Locator: 48503USENERGY.
Showing posts with label US_Energy_Consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US_Energy_Consumption. Show all posts
Friday, August 30, 2024
Sunday, January 7, 2024
Tea Leaves Suggest Three Things: US Electricity, Natural Gas, And Oil Demand Will Surge Through The Next Decade -- January 7, 2024
Locator: 46480ENERGY.
AI will drive electricity demand.
Electricity demand will drive natural gas demand.
Deglobalization will drive US crude oil demand.
***********************
The Bakken Effect
From Geoff Simon's weekly North Dakota top energy stories
Basin Electric is looking at new generation capacity likely to be needed by 2030.
Because of member load growth in western North Dakota, a Basin Electric team will begin to investigate building a new generation facility.
The team is looking at the potential of an additional natural gas-fueled power plant to be located within the Southwest Power Pool footprint in western North Dakota, to be completed close to the year 2030.
Dispatchable generation is critical to keeping electricity reliable. The grid needs facilities to power up when electricity is needed, and ramp up or down to meet the needs of electricity users, to maintain the integrity of the transmission grid.
Matt Ehrman, Basin's VP of Engineering and Construction, said because a lead time of several years is required for environmental permitting, equipment purchases and other tasks, investigation now is important.
***************************
AI, EV, And Electricity Dispatchability
Sunday, January 19, 2020
For The Archives -- US Energy Consumption -- 2018 --EIA
Link here.
The upper graph extends back to 1950.
After 68 years: as a percentage, the only way wind and solar can even be seen on a pie chart is to break out "renewable energy" as a block which includes hydroelectricity and biomass. Solar does not even break the 1% threshhold; wind, at 2.4%. This is about where the percentages were during peak interest in renewable energy some years ago.
From the report:
The upper graph extends back to 1950.
After 68 years: as a percentage, the only way wind and solar can even be seen on a pie chart is to break out "renewable energy" as a block which includes hydroelectricity and biomass. Solar does not even break the 1% threshhold; wind, at 2.4%. This is about where the percentages were during peak interest in renewable energy some years ago.
From the report:
Crude oil production generally decreased each year between 1970 and 2008. In 2009, the trend reversed and production began to rise, and in 2018, U.S. crude oil production was 22.8 quads, the highest on record. More cost-effective drilling and production technologies helped to boost production, especially in Texas and North Dakota.At the blog, search doofus-in-chief.
Tuesday, April 16, 2019
Where's Waldo? April 16, 2019
Link here.
I'm somewhat disappointed in the graph below. Note, this graph comes from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a highly respected laboratory, and the US government. Even the URL is ".gov."
But yet these is something very wrong about the graphic. Do you see what is wrong with this graphic? It is difficult to see on this graphic; you really have to download the image (at the link) to see the error.
Some may consider it a very subtle manipulation. I don't know.
But note: the graphic is not to scale. Look at the source blocks at the left for solar, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, and biomass. The six blocks differ very, very slightly in size but for the most part, the rectangles for those six sources of energy are all the same size. Biomass at slightly more than 5 quads should be five times the size of solar at slightly less than 1 quad.
I mis-read the graphic the first time. It appears that the "solar" rectangle is the same size, or perhaps even larger than the "nuclear" rectangle. It's almost impossible to read unless you download the actual graphic, but it appears to be 8.44 quads.
So, the solar source is 0.949 quads and the nuclear source is 8.44 quads and yet the boxes are nearly the same size, and because of the color or actual size, the solar box appears to be bigger than the nuclear box.
Once that is pointed the rest if obvious. Obvious distortion. The petroleum box should be almost 40x the solar box; in fact, the petroleum box is about 5x the solar box.
The wind box should be 2.5x the size of the solar box, and the two are almost equal in size.
Solar should be 5x the size of the geothermal box, and yet the two are almost equal in size.
I may be misreading something, but I've looked at it several times and that's what I'm seeing.
The narrative is even worse. The ".gov" or Lawrence Livermore is certainly trying -- it appears -- to establish a narrative and an agenda.
If you can't read the numbers for the boxes at the left, here they are:
No, not even enough to make my 30-second elevator speech.
Pocahontas: wants to ban drilling for oil and natural gas on federal land.
Headline: Democratic presidential candidate wants to ban oil drilling.
I'm somewhat disappointed in the graph below. Note, this graph comes from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a highly respected laboratory, and the US government. Even the URL is ".gov."
But yet these is something very wrong about the graphic. Do you see what is wrong with this graphic? It is difficult to see on this graphic; you really have to download the image (at the link) to see the error.
Some may consider it a very subtle manipulation. I don't know.
But note: the graphic is not to scale. Look at the source blocks at the left for solar, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, and biomass. The six blocks differ very, very slightly in size but for the most part, the rectangles for those six sources of energy are all the same size. Biomass at slightly more than 5 quads should be five times the size of solar at slightly less than 1 quad.
I mis-read the graphic the first time. It appears that the "solar" rectangle is the same size, or perhaps even larger than the "nuclear" rectangle. It's almost impossible to read unless you download the actual graphic, but it appears to be 8.44 quads.
So, the solar source is 0.949 quads and the nuclear source is 8.44 quads and yet the boxes are nearly the same size, and because of the color or actual size, the solar box appears to be bigger than the nuclear box.
Once that is pointed the rest if obvious. Obvious distortion. The petroleum box should be almost 40x the solar box; in fact, the petroleum box is about 5x the solar box.
The wind box should be 2.5x the size of the solar box, and the two are almost equal in size.
Solar should be 5x the size of the geothermal box, and yet the two are almost equal in size.
I may be misreading something, but I've looked at it several times and that's what I'm seeing.
The narrative is even worse. The ".gov" or Lawrence Livermore is certainly trying -- it appears -- to establish a narrative and an agenda.
If you can't read the numbers for the boxes at the left, here they are:
- solar: 0.949
- nuclear: 8.44
- hydro: 2.69
- wind: 2.53
- geothermal: 0.217
- natural gas: 31
- coal: 13.3
- biomass: 5.13
- petroleum: 36.9
- petroleum: 40%; almost half
- natural gas: 30%
- petroleum and natural gas together: 70%
- coal: 15%
- petroleum, natural gas, coal, together: 80%
- wind: 3%
- wind: 2.5x solar
- solar: inconsequential
No, not even enough to make my 30-second elevator speech.
Pocahontas: wants to ban drilling for oil and natural gas on federal land.
Headline: Democratic presidential candidate wants to ban oil drilling.
Friday, August 26, 2016
Puts Things Into Perspective -- August 26, 2016
Renewables include hydroelectricity, biofuels, wind, solar, and Willie Nelson's restaurant grease. Note the dramatic increase in "renewables" in 2015 compared to 2009:
Friday, August 21, 2015
Peak Oil? What Peak Oil? This Is Absolutely Insane -- August 21, 2015
It's been almost a year since Saudi Arabia shocked "us" with the announcement they were putting pedal to the metal, maximizing production to maintain market share. That was back in October, 2014. By March, 2015, pretty much everything was being delayed or curtailed and yet the glut of oil continues.
How bad is this glut of oil? Look at these two data points from EIA and other sources via Jack Kemp:
And despite running flat out, refiners apparently cannot keep up with demand. With a glut of oil and with refiners at full capacity one would think gasoline would be under $2.00/gallon here in Texas, but it's not quite there yet (all things being equal, gasoline will go under $2.00/gallon by Christmas in Texas). But oil is well above $2.00/gallon here in Texas suggesting there is huge gasoline demand, and in fact, that's what the data tells us. Based on a casual observation of highway building, commercial development, and new residential sites, the economy appears to be booming in north Texas.
It's very likely gasoline demand will hit an all-time record in the US before the end of August. The most recent data available: US gasoline demand for the second week in August hit 9.705 million bopd; the record, I believe, was set in the third week of August, 2007, at 9.762 million bopd.
The Japanese are setting new records for gasoline shipments and yet the pundits tell us that the Chinese and the Japanese economies are stagnating.
Everywhere else, particularly in the US, the pundits tell us everything is hunky-dory. Reuters tells us week-after-week how strong the labor market is in the US based on declining first-time claims for unemployment benefits. And yesterday -- just yesterday, the AP reported that US home sales in July soared to the fastest pace since early 2007.
2007 must have been a good year; I don't remember: home sales set a record; and, gasoline demand set an all-time record. I forget who was president then but it must have been Clinton, Bush, or Obama.
How bad is this glut of oil? Look at these two data points from EIA and other sources via Jack Kemp:
- US refineries ran flat out over the summer (currently 95% capacity vs a 10-year average of 91%
- US crude oil stocks can supply refiners for 27 days right now, compared to 10-year average of 23 days
And despite running flat out, refiners apparently cannot keep up with demand. With a glut of oil and with refiners at full capacity one would think gasoline would be under $2.00/gallon here in Texas, but it's not quite there yet (all things being equal, gasoline will go under $2.00/gallon by Christmas in Texas). But oil is well above $2.00/gallon here in Texas suggesting there is huge gasoline demand, and in fact, that's what the data tells us. Based on a casual observation of highway building, commercial development, and new residential sites, the economy appears to be booming in north Texas.
It's very likely gasoline demand will hit an all-time record in the US before the end of August. The most recent data available: US gasoline demand for the second week in August hit 9.705 million bopd; the record, I believe, was set in the third week of August, 2007, at 9.762 million bopd.
Re-posting from yesterday: Gasoline demand (a dynamic link: for most recent week, up slightly to 9.705 million bopd. The four-week average is down slightly to 9.604 million bopd. It's going to be tough to get to 10 million bopd but it's going to be close. I think the record was the third week in August, 2007, at 9.762 million bopd.If one thinks about it, it is absolutely insane.
The Japanese are setting new records for gasoline shipments and yet the pundits tell us that the Chinese and the Japanese economies are stagnating.
Everywhere else, particularly in the US, the pundits tell us everything is hunky-dory. Reuters tells us week-after-week how strong the labor market is in the US based on declining first-time claims for unemployment benefits. And yesterday -- just yesterday, the AP reported that US home sales in July soared to the fastest pace since early 2007.
2007 must have been a good year; I don't remember: home sales set a record; and, gasoline demand set an all-time record. I forget who was president then but it must have been Clinton, Bush, or Obama.
*****************************
One Graph Worth A Thousand Energy Blogs
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)