019: 80 quads

I don't believe fossil fuels have shrunk in the key area of transport.

Again, see the links above for proof. Petroleum shrank from 39.81 quads in 2007 to 36.7 quads in 2019.

I say most of the savings was from the outsourcing of energy-intensive industries and a move to a more service-oriented economy, coupled with a consumer consumption change away from garage fillers to electronics.

Again, industry is only one of four sectors of our economy. And it's not even the biggest energy consumer. Don't forget the other 3 sectors are also improving.

I liked your post. You made a lot of good points. I concur with your diminishing returns argument.

We are so far from hitting limits to efficiency gains it's not even funny. 2/3rds of the energy in our our electricity production is waste heat, 80% of the energy in our transportation fuels is wasted, not to mention simply building a better mousetrap.

Our electricity production largely comes from fossil fuels & nuclear. However only around 1/3rd of the energy ends up as productive work. The rest is discarded as waste heat. At the same time, we also spend a large amount of our energy production for the purpose of generating heat. Instead of discarding the waste heat from electricity production, it should be harnessed for productive purposes. Like in a CHP plant. This would dramatically reduce the amount of heat that is discarded as waste. Renewable energy also has far lower amounts of wasted energy compared to fossil fuels & nuclear.

There are similar opportunities to dramatically reduce wasted energy in transportation. Rail is 3x as efficient as trucking. Barges are 9x as efficient as trucking. If we switched over to barge/rail for the majority of our long haul shipping needs this will dramatically reduce energy waste. Hybrids can capture wasted energy from braking and put it to productive use. And EVs waste even less energy than hybrids.

Then there are process/technological improvements as well that reduce wasted energy. For example, if an oil company deploys new imaging technology that makes finding oil easier, then less energy is wasted drilling dry holes.

[asg70]

I doubt people will be up for behavioral changes with all the pain ahead with a post covid recession.

I agree with that insofar as we saw an almost overnight abandonment of environmental concerns with the recession of 2008. The same will be true today as people put the dollar-sign at the top of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. That being said, progress has a way of happening in spite of all this, like how LEDs took over in spite of the retrograde defense of incandescents or how EVs have spent more time competing with gas cars in a low gas price vs. high gas price regime.