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

[Texas Proud]

I know there are a lot of people who think we can get to 100% renewable... and some of the engineers on here who say the numbers do not work...


Well, here is an article that give a real example that even gas plants cannot keep up with the current infrastructure in place...

At peak winter demand, 5,913 megawatts of natural-gas capacity was simply unavailable due to “supply outages.” And more than 8,000 megawatts of gas-plant capacity was forced to shut down. Overall, more than 23,000 megawatts was unavailable—12.1% of PJM’s total capacity.


Thankfully, according to the Department of Energy (DOE), the nation’s coal plants came to the rescue. Coal-fired power plants ramped up to provide 55% of daily incremental power at the time. The DOE says that, without the sturdy baseload power generation produced by coal, “the Eastern United States would have suffered severe electricity shortages, likely leading to widespread blackouts.”
​

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...er-plants-2018-12-04?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

[Bir48die]

Lots of opinions on this. We all have our own

 

[NW-Bound]

... At peak winter demand, 5,913 megawatts of natural-gas capacity was simply unavailable due to “supply outages.” And more than 8,000 megawatts of gas-plant capacity was forced to shut down. Overall, more than 23,000 megawatts was unavailable—12.1% of PJM’s total capacity...

Here in the Southwest, winter heating is something we occasionally need, and not something to worry about. So, I only learned about nat gas shortage just now.

Natural gas is used for more than electricity generation. It is also used for home cooking and heating. If the cold spell continues, there will be hollering, and shrieking, in addition to shivering.

... A funny thing began happening in natural gas markets late this summer.

There was less of the gas that heats homes and fuels stoves in storage week by week. Though the market noticed this phenomenon, it didn't really react. There is so much gas production growth in the U.S. that a knee jerk to low storage didn't really kick in until recently, when extensive cold weather hit like a wall...

The guiding purpose of the gas market is that you want to have enough stored underground to ensure people don't freeze during the winter, said Eric Fell, senior natural gas analyst for Genscape, a consulting firm.

That didn't happen this year.

"Now the market is starting to freak out, because we didn't get enough gas in the ground," he told the Casper Star-Tribune.

The amount of gas in storage was the lowest it's been heading into winter since 2005, he said...

See: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...low-storage-drive-up-the-price-of-natural-gas.

 

[target2019]

Terry Jarrett - National Mining Association's Count on Coal Program. Not hard to find the author.

I predict the opinions in this thread will mimic the comments under the article in the OP.

 

[ERD50]

Wow. I'm no fan of coal, it's harmful to burn and harmful to mine, and dangerous. But we need baseload power, and it sounds like we are relying too heavily on NG for that.

Another "wow!" - that graph of NG futures is exactly what blew up that hedge-fund guy that lost all his clients money (and ~ 25% more I think, he was deep into margin).

Lots of opinions on this. We all have our own

Ummm, yeah. But almost all of the linked article was fact based. Opinions won't keep the lights on and our homes heated, we need power for that.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Terry Jarrett - National Mining Association's Count on Coal Program. Not hard to find the author.

I predict the opinions in this thread will mimic the comments under the article in the OP.

Well, we should always be skeptical, especially when the writer has a vested interest. But did you see any facts he got wrong? I found this, which at a glance seems to back up what he says:

https://www.energy.gov/fe/articles/...-generation-during-bomb-cyclone-power-demands

A new analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) indicates that continued retirement of fossil fuel power plants could have an adverse impact on the nation’s ability to meet power generation needs during future severe weather events.

A winter storm, known as a “bomb cyclone,” struck much of the eastern United States between December 27, 2017, and January 8, 2018, plunging the region into a deep freeze and sparking a significant rise in the demand for additional power for heat. Coal provided a majority of the daily power generation required to meet the emergency, according to the study. The report analyzes fossil fleet performance and its contribution to power system reliability and resilience during the bomb cyclone event.

-ERD50

 

[easysurfer]

I tend to believe in today's world there is no such thing as truth. Just opinions .

 

[aja8888]

Natural gas is used for more than electricity generation. It is also used for home cooking and heating. If the cold spell continues, there will be hollering, and shrieking, in addition to shivering.

Let's not forget everything made out of plastic and even some medicines. Oh, glues, resins, fertilizer, etc. It would be a much different world without these compounds.

 

[NW-Bound]

Let's not forget everything made out of plastic and even some medicines. Oh, glues, resins, fertilizer, etc. It would be a much different world without these compounds.

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.

 

[Lewis Clark]

I tend to believe in today's world there is no such thing as truth. Just opinions .

Truth still exists today, as it always has. But the truth is getting much harder to identify.

 

[travelover]

Yep, coal, energy source of the future.

 

[NW-Bound]

Burn, coal, burn...

Even Germany, despite all the talks about solar and wind energy, still burns lignite dug out of a 33-square-mile open pit. Lignite, a brown low-grade coal, is the dirtiest coal found on earth. Compared to that, the US is lucky to have black coal.

The state of North Rhine-Westphalia's environment minister, Johannes Remmel, a member of the Green party, was quoted to say "We happen to have these power plants and they will remain a major part of the energy mix through 2050".

Last year, 37 percent of Germany's electricity was powered by coal, and 23 percent of it by brown coal, according to the Economy Ministry.

Burn, baby, burn... The energy problem is not as easy to solve as some people think.

 

[NW-Bound]

For contrast with Germany,

The electricity sector in France is dominated by nuclear power, which accounted for 72.3% of total production in 2016, while renewables and fossil fuels accounted for 17.8% and 8.6%.

Note the 8.6% of fossil for France, against the 37% for Germany.

 

[Amethyst]

When I first read your thread title, I thought you were referring to humans and being able to renew our bodies!

 

[Midpack]

It's pretty clear we can't have electricity on demand 24/7 with "100% renewables" with any technology known today. There will have to be goal, gas, nuclear, hydro or some conventional base power generation. It would take a quantum leap in battery or other storage to make renewables viable - that remains to be seen, batteries are a mature technology so further cost effective innovation won't come easy.

There are already examples out west (and in Europe) of temporary excesses of solar and wind power, that utilities have had to literally give to other areas. As a result, utilities are already challenging buybacks from homeowners, as they should. It was fine when alternative energy was a cottage industry, but buybacks pose a serious problem as they scale up. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

 

[ERD50]

It's pretty clear we can't have electricity on demand 24/7 with "100% renewables" with any technology known today. There will have to be coal, gas, nuclear, hydro or some conventional base power generation. It would take a quantum leap in battery or other storage to make renewables viable - that remains to be seen, batteries are a mature technology so further cost effective innovation won't come easy. ...

100% agree. Even though we may not like it, it is reality. Reality bites. I hope we can find ways to get off dirty coal, but if wishes were fishes....

Though your post did inspire me! I think I just discovered that "quantum leap" towards achieving 100% renewables!

We put "smart switches" on the homes, businesses and EVs of anyone who supports legislating 100% re-newables. Then we start shutting down coal plants, and nukes if they are anti-nuke. As brown-outs threaten, we use those "smart switches" to shut off power to their homes, businesses, and EVs, so that other people are not harmed by their not-so-well-thought-out (I'm trying to be kind) 'idea'.

If that doesn't make them wake up and smell the (cold) coffee, we start taxing them heavily for storage so we can make further cuts in coal and nukes and use that storage to keep the other homes powered during low wind nights. But I'm pretty sure they will cry 'Uncle' at the first cut.

Yep, coal, energy source of the future.

I think we have our first "smart switch" customer! Unless he has a better (reality-based) idea? Hint: more nukes!

.... There are already examples out west (and in Europe) of temporary excesses of solar and wind power, that utilities have had to literally give to other areas. As a result, utilities are already challenging buybacks from homeowners, as they should. It was fine when alternative energy was a cottage industry, but buybacks pose a serious problem as they scale up. https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

Yes, and the excesses are still fairly uncommon (or they would not make the news). I'll read your link in more detail later (it looks very good at a first skim), but keep in mind, that when CA or some Euro country exports excess to a neighboring country/state, that if those countries/states raise their renewable levels, they will likely have an excess at the same time. It is not sustainable. I've seen graphs that all these high % renewable countries level off at (IIRC) 20% ~ 30%, because they start to see excess at that point, and it just becomes economically unfeasible. Every incremental kW gets used less and less, you just can't recoup the investment.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

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.

Now, how much does the Tesla 3 battery cost? Remember that this is a $49K car. How much does a BBQ tank cost? $30 at Home Depot.

And still, they have not managed to store enough natural gas for the winter, and now face a shortage (link posted earlier in the thread). When will we be able to have a gigantic battery to match all the propane tanks currently in use?

And that's why Germany still burns dirty coal, although on peak days it manages to be 100% RE. 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".

 

[NW-Bound]

... the excesses are still fairly uncommon (or they would not make the news). I'll read your link in more detail later (it looks very good at a first skim), but keep in mind, that when CA or some Euro country exports excess to a neighboring country/state, that if those countries/states raise their renewable levels, they will likely have an excess at the same time. It is not sustainable...

In the recent election, Arizona voters defeated a proposition on clean energy by a ratio of 2 to 1. This proposition came from a group in California, and it would amend AZ Constitution to demand 50% RE by 2030.

I should note that AZ already has a plan to have 15% RE by 2025, but this group said it was not aggressive enough.

 

[OldShooter]

There was a good Economist article a few months ago on the subject of peaking plants. As renewables come on line, the need for the coal and nat gas peaking plants will diminish but absent some technical breakthroughs it will not go away.

So the yet-to-be-solved problem becomes how to recover the huge fixed costs of these plants over a diminishing number of kilowatt hours sold. Raising the price of the KWH may be an option to a certain point, but that will also make the renewables look even more cost-effective and cause the number of KWHs to further diminish. So, to some extent, the diminishing recovery of the peaking plants' cost is a negative externality of renewable energy.

 

[ERD50]

There was a good Economist article a few months ago on the subject of peaking plants. As renewables come on line, the need for the coal and nat gas peaking plants will diminish but absent some technical breakthroughs it will not go away. ...

I assume you mean "coal plants, and nat gas peaking plants"? AFAIK, there are no coal peaking plants.

But it still makes no sense to me. As we move to renewables, which mostly are intermittent, and as we drop baseload power, the need for peaking increases, doesn't it?

.... So the yet-to-be-solved problem becomes how to recover the huge fixed costs of these plants over a diminishing number of kilowatt hours sold. Raising the price of the KWH may be an option to a certain point, but that will also make the renewables look even more cost-effective and cause the number of KWHs to further diminish. So, to some extent, the diminishing recovery of the peaking plants' cost is a negative externality of renewable energy.

I think raising the kWh price is the only way to recover the costs. Am I missing something?

The eco-sites will point out the lifetime cost of renewables (LCOE) is getting cheaper than the lifetimes cost of fossil fuel. While this may be true, it is a number taken out of context. You can't have a high % of renewables w/o also having some peaking back-up, and/or storage. So you really need to add that cost to the cost of RE. Which could double the cost. Oooops!

But of course, that is not the message they want you to hear, so they don't tell that part of it.

For ref: The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), also known as Levelized Energy Cost (LEC), is the net present value of the unit-cost of electricity over the lifetime of a generating asset.


-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

To put the battery storage issue in perspective, several years ago Bill Gates noted that all the batteries in existence at the time would provide enough storage to meet the world demand (then) for 10 minutes. But I couldn't find a supporting link, presumably out of date anyway.

Maybe a better illustration:

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average American home consumes 901 kilowatt-hours per month, or approximately 30 kilowatt-hours per day.

For example, a 400 amp-hour battery can supply 4 amperes of current for 100 hours.

A battery bank designed to power an average American household for three days would need to supply 90 kilowatt-hours of energy. The battery from the previous example can supply 2.4 kilowatt-hours, so this system would need 38 batteries. In reality, several more batteries would be needed to account for battery imperfections and for power consumed by the inverter, which is a device needed to convert direct-current battery power to the alternating current needed by a household electrical system.

I didn't search for comparisons (correction welcome), but the first Google hit I found for a 400ah battery was one on sale for $679 each. 38x$679=$26,000 for the average US household. If the outage lasted more than 3 days, likely some places, unlikely others - zero electricity.

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/how-big-of-a-battery-bank-do-you-need-to-run-a-house-13277282.html

 

[CaptTom]

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.

 

[OldShooter]

I assume you mean "coal plants, and nat gas peaking plants"? AFAIK, there are no coal peaking plants.

But it still makes no sense to me. As we move to renewables, which mostly are intermittent, and as we drop baseload power, the need for peaking increases, doesn't it?

Maybe I should have said "reliable availability power" as this category can also include nukes.

IIRC The Economist article said the need would diminish, but the point is the same: these plants will be needed and must be paid for.

I think raising the kWh price is the only way to recover the costs. Am I missing something? ...

Well, Econ 101 tells us that if a resource is mispriced it will be misused. This gets particularly sticky with resources that involve very high fixed costs.

So it may be better economics for governments aka taxpayers to pay enough of the cost that the published KWH cost is one that results in good decisions as to when to use, etc. IIRC that was another point in the article but I don't remember the details.

My memory of the article is mainly the realization that the usual means of cost recovery may not make economic sense in the future. I never thought of that before.

 

[travelover]

Yep, coal, energy source of the future.

..........I think we have our first "smart switch" customer! Unless he has a better (reality-based) idea? Hint: more nukes! ..........-ERD50

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

 

[ERD50]

To put the battery storage issue in perspective, several years ago Bill Gates noted that all the batteries in existence at the time would provide enough storage to meet the demand (then) for 10 minutes. But I couldn't find a supporting link, presumably out of date anyway.

Maybe a better illustration:

I didn't search for comparisons (correction welcome), but the first Google hit I found for a 400ah battery was one on sale for $679 each. 38x$679=$26,000 for the average US household. If the outage lasted more than 3 days, likely some places, unlikely others - zero electricity.

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/how-big-of-a-battery-bank-do-you-need-to-run-a-house-13277282.html

You are mixing terms. Amp-hours cannot be compared to kilowatt-hours without knowing the voltage of the battery. Watts are Amps x Volts. The linked article did appear to keep this straight though.

So they are saying that for 3 days, you need ~ 90 kWh, and the battery they mention is 400 AH, at 6 volts, for 2.4 kWh, so therefore 38 are needed. That assumes you can actually discharge it that far and get a good lifespan from it.

But you are probably in the ballpark - we hear numbers of Lion batteries reaching ~ $200/kWh? So $200 * 90 - $18,000, plus the electronics.

-ERD50