RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Excerpt: "Kepler Chevreux, a French investment bank, has produced a fascinating analysis that has dramatic implications for the global oil industry. The investment bank estimates that $100 billion invested in either wind energy or solar energy -and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles - will produce significantly more energy than that same $100 billion invested in oil."

By the late 2020s or early 2030s renewables could be competing much more aggressively with the oil market. (photo: Shutterstock)
By the late 2020s or early 2030s renewables could be competing much more aggressively with the oil market. (photo: Shutterstock)

$100B in Wind or Solar Will Now Produce More Energy Than the Same Investment in Oil

By Impact Lab

20 September 14


epler Chevreux, a French investment bank, has produced a fascinating analysis that has dramatic implications for the global oil industry. The investment bank estimates that $100 billion invested in either wind energy or solar energy – and deployed as energy for light and commercial vehicles – will produce significantly more energy than that same $100 billion invested in oil.

The implications, needless to say, are dramatic. It would signal the end of Big Oil, and the demise of an industry that has dominated the global economy and geo-politics, for the last few decades. And the need for it to reshape its business model around renewables, as we discuss here.

“If we are right, the implications would be momentous,” writes Kepler Chevreux analyst Mark Lewis.

“It would mean that the oil industry faces the risk of stranded assets not only under a scenario of falling oil prices brought about by the structurally lower demand entailed by a future tightening of climate policy, but also under a scenario of rising oil prices brought about by increasingly constrained supply. “

The main argument from Lewis is that oil prices could stay so low that it is no longer economic to bring in high cost new oil fields. But even if the oil price does rise, it will not be able to compete with renewables such as solar and wind.

The most striking conclusion is that by using wind or solar to charge electric vehicles, more energy is produced per dollar invested than with oil – in the case of onshore wind, it is four times as much energy for the same amount of money.

So how does Lewis produce his numbers?

He has developed a new concept of the energy return on capital invested (EROCI) for a potential outlay today of $US100bn. He asks how much energy would $US100bn purchase if invested in oil on the one hand, or in solar PV and wind energy on the other?

Table 1 above shows our calculations for the amount of gross and net energy that can be obtained from investing $US100bn in 2014 (i.e. based on current economics). In all cases, the calculations are based on a one-off investment with no reinvestment taken into account.

He defines gross energy as the amount of primary energy available before it is converted into useful energy in final consumption. Net energy, however, is the amount of energy available for final consumption after taking into account energy conversion and energy transmission losses. This includes the energy available for powering oil-fired cars and electric vehicles.

For oil, he has assumed investment opportunities in new projects with full breakeven costs (all- in capital costs, operating costs, and any royalties payable) of $US75/bbl and $US100/bbl, as these cover breakeven cost levels in the upper quartile of the industry cost curve and will account for a very significant share of the new investment opportunities. He assumes two different potential lifetimes for new oil projects (ten and 20 years), as some projects (e.g. deep-water) have shorter lifetimes than others (e.g. conventional onshore and oil sands).

For renewables, he assumes capital costs of $US3bn/GW for solar PV (Ed: seems high), $US1.5bn for offshore wind, and $US4.5bn/GW for offshore wind. He assumes annual load factors of 13% for solar, 25% for onshore wind, and 40% for offshore wind. All renewables investments are assumed to have project lifetimes of 20 years. (ED: In Australia, solar has a load factor of 18 per cent, wind is more than 35 per cent).

As table 1 shows, the gross energy of oil is higher than all the renewable sources over a 10 year period. But over 20 years, the relative economics of renewables improve, and onshore wind actually yields slightly more gross energy annually over 20 years than oil at a price of $US75/bbl and nearly 40 per cent more than oil at $US100/bbl (117TWh versus 85TWh).

However, if the analysis takes into account net energy yield, and the growing take-up of electric vehicles, then the picture is markedly different.

Internal combustion engines lose 75-80 per cent of the energy value of the oil input, while for EVs, converting electrical energy into battery-stored chemical energy and then back into electrical energy loses 25- 30 per cent of the original power input.

Lewis has therefore assumed a net energy yield from oil of 25%, and a net energy yield from renewable electricity for use in EVs of 70%. He has also adjusted for transmission losses – 2.5% transmission losses for solar PV, 5% for onshore wind, and 7.5% for offshore wind.

This means that the net energy yield for EVs powered by solar PV is here assumed to be 67.5%, for EVs powered by onshore wind 65%, and for EVs powered by offshore wind 62.5%. He assumes 10% capital-cost reduction in real terms by 2035 versus 2020 for wind, and for solar PV and offshore wind cost reductions of 15% to 2020 and a further 15% to 2035.

The picture of net energy yield is remarkably different, as can be seen on table 2 (below).

By 2020 all renewable technologies have a significantly superior net EROCI to that of oil at both $US100/bbl and $US125/bbl. “It is almost impolite to compare the net EROCI of oil with that of renewables by 2035,” Lewis notes.

Indeed, by that date, solar will be producing double the energy yield of oil for the same amount of money. For onshore wind, the amount of net energy produced will outstrip oil by a factor of nearly 6:1.

“Of course, there remain huge infrastructure challenges to be overcome – and paid for – if EVs are to realise their potential over the next two decades,” Lewis adds. “But our analysis of the net EROCI of oil versus renewables suggests that the balance of competitive advantage will shift decisively in favour of EVs over oil-powered cars over the next two decades.

“In turn, this would suggest that by the late 2020s or early 2030s renewables could be competing much more aggressively with the oil market’s marginal barrels for a share of Asia’s fast-growing road-transportation market (and especially China’s) than either the IEA or the oil industry itself is currently assuming.” your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+21 # NAVYVET 2014-09-20 09:17
Someone please send this to President Obama snd make sure HE READS IT!
+10 # tedrey 2014-09-20 10:38
Done! (At least the first part.)

But I'm not holding my breath waiting for a response.
+3 # ritawalpoleague 2014-09-20 12:29
Ha, ha, ha, NAVYVET. Cannot you picture this Disappointment of the Century Pres. whom I now call Oh Bomb Ah, with his CIA/NSA/FBI 'security' puppeteers, telling him to never/ever read anything written by a 'terrorist'.

Without a doubt, this truth telling, French investment banker, who I do so admire for what he has educated us on, is on the 'terrorist' list. With a founding father and the first prime minister of England hanging in my family trees, made me want to puke when I read the transcript of a speech given by an FBI 'biggie' at the Northern Command Center. Along with 'anarchists' (i.e. peace and justice activists), environmental activists are now also labeled 'terrorists'. Numerous others also qualify - one of many reasons I could not say no when asked to get onboard the legal team of the 'trial of the century', Hedges, et. al. v. Obama, et. al.. The pres. originally stated he was going to veto the 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), with its article that egregiously destroys essential to a democracy, fundamental rights (i.e. military can now arrest any citizen, throw them into indefinite detention with no due process, i.e. trial, etc.)

Instead of vetoing, this pres. signed it, unknowingly to all, in Hawaii on New Year's Eve. Orders were undoubtedly given him on what to do. Pol. puppet clown he is, so sad but true.

Folks, leave La La Land behind. Get active now !
+14 # reiverpacific 2014-09-20 11:14
Makes me proud that my own country, Scotland is a world leader in Wind and Wave power -as Germany is in Solar-, Wind, Wave and Tide making up more than 80% of Scotland's renewable energy, illustrating once more that the country is a leading progressive nation in pushing forward in yet another innovative field, as it has throughout modern history.
If I was college age again, I'd be pursuing studies in renewable energy.
Unfortunately, those who are STILL our so-called masters in Westminster have approved the construction of the first NUCLEAR (NEW-QUEER-ER) plant in decades: thanks Messr's Cameron, Clegg and their feudist coalition. I just hope that if it ever reaches construction, they'll build it as far south as possible, enclosed within the bounds of a Tory constituency.
+8 # fredboy 2014-09-20 16:26
Yes. Oil is now the "old" fuel. Time to phase it out completely.
+4 # bckrd1 2014-09-21 07:49
Well if that is the case Big Oil in the US will be lobbying to shut that down ASAP. ALEC is already getting States to kill their alternative renewal projects. Ohio did. Surprisingly Kansas was able to fend that off for now. The Kochs are pushing this anti alt energy here. Disgusting.
+2 # pbbrodie 2014-09-21 11:09
Where are all of the trolls? I was expecting to see all the usual suspects attacking this by now. I don't need to name them.
+1 # DurangoKid 2014-09-21 14:39
EROCI sounds like a good way to convince the financiers that renewables are now the big winners. But, let's consider the physical economic picture. The energy returned on energy invested, EROEI, still looks good for conventional oil. But therein lies the rub. Conventional oil is in decline and the sources of new oil are a short term solution at best. The big problem with renewables has always been their intermittentcy. This problem will be a tough nut to crack in the near term. Perhaps we need a paradigm shift away from energy on demand to one of make hay while the sun shines. Imagine making your travel plans based on seasonal trends in wind velocity. Or going to work on days when the solar flux is enough to run your office or workshop. On the off days you could stay home and work in your garden or get some exercise by riding your bike. We could also get away from the notion of hourly wages and pay people based on a running average of their productivity. People wouldn't be penalized for missing workdays because of still winds or clouds.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.