Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eroscott Re: EV Here is more accurately researched and trustworthy information https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/ele...emissions.html

Thanks, good article. I wasn't implying EV's aren't cleaner more often than not (unless maybe for exclusively coal power plant regions?), only that the number of EV's that are zero emissions are trivially small. Those claims and badges work against EV advocates.

We're getting better, as usual two steps forward and one step backward, with "exaggerations" and 'lies by omission' from proponents and opponents clouding public understanding. It's no wonder most people don't know what to believe...self included.

[mistershankly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Right now, I run an extension cord to the electric water heater, and that is not enough to use up the energy. My batteries are full and the charge controllers shut down.

I've often considered adding batteries to our solar panel system. How did you choose which ones to install? Tesla has the Powerwall but I think the cost is at a premium because of the name on it. Installation also seems to be a considerable amount of the total cost. Any insight on how you chose and any things to look out for once the batteries are installed would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

[ziggy29]

I have a plug in hybrid (2018 Prius Prime) and while I'm not delusioned into thinking it has ZERO environmental footprint when running in EV mode, when you have the option to choose renewable "green" power (if you trust their word that your election is feeding that greener power into the grid) the electricity your car uses basically generates no CO2 except in a very small, abstract way. There are, of course, still environmental impacts of generating solar, wind and small scale hydro power.

But yes, if someone has a Tesla and says they are "zero emissions" but they are connecting to a grid using mostly coal, it's not really true. It's still probably better than burning gasoline since electric engines are MUCH more efficient at generating power, but people are allowing themselves to be deluded.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mistershankly I've often considered adding batteries to our solar panel system. How did you choose which ones to install? Tesla has the Powerwall but I think the cost is at a premium because of the name on it. Installation also seems to be a considerable amount of the total cost. Any insight on how you chose and any things to look out for once the batteries are installed would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

It is a DIY solar system.

I have 5.5 kW of solar panels feeding 22 kWh of lithium battery storage. The lithium batteries are of the LiFePO4 type (lithium iron phosphate), also called LFP (lithium ferro phosphate).

I am still working on a BMS (battery management system), which is always needed with any lithium battery to prevent overcharging/overdischarging, which will ruin the battery. When abused, the LFP type is not likely to explode and catch fire like the other lithium types such as used in the Tesla cars, cell phones, and laptops, but I do not want any risk of ruining these expensive batteries.

My BMS will have 2 layers of redundancy for security. This is so that it will take multiple undetected failures in the BMS, in addition to a failure in one of the charge controllers )overcharging) or a failure of one of the inverters (overdischarging) to cause damage to the battery.

Sorry for the long description. This is a multi-year project to keep myself busy and entertained.

PS. Currently, I am babysitting the system while it is running. It will be completely turned off when I go on travel next week. Eventually, it will take care of itself and self-monitors when I complete the design.

[eroscott]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 But yes, if someone has a Tesla and says they are "zero emissions" but they are connecting to a grid using mostly coal, it's not really true. It's still probably better than burning gasoline since electric engines are MUCH more efficient at generating power, but people are allowing themselves to be deluded.

This is all blown out of proportion with incomplete references. It was Nissan's slogan. See: https://www.google.com/search?q=nissan+zero+emission

Upstream I pointed out state by state graphics of how electricity is made and has changed over the decades in each state. Some dramatic. Very regional.
Here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...our-state.html

[catii]

Yes, LiFePO4 type batteries are the way to go - today - but keep an eye on the upcoming sodium-ion that will likely replace lithium-ion in the near future.

[NW-Bound]

I am not knowledgeable in this field, so just learned that they have made sodium-ion batteries with the same energy density as LiFePO4 batteries. It looks like they still need work to improve the battery life.

[Koolau]

So many new technologies and improvements in old technologies. I am totally fascinated by the science and technology. Some will make the grade and others will fall by the way side. Incremental improvements are certainly welcome and useful. Still, fossil fuels (since we've all but ruled out nuclear) will continue for many, many more years supplying our base load of energy. No act of Congress, no force of will, no "hope", no "wish", no "data", no "report(s)", no individual commitment, no "surge", no level of conservation will alter that by very much. I can conceive of a day when renewables will indeed match our needs (as humans). I will not live to see it and I even doubt that my grandkids will live to see it.

It the mean time, it may be possible to chip away at carbon emissions and work toward the goal of 100% renewable. But "thinking does not make it so" comes to mind. As always, YMMV.

[eroscott]

Informative 'cartoon' on 'turbines'.

"Wave power hasn’t yet made a splash because it’s hard to use waves to spin turbines, and because the sea is a harsh place to build things."

Why Can't We Get Power From Waves? Video via Minute Earth Apr 2nd

To learn more, start your googling with these keywords:
Wave energy converter - a device for turning the mechanical energy of ocean waves into mechanical energy (flow of a substance) or electrical energy
Oscillating water column - an open-bottomed chamber filled with air and water, whose wave action moves the water column up and down like a piston, forcing the air out past a turbine
Attenuator - a long multisegment floating structure oriented parallel to the direction waves travel, where differing heights of waves along the length of the device flex the connections driving hydraulic pumps that can be connected to turbines
Oscillating body - a floating buoy that oscillates with waves, generating electricity within the buoy or by pulling on a generator or by pumping water through a turbine
Overtopping device - a reservoir filled by waves to a height higher the average nearby ocean, into which reservoir water is released, spinning a turbine

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau So many new technologies and improvements in old technologies. I am totally fascinated by the science and technology. Some will make the grade and others will fall by the way side. Incremental improvements are certainly welcome and useful. Still, fossil fuels (since we've all but ruled out nuclear) will continue for many, many more years supplying our base load of energy. No act of Congress, no force of will, no "hope", no "wish", no "data", no "report(s)", no individual commitment, no "surge", no level of conservation will alter that by very much. I can conceive of a day when renewables will indeed match our needs (as humans). I will not live to see it and I even doubt that my grandkids will live to see it. It the mean time, it may be possible to chip away at carbon emissions and work toward the goal of 100% renewable. But "thinking does not make it so" comes to mind. As always, YMMV.

I always welcome steps toward more renewable energy.

But even when all our cars are EVs, and all the electricity we use come from solar and wind generators, people still forget something. What do people do for heating in the winter, if not burning something?

Here's the source of energy that Germany uses. It's more than electricity, and includes fuel for transportation, residential heating, industrial uses, etc...

[eroscott]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound I always welcome steps toward more renewable energy. But even when all our cars are EVs, and all the electricity we use come from solar and wind generators, people still forget something. What do people do for heating in the winter, if not burning something?

Trick question? At some point you generate enough excess electricity to heat as well? Examples: My son's house is all electric. My father-in-law heated their entire basement with electricity which was nice as that heat rose up.

Yes resistance heat is not efficient but if you generate excess and it is cheap then who cares? Also there are places that are perfectly OK with heat pumps that are a lot more efficient.

Energy.gov site:
https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/h...stance-heating

Quote:

Electric resistance heating is 100% energy efficient in the sense that all the incoming electric energy is converted to heat. However, most electricity is produced from coal, gas, or oil generators that convert only about 30% of the fuel's energy into electricity. Because of electricity generation and transmission losses, electric heat is often more expensive than heat produced in homes or businesses that use combustion appliances, such as natural gas, propane, and oil furnaces. If electricity is the only choice, heat pumps are preferable in most climates, as they easily cut electricity use by 50% when compared with electric resistance heating. The exception is in dry climates with either hot or mixed (hot and cold) temperatures (these climates are found in the non-coastal, non-mountainous part of California; the southern tip of Nevada; the southwest corner of Utah; southern and western Arizona; southern and eastern New Mexico; the southeast corner of Colorado; and western Texas). For these dry climates, there are so few heating days that the high cost of heating is not economically significant. Electric resistance heating may also make sense for a home addition if it is not practical to extend the existing heating system to supply heat to the new addition. <snip> [Outline] Types of Electric Resistance Heaters - Electric Furnaces - Electric Baseboard Heaters - Electric Wall Heaters - Electric Thermal Storage

Below image via: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/h...eating-systems

Desc: Household Heating Systems: Although several different types of fuels are available to heat our homes, nearly half of us use natural gas. | Source: Buildings Energy Data Book 2011

[unclemick]

Pssst - insulation. I haven't done a - Pssst in a long time.

Europe and parts of Canada are putzing around with passive houses with boatloads of insulation. SIP's in new construction are popular on U tube.

Thinking of playing around with some Structural Insulated Panels at the farm this year for a battery/electrical control room for my solar panels and windmill.

Only at the hobby level mind you - solar pond aeration, solar golf cart, lithium battery powered Polaris EV and lithium power tools.

Probably add more PV panels and small windmills this year as the weather warms.

heh heh heh - Missouri Wind and Solar loves me. If ER'd long enough sometimes just watching grass grow doesn't always last and we get er 'hobbies.'

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by eroscott Trick question? At some point you generate enough excess electricity to heat as well? Examples: My son's house is all electric. My father-in-law heated their entire basement with electricity which was nice as that heat rose up. Yes resistance heat is not efficient but if you generate excess and it is cheap then who cares? Also there are places that are perfectly OK with heat pumps that are a lot more efficient. ...

Not a trick question!

About homes being all electric, yes, both my homes, one in the low desert and the other at 7,000 ft-elevation are all electric, and both have heat pumps for cooling as well as heating.

I have no problems with my electric homes, because that power is generated for me, by generation plants burning coal, natural gas, and splitting atoms. Tough luck getting 365/24/7 power from solar for that, and I am in the Southwest.

Solar and wind energy can have outages as long as several days, if not weeks. We have talked again and again about the lack of huge storage to store enough energy to last such outages.

In the winter, up in the northern states, how are they going to get solar power when there's a snowstorm? If they cannot even get enough power for lighting, where is the excess power for heating? For charging their EVs? For industrial use?

We will not be 100% RE for a long time to come. Again, the following is what I agree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau ... I can conceive of a day when renewables will indeed match our needs (as humans). I will not live to see it and I even doubt that my grandkids will live to see it. It the mean time, it may be possible to chip away at carbon emissions and work toward the goal of 100% renewable. But "thinking does not make it so" comes to mind. As always, YMMV.

+1000

One can just glance at the chart of energy sources that Germany still depends on, despite being gunho about RE. See how much RE they generate, vs. how much total energy they are using. Still a very very long way to go.

Here it is again.

[kcowan]

That is what bothers me about chart. It seems that something happened in 2009 and that renewables are replacing nuclear. What other conclusions can anyone draw from that form of data presentation?

(I was in a job where chartsmanship was a prized talent back in the day. This form makes the viewer the least informed.)

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan That is what bothers me about chart. It seems that something happened in 2009 and that renewables are replacing nuclear. What other conclusions can anyone draw from that form of data presentation? (I was in a job where chartsmanship was a prized talent back in the day. This form makes the viewer the least informed.)

Which chart were you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest Lol, when I lived on Hawaii people didn't use fuel. BBQ's in the park via coal, never used the A/C...not sure about hot showers but there were a lot of folks who hitchhiked down or up Mt Haleakala so they didn't even need petrol The A/C didn't work in our honda beach cruiser and we didn't even care. When we sold it nobody else seemed to care that looked at it and it sold quick lol.

Not all places have a temperate climate like Hawaii does. In many places, people have to run AC in the summer, and switch to heat in the winter. I guess we do not have to, if we are as tough as the native Americans who had no such luxury.

Even in Hawaii, people still need to keep refrigerators running at night, even if they turn off the light to go to sleep. Something has to generate juice to keep various machinery working. And most of Hawaiian cars still run on gasoline.

We can look at Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria (2017) to see how miserable life can get when there is no electricity, no gasoline, no fuel.

[Totoro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan That is what bothers me about chart. It seems that something happened in 2009 and that renewables are replacing nuclear. What other conclusions can anyone draw from that form of data presentation?

Something did happen, in 2011: Fukushima.

[GalaxyBoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan That is what bothers me about chart. It seems that something happened in 2009 and that renewables are replacing nuclear. What other conclusions can anyone draw from that form of data presentation? (I was in a job where chartsmanship was a prized talent back in the day. This form makes the viewer the least informed.)

If you are referring to the Vermont chart, what happened was that the only nuke plant in Vermont shut down, and since nukes have a large generating capacity and Vermont is a small state, then percentage-wise the impact was very large.

Edit: OH. You are probably talking about the German chart?

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GalaxyBoy Edit: OH. You are probably talking about the German chart?

yes I was referring to the German chart in post #333. A big in in 2009 and a smaller dip in 2011? It really does not tell me anything beyond my earlier conclusion which seems self-evident.

[explanade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan yes I was referring to the German chart in post #333. A big in in 2009 and a smaller dip in 2011? It really does not tell me anything beyond my earlier conclusion which seems self-evident.

Fukushima happened in 2008 and 2009 and Germany decided to wean itself off nuclear power.

Decommission old plants as they ended their useful life, not build any new ones, etc.

It's all moot anyways. Nuclear power is just not cost-competitive any more, which is why no private company is stepping up to build new plants in the US.

However in the last couple of weeks, the Senate passed a law to award 40-year Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for new nuclear plants, to encourage construction of new plants.

So for private entities to be guaranteed a good ROI for new plants, they get 40 year contracts to buy power from these plants. And in order to have positive return, the prices of the power from these plants would be well above market prices for wind and solar, for instance.

[eroscott]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Not a trick question! About homes being all electric, yes, both my homes, one in the low desert and the other at 7,000 ft-elevation are all electric, and both have heat pumps for cooling as well as heating. I have no problems with my electric homes, because that power is generated for me, by generation plants burning coal, natural gas, and splitting atoms. Tough luck getting 365/24/7 power from solar for that, and I am in the Southwest. Solar and wind energy can have outages as long as several days, if not weeks. We have talked again and again about the lack of huge storage to store enough energy to last such outages.

Not sure why you are stuck thinking that it has to be 100% or 0%. Why can't there be multiple solutions and dual methods. Some locations (vary by state, country, etc) can use electricity 99% of the time and others 80 or 90+%

I also don't know why you think everything will have linear improvements and things won't change in other curves.

Example of how things can change from yesterday's article:

https://grist.org/article/batteries-...-much-cheaper/

Quote:

Batteries are critical for our clean energy future. Luckily, their cost has dropped so low, we might be much closer to this future than we previously thought. In a little less than a year, the cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by 35 percent, according to a new Bloomberg New Energy Finance report. Cheaper batteries mean we can store more solar and wind power even when the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing. This is a major boost to renewables, helping them compete with fossil fuel-generated power, even without subsidies in some places, according to the report. Massive solar-plus-storage projects are already being built in places like Florida and California to replace natural gas, and many more are on the way. The new battery prices are “staggering improvements,” according to Elena Giannakopoulou, who leads the energy economics group at Bloomberg NEF. Previous estimates anticipated this breakthrough moment for batteries to arrive in late 2020, not early 2019. According to the report, the cost of wind and solar generation is also down sharply — by between 10 to 24 percent since just last year, depending on the technology. These numbers are based on real projects under construction in 46 countries around the world. <snip>