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

[ERD50]

I'm going to buck the trend and be an optimist here. ...

I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist, I'm a realist. You just can't break the laws of physics.

...
Sure, we are using coal today and will continue to for some time. Ditto oil and gas.

But not forever. ...

And of course, I never said "forever".

.... There are huge advances being made in all sorts of great technologies. Solar and wind are now about at parity with other sources, ....

See my earlier comment on how that 'parity' cost is taken out of context.

.... . Battery technology continues to incrementally improve, and the more forward-thinking power companies are dabbling with storage technologies. I just read an article today about advances in fusion technology.
... .

Show me some storage tech that has some reasonable path towards supporting 100% renewable across all the grids in the US in the next 30 years. I'm very interested in this stuff, I follow it closely, and discuss it on other forums with experts in the field. Show me.

Fusion is way out there, maybe never, and there will be opponents. I'd say other advanced fission reactors are more likely, but still questionable as far as acceptance/implementation.

... We WILL get to a renewable world. I think it's as short-sighted to argue that we shouldn't support moving to renewable sources, as it is to argue that it has to happen over night. Maybe we should all just agree to doing the best we can with the technology we have today, while supporting new options as they become available.

Of course. But that is not only not overnight, it is not in 30 years either. The grid is a big thing, it won't change quickly, even if we have a breakthrough in 10 years. And breakthroughs are unlikely, modern science has a much better understanding of things, so 'surprises' are fewer and further between.

This is brilliant. Solve the energy problem with a political enemies list.

I'm not sure how 'political enemies' fits into that, but tell me, what is your (reality-based) proposal?

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

Show me some storage tech that has some reasonable path towards supporting 100% renewable across all the grids in the US in the next 30 years. I'm very interested in this stuff, I follow it closely, and discuss it on other forums with experts in the field. Show me.

Wish granted?


http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf


With a handy map:
Our 100% Clean Energy Vision - The Solutions Project

 

[Totoro]

The sun does not shine 24 hours/day. This effect is called sunrise/sunset. There's winter. This is called "season". And there's random variation for the same day of the year. This effect is called "weather".

Weather and day/night cycle are approaching 'economically solved' status in most of the world's regions. The recent Lazard report has some numbers showing that:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf


Seasons remain a tough one, especially if one relies and wind & solar.

 

[ERD50]

Wish granted?


http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf


With a handy map:
Our 100% Clean Energy Vision - The Solutions Project

Weather and day/night cycle are approaching 'economically solved' status in most of the world's regions. The recent Lazard report has some numbers showing that:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf


Seasons remain a tough one, especially if one relies and wind & solar.

I'll take a look at your links later, I gotta run. But off the top of my head, I recall a rebuttal to the Jacobson paper.

I'm skeptical, as I said, I keep up on this, have discussions with experts on technical forums. I'll read your links with an open mind, but I'll be very surprised if there is any 'there' there. At least if we are talking near 100% RE in the next 20~30 years.

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

..............
I'm not sure how 'political enemies' fits into that, but tell me, what is your (reality-based) proposal?-ERD50

I don't think that there is a silver bullet, but rather a series of actions that need to be done in coordination, worldwide. The first step is a recognition that we are not dealing with "a Chinese hoax" and that an honest, all hands approach is necessary. We went into WWII flying prop planes and came out with jets and nuclear power. A similar urgent effort could advance energy production, management and reduce energy use.

 

[Texas Proud]

BTW, there was an article saying the Admin is looking at cutting all subsidies for EV and renewables...


I have no problem with this as a number of people on this board have said they would buy their own solar anyhow... which is exactly what should happen over time...

 

[Midpack]

I'm going to buck the trend and be an optimist here.

Sure, we are using coal today and will continue to for some time. Ditto oil and gas.

But not forever. There are huge advances being made in all sorts of great technologies. Solar and wind are now about at parity with other sources, and new plants are being built as fast as the solar panels and wind generator blades can be produced. Battery technology continues to incrementally improve, and the more forward-thinking power companies are dabbling with storage technologies. I just read an article today about advances in fusion technology.

We WILL get to a renewable world. I think it's as short-sighted to argue that we shouldn't support moving to renewable sources, as it is to argue that it has to happen over night. Maybe we should all just agree to doing the best we can with the technology we have today, while supporting new options as they become available.

I think we’re mostly in agreement, but 100% renewables aren’t ‘right around the corner’ as some advocates would have us believe. And there’s some sleight of hand from both sides that needs to be called out. For me it’s utilities buying back excess power from private homes, that’s not scalable and it should stop sooner rather than later IMO. But we’ve beat that issue to death...

 

[NYEXPAT]

Yes, you and I and others know. It would be like the illustration below.

But, I shudder to think of what happens when the world runs out. And run out we will, as it is just a matter of time. I hope our grand or great-grand-children figure out the technology to make something out of thin air or seawater.

Maybe we can extract the energy that is tied up in the Cryptocurrencies?

 

[Clone]

Wish granted?


http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
/QUOTE]


Here is a quick summary, certainly extremely skimmed and others will claim 'unfairly characterized'.


We will generate lots of electricity from photovoltaic and wind turbines. We will convert the excess electricity to hydrogen, and use that as a fuel source for things like ships. Everything else runs on batteries. Convert most transportation to public electric powered mass transit. Convert over the road freight to electric trains.


And perhaps, most importantly, immediately:

Introduce a Public Benefit Funds (PBF) program for energy efficiency. Fund the program with a non-bypassable charge on consumers’ electricity bills for distribution services. These funds generate capital that sponsor energy efficiency programs, and research and development related to clean energy technologies and training.

This will generate revenue to continue funding the academic paper production of thought studies like this paper.

 

[Spock]

More a pipeline shortage that a NatGas shortage
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-29/natural-gas-prices-fall-below-zero-texas

 

[ERD50]

Weather and day/night cycle are approaching 'economically solved' status in most of the world's regions. The recent Lazard report has some numbers showing that:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf


Seasons remain a tough one, especially if one relies and wind & solar.

Well, that's a 60 page document that seems to be focused on costs of short term storage to help utilities manage their grids. Maybe I missed it, I got through the first ~ 8 pages, then did searching on "hour" and "day", and I only saw some refs to 4 hours of storage. That's a short night!

Throw in a few cloudy, low wind days, and you are talking some long 'nights'. Before we even get to the seasonal issues.

Sounds a lot more like " peak shaving and demand charge reduction" (which appears throughout the document), than anything related to the thread topic of getting to 100% renewable, or some of the legislation being pushed to get to X% by 20YY year.

If I missed it, please enlighten.

Yes, "Seasons remain a tough one". That's important, many of us live in a 4-season climate.

Solution?


Have not had time to review the other paper yet.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50
..............
I'm not sure how 'political enemies' fits into that, but tell me, what is your (reality-based) proposal?-ERD50

I don't think that there is a silver bullet, but rather a series of actions that need to be done in coordination, worldwide. The first step is a recognition that we are not dealing with "a Chinese hoax" and that an honest, all hands approach is necessary. We went into WWII flying prop planes and came out with jets and nuclear power. A similar urgent effort could advance energy production, management and reduce energy use.

Was there an answer in there somewhere?

I'm not sure what a "Chinese hoax" has to do with the question. We were not questioning the motivation or if we should do it (though we should, but it is a separate question), we were asking how we could do it.

OK, no silver bullet - agreed.

What series of actions? Again, what is your (reality-based) proposal to get to 100% RE?

-ERD50

 

[Spock]

When one of my engineering society journals did a technology forecast for renewables and reducing greenhouse gases, they used the word "miracles" instead of technological advances.
This response to the hyped miracles sounded pretty realistic:

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-look-at-claims-for-green-technologies

 

[CardsFan]

As my mom used to say, wish in one hand and pee in the other, and see which one fills first.

I WANT there to be a sustainable solution, but it not here yet. We have resources and time to find one. We have enough coal for over 100 years. Nuclear has no carbon foot print (well, actually it does, but it is relatively small).

I guess my point is, there is time, and energy to get us there. Artificial dead lines are nothing but political.

 

[calmloki]

I love solar energy and lithium battery, but have tried to point out in the past that we are still a long way from being 100% RE. Solar electricity is so easily produced and cheap, but there's still no way to stockpile it for nightly use, let alone several days without the sun.

Here's an example again....

The Tesla Model 3 car has a 75 kWh battery. The energy it stores is, well, 75 kWh, or 270 MJ (mega Joules). A gallon of propane has the energy of 96.5 MJ. So, the Tesla battery is equivalent to 2.8 gal. That's less than what is stored inside a common BBQ propane tank.....

.

Something feels off here - Range of the Tesla3 with 75 battery is claimed to be about 310 miles. Would a car like the Tesla 3 get 100mpg on propane? is it that electric use is more efficient than propane use?

How about storing solar energy via molten salt?

 

[Totoro]

Well, that's a 60 page document that seems to be focused on costs of short term storage to help utilities manage their grids.

No, it's a report on the current state and economic viability of several use cases today for battery storage.

Maybe I missed it, I got through the first ~ 8 pages, then did searching on "hour" and "day", and I only saw some refs to 4 hours of storage. That's a short night!

That's for a profitable operation in Australia where batteries do peak shaving. What you see here is that these applications are cost effective today, and elsewhere in the report you see the cost trend coming down pretty fast, double digits per annum.


Project it out and batteries are becoming a good alternative to get us through the night. Not today at cost parity, but certainly in a decade at current trends. In some other areas solar concentrating with storage does go through the night (not in the USA). It's a really interesting report if you want to understand what storage is doing and where it is having an impact.

Yes, "Seasons remain a tough one". That's important, many of us live in a 4-season climate. Solution?

In the short term 100%? None. Pushing to 85% is at current cost trends no issue. Beyond that is in the realm of possible, but we're going to need those 30 years.

 

[travelover]

Was there an answer in there somewhere?

I'm not sure what a "Chinese hoax" has to do with the question. We were not questioning the motivation or if we should do it (though we should, but it is a separate question), we were asking how we could do it.

OK, no silver bullet - agreed.

What series of actions? Again, what is your (reality-based) proposal to get to 100% RE?

-ERD50

Did I owe you an answer? No, I didn't, so knock off the cyber bullying crap. In fact, my mistake was taking you off my ignore list.

 

[Luck_Club]

How many years before your I phone batteries stop holding a charge

Coal & Nuclear are the best energy solution available.

Coal cost something like $0.05 KW to produce, and with the latest in stack scrubbing technology has greatly reduced the smog effect of the 70's. The cost of regulation and security drives the cost of nuclear, so there are ways to cost down that solution.

My last check of solar, several years ago before the Chines dumping, had a 10+ year pay back; at 100% efficiency! Even in Florida and Arizona, there aren't 365 days a year of sun.

We shuttered a rebuilt coal plant near my house a few years ago. Before it was shuttered it was providing 35%+ of the power in the region.

Pull the subsidies for Solar & Wind and it is like a fart in the wind.

 

[Red Badger]

I don't think that there is a silver bullet, but rather a series of actions that need to be done in coordination, worldwide. The first step is a recognition that we are not dealing with "a Chinese hoax" and that an honest, all hands approach is necessary. We went into WWII flying prop planes and came out with jets and nuclear power. A similar urgent effort could advance energy production, management and reduce energy use.

IIRC, that was tried as part of the Stimulus Package of the prior Admin. One of the leading benefactors was a little company named Solyndra.

I also desire a transition away from fossil fuels, but prefer a market based approach with some expertise and regulatory guidance from GovCo. But no more throwing borrowed taxpayer money at a problem. Hybrid and electric cars made it to market due largely to consumer demand. Same thing is occurring with solar. That's my preferred approach. YMMV!

 

[travelover]

IIRC, that was tried as part of the Stimulus Package of the prior Admin. One of the leading benefactors was a little company named Solyndra...........

Oh give me a break. An all hands approach would be like the Manhattan Project.

 

[ERD50]

Did I owe you an answer? No, I didn't, so knock off the cyber bullying crap. In fact, my mistake was taking you off my ignore list.

Well, if you don't want to take part in the discussion, don't.

-ERD50

 

[Red Badger]

Oh give me a break. An all hands approach would be like the Manhattan Project.

I guess we're in violent agreement. ~$38 billion for renewable energy was in the stimulus bill.


Wikipedia
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $22 billion in 2016 dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons.

 

[NW-Bound]

Something feels off here - Range of the Tesla3 with 75 battery is claimed to be about 310 miles. Would a car like the Tesla 3 get 100mpg on propane? is it that electric use is more efficient than propane use?

How about storing solar energy via molten salt?

I checked and checked my arithmetic, and the data on different Web sites on the energy density of propane. Yes, 75 kWh is equivalent to 2.80 gal of propane. Electric motors are very efficient. Too bad lithium batteries are still expensive, else they would solve a lot of problems.

About using molten salt for thermal energy storage, there's a solar plant called Solana in Gila Bend, about 80 miles southwest of Phoenix, using this technology. There are many other plants like it in the world, and of larger capacities. They use a salt mixture that melts at temperatures as low as 268F, but kept heated up as high as 1000F with solar concentrators. The heat is used to turn water to steam to drive turbines.

The Solana is said to have enough heat storage to run for a few hours after sunset. A plant in Spain achieved a record of running 24 hrs/day for 36 days.

Sounds pretty good, but the technology is not as widely adopted as one would think. Perhaps complexity, building cost, and maintenance cost are detractors.

 

[NW-Bound]

About cars, yes electric motors are more efficient than combustion engines.

But when it comes to heating your home in the middle of winter, a 75 kWh battery stores just as much heat as 2.8 gal of propane, but the energy container is a lot more expensive with electricity.

So, we can beat the EV vs. ICE debate to death, but comes winter, it is hard to heat your home without burning something.

Of course in the mild winter here in the Southwest, we have the advantage of using heat pumps to gain several times the heat that electricity can deliver. People in Minnesota are SOL.

 

[NW-Bound]

And speaking of electricity usage, I used to feel bad about being an "energy hog" living in the Southwest, where the AC runs nearly all day in the summer, even through the night. And for 2 years in a row, my highest 24-hour consumption hit 100 kWh. That happened when the high hit 120+F.

But that 100 kWh/day consumption happens only for a few days in a year. Other times of the year, it can be as low as 20 kWh/day. My consumption over the last 12 months is 16,159 kWh, for a home of 2,800 sq.ft. with a large swimming pool, using electricity for everything including cooking and heating.

How does the above compare to people living in other states? Just looked it up, and found that the average Midwest household uses 766.4 gal of heating oil each year. That's equivalent to 31,200 kWh. That's double my electricity usage. And that is just for heating oil, as they also use electricity, and perhaps gas too. Yikes! And the average Midwest home is probably smaller than 2,800 sq.ft.

Now, living in the desert does not sound so bad anymore.