Only have time now for a couple points, I'll try to get back to more later. ...
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
You have to be careful with that "% of renewables" claim from other countries. This should probably go in it's own thread, but (I'll use very round numbers as I'm going from memory now), the grid runs into trouble with relatively small % (~ 10%-20%?)of solar/wind due to the intermittent nature.
Do you have a source for that?
Here:
Denmark surpasses 100 percent wind power – German Energy Transition
Lots of numbers to sort through, and it was a while back, but it seems clear that Denmark could not 'surpass 100 percent wind power' w/o feeding other grids (or it would just be wasted anyhow). And there is this:
In other words, at a moment when Danish power exports made up roughly a third of total power production, the country had a net power deficit vis-à-vis Germany of some 461 MW, so Germany was covering roughly a seventh of Denmark’s power demand at the same time.
It's complicated. But isn't Germany part of the grid that should be the denominator in that % calculation? Fuzzy math.
...
Long story short: In Europe taking a petrol or hybrid car of the road reduces emissions. Fully agree that in the US, China, and India this is not the case. Canada is >70% renewable too (large hydro).
And if EVs make more sense than hybrids in Europe (and that is an
if, IMO), that's a positive for EVs. See, it's not dogma for me, I'm interested in solutions, whatever they may be. But that does not seem to be the case for EVs in the US.
In your last post you say that 70% renewable will require lots of storage. Actually it doesn't. That's not me saying it, but Amory Lovins (a guy who really knows his stuff and leads a very respected institute, RMI) : ...
Amory Lovins is an interesting guy with some very interesting ideas. But I stopped paying much attention to him years ago, as so much of what he says depends on so many things that he just sort of hand-waves away. He is way too optimistic - that's good for promoting creativity, and unconventional ideas, and makes for interesting, engaging talks, but if something doesn't actually make it into production, it doesn't do any good. As Steve Jobs said
"Real artists ship!".
And you see some of that in that video. Some quick examples - you can't simultaneously use the spare fossil-fuel capacity as back up for plant maintenance and outages
and as fill in for renewable variability. Double counting = fuzzy math.
And @ 1:41, he starts by 'magically' reducing the variability of the present grid through 'efficient use'. Huh? That has nothing to do with renewable energy - so before he even starts his 'explanation',
he assumes half the problem has gone away through other means, before he even applies renewable energy to the situation.
@ ~ 1:53, can you get 14% (so is that 28%? ) of the grid economically supplied from these 'dispatch-able renewable' sources he mentions - geothermal (how widely available is that in the US, and to use it as 'dispatch-able' source means it is idle much of the time - costs?); small-hydro - again, how available (and that really isn't so great environmentally when you consider construction, habitat displacement, etc - I recall something like 60-100 years to offset the greenhouse gas from construction/destruction); solar-thermal electric - cost, and I think you get several hours, not several days of storage, safety?; feedlot bio-gas - yes, we should burn it, that turns methane (a very powerful GHG) into CO2, a much less GHG affect. But I don't think feedlot gas makes up any sort of significant % to make much of a difference, though it would help.
And notice his graph of solar power doesn't drop to near zero for days/weeks on end, which is exactly what happened with a large solar installation near me several times this year, when the panels were covered in snow.
@ 2:27, he throws in some double-counting magic. He already magically made the grid demand variability 50% lower, now he just 'fills some gaps' with 'unobtrusively flexible demand'. You know, utilities today hate variability, and would like to reduce it - if this was easy, I think they would be doing it to a greater extent than they are now. And if they aren't, what would make this change?
Before that, he mentioned EVs as sink/sources for the grid. I've never understood how this could be done on a large scale (other than through wishful thinking). as long as range anxiety exists, who wants to have their EV battery drawn down? The obvious time would be during the daytime- afternoon demand peaks, right before your commute home, and after you already used some of it to get to work? I think the cases where people are willing to give up a large % of their capacity during the day will be fairly small. And adding a partial charge/discharge cycle 365 days a year will take a toll on battery life. Makes more sense to use cheaper, long life, less fussy, stationary batteries for grid leveling where you don't need the energy density required for mobile applications, but hey, that's not pandering to 'greenies' with their EVs!
@ 2:59 - Iowa and South Dakota are over 1/4 wind power. Is all that power within the state? I bet their grid in/out extends beyond those borders, but I'll let you dig up that link.
Oh well, that's enough observations for 3 minutes into a 3:47 video. I think the point is made, I'll stop there.
edit/add: OK, one more - hey, how come he doesn't mention France in that map of Europe?
from wiki:
France has the largest share of nuclear electricity in the world. The country is also among the world's biggest net exporters of electricity.
Is Amory anti-nuke, I don't recall? I'm guessing he is and did not want to mention how nuclear is helping to level the renewables in those countries.
-ERD50
For later....
EV is driving battery development already,
But yes, we need to look at all angles, including conservation.
