Future of Energy

By F. Lempérière (Hydrocoop) ____   Summary: At present the hydropower plants have a total capacity of 1 150 GW and generate yearly 4 000 TWh associated with 18 000 TWh of coal or gas electricity. In 2050, Hydro Power plants may reach 2 000 or 2 500 GW generating 7 000 TWh associated with some 40 000 TWh of variable wind or solar energy. Storage of electricity by Pumped Storage Plants (PSP) may be justified up to 3 000 GW capacity instead of 150 GW at present. The utilization of rivers and reservoirs should be optimized accordingly between hydropower generation and storage. It may be very different from the present utilization.   Hydropower is presently associated with large amounts of fully-dispatchable coal or gas electricity. By mid century hydropower will be associated with much less coal or gas and much more variable wind or solar energy; it may thus be as useful for guaranteed capacity and energy storage as for generation. The best utilization of rivers and possible reservoirs should be reconsidered accordingly.   Three questions must be answered: How may the global energy and electricity landscape look like in 2050? How useful will hydropower be for generation and storage of electricity? What role may pumped storage plants (PSP) play in this context?   The global energy and electricity in 2017 and 2050   All energies are assessed in kWh (or in TWh = 1 Billion kWh) All power capacities are assessed in kW (or in GW = 1 million kW) Costs are assessed in US $ and in cents of US $ per kWh   1.1. Energy in 2017   The total “primary energy” used yearly is of 15 billions tonnes oil equivalent. This is equal to 175 000 TWh, i.e. 25 000 kWh per capita for 7 billion people.   A “primary energy” of 10 000 TWh is included in fuels (mainly oil) which are not used for energy but as feedstocks for various industrial products, notably chemicals. 65 000 TWh, mainly coal and gas, are used for generating 25 000 TWh of electricity and 40 000 TWh are turned into low-temperature heat in thermal plants, most of it useless. 100 000 TWh are used directly (not through electricity): 45 000 are from oil mainly for transport, of which over 30 000 are lost as heat in motors and vehicles, 35 000 are from gas and coal of which 5 to 10 000 are lost, 20 000 are from biomass and various sources and 10 000 are lost (for instance, most primary energy is wasted in traditional utilization in Africa or Asia). The total losses are close to 50 000 TWh and the useful energy is about 50 000 TWh   The total useful energy, i.e. the satisfied needs, is thus 25 000 + 50 000 TWh = 75 000 TWh in 2017 (10 000 kWh per capita). About 60 000 TWh are from fossil fuels.   1.2. Energy in 2050   The world population will increase by 40%, the extra needs are enormous in many countries and electricity will be available in all countries at a cost close to today’s and possibly lower; it will be mostly renewable. The global economic product will probably double between 2017 and 2050 and the useful energy will increase by at least 50%, reaching 110 or 120 000 TWh/year[1] The primary energy which is presently 75 000 TWh useful + 100 000 TWh lost may be in mid-century: 110 or 120 000 useful + 50 000 TWh lost, i.e. will not increase. The share of electricity in useful energy which is presently one third may well be two thirds by mid-century for 3 reasons: It is possible to use electricity for almost energy needs except a significant part of transports (liquid fuels)...

The analysis below and proposed scenario for 2050 are based upon International Energy Agency (I.E.A.) data and likely unit costs, on proofed technologies and on usual hypotheses for world population and energy needs in 2050.

by F. Lempérière (HydroCoop) – February 2015 The suggestion below is based upon “A new presentation of energy data” as annexed, upon proofed technologies, and usual hypotheses for population growth and relevant energy needs. Some data may be underlined: –   Presently 7 billion people have as average a yearly income of 9 000 $ and emit 5 t of CO² per capita. But 3 billion people in North countries (including China) have an income and CO² emission per capita fivefold these of 4 billion of South countries where most people emit less than 2 t of CO². –   For limiting reasonably the climatic change, the CO² emission should be halved in 2050, i.e. to 2 t of CO² for 9 billion people. –   This is possible if investing in renewable energies (essentially in Solar, wind and hydropower), about 0,7% of the world income between 2020 and 2050, i.e. in 2020 for a global income close to 60 000 billion $ an investment of 400 billion $. These 400 billion $ will be partly balanced by the savings in fossil fuels utilization; the remaining extra cost, possibly 200 billion $ should be for half in North countries, for replacing fossil fuels and half in South countries for development with minimal CO² emission. It is difficult and unjustified to ask this effort from South countries and a technical and financial help of 100 billion $ per year from North countries is necessary (30 $ per capita). This may be the basis of a World Agreement: Suggestion for a World Agreement on Climate Change Each country will limit in 2050 its CO² emission to 2 t/capita.   Accordingly each country will devote at least a percentage A (for instance 0,5%) of its income to investments in renewable energies at home.   Countries emitting more CO² than the world average will devote an amount B (for instance 5 $) per t of CO² in excess of the world average for investments of renewable energies in countries emitting less than average.   In addition, countries having an income per capita higher than the world average will devote a percentage C (for instance 0,2%) of their income in excess of the world average for investments of renewable energies in countries under the average income.     This would apply from 2018. Values A, B, C, initially chosen in 2015, could be reviewed in 2030. The Agreement is based upon investments in renewable energies, CO² emission and income per capita which may be well known. A part of the commitments could be devoted to investments for energy savings but their evaluation may be more difficult. Alternative agreements could be upon reductions of energy but are questionable because it is difficult to ask a reduction of energy from 3 billion people who emit less than 2 t of CO² and there is no reason to prevent industrialized countries from increasing their total energy by renewable if they reduce also the fossil fuels utilization. And the criteria of Final Energy or Primary Energy are questionable and do not represent well the Energy Really Used or the CO² emission. Nuclear investments may be, or may not be accepted as renewable energy. It may be acceptable to take in account a part of their value such as 50%. The total yearly investment may reach in some industrialized countries 0,5% of their income at home and 0,3% abroad, which may appear high but will be partly balanced by less fossil fuels costs. The investments at home may be by private companies and government guarantees of a price of renewable kWh. The...

The key problem is the possibility to get mid century the energy necessary for the world development at acceptable cost and impacts with 70 or 80% of renewable energies (essentially solar, wind, hydro and biomass). In 2050 a population of 9 billion (7 in sunny countries) will have probably a gross product 3 or 4 times the present one with a reduced energy intensity; the need of energy may be the double of the present one.