• 13Oct

    Answer: The time required to produce enough solar panels, windmills, hydro dams, and nuclear plants to satisfy our current (hydrocarbon-based) energy needs.

    My post yesterday made me think a bit about if we are capable of building a non-hydrocarbon economy within the next 30 years (roughly the time at which oil and gas will be really, really scarce). I assumed that we would aim to replace our current 13TW (from hydrocarbon sources) needs with other energy sources. I also (unrealistically) assumed that there will be no demand increase over that period of time just to keep things simple. And, remember, I’m not a mathematician and these really are ‘hand-wavy’ assumptions.

    Annual increase in installed capacity for different non-hydrocarbon energy sources,

    • Wind - increased by 20GW in 2006 (source)
    • Solar- increased by 3.8GW in 2007 (souce)
    • Hydro - increased by 16GW in 2005 (source)
    • Biomass - ?
    • Geothermal - ?
    • Nuclear - increased by 8.9GW in 2002 (source)
    Total: roughly 48.7 GW of non-hydrocarbon energy sources are added per year.

    If we currently consume about 13TW of energy from hydrocarbon sources then, to completely replace hydrocarbons as an energy source, it would take,

    • 650 years to produce enough windmills or,
    • 3,420 years to produce enough solar panels or,
    • 810 years to produce enough hydro electric dams or,
    • 1,460 years to produce enough nuclear power plants or,
    • 265 years to fill our needs using all of the above technologies
    What we see from this is that we just don’t have (currently) the industrial capacity to create the non-hydrocarbon energy sources that we need in the next 27 years (see previous post). To meet this goal we would need to immediately switch on 10x the industrial capacity (for producing renewables and nuclear) that we currently have today. The bottle neck is not the energy required to make the switch - It’s the infrastructure.