There have been many voices lately saying that renewables could produce 80% or more of the world’s energy by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 2.5°C, as long as we develop sufficient energy storage and bring up efficiency and conservation. But the real issue is raw materials. It takes about 500 tons of steel and 1000 tons of concrete per MW of wind power. Even more to connect them to the grid.
The United States has used 40 million tons of steel to build 48,800 wind turbines totaling 74,512 MW and costing about 150 billion dollars. Wind energy produces about 200 billion kWhs each year or about 4% of our total electricity. Coal produces 41% of the world’s electricity and 30% of its primary energy with oil and gas bringing the fossil fuel total to 66% of primary energy. This amounts to about 25 trillion kWhs equivalent including petroleum for transportation fuels. Non-hydro renewables so far produce only 3% of primary energy despite aggressive policies to install them in the developed world. Total primary energy is projected to increase to 40 trillion kWh equivalent by 2050.
Wind output in the United States alone is projected to be 404 GW by 2050 representing an increase of 338 GW over 2015’s 66 GW of installed capacity. As wind penetration increases due to reduced capital costs along with lower prices for renewable energy, raw materials, especially steel, will naturally be greater in demand. The Department of Energy’s Wind Vision Study forecasts wind energy could supply 35% of US power by 2050. Since wind turbines only last about 25 years, this volume would have to be replaced every 25 years. Although global steel production is presently at an historic high, totaling 1.6 billion tons a year, the real question will be if the steel industry can keep pace with future demand for wind.
As useful as this discussion is and as many good points can be made either way I would suggest you are asking the wrong question. First the wind numbers are… Read more »
Good points! I am correcting for capacity factor, and yes, I don’t think the output is worth it and that we will not get the world to sacrifice that much… Read more »
Wind isn’t worth it? Our East Coast OWE has some pretty good characteristics, especially when combined with solar capacity. Granted the fledgling OWE industry in the US needs support, but… Read more »
Good points, if we can make the grid flexible;e, that’s great. But what about a polar vortex, where nuclear was the only source providing full power? Yes, the eastern U.S.… Read more »
Jane: It appears that the wind/solar combination you talk about would require two systems, one a solar system and the other a wind system. Each system would have low productivity… Read more »
Jane Twitmeyer makes an interesting case, but she underestimates the benefit of solar for peak power. In much of the USA the maximum insolation is concurrent with the electric peak… Read more »
80% renewables by 2050? Probably not, but certainly not by looking through the rearview mirror. We are moving into a dynamic period for new materials. We have the technology to… Read more »
True, but you can’t depend on “a scientific or engineering breakthrough”. They tend to be slow and unreliable. Replacing steel will be pretty difficult. We have materials but they are… Read more »
I don’t see an issue in increasing steel production under a business-as-usual scenario to meet growing demand for wind turbines. Global steel production is currently about 1.6 billion tons per… Read more »
Excellent points! Yes, the issue is not the U.S., but the global needs, and it better be prior to 30 years. Has biomass been used before in coking? That’s a… Read more »
Thanks James. To answer your question, here is a link to an article that discusses the issues associated with using biomass residues for steel production: https://coalactionnetworkaotearoa.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/can-we-make-steel-without-coal/ Biomass residues seem to… Read more »
Steel is one of many essential ingredients for “renewables,” but so are concrete, glass, aluminum, rare earths, lithium, ammonia, phosphate, potash, water, habitat acreage, biomass, and a wealth of fuels,… Read more »
Ike: In reality, sustaining our “modern quality of life” with fossil fuels is not one of the options available to us. Climate change destroys the status quo… if it didn’t,… Read more »
The issue of scaling up manufacturing of renewables is covered in Bill McKibben’s current article in the New Republic, A World at War, where he argues “It’s not that global… Read more »
Agreed, but the elephant in the room is nuclear, as Hansen and the rest of us know, we will lose without it. And it’s still easier to install coal in… Read more »
While I am not anti-nuclear (I’m anti-CO2), nuclear has a number of problems that make it less than ideal in our fight against climate-change. It is expensive, it takes a… Read more »
But it cannot be done without significant nuclear. And the life-cycle cost is not more than anything except hydro and gas and it’s about equal with gas. Just a big… Read more »
I believe the capacity factor for wind is about 50%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor Besides the high cost and long implementation time for nuclear, another problem is that nuclear cannot react quickly to… Read more »
Dan, the capacity factor for wind in the U.S. averages 30%, but depends on the location. Here in the PNW, it’s about 25%, in tornado alley it’s 40%. In response… Read more »
James, obviously the economics of nuclear are not working out for utilities since they are closing existing plants. And as I mentioned, telling people facts about nuclear won’t get them… Read more »
Dan, the economics of nuclear are fine, the few nuclear plants closing are merchant plants only in deregulated warped markets with unfavorable politics, the majority of plants are doing fine.… Read more »
Mr. Taubman makes good points about all the possible solutions … hydro is a fast starter, as is gas for now, and can be brought on line when the weather… Read more »
Those numbers sound great but the assumptions behind them are still weak and not borne out by trends. Renewables are only installed when tax credits are available. When they’re not,… Read more »
James: You could say the same thing about nuclear and fossil fuels. Nuclear plants would never be built if the government hadn’t put an artificial cap on liability and provided… Read more »
Ye, but Price Anderson doesn’t affect the cost or price like a tax credit does. The nuclear industry has an insurance corporation that all companies pay into. And any disaster… Read more »
I cited a lot of reports … what assumptions do you not like? RGGI has performance numbers … h hs and do tell how you get .$54/kwh from taxpayers? Is… Read more »
Yes, the State of WA gives 54cents/kWh produced. Solar benefits mostly from state credits, wind from federal credits.
Solar has a 30% federal tax credit that will be reduced to 10% next year … I consider a federal subsidy as it is tax not collected, a tax expenditure.… Read more »
I cited a lot of reports … what assumptions do you not like? RGGI has performance numbers … which others do you think are based on wrong assumptions? and do… Read more »
Yes, I should have mentioned that you get the full 54cents only if the entire system, cells and inverters, is manufactured in the state of WA, which is easy, we… Read more »
Sorry … my point was that the $.54 wasn’t just money from taxpayers.
But it is all taxpayer money, the Fed 30% installation rebate is federal taxpayer money, the 54 cents is all WA state taxpayer money.
The premise this whole series is rather odd. And there are several foundational errors in the discussion. First, in discussing renewable energy, you need to address the entire portfolio of… Read more »
The material requirements are well-known for wind and traditional sources, less so for solar and other new sources, so just was focusing on wind as a major portion of renewables.… Read more »