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

[HFWR]

Granted, many see no need for change, and those who do want change often ignore the scientific and economic realities.

If, though, “we” are expecting business as usual, with no added cost, no sacrifice of any kind, no inconveniences, no changes, we’ll likely make no “progress”...

 

[NW-Bound]

I saw a recent article saying RE in Germany hit a record 77% of electricity usage on April 22, 2019. That is excellent.

Renewable energy sources generated 77 percent of Germany’s net public power supply on 22 April, thanks to strong winds and abundant sunshine, according to Fraunhofer ISE. Wind power provided 40 percent of total net power, solar 20 percent, and biomass 10 percent.

See: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/renewables-hit-record-77-percent-german-power-easter-monday.

I wondered about the reliability of that performance, so went look for some more data, and found there were days when wind power was down to 3%, and solar down to 1%. On those days, black coal (23.0%), lignite (23.8%), natural gas (21.6%), and nuclear plants (13.9%) carried the load.


I made a composite image of the piecharts to share below.

And remember that this is just for electricity generation. We have not included fuel used for cars and vehicle transport, for home heating, and in industrial production.

 

[ERD50]

I saw a recent article saying RE in Germany hit a record 77% of electricity usage on April 22, 2019. That is excellent.

... I wondered about the reliability of that performance, so went look for some more data, and found there were days when wind power was down to 3%, and solar down to 1%. On those days, black coal (23.0%), lignite (23.8%), natural gas (21.6%), and nuclear plants (13.9%) carried the load. ...

Very interesting. And it is great to see 77% of electricity from renewables (though that includes some questionable "biomass", and in most cases hydro cannot be expanded).

But I wonder if there were any headlines on the day that solar/wind were just 4%? Probably not, and this is what contributes to the public thinking it is all rainbows and puppies.

Granted, many see no need for change, and those who do want change often ignore the scientific and economic realities.

If, though, “we” are expecting business as usual, with no added cost, no sacrifice of any kind, no inconveniences, no changes, we’ll likely make no “progress”...

Well hopefully, through education, people will realize that change is good, but we must work with what we have, and not try to violate laws of physics.

To push more change than is reasonable will only create a backlash when promises fall empty, and everyone is paying a huge premium on top of it.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

But I wonder if there were any headlines on the day that solar/wind were just 4%? Probably not, and this is what contributes to the public thinking it is all rainbows and puppies...

-ERD50

No way.

Better let the public think, "Heck we are only 23% from going total RE. All we need are just a few more windmills and solar farms, and we are there. What keeps them from doing it?"


PS. About the other components of RE, meaning biomass and hydro power, you can see that these stayed relatively constant. They cannot be throttled up/down like a power plant to compensate for solar and wind variations. I think the biomass is wood that is grown and harvested for fuel.

 

[unclemick]

Washington is in a unique position for hydro production. I actually used to own stock in a hydro company out there (Puget Power, which has since gone private).

But it wasn't all roses. They were getting push back for other environmental issues that hydro causes.

In ancient times I remember my Dad loudly complain when Bonneville Power went above 1cent per kilowatt hour. I spent some time (1960's) in all electric apartments (Seattle)$5/mo no limit. And rode the electric buses.

And then there is/was the Elwa Dam.

heh heh heh -

 

[JoeWras]

It probably won't amount to much, but here's an interesting idea that takes advantage of black body radiation differences in a substrate. Just thinking about it gives me nightmares of some of the math we had to do in meteorology class.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/device-energy-dark-night

 

[LRDave]

Surely you don't mean the glitterati who flew into Palermo Italy earlier this year in their private jets, or who sailed in on their Yachts, so they could tell the rest of us that flying cattle class on vacation was ruining the environment.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/celebs-private-jets-climate-summit/

TIL that any Maserati can get 15 MPG..... I didn't know such a thing existed....

 

[Rianne]

Too bad we weren't having this discussion 50 yrs. ago. We might be in a very different place today. I was 12 50 yrs. ago. Maybe the combination solar/wind/coal would have given the earth a few extra years.

 

[Senator]

I just went for a visit at Mesa Verde National Park. No electricity in the homes there. It seems relatively easy to make the switch.

When they start talking about banning disposable diapers, which are a major environmental scourge, I will know they are starting to get serious. They are a much larger problem than plastic straws. It takes a lot of energy and petroleum to make them and dispose of the diapers. 1.4% of landfills are disposable diapers.

If people cannot agree to get rid of disposable diapers, which are a relatively new product and there are many viable alternatives, there is no way we can get to further major reductions.


And since people are the number one cause of the need for electricity, they need to get rid of any incentive to have kids, like the childcare and child tax credits. Leave us old folks alone.

 

[kcowan]

Too bad we weren't having this discussion 50 yrs. ago. We might be in a very different place today. I was 12 50 yrs. ago. Maybe the combination solar/wind/coal would have given the earth a few extra years.

The fact that only the Dutch chose wind power should provide some proof to you that, even then, one size did never fit all.

 

[ERD50]

Too bad we weren't having this discussion 50 yrs. ago. We might be in a very different place today. I was 12 50 yrs. ago. Maybe the combination solar/wind/coal would have given the earth a few extra years.

Well, 50 years ago we just didn't have the technology available. It wasn't for lack of trying, these things take time.

Solar cells that could produce usable power levels at the time were crazy expensive - the only place they were used was where there was no better alternative: spacecraft.

https://www.experience.com/advice/careers/ideas/the-history-of-solar-power/

In the early 1970’s a way to lower to cost of solar cells was discovered. This brought the price down from $100 per watt to around $20 per watt.

So at $20/watt (plus, what did an inverter cost back then?), it would have been crazy to install them at a large scale back then. And adjust that $20 for inflation. Better to wait for the price to come down so we can install more solar/$.

Modern Wind turbines rely on tech that didn't exist back then. Those large blades are a product of modern engineering and materials science.

But there is something we could have done 50 years ago - follow France's lead and install lots of Nuclear plants of the same design. France gets ~ 70% of it's electricity from Nuclear. Almost zero pollution. And it is the safest electrical source we have (you can look it up).

And please don;t fall into the trap of saying "But if we would have installed more, that demand would have made the prices drop!". No, supply/demand works the other way. People make the wrong conclusion when they see things like cell phones and computers come down in price and see lots of people buying them. It wasn't the buying that led to a lower price, it was the price drop that led to more buying. The price drop was possible through advances in technology, and those take time. Selling more product won't push it if the research is already taking place (it was).

You don't go from an Intel 4004 4-bit CPU running at 0.74Mhz to a modern 64 bit multi-core CPU running several 1,000x faster in one (or a few) steps. These developments just take time.

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

Too bad we weren't having this discussion 50 yrs. ago. We might be in a very different place today. I was 12 50 yrs. ago. Maybe the combination solar/wind/coal would have given the earth a few extra years.

Of course there were discussions 50 years ago, and they have been ongoing. (Popular References: "Future Shock," "Soylent Green", "Omega Man")

Only recently have certain emotional tactics been used to amp up the "discussion" into an emotional overdrive.

 

[stepford]

Of course there were discussions 50 years ago, and they have been ongoing. (Popular References: "Future Shock," "Soylent Green", "Omega Man")

Only recently have certain emotional tactics been used to amp up the "discussion" into an emotional overdrive.

Or one of my favorites published 51 years ago, "The Population Bomb". Of course everyone fell all over themselves to pile on Paul Ehrlich to debunk his theories as disasters failed to occur on schedule in the ensuing decades. Just needed to be patient. I wonder how all those folks feel now when they look at their kids and grandkids.

 

[ERD50]

Or one of my favorites published 51 years ago, "The Population Bomb". Of course everyone fell all over themselves to pile on Paul Ehrlich to debunk his theories as disasters failed to occur on schedule in the ensuing decades. Just needed to be patient. I wonder how all those folks feel now when they look at their kids and grandkids.

"Whatcha talkin bout Willis"?

From wiki:

The Population Bomb is a best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968.[1][2] It predicted worldwide famine in the 1970s and 1980s...

Well, how does this make you feel? (emphasis mine, plus a pet peeve of mine is jumping from fractions to % in the same article, yes I can do the math in my head, but why not just keep it clear so I can focus on content?)

https://www.thp.org/rethink/campaign/world-hunger-stats-rethink-world-hunger/

Hunger is ending.

Since 1990-92, the number of hungry people in the world has declined by 209 million people, despite an increase in world population of two billion. As a percentage, this represents a reduction from 18.7% to 11.3% of the world population. (Source: SOFI, p. 8, 2014)

Children are healthier.

In 2012, a quarter of all children under the age of five years were estimated to be stunted—having inadequate height for their age. This represents a significant decline since 1990 when 40 percent of young children were stunted. (Source: UN, p. 14, 2014)

The world has cut extreme poverty in half.

In 1990, almost half of the population in developing regions lived on less than $1.25 a day. This rate dropped to 22 percent by 2010, reducing the number of people living in extreme poverty by 700 million. (Source: UN, p.9, 2014)


Nearly half as many children are dying.

Worldwide, the mortality rate for children under age five dropped almost 50 percent, from 90 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 48 in 2012. (Source: UN, p.5, 2014)

Why the doom and gloom? I'll be showing my kids and grandkids these facts, explain there is more they can do to build on the success of previous generations , and don't let the doom-and-gloomers get in the way of facts.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

It probably won't amount to much, but here's an interesting idea that takes advantage of black body radiation differences in a substrate. Just thinking about it gives me nightmares of some of the math we had to do in meteorology class.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/device-energy-dark-night

I finally got around to reading this article. Your "probably won't amount to much" comment is an understatement!

It's interesting, so thanks for posting, but as soon as I saw " thermoelectric generator" I figured this won't amount to much. TEGs are low efficiency ( 5~8%), and the temperature deltas/amounts they are talking about look to be pretty small to start with.

"The prototype was able to power a white LED, but was still three orders of magnitude less powerful than a solar panel per square meter"

So 1,000x less power than a solar panel. Even with improvements it can't be much, TEGs are established tech, and heat is heat - I don't see much potential for improvement other than some optimization.

And if they truly meant "power" (watts) and not "energy" (watt-hours), then I'd also guess that this temperature difference doesn't produce power over as many hours of a day as most solar panels would.

TEGs are fascinating. No moving parts, just two dissimilar metals and a junction. They are used to power some space missions (Voyager is one). They "just" use some hot radioactive material, surround it with these two metals, and you get power for decades. You don't get much power, but it sure is simple and reliable. It's not a nuclear reactor, just a lump of hot material. Concept is simple, but of course the implementation is a lot of hard work.

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

Concept is simple, but of course the implementation is a lot of hard work.

And as an engineer myself, I add "reliability and serviceability" to the mix. All these devices, including today's solar and wind, require high touch. But maybe that's where all the jobs will go. Oh wait, nevermind, nobody likes to get on ladders and handle tools.

 

[Rianne]

But there is something we could have done 50 years ago - follow France's lead and install lots of Nuclear plants of the same design. France gets ~ 70% of it's electricity from Nuclear. Almost zero pollution. And it is the safest electrical source we have (you can look it up).
-ERD50

This concept used to frighten me, but take a look at Bill Gates recent documentary on Netflix. This is his solution to our environment problem. The disasters in the past are because of poor planning, poor design. I used to think of Chernobyl or Japan. But now am coming on board with nuclear power.

 

[JoeWras]

This concept used to frighten me, but take a look at Bill Gates recent documentary on Netflix. This is his solution to our environment problem. The disasters in the past are because of poor planning, poor design. I used to think of Chernobyl or Japan. But now am coming on board with nuclear power.

And I'm coming on board with lessening our carbon footprint. We all just have to be willing to look at all sides (myself included). Nuclear has huge promise.

 

[ERD50]

This concept used to frighten me, but take a look at Bill Gates recent documentary on Netflix. This is his solution to our environment problem. The disasters in the past are because of poor planning, poor design. I used to think of Chernobyl or Japan. But now am coming on board with nuclear power.

Chernobyl really shouldn't be lumped in with nuclear power plant disasters. Chernobyl was unlike any other nuclear power plant design, it was designed to make it easier to harvest weapon grade materials.

But even when you include Chernobyl, nuclear injuries/deaths are actually lower than any other power source, relative to the power produced. Yes, even solar.


https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/deaths-nuclear-energy-compared-other-causes

Deaths/TWh/yr from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear-based generation are 24, 3, 19.2, and 0.052, respectively. ....


Note: Deaths from PV solar-rooftop and IWT (Industrial Wind Turbine) energy generation are about 16 and 4 times the deaths of nuclear energy generation, respectively, according to the World Health Organization.

format for easier comparison:

coal 24.0,
gas 3.0,
oil 19.2,
nuclear-based generation 0.052 (note the leading "0.0")

So that makes nuclear 57x safer than the best of those (natural gas). Now take Chernobyl out of the equation and the nuclear safety factor is incredible.


Chernobyl in Brief - ANS

Chernobyl in Brief ...

International evaluation showed that the accident was impossible in any other type of commercial reactor. Additionally, it showed that the design did not have safety systems adequate for that type of reactor.

The Chernobyl-type reactor was designed to produce weapons grade plutonium while also generating electricity and used graphite (similar to charcoal). A more prevalent practice is to have separate reactors for power and weapons material.

-ERD50

 

[folivier]

But nuclear still has that dirty little problem of SAFELY for all eternity getting rid of the spent fuel rods. I love nuclear and think it has great potential but where do we put the waste? Not in my backyard!

 

[ERD50]

But nuclear still has that dirty little problem of SAFELY for all eternity getting rid of the spent fuel rods. I love nuclear and think it has great potential but where do we put the waste? Not in my backyard!

That's a positive, not a negative.

All that waste is contained. With other non-intermittent, or on-demand generation, the waste goes all over the place. Into the atmosphere, polluting the Earth.

Just keep it at the plant. And much of the energy is dissipated in a few years, only a portion is long lasting. And we may find a way to use that as fuel int he future, and we will be glad we kept it!

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/what-are-nuclear-wastes.aspx

Generating enough electricity for one person produces just 30 grams of used fuel each year. [ERD50 - that's about 1 ounce]

High-level wastes make just 3% of the total volume of waste arising from nuclear generation, but they contain 95% of the radioactivity arising from nuclear power. Low-level wastes represent 90% of the total volume of radioactive wastes, but contain only 1% of the radioactivity.

Managing used fuel

Used nuclear fuel is very hot and radioactive. Handling and storing it safely can be done as long as it is cooled and plant workers are shielded from the radiation it produces by a dense material like concrete or steel, or by a few metres of water.

Water can conveniently provide both cooling and shielding, so a typical reactor will have its fuel removed underwater and transferred to a storage pool. After about five years it can be transferred into dry ventilated concrete containers, but otherwise it can safely remain in the pool indefinitely - usually for up to 50 years.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...s/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

In fact, after 40 years, the radioactivity of used fuel has decreased to about one-thousandth of the level at the point when it was unloaded.

I'm pretty confident we can come up with a good solution in 40 years, and deal with the waste that is now only 0.001 as radioactive as it was.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Here's an interesting take on that nuclear waste sitting in a pool of water at the plant, that I'm sure will surprise most people:

From:

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

What if I took a swim in a typical spent nuclear fuel pool? Would I need to dive to actually experience a fatal amount of radiation? How long could I stay safely at the surface?


Assuming you’re a reasonably good swimmer, you could probably survive treading water anywhere from 10 to 40 hours. At that point, you would black out from fatigue and drown. This is also true for a pool without nuclear fuel in the bottom. ...

Nice dry sense of humor, even in a pool of water!

... Swimming to the bottom, touching your elbows to a fresh fuel canister, and immediately swimming back up would probably be enough to kill you.

Yet outside the outer boundary, you could swim around as long as you wanted—the dose from the core would be less than the normal background dose you get walking around. In fact, as long as you were underwater, you would be shielded from most of that normal background dose. You may actually receive a lower dose of radiation treading water in a spent fuel pool than walking around on the street.

I suggest reading the whole article, it's very good.

-ERD50

 

[Bir48die]

So one thing no one talks about are the power demands from server farms and the needs of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.

I live in a land where hydro power has been plentiful by damming the Columbia. Very low cost of electricity and considered "renewable" but don't tell the salmon that.

So there are major builds by all of these companies in the middle of Central Oregon and other spots like here. Their energy demands are incredible. Some have made the move to supplement by solar due to the number of sun days in the area. However the electronics that allow us to post these responses, Facebook our friends, etc demand a tremendous amount of energy.

So as we look at each other to try to lower our usage, there are major users that no one talks about.

 

[mpeirce]

So one thing no one talks about are the power demands from server farms and the needs of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.

I live in a land where hydro power has been plentiful by damming the Columbia. Very low cost of electricity and considered "renewable" but don't tell the salmon that.

So there are major builds by all of these companies in the middle of Central Oregon and other spots like here. Their energy demands are incredible. Some have made the move to supplement by solar due to the number of sun days in the area. However the electronics that allow us to post these responses, Facebook our friends, etc demand a tremendous amount of energy.

So as we look at each other to try to lower our usage, there are major users that no one talks about.

DuckDuckGo.com is your friend...

GOOGLE ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS

Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy

 

[ERD50]

So one thing no one talks about are the power demands from server farms and the needs of Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.

I live in a land where hydro power has been plentiful by damming the Columbia. Very low cost of electricity and considered "renewable" but don't tell the salmon that.

So there are major builds by all of these companies in the middle of Central Oregon and other spots like here. Their energy demands are incredible. Some have made the move to supplement by solar due to the number of sun days in the area. However the electronics that allow us to post these responses, Facebook our friends, etc demand a tremendous amount of energy.

So as we look at each other to try to lower our usage, there are major users that no one talks about.

DuckDuckGo.com is your friend...

GOOGLE ENVIRONMENT PROJECTS

Apple now globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy

Yes, it's being talked about. But these "100% Renewable" claims from Apple, Google and others appear to be a shell game. What was accomplished?

They are buying credits from solar/wind suppliers. This gives them "bragging rights" to say they are "100% RE". But if those solar/wind farms would have existed anyway, their power would still go to the grid and power whatever is on the grid (including Apple/Google - and your home), just like before.

Now, if their purchase contracts actually motivate additional solar/wind installations that would not have existed w/o those credit/contracts, then I think they can claim some credit for that portion. But I'm not sure there is evidence of that.

I'll give them credit when they disconnect from the grid. If they have their own solar/wind and the storage they need to run 24/7, then they can make the claim, not until then.

Heck, even then, if most of that solar/wind would have been installed anyhow, it's still mostly a shell game. Gotta look at the big picture, not one company claiming 100% when they really mostly robbed Peter to pay Paul.

-ERD50