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

[NW-Bound]

^^^^^ That's very nice. It's good that Costa Rica has taken advantage of the geographic features that it has.

... the country has abundance of geothermal renewable sources that account for much of the necessary energy to make the country successfully function.

Also, Costa Rica can get a lot of rain. With consistent rainfall, their hydroelectric plants can produce a plethora of energy.

Lastly, the population is small and their workforce is not manufacturing intensive, which means their energy requirements are not as large as some countries.

I remember reading somewhere Canadians use a lot of electricity. Where does that come from? They have a lot of hydro power.

 

[eroscott]

I remember reading somewhere Canadians use a lot of electricity. Where does that come from? They have a lot of hydro power.

67% -- 2/3rds

• 67% of Canada’s electricity comes from renewable sources and 82% from non-GHG emitting sources
• Canada is the world’s second largest producer of hydroelectricity
• Canada exports nearly 9% of the electricity it generates to the United States. There are 34 active major international transmission lines connecting Canada to the U.S.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-and...analysis/energy-facts/electricity-facts/20068

 

[kcowan]

67% of Canada’s electricity comes from renewable sources and 82% from non-GHG emitting sources

Yes and the 15% is nuclear.

But we need electricity for long dark winters and hot summers. Plus many of our rapid transit systems: trains, trolley buses and streetcars are electric.

 

[NW-Bound]

Getting to 100% renewable energy is impossible with the technology we have now. Germany still burns a lot of natural gas to keep warm in the winter. And they plan on burning dirty lignite coal for electricity for decades to come, despite the windmills and solar farms. It's the sad truth.

I surely love clean energy, but do not see how we can get to 100% in my life. It does not mean we should not try to get more RE, but should stay realistic at the same time.

 

[NW-Bound]

I just saw this system offered on eBay. A very attractive package for $13,000.

* 25.6kWh of lithium storage, consisting of 160 LiFePO4 cells of 50 Ah each.
* 12 kW inverter
* AC charger
* Solar charger of 4 kW
* BMS (battery management system)

Just supply your own solar panels.

This comes from a Chinese company called YIY (Yiyuan Electric Co). The quality and craftsmanship are unknown, but this company makes its own battery as well as electronics. The price above is very attractive, and makes an off-grid system very easy to build.

The only problem for someone contemplating this is to have enough room for a minisolar farm. And he may need several of this unit, and still has to keep a generator for the occasional string of several cloudy or snowy days.

 

[ERD50]

A very recently article to drive your point home:

Costa Rica Has Run on 100% Renewable Energy for 299 Days
By Miles Rote on June 25, 2019
https://www.under30experiences.com/blog/costa-rica-has-run-on-100-renewable-energy-for-299-days

^^^^^ That's very nice. It's good that Costa Rica has taken advantage of the geographic features that it has.



I remember reading somewhere Canadians use a lot of electricity. Where does that come from? They have a lot of hydro power.

Yes, the headline is very nice, reality is far different. From this source, I see that per capita electrical consumption is ~ 1/6th that of the US average. And as your source points out, little manufacturing. So if we are all like Costa Rica, who is going to make things for the world?

https://www.worlddata.info/america/costa-rica/energy-consumption.php
https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/energy-consumption.php

So their 100% would be more like 18% in the US. And their per capita carbon footprint has about quadrupled since the 80's, while the US, though larger, is up only ~ 20% in that time. Will they keep increasing as their standard of living climbs?

And they still also import/export, so I'd bet that external grid is providing some back up and ability to absorb excess, so really, the denominator for that "100%" should include the external connected grid. They can use their hydro for pumped storage, but it looks like they still use that grid.

Now here's what is so very, very silly in these "fan" articles - check this quote (bold mine):

Costa Rica is pioneering the future of running on renewable energy and may be the model for future countries to follow suit.

In the last four years, Costa Rica has generated 98.53% of its electricity from renewable sources.

How? With its unique geography, ...

Excuse me, but how can other countries use Costa Rica as a model, if Costa Rica is able to do it because of their unique geography? Can they export their geography? And again, who is going to make the world's stuff?

What a sensible person would learn from this is that we can't do what Costa Rica is doing. Sorry, if that sounds negative, it's not, it is reality.

We can take steps in the US. But 100% is just not reasonable, unless something magical comes along, or the new forms of nuclear energy.

-ERD50

 

[mh]

Yes, the headline is very nice, reality is far different. From this source, I see that per capita electrical consumption is ~ 1/6th that of the US average. And as your source points out, little manufacturing. So if we are all like Costa Rica, who is going to make things for the world?



https://www.worlddata.info/america/costa-rica/energy-consumption.php

https://www.worlddata.info/america/usa/energy-consumption.php



So their 100% would be more like 18% in the US. And their per capita carbon footprint has about quadrupled since the 80's, while the US, though larger, is up only ~ 20% in that time. Will they keep increasing as their standard of living climbs?



And they still also import/export, so I'd bet that external grid is providing some back up and ability to absorb excess, so really, the denominator for that "100%" should include the external connected grid. They can use their hydro for pumped storage, but it looks like they still use that grid.



Now here's what is so very, very silly in these "fan" articles - check this quote (bold mine):







Excuse me, but how can other countries use Costa Rica as a model, if Costa Rica is able to do it because of their unique geography? Can they export their geography? And again, who is going to make the world's stuff?



What a sensible person would learn from this is that we can't do what Costa Rica is doing. Sorry, if that sounds negative, it's not, it is reality.



We can take steps in the US. But 100% is just not reasonable, unless something magical comes along, or the new forms of nuclear energy.



-ERD50

Yes probably not reasonable, but it would probably do us good to aim high.

 

[ERD50]

Yes probably not reasonable, but it would probably do us good to aim high.

Or maybe we should just aim well?

Trying to push for RE beyond what the technology can support can just be a waste, and actually create a backlash against it. A bit like the original Apple Newton, they "aimed high", and missed, and probably set their efforts back several years.

Of course we should continue to invest in R&D, and apply the positive results when/where it makes sense, and/or learn where the dead ends are.

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

A very recently article to drive your point home:

Costa Rica Has Run on 100% Renewable Energy for 299 Days
By Miles Rote on June 25, 2019
https://www.under30experiences.com/blog/costa-rica-has-run-on-100-renewable-energy-for-299-days

Wind turbines in Scotland generated almost twice the entire country’s domestic power requirements In the first six months of the year.

Scotland generating enough wind energy to power two Scotlands by Harry Cockburn Friday 19 July 2019
https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...ewable-energy-climate-change-uk-a9013066.html

 

[NW-Bound]

I like this. I hope that the trend persists in the later half of the year. They would have it made, and should be exporting the excess power to England.

The photo in the above article has this caption: "Planning applications for new on-shore wind farms plummeted by 94 per cent after the UK government changed rules in 2015".

I wonder what transpired there.

 

[explanade]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

 

[NW-Bound]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/wind-power-prices-now-lower-than-the-cost-of-natural-gas/

From the above article:

... having over 30 percent of your power supplied by an intermittent source is a challenge for many existing grids. But there are a number of states that have now cleared the 30 percent threshold: Kansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma, with the two Dakotas not far behind. The Southwest Power Pool, which serves two of those states plus wind giant Texas, is currently getting a quarter of its electricity from wind. (Texas leads the US with 25GW of installed wind capacity.)

Just a few days ago, Texas got a heat wave in conjunction with a couple of days of low wind. They did not have enough thermal generation capacity to make up for the short fall, causing the spot price of electricity to go through the roof.

As reported on the "This Weather is Awful" thread, on 8/12/2019, spot price for a kWh hit $6537.45/MWh. That's $6.4 per kWh, compared to the normal wholesale price of $0.02/kWh.

The next day, on 8/13/2019, the price hit $9/kWh.

That's the problem with using solar and wind. We still need conventional plants that sit idle just in case we need them. Or we can build huge battery storage. Or we can have huge overcapacity in RE, just in case we have a day when we get only 1/2 or 1/3 of normal production.

Either way, it's not cheap.

 

[explanade]

So why did TX go so big on wind but not solar?

Especially since a study came out last week that if 1% of land used for agriculture was used for solar PV, it would fulfill global electricity demand:

Putting solar panels on less than 1 percent of the world’s agricultural land could produce enough energy to fulfill global electricity demand, according to a recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports. The research also concludes that solar panels perform more efficiently in cool, breezy, and dry conditions — findings that defy the common practice of installing large solar arrays in deserts.

“Our results indicate that there’s a huge potential for solar and agriculture to work together to provide reliable energy,” said Chad Higgins, an ecological engineer at Oregon State University and senior author of the new study. “There’s an old adage that agriculture can overproduce anything. That’s what we found in electricity, too. It turns out that 8,000 years ago, farmers found the best places to harvest solar energy on Earth.”

The researchers point out that farmers don’t have to make a choice between using land for solar panels or agriculture. Most parcels can be used for both. In fact, previous research from the same scientists found that solar panels can increase yields on dry, unirrigated cropland or pasture.

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/solar-panels-on-farmland-have-huge-electricity-generating-potential

 

[JoeWras]

The road thing seems like a good idea, but it just ain't happening. One of the French experiments is agreed upon by all to have failed. The unexpected culprit? Farm machinery. The unexpected complaint? Noise.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28720252/french-solar-road-failure/

At the time of its opening its builder, the construction group Colas, part of telecoms group Bouygues, said that the solar panels were covered with a resin containing silicon, strong enough to fend off traffic even from 18-wheelers. "The engineers of this project surely did not think about the tractors that would roll over," Pascal and Eric, two local roofers leaning on the counter of the Café de Paris, Tourouvre-au-Perche, told the French newspaper Le Monde in 2019. While the resin coating might be strong enough to keep a big rig from crushing the solar panels, the two said that driving over it generates so much noise that locals required the road's speed limit to be lowered to 70 km/h, or a paltry 43 mph.

 

[Murf2]

So why did TX go so big on wind but not solar?



Especially since a study came out last week that if 1% of land used for agriculture was used for solar PV, it would fulfill global electricity demand:







https://e360.yale.edu/digest/solar-panels-on-farmland-have-huge-electricity-generating-potential

I’m confused by the idea of needing to put solar out in “flyover country”. It seems to me the 8-15 percent transmission loss is unnecessary. Why not put the solar arrays where they are needed.
Is it another case of “ not in my back yard”?

 

[NW-Bound]

So why did TX go so big on wind but not solar?

Especially since a study came out last week that if 1% of land used for agriculture was used for solar PV, it would fulfill global electricity demand:

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/solar-panels-on-farmland-have-huge-electricity-generating-potential

I guess windmills have the attractiveness of generating power at night, while solar cannot. It is very easy and cheap to generate solar power, but storage is still a problem.

And I have shared graphs showing that although Germany has had days when solar+wind generation provided all the electricity that was needed, there are also days when both provided zilch. Yes, both!

And that's why Germany still relocates villages to expand its strip mine of lignite coal, and plans to burn coal until at least 2050.

The road thing seems like a good idea, but it just ain't happening. One of the French experiments is agreed upon by all to have failed. The unexpected culprit? Farm machinery. The unexpected complaint? Noise.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a28720252/french-solar-road-failure/

I never thought solar road was a good idea. You would think they tested out the cells in the lab for durability before even trying a small pilot project.

Here in the US, a guy even proposed having the road lighted up at night with LEDs embedded in these solar pavers.

Most ludicrous is the promise to have heaters in the pavers to melt snow and ice in the winter. Where does he get the power for that? How many nuclear plants would be needed? We can't afford electricity for heating our homes, and he is heating up the road! Total insanity.

See my post #420 earlier for a Youtube video on this.

 

[NW-Bound]

Not everyone bought the idea of solar roadway.

Here's an EE who blasted it in 2016 when he heard about it.

 

[JoeWras]

I never thought solar road was a good idea.

Let me qualify that.

I though it is a "good idea" much like I think making humans' impact on earth to be Zero is a "good idea."

From an idealistic perspective, it is a good idea because you are reusing real estate for a second purpose. I didn't answer the Texas question about "why wind" but I will now. Despite the assertion that solar power won't impact agriculture, ask a Texas rancher if he'd rather have wind turbines (and their associated footprint) or solar panels on the ranch. I think the results speak for themselves.

So, back to "good idea." As an engineer with 35+ years of experience behind me, I immediately could see a solar road as a "bad idea." Idealistically, it is perfect. Realistically, it is fraught with issues.

Any engineer who has had to put any product into service (name it: road, car, airplane, software program, chemical, etc.) knows their theory from reality.

You don't even need to be an engineer. Anyone who has ridden over a pothole instinctively gets the idea that a solar road would have severe reliability issues.

I ultimately thought the noise aspect was interesting. But even here, you'd think a civil engineer would have warned them. I have C.E. friends who actually design roads. We talk about stuff and noise considerations are quite high on their list of issues to balance. And they have a lot of them. It is a game of optimizations.

 

[ERD50]

RE - Solar Roads:

Let me qualify that.

I though it is a "good idea" much like I think making humans' impact on earth to be Zero is a "good idea."

....

So, back to "good idea." As an engineer with 35+ years of experience behind me, I immediately could see a solar road as a "bad idea." Idealistically, it is perfect. Realistically, it is fraught with issues. ...

I was also confused when you said it "seems like a good idea". I can't think of one single good thing about it, and anyone who favors solar should be against this stupid waste of time, effort, money and resources. How can anything with all negatives and no positives "seem like a good idea"?

I would say taking "idealism" that far is just meaningless. The "ideal" transportation would take no energy or materials to build, use no energy, last forever, and cost nothing. OK, that's "ideal", but it has absolutely no bearing on real life, other than a thought exercise to clarify the goals. Do I still say it "seems like a good idea"? What's the point?

... From an idealistic perspective, it is a good idea because you are reusing real estate for a second purpose. ....

And this is a non-issue unless/until we are lacking space to put solar panels. Seems to me the ideal places are on the rooftops of large commercial/government flat-roofed buildings. That accomplished your goal of reusing real estate, it also lowers air conditioning bills, benefits from economy of scale, flat roofs are safer for the installer, and it puts the electricity production near where it is needed, avoiding most transmission losses, since clearly, large buildings are mostly in areas of large populations and large electricity demand.

When we run out of roof tops, we can start talking about alternatives, and every imaginable alternative is better than putting them in a road.

..

You don't even need to be an engineer. Anyone who has ridden over a pothole instinctively gets the idea that a solar road would have severe reliability issues. ....

And yet, there are millions of people who think this is a great idea, and some of them are in positions of power, and have directed government funds towards this horrendously wasteful money and resource pit. A double shame since that money could have gone to something productive in the renewable energy field.

The list of everything wrong about a 'solar road' is longer than the roads they've installed. This isn't something we need to build to "see how it works", any more than Count Ferdinand would need to actually build a dirigible out of lead to see if it would fly. A few simple calculations and analysis would tell you there are better alternatives. Could make a great rock/blues band though.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... I never thought solar road was a good idea. You would think they tested out the cells in the lab for durability before even trying a small pilot project.
....

I would think the idea would have been totally, 100% rejected before any testing would take place. Why waste time testing a totally useless (actually negative) idea that has no merit?

Anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that the Idaho couple promoting this actually believe any of their hype. Ockam tells me they are frauds, making money from the indigo or other crowdsourcing, from ignorant (or scheming) government officials pouring money into this, and basking in their 'fame' among ignorant 'environmentalists'.

And I use the term 'ignorant' in the literal sense, not-knowing about a subject, not that they are stupid in general, though some of them surely are.


-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Solar makes sense when it is on top of a stack, not on the bottom of a pile. I almost suspect the solar road thing is a straw-man setup by people who don't like solar for some reason. What a goofy idea.

In Turkey, I saw new, modern hotels that had dozens (maybe over a hundred) small solar water heaters on the roof. That makes sense to me. Of course, the hotels also had a boiler, but that was only needed part of the day.

My guess is that solar water heating's biggest issues would be with people who like to shower, wash their clothes, run their dishwasher, etc. at night or early morning. I quickly learned to take my shower in the late afternoon or early evening, rather than the morning.

 

[Koolau]

Solar makes sense when it is on top of a stack, not on the bottom of a pile. I almost suspect the solar road thing is a straw-man setup by people who don't like solar for some reason. What a goofy idea.

In Turkey, I saw new, modern hotels that had dozens (maybe over a hundred) small solar water heaters on the roof. That makes sense to me. Of course, the hotels also had a boiler, but that was only needed part of the day.

My guess is that solar water heating's biggest issues would be with people who like to shower, wash their clothes, run their dishwasher, etc. at night or early morning. I quickly learned to take my shower in the late afternoon or early evening, rather than the morning.

Solar hot water has been viable for 100 years while photovoltaics (depending on your region and perhaps even your 'belief' system) are just now becoming viable - within limits. My dad hooked up a jury rigged solar hot water system 60 years ago. Today, in Hawaii, though solar panels work for lots of folks and do save money, they are not totally integrated (or capable of total integration) with the antiquated grid. I'm for as much solar (etc.) as possible. However, while the concept is simple, implementation is not. YMMV

 

[JoeWras]

I was also confused when you said it "seems like a good idea". I can't think of one single good thing about it, and anyone who favors solar should be against this stupid waste of time, effort, money and resources. How can anything with all negatives and no positives "seem like a good idea"?

ERD, even though I agree with you, I'm going to push back a bit. Absolutes such as "stupid," "anything ... no positives" are part of what's getting us in hot water all around. I hear that kind of thing on the other side of the debate quite a bit, about nuclear, for instance. People aren't talking, they are just shouting down each other.

So, I'm open to crazy ass ideas, as long as the result of the experiment is respected. In this case, I think it is clear that some people's eyes were opened. Let's see where this goes, and that will tell the real tale of the underlying agenda.

 

[ERD50]

ERD, even though I agree with you, I'm going to push back a bit. Absolutes such as "stupid," "anything ... no positives" are part of what's getting us in hot water all around. I hear that kind of thing on the other side of the debate quite a bit, about nuclear, for instance. People aren't talking, they are just shouting down each other.

So, I'm open to crazy ass ideas, as long as the result of the experiment is respected. In this case, I think it is clear that some people's eyes were opened. Let's see where this goes, and that will tell the real tale of the underlying agenda.

OK, so tell me something, anything about this "Solar Roads" idea that is in anyway better than readily available alternatives.

I'll listen.

Sure, we should keep an open mind. I've looked at the solar road proposal in detail, and I have not found a single positive (again, in relative terms). This isn't about 'poo-poo-ing' an idea and clinging to the old ways - this is about a specific idea that is stupid, with no positives.

Wasting time and resources on stupid ideas is also getting us in hot water all around. We need to be productive.

Show me where I'm wrong.

And I added "in relative terms", because some people come for the view that any solar is good solar. But that's counterproductive - if I can install solar cheaper, and get more energy out of it, it is not reasonable to go another route that costs more and provides less energy. That is not a positive, it's not good for anyone.

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

OK, so tell me something, anything about this "Solar Roads" idea that is in anyway better than readily available alternatives.

Many distribution lines run along the roadway. There's a potential for less infrastructure build out to the distribution grid.

OK, now give me 5 minutes while I find my Kevlar vest, because I know you are not going to let this stand without a fight.

BTW, now I know how public defenders feel... having to defend something (someone) you may not be bought into.