Thank you for the post. I don't know whether the EIA considered population growth? I read somewhere that the U.S. population will be in the range of 400-425 million by 2050. The folks living here then will want to live as high a quality life as we do now and that requires an average of about 866,000 Btu's per day per person or today about 100 Quadrillion Btu's of primary energy equivalent for the entire country. The wind and solar promotions/expectations by government and many organizations is a fantasy of engineering fiction. Impossible to do with wind and solar. Not likely to be done with nuclear by 2050. So yes, I think the EIA has some analysts with a decent understanding of Reality.
Thanks for the comment, Dick. You make a good point that population growth is an important determinant of future energy consumption. EIA forecasts that US population in 2050 will be 372 million which is on the low side as you note. This highlights the virtue impossibility of such goals as "net zero 2050" because they require reductions in current CO2 emissions plus the CO2 emissions of future populations. Any thoughts from other readers are welcome. Ed
Hey Ed. I enjoy reading your sub stack. Do you have a direct link to the EIA report mentioned in this one? I'd like to compare it to the EPA's stated goal of eliminating sales of petroleum fuels vehicles by 2050 as reported in the New York Times recently. I hope the EIA report hasn't fallen into the memory hole.
Tom, I apologize to you and other readers. Apparently the link to the EIA 2023 Outlook got lost somewhere in the editing process. The link is https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0 . I have added the link to the post but you will have to reload it to see it. I am pleased that enjoy and benefit from the posts. Please contact me anytime with questions or comments. Ed
From the report under the section heading "The Electricity Mix in the United States Shifts from Fossil Fuels to Renewables," it says "Renewables are increasingly meeting power demand throughout the projection period (Figure 2). Natural gas, coal, and nuclear generation shares decline." In Figure 2 of that report, it appears that solar generation goes from 500 billion kilowatt hours to nearly 2,000 by 2050, while all the other energy sources (wind, nuclear, gas, coal) either stay the same or decline sharply. In Figure 3, likewise, solar seems to grow to a share equivalent to the combined totals of other, coal, nuclear, and oil & gas.
It goes on further to state that "Declining capital costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage, as well as government subsidies such as those included in the IRA, result in renewables becoming increasingly cost effective compared with the alternatives when building new power capacity." The result is that solar energy in the Reference Case becomes cheaper than natural gas by 2050; dropping from roughly ~$1,500 to ~$750 per kilowatt, which is slightly lower than the ~$800 for natural gas.
The report states that "As a result, in AEO2023 [Annual Energy Outlook], we see renewable generating capacity growing in all regions of the United States in all cases. Across all cases, compared with 2022, solar generating capacity grows by about 325% to 1019% by 2050, and wind generating capacity grows by about 138% to 235%."
The "Reference Case" on solar says generating capacity is 75 GW in 2022 and rises to 694.7 GW by 2050 [Table 16]. Under Table 1, the total production changes by 2050 for energy sources are as follows:
Crude Oil: +0.4%
Natural Gas (Liquid): +0.6%
Coal: -2.4%
Nuclear: -0.8%
Other Renewable Energy (which includes solar): 5.2%
It seems that the report reenforces the idea that renewable energy will become a very large share of the US energy portfolio — and the largest growing sector of energy — so I'd like to understand the disconnect between the report and your summary above to see where I may have misread things. It seems like the EIA is equally bullish as the EPA on the growth of renewables — not in conflict with it.
Thanks for the question, Erol. The numbers I listed were taken directly from the EIA report in their Reference Case. The EIA projections are for wind and solar to have high growth rates but fossil fuels usage remains flat. There is no major transition from fossil fuels by 2050 so the U.S. does not come close to "net zero 2050." As an aside, EIA's projected growth in wind and solar is, of course, based on cost projections which are unlikely to be met given the projected high costs of the materials and minerals necessary to build the wind and solar that EIA projects, so I expect to see a downward revision in their projections in the Energy Outlook 2024.
Other readers, please express your thoughts. Thanks for your comments and questions, Erol. Yours and those of other readers are always welcome. Ed
Thank you for the clarification! It does appear like most of the fossil fuels remain steady throughout the report with coal being an exception going quite downward. I think with an effort to domesticate production and move away from rare mineral technologies, solar material should either maintain their cost or go lower, but only time will tell.
Thank you for the post. I don't know whether the EIA considered population growth? I read somewhere that the U.S. population will be in the range of 400-425 million by 2050. The folks living here then will want to live as high a quality life as we do now and that requires an average of about 866,000 Btu's per day per person or today about 100 Quadrillion Btu's of primary energy equivalent for the entire country. The wind and solar promotions/expectations by government and many organizations is a fantasy of engineering fiction. Impossible to do with wind and solar. Not likely to be done with nuclear by 2050. So yes, I think the EIA has some analysts with a decent understanding of Reality.
Thanks for the comment, Dick. You make a good point that population growth is an important determinant of future energy consumption. EIA forecasts that US population in 2050 will be 372 million which is on the low side as you note. This highlights the virtue impossibility of such goals as "net zero 2050" because they require reductions in current CO2 emissions plus the CO2 emissions of future populations. Any thoughts from other readers are welcome. Ed
Hey Ed. I enjoy reading your sub stack. Do you have a direct link to the EIA report mentioned in this one? I'd like to compare it to the EPA's stated goal of eliminating sales of petroleum fuels vehicles by 2050 as reported in the New York Times recently. I hope the EIA report hasn't fallen into the memory hole.
Tom, I apologize to you and other readers. Apparently the link to the EIA 2023 Outlook got lost somewhere in the editing process. The link is https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-AEO2023&cases=ref2023&sourcekey=0 . I have added the link to the post but you will have to reload it to see it. I am pleased that enjoy and benefit from the posts. Please contact me anytime with questions or comments. Ed
From the report under the section heading "The Electricity Mix in the United States Shifts from Fossil Fuels to Renewables," it says "Renewables are increasingly meeting power demand throughout the projection period (Figure 2). Natural gas, coal, and nuclear generation shares decline." In Figure 2 of that report, it appears that solar generation goes from 500 billion kilowatt hours to nearly 2,000 by 2050, while all the other energy sources (wind, nuclear, gas, coal) either stay the same or decline sharply. In Figure 3, likewise, solar seems to grow to a share equivalent to the combined totals of other, coal, nuclear, and oil & gas.
It goes on further to state that "Declining capital costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage, as well as government subsidies such as those included in the IRA, result in renewables becoming increasingly cost effective compared with the alternatives when building new power capacity." The result is that solar energy in the Reference Case becomes cheaper than natural gas by 2050; dropping from roughly ~$1,500 to ~$750 per kilowatt, which is slightly lower than the ~$800 for natural gas.
The report states that "As a result, in AEO2023 [Annual Energy Outlook], we see renewable generating capacity growing in all regions of the United States in all cases. Across all cases, compared with 2022, solar generating capacity grows by about 325% to 1019% by 2050, and wind generating capacity grows by about 138% to 235%."
The "Reference Case" on solar says generating capacity is 75 GW in 2022 and rises to 694.7 GW by 2050 [Table 16]. Under Table 1, the total production changes by 2050 for energy sources are as follows:
Crude Oil: +0.4%
Natural Gas (Liquid): +0.6%
Coal: -2.4%
Nuclear: -0.8%
Other Renewable Energy (which includes solar): 5.2%
It seems that the report reenforces the idea that renewable energy will become a very large share of the US energy portfolio — and the largest growing sector of energy — so I'd like to understand the disconnect between the report and your summary above to see where I may have misread things. It seems like the EIA is equally bullish as the EPA on the growth of renewables — not in conflict with it.
Thanks for the question, Erol. The numbers I listed were taken directly from the EIA report in their Reference Case. The EIA projections are for wind and solar to have high growth rates but fossil fuels usage remains flat. There is no major transition from fossil fuels by 2050 so the U.S. does not come close to "net zero 2050." As an aside, EIA's projected growth in wind and solar is, of course, based on cost projections which are unlikely to be met given the projected high costs of the materials and minerals necessary to build the wind and solar that EIA projects, so I expect to see a downward revision in their projections in the Energy Outlook 2024.
Other readers, please express your thoughts. Thanks for your comments and questions, Erol. Yours and those of other readers are always welcome. Ed
Thank you for the clarification! It does appear like most of the fossil fuels remain steady throughout the report with coal being an exception going quite downward. I think with an effort to domesticate production and move away from rare mineral technologies, solar material should either maintain their cost or go lower, but only time will tell.