What energy source will produce most of our electricity in the future?

Hello fellow Pynksters :wave:t3:

Demand for electricity is constantly increasing all around the world.

Most of the electricity is produced using fossil fuels, coal especially, that pollutes the environment so much that it has become a major world problem.

Because of that many countries are considering moving away from using fossil fuels and use some other energy source.

For example, Germany is planing to close every coal plant by 2038 and even nuclear power plants by 2022.
Some other energy source needs to come as a replacement for that to happen.

What do you think, what energy source will produce most of our electricity in the future?
Is it solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydropower or do you have something else in mind?

Are we going :green_circle: or is it staying as it has been?

9 Likes

Let’s see if I can be the first Pynkster to reply :slight_smile:

Great topic @predictor, thanks, I know a lot of Pynkster declared several times before about their negative thoughts about fossil fuels and I’m sure they will bring some more different point of views to this discussion. :pray:

And also thank you for sharing this article especially, because I think it is a spot-on example of the problem itself. Unfortunately, the article indicates some key points where it feels like they are trying to find an entry point to raise the Mayor’s concerns of the people’s employment if Energy Plant will be closed rather than the actual problem itself. (Protecting the Environment) The article also has a quote from an activist and of course scarcity effect of Fukushima Disaster. As a reader, these are the key information I can skim in two minutes only and not get a piece of actual information about the issues which highly devalues the Energy Source discussion or employment behind this decision on German Government.

"Where are our children going to find places to work? That is a problem," says Mayor of Brokdorf, Elke Göttsche.

Naturally, as a politician, good old employment card played by the Mayor, indeed it might be the main income resource for this small village and crucial, however, let’s not forget the very same card is getting played by many industries as well, and some of these industries are actually doing worse to the environment rather than doing good. So I think for the sake of a building greener environment which we all deserve, employment should not be the priority in the very discussion and humankind proved that many times before that they can adapt many more new skills to have a better life quality for themselves and for the community, now Environment calls into action!

"Neither coal power nor nuclear power has a future. And that’s why we need to transform the energy production in Germany and in Europe," says Manfred Braasch.

Yes, we all want that future, the greenest one! :deciduous_tree: however, I doubt that if you look at the numbers to verify this idea. So, I’d expect to see the source brings more valid entry points and data to share with people… Simple number comparisons can be very useful for some other which I want to share below.

Equally average human power demand is 18.5 TW and to provide that much energy by the wind we need at least 55.5 TW wind turbine capacity, however, we built only 50 GW such capacity as so far. :upside_down_face: Therefore it would take 1110 years and with solar energy, we need at least 74 TW photovoltaic capacity but we managed to build only 100 GW so far, and it will take 740 years. Even if we combine wind and solar energy it would still take 444 years.

What do you think, what energy source will produce most of our electricity in the future?
Is it solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, hydropower or do you have something else in mind?

Are we going :green_circle: or is it staying as it has been?

I understand that many people are really scared after disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima which was really nasty, however, my prediction will be about to see many developed countries will reduce the risk on Nuclear energy by developing more tech and they will get rid of Fossil fuels at the same time investing into more greener energy sources as well as going smarter with IoT to reduce energy consumption. Unless Stark Industries will share the blueprints of The Arc Reactor with us :slight_smile: :robot:

and as a big supporter of hydropower and clean water sources, we will see a lot smarter investments into that area by leading investors so many can follow in time.

9 Likes

This is a very intereting topic. Thank you Karlo @predictor for bringing it in!!

As @ZackofPynk Zack was highlighting, we are still far away from having the technologies to be able to increase the efficiency of all the renewable energy systems at our disposal.

As far as I can see, there are on the way many technologies to be disclosed that could really help a lot!
In my mind the perfect recipe has to be searched in these 4 fields for what concern the energy industry:

This scheme above I took it from a 2008 article but the same can give you an idea.

First of all, it is very clear, that in this particular phase
the major chance we (as a whole humanity) have, to produce more electricity for everyone is to SAVE and REDUCE THE WASTE of energy. I know for sure that Europe is constantly giving out money to the companies for their development in this area. Unfotunately there is alot of misinformation about these funds and many companies doesn’t even know about their existance.
In any case this is an issue that goes really into everyone’s home and personal life…to reduce the energy waste is THE GOAL before any other to be accomplished.

Nanotechnologies, graphene these kind of systems would be very useful to reduce the impact of the systems we have today, both their energetic efficiency and the ways in wich they can be applied.
In the future (next decades) i can see nanotechnologies working as MAIN MEAN OF CONVERSION to have energy ON DEMAND, where you need and when you need. They can be very ductile for the ways they can be used.
Smart paints for cars, and smart textiles are just a couple of the most known exaples.
Imagine a world where a car gets his enery even from his paint as mean of convertion of solar energy or from the difference of temperature created on its surface.
Imagine a world where your phone can recharge itself constantly even because your dress convert the environment energy into energy that can be used for our needs.
This is a very decentralized world at this point for the ways we’ll satisfy our energy demand.
https://www.google.it/search?q=nanotechnology+applications+in+energy

I raccomend you to check this article down here especially if you are in search for nanotechnologies companies. (grey tab on the right).
https://www.nano.gov/you/nanotechnology-benefits

In my opinion, because energy is never enough, even the Storage systems has to evolve. I don’t know what are the improvements in this specific area but I know that it has to work in sinergy with the ON DEMAND supply i mentioned above…where should go the energy produced in excess? it doesn’t sounds good to waste it when someone else cold benefit from it and you could be rewarded for it.

Going along with the storage systems I would point on Decentralized systems for energy distribution where blockchain will have a great role to play.

In the end WHAT ENERGY WILL PRODUCE MOST OF OUR ELECTRICITY IN THE FUTURE?
On the planet we are 7.759.381.xxx and increasing and in the next decades everyone will produce MOST of his own need for energy, from its own biofield (maybe) and for sure from the many environmental sources by the use of mainly nanotechnologies as means of energy convertion.

Here I go with a visionary fantasy prediction because I am also a fan of Space Exploration and I really think that the next phase of BIG industrial revolution will be tracked by THE SPACE EXPLORATION or colonization.

If you think about the way in which we convert the environment energies in the centuries to come (with the hope that we’ll still exist as a specie) when we will go into the deep space exploration (I mean off from the boundary of our Solar System) where we can NOT count on the light of the near SUN, where the environment itself doesn’t give us much, how could we do?
My thinking goes in the direction of planetaries Magnetic Fields. As we all know every planet is a big huge magnet that keeps his position by the interactions of Magnetic Fields of major scale. Sun wind itself is Magnetic Field and they really fill each and every “empty space” between a planetary system and another. In the veeeeeery long run maybe THAT will be the energy source producing most of our electricity.
DREAM BIG. :joy::joy::joy:
:rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket: :rocket:

5 Likes

Great topic @predictor, thanks for sharing.

Not sure if I’m bringing much new to the conversation here as @ZackofPynk and @Tradelta mentioned a lot already .

What I would say is that the idea the all the ‘green’ energies are in fact green is a bit of a fallacy, in fact, there’s mounting evidence that things like hydroelectric do more damage than even some of the fossil fuel-based power sources. Sources like solar and wind also require either huge landmass to generate anything close to enough power to reliably sustain any large population (often they rely on back up sources such as oil or gas-powered stations) or the resources used to build the equipment is incredibly harmful to the environment.

Not probably going to be a popular opinion but, even though it is a fossil fuel and we should probably start reducing the amount of usage. Gas-powered stations remain the cleanest form of energy production and also one of the most efficient.

As Zack mentioned the idea that nuclear is bad is somewhat outdated. Nuclear power can operate 24hrs per day with a high output, produces no greenhouse gases and is carbon-free. The steam/smoke that you can see rising from nuclear power plants is clean, water vapour produced when the uranium atoms split to form heat, the basis for this form of power production. As Zack mentioned the idea that it is dangerous is outdated. The U.S. Department of Labour says it is safer to work at a nuclear plant than at a fast-food restaurant, grocery store or in real estate.

7 Likes

I agree very much with this. Not only the solar panel technology we use today require a large use of landmass, I was also reading some article stating that at the end of the lifecycle of the solar panels (20yrs more or less) we will also have to dismantel them. This process also has to be taken into account in the total energy balance of the solar panel. In many cases the energy balance at the end of their lifecycle is not even positive.

For what concern the Nuclear Power, I also think that it is far more cleaner than many other sources we use today…if we don’t take into account the nuclear waste. As far as I know there is no technology up to today with which we are able to manage them if not putting them underground or re-employ the nuclear wastes for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. About the nuclear technology I can say that those are the only aspects which I don’t like that much.

4 Likes

I’m glad you raised this topic @predictor!

I believe this is by far the big topic of our generation and expect it to be ever-present over lifetimes to come. Allow me to focus on the problem here. :mage:t3:

Taking a step back from the increasing demand for electricity that could govern the greatest part of the 21st century due to emerging economies in Asia Pacific, Africa and Latin America, it all boils down to two central issues, namely the repercussions of global warming on life on Earth as we know it, and the efficiency of energy seen as an input into the global economy.

The Effect of Environmental Disaster on the Global Socioeconomic Order

Disruptive population displacement in Africa, rising sea levels reclaiming land in Jakarta and New York (among others), and extreme weather conditions jeopardising crop yield as well as destroying animal habitats are just a few examples of the (in)direct social and economic costs associated with the ongoing climate crisis.

As convenient as it may be to single out high polluting companies, the fight against global warming requires a coordinated effort from companies, governments and consumers alike. Once a coordinated effort is achieved, it will all come down to blitzscaling unprecedented environmental solutions that combine academic research breakthroughs and state-of-the-art technology.

Easy, right? :woozy_face:

Did someone mention the trial and error process that follows thereafter? :hot_face: :cold_face: Right…

For starters, our consumption patterns are broken and need changing. When do we need it? Now. On average, each person in the UK produces around 410kg of waste each year. Being more mindful about our consumption patterns by reducing food waste and avoiding products wrapped in plastic, among others, can substantially reduce the waste we generate.

Putting a scientist’s coat on, waste is bad for the environment because we cannot sustainable recycle it at our current capabilities. The waste ends up in oceans, landfills or end up being offshored to emerging economies such as Malaysia. Why is this bad? Because animals are displaced, ecosystems such as corals reefs die off and methane is released into the atmosphere, respectively. Why do we care about coral reefs? Well, although they cover 0.0025% of the oceanic floor, they generate half of Earth’s oxygen and absorb nearly one-third of carbon dioxide generated from burning fossil fuels.

The breadth and depth of the issue at hand requires an unprecedented level of coordination. Uh oh, did I mention this is unprecedented? :roll_eyes:

Energy: The Input at the Heart of the Global Economy

In economic terms, energy is a variable factor of production. In layman terms, that means that energy is necessary to create goods and services and the costs associated with the use of energy depend on the number of ‘units’ produced.

Bear with me. :bear:

To put it into perspective, if Elon were to rent out a Gigafactory production line to Team Pynk to bring a limited-edition electric vehicle, Model Pynk, to market (flashy prospect, huh? :smirk:), they would have a look at the costs of operating that production line. If Pynk produces 100 Model Pynk electric vehicles, an energy cost will be associated with the production of each vehicle. The more EVs Pynk produces, the higher the total electricity bill. For reference, Tesla manufactured about 96,000 EVs in 2019. Meanwhile, Volkswagen manufactured 10.8 million vehicles. That’s a lot of electricity. :money_mouth_face:

To get a holistic view of the importance of the energy debate think about the following hypothetical situation and the analysis that follows thereafter. :nerd_face:

Imagine that Model Pynk is so successful that the existing production line cannot handle market demand. Hence, papa Elon decides to open a new Gigafactory exclusively for producing Model Pynk. Where should it be built? Assuming that energy costs are the defining criteria for choosing a construction site, Elon will seek to build it in a region with the lowest energy costs - or create the infrastructure for it to be self-sufficient (that’s a thing).

As of 2020, according to the Energy Information Administration, energy sources such as onshore wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy and hydroelectric energy are the cheapest options in the US. Hence, Elon would build the Gigafactory somewhere with access to such energy source.

Wait, so renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels in the US? Aye.

So…why isn’t everybody using it?
Well, as @ZackofPynk mentioned, the supply of renewable energy is nowhere close to covering demand. Furthermore, converting to a renewable energy source is not as straightforward for incumbent companies as doing a cost-benefit analysis.

Tesla, being a relatively new market entrant, has the luxury of building its factories using state-of-the-art tech. This includes (energy) infrastructure, industrial robots, etc. The same does not apply for incumbents.

But if there’s not enough supply of renewable energy and the penetration of electric vehicles increases, energy demand as a whole also increases, right? Well, yes.

Where does that extra energy come from?
You guessed it, that would come from fossil fuels…

A Dream of Spring

By now you may think that I’m the pessimist on the block, but there’s something that Albert (Einstein) would have had to say about this.

“If I had an hour to solve a problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.”

Looking beyond the grotesque, single-minded pursuit of profits most investment managers embrace, the investment management industry is not compromised, at least not yet. There is a group of investment managers that stand out of the crowd, namely stewards. Stewards are those who deploy capital not only for the sole purpose of generating profits. Stewards bring change by investing in companies with disruptive ideas backed by ambitious management teams. For the record, Pynk has the features to become one of them. They identify the trends of tomorrow and support companies that turn vision into reality. :mage:t3:

Going back to the main debate, although it’s hard to pinpoint what the energy source of tomorrow will be, we know that it must be cost-efficient and not further contribute to global warming. In this sense, recent advances in the cost efficiency of renewable energy are encouraging but there’s still a lot to be done for it to meet the technical efficiency and scale we require.

Electric vehicles, energy storage and clean energy may be obvious areas for stewards to identify and support visionaries to further the fight against global warming but there’s more to it. Improvements in less flashy areas such as infrastructure, freight and logistics, mining as well as waste management, among others, can bring about the change we want to see in the world.

Imagine Dragons puts it very well:

“We don’t wanna change, we just wanna change everything.”

Change starts with you and me; our consumption behaviour needs changing, so let’s get cracking! :man_cartwheeling:t3:

6 Likes

Thank you for the question .@predictor

“The power plant of the future will be in your home.”

The price of solar power has fallen dramatically in the past four decades. This wonderful development has empowered individuals to install solar panels in their homes and produce their own energy. Individuals with home solar have become more independent and can avoid potential increases in electricity bills from utilities. Moreover, it allows homeowners to better control and reduce their greenhouse gas footprint.The cost of batteries is also falling, driven by economies of scale and technology improvements for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. These are now used in everything, including our laptops and smartphones. With a large bank of batteries, homeowners can also store excess electricity generated by their solar panels during the day and draw from the batteries during the night. In the future, wide deployment of electric cars can also add battery capacity to our homes. All this enables individuals to use more of their own solar electricity and less from the grid.

Since fossil fuel and other resource are limited in nature the price will keep on increasing and soon it will be very costly .All the government will focus on home power plan and replace fossil and recover the greenary of nation.

6 Likes

Thank you for your contribution @Anupkafle24.

Although I agree with your arguments that recent developments in battery technology and solar may very well bring the energy source in everybody’s homes, I believe that peak oil is nowhere in sight, meaning that an upward price action driven by a squeeze in the supply of oil or that of other fossil fuels is not a reality yet.

It’s true that, in economic theory, Hotelling supports the idea of oil scarcity and models an upward price trajectory as an effect of the exhaustibility of oil. Nevertheless, empirical data shows that the price trajectory of oil has in no way followed the price trajectory modelled by Hotelling.

Also, when it comes to oil supply, you would expect that new technology, which is referred to as backstop technology in economic theory, would lead to an increased rate of oil depletion by virtue of a reduction in the cost of extraction, but, unfortunately, that’s not the full story. New technology led to the discovery of new oil wells, also making it possible to extract oil from places nobody would think it possible. Bearing this in mind, it is not surprising to learn that known oil reserves have not decreased over the past few decades.

"The difficulty in attempting to construct these curves is that our discovery of reserves and technological potential to extract these reserves economically evolves with time. If we look at trends in proven fuel reserves, we see that our reported oil reserves have not decreased but increased by more than 50 percent, and natural gas by more than 55 percent, since 1995. This fact, combined with changes in rates of consumption means that predicting ‘peak fossil fuel’ is highly uncertain.

Again, these figures are only useful as a static measure; they will continue to vary with time as our capacity to economically source and extract fossil fuels changes, and our levels of consumption rise or fall."

5 Likes

I can not resist to share that one here, apologies :sweat_smile:

@predictor @Tradelta @Al_Wallace @RazvanPaun @Anupkafle24

7 Likes

:joy::joy::joy::joy: rude boy nuclear power :joy::joy::joy:

3 Likes

Hey @predictor, nice topic!

I agree with much of what already has been mentioned in the discussion. Great insight @predictor @Tradelta @Al_Wallace @RazvanPaun @Anupkafle24 guys. :smiley:

I suggest you guys take a look at the International Energy Agency (2020), Global Energy Review 2020, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020 :nerd_face:

It’s worth noting that the agency has been much criticized in the past for undermining and underestimating renewable energies (i.e. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency). :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

But even they now recognize the effects of the pandemic on carbon-generated demand. The fall in demand from commercial/industrial needs has not been compensated by the increase in residential use, and carbon-generated sources have taken a big hit in recent months. This is not the case for renewable sources, which are mostly unaffected by demand.

Renewables have been able to claim a greater market share of electricity generation as a result of lockdown measures. And depending on the economic recovery, which to me seems it’s going to be slow, renewables may be able to keep increasing market share the next couple of years. I think the ones to watch closely are wind and solar power. :sun_with_face: :wind_face:

It will be interesting to see how many carbon-generated sources can keep afloat if prices remain depressed for a year or two. It may become an unsustainable situation for the not-subsidized lot of them.

7 Likes

Some real-time stats page which might be beneficial to check :+1:

Gridwatch

Energy Numbers

2 Likes

Hey fellow Pynksters :wave:

Sorry for not letting go this subject :sweat_smile:
Here is two more shares, would be great to hear your ideas :left_speech_bubble:

3 Likes

I don’t think we will have just one energy source, not even a "main’ one. There are good and bad with many of the options as those before me have posted above. Renewable, solar, hydro are all hot right now. And I think there will be something in the future that hasn’t even been thought of yet.

5 Likes

@ZackofPynk love your persistency with this issue :joy:

I must confess I have an inclination for solar energy, which coincidentally comes at the bottom of the premature-deaths list in the What are the safest sources of energy? paper.

I mean, for us on Earth, everything comes from the Sun; and basically all other energy sources, one way or another, originated with the Sun. In the long run, it is the best bet as an energy source because the Sun will always be there.

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), has indicated that solar, along with eolic, are the most cost-effective energy sources.

Although solar suffers (as any other) in relation to energy-demand cycles and the persistent impossibility to store energy, for me, it’s solar all the way!! :sun_with_face:

5 Likes

Mostly Sun and also water wind there is also bio-gas a little unknown source of energy.Sweden is burning trash to get energy even
Our future is energy from natural resources.It is not only much more healthy but now with advanced technology energy from natural resources is much cheaper
There is Australian company in crypto Power Ledger what is offering p2p solar energy trading. Produce energy and sell directly to your neighbor Power Ledger with cooperation of local governments ,big energy companies wants to create virtual solar energy Thanks to blockchain we are closer to realization of sharing economies on different fields

6 Likes

How far into the future. Next 50 years? Sun, nuclear fission reactors, wind, waves, and hydrogen. In next century? FUSION!!!

5 Likes

This is the best piece of news I saw recently… literally made me very happy to see an oil rich country switching into safe, reliable and emission free energy plant :clap::clap:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/01/middleeast/nuclear-power-uae-intl/index.html

4 Likes

@ZackofPynk Really great news, both for them and for whole energy industry.
Another thing came to my mind, it’s maybe a bit far fetched, it’s a step forward for making that part of the world more peaceful since you don’t want to mess around nuclear plants.

4 Likes

The Range of materials requirements (fuel excluded) for various electricity generation technologies, another approach to take into consideration about green energy which is not very green :roll_eyes:
I personally expect some countries to go heavier on Nuclear, especially the ones who tried several solar and wind in recent years, their ROI will only speed up this conversion.

Source: Energy.gov

3 Likes