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

[JoeWras]

But will the public get behind Nuclear?

-ERD50

No. Because of generations of thought. The new leaders will have no part in it. The public will protest any such idea.

 

[ERD50]

I do not understand the above chart! ...

It surprised me, I do hope to take a deeper look later, as I said, maybe it doesn't represent what I thought? It was from here (posted earlier by someone else):

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/


But it still has me thinking that just over-building RE could be cheaper than relying so much on storage. Just 'waste' the excess. Though that might open up creative opportunities for that waste, since it would be very cheap? Would still need some overnight and some buffer.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by NW-Bound
I do not understand the above chart! ...

OK, did a bit more poking around, that chart does seem to be on the high end of what I found (I wonder why?), but my question still stands about if it would be cheaper to just over-build wind/solar, to be less reliant on long-term storage.

I found a lot of variation in the seasonal variation data! But roughly, it looked like around a 2:1 ~ 3:1 for solar, and 4:1 ~ 8:1 for wind? And they are pretty much in sync by month, so that hurts. Could still be ~ 3:1 ~ 6:1 for wind/solar blended 50/50? Still a lot.

Need to compare to seasonal demand, but that was fairly flat.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I have not looked for any wind variation data, but have done quite a bit of studying solar data for my DIY project. A seasonal solar variation of 2 to 1 is already tough enough to deal with, but 10 to 1 does not make sense.

Think about it, a ratio of 10 to 1 change in solar radiation can only exist up at high latitudes, like perhaps Fairbanks. If California gets only 1/10 the solar radiation in the winter compared to the summer, Californians would freeze to death.

I want to dig deeper into the source of the data for that chart. Are there some other effects that we are not told about?

 

[NW-Bound]

... it still has me thinking that just over-building RE could be cheaper than relying so much on storage. Just 'waste' the excess. Though that might open up creative opportunities for that waste, since it would be very cheap? Would still need some overnight and some buffer.

-ERD50

I think so too. But right now, even having enough storage for overnight is already tough enough, let alone for several days of no power production.

 

[eroscott]

I thought the maps here were very cool and enlightening. You can even compare some maps on the same screen (works well on widescreen monitor)

Title: This project is mapping every solar panel in the country using machine learning
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/19/t...-panel-in-the-country-using-machine-learning/

Follow link in this paragraph: "“We have created and released a website where you can play with the data at the aggregated level (we are keeping it at census tract level) to respect the privacy of consumers,” Rajagopal said. “We are exploring how to make individual detections public while respecting privacy (perhaps by encouraging public participation and crowdsourcing).”"

 

[ERD50]

I thought the maps here were very cool and enlightening. ...

At a glance, I'd say the maps enlighten me that they have more to do with politics (state subsidies) than anything else. Solar installations should follow the sun, not state borders!

For anyone not digging into that link, the maps were generated by using some recognition of solar panels in aerial photos like Google, Bing and others use. Then they measure installations by population/households. Since solar panels should be visible from above, this should identify most of the installations. Excepts those in people's basements.

-ERD50

 

[eroscott]

a) Some great benefits of having local (house) power storage to supplement whatever the grid may be doing (utility level storage). Powerwall and the like house storage are mainly used for capturing your solar generation but have other benefits. (WK057 NC also charged his up before the big storm recently).

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-activates-powerwall-2-storm-watch-australia-cyclone-owen/

Posted on December 21, 2018

As Cyclone Owen barreled towards north Queensland in Australia last week, Tesla decided to roll out the Powerwall 2’s “Storm Watch” feature, a function designed to help households prepare for possible power outages during severe weather disturbances. The update marked the first time that Tesla activated the special feature outside of the United States.

Storm Watch works by detecting incoming weather disturbances and prioritizing available power towards keeping backup functions. With the function enabled, the Powerwall 2 would automatically charge and attempt to maintain maximum capacity, allowing the battery to provide backup power when needed. The feature made its debut in the US last August, following an update on the Tesla mobile app.

Australian customers in the north town of Townsville received the update last weekend. Tesla, for its part, noted in a statement to local publication Renew Economy that the decision to activate the feature in the region was taken centrally by the company. Customers were notified of the Storm Watch feature through their mobile app, and they were informed that the function would be active until the weather event ends. Powerwall 2 owners were further notified that the battery system’s operations would revert back to their previously-selected mode after the cyclone.
...

Mentally I was thinking the most important things I'd run ... sump pump, fridge/freezer, modem/router, phone charging, and LED lights. If winter, then modest heating of electric heater fan with natural gas heat. Tesla site below gives you an idea on how many you may need (stackable up to 10) depending on usage.

b) Tesla Powerwall (home) -- https://www.tesla.com/powerwall

Aside: Image below is the differences between Powerwall 1 and Powerall 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Powerwall
FYI, PowerPack (utility) 1 vs 2 is 100 kWh vs 200 kWh.

c) Example of what the Tesla phone app for Solar and the Powerwall shows and what the interaction looks like:
https://youtu.be/xI166Ps8DIo?t=243

 

[eroscott]

I thought the maps here were very cool and enlightening. You can even compare some maps on the same screen (works well on widescreen monitor)

Interactive map (plus comparison 'tab'): Home - DeepSolar

Solar radiation and Solar installation have some expected correlations.

 

[2soon2tell]

JW

+1

IMHO Nuclear must be part of the solution. It will require a massive education program for the general public to embrace it. Here in TX many people are more willing to live next to chemical plants or refineries than nuclear power plants. Shelter in place events are not uncommon next to these chemical plants.

 

[NW-Bound]

Interactive map (plus comparison 'tab'): Home - DeepSolar

Solar radiation and Solar installation have some expected correlations.

Certainly.

And that's why without something to burn to keep warm in the winter, most of the US would be SOL when fossil fuel runs out. Ditto for most of Europe. Maybe Europeans will flock to Iceland to be near the volcanoes. Canada has lots of hydropower, but I do not know if they have enough.

I would be worried about a lot more than EVs vs. ICE cars.

 

[NW-Bound]

JW

+1

IMHO Nuclear must be part of the solution. It will require a massive education program for the general public to embrace it. Here in TX many people are more willing to live next to chemical plants or refineries than nuclear power plants. Shelter in place events are not uncommon next to these chemical plants.

The public will know when it's rainy or snowy, and it's wet and cold, and their EVs run out of juice, the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. They will embrace nuclear power then.

But, but, but one does not have to live near a nuclear plant anyway. That's what transmission lines are for.

 

[eroscott]

visualcapitalist.com have some great graphics. Saw this one today and it gave a nice overview of energy creation and usage.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-energy-consumption-one-chart/

 

[Lakewood90712]

The creator of the chart retired some years ago.great to see someone has continued updating it.

The elephant in the room is and always has been rejected energy.not that many processes attempt to recover for useful purposes

 

[6miths]

An article in today's NYTimes regarding energy generation and how it has changed in the US from 2001 to 2017. Nationally and state by state. Pretty interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Much of Canada does have the potential for a great deal of hydroelectric power but the issue is the environmental impact of the massive dams and transmission infrastructure that would be needed. Quebec has the largest hydro base and sells a great deal of excess electricity. Quebec's electricity needs are pretty much provided by hydro. Ontario, the most populous province, is 60% nuclear, 27% hydro, 7% wind, 6% natural gas.

 

[NW-Bound]

visualcapitalist.com have some great graphics. Saw this one today and it gave a nice overview of energy creation and usage.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-energy-consumption-one-chart/

An article in today's NYTimes regarding energy generation and how it has changed in the US from 2001 to 2017. Nationally and state by state. Pretty interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/24/climate/how-electricity-generation-changed-in-your-state.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Much of Canada does have the potential for a great deal of hydroelectric power but the issue is the environmental impact of the massive dams and transmission infrastructure that would be needed. Quebec has the largest hydro base and sells a great deal of excess electricity. Quebec's electricity needs are pretty much provided by hydro. Ontario, the most populous province, is 60% nuclear, 27% hydro, 7% wind, 6% natural gas.

I love these charts. Any serious thought has to start from some numbers, so we know where we are.

 

[eroscott]

This was a pretty novel approach that just showed up on my twitter wall:

Energy Vault to build grid-level, gravity-fed battery from a tower of concrete blocks -- Michael Irving -- November 8th, 2018
https://newatlas.com/energy-vault-concrete-tower-battery/57164/

According to the company, the general concept was inspired by pumped hydro plants, which also tap into gravity. In those systems, power is generated by water rushing downhill through turbines, and during times of low energy demand, that water is pumped back up to the higher reservoir to reset the energy potential.

The company says each tower can be built to have a capacity of up to 35 MWh and 4 MW peak power based on their size, with the modularity of the system allowing capacity to be increased by building more towers. While it might seem big and cumbersome, the crane can be generating power in as little as 2.9 seconds, and has a roundtrip energy efficiency of about 90 percent. And unlike chemical storage systems, once those bricks are stacked up, that energy won't "leak" out or degrade.

 

[NW-Bound]

This was first reported in post #149.

A novel idea, but requires special consideration in earthquake-prone areas, I suspect.

 

[JoeWras]

This was first reported in post #149.

A novel idea, but requires special consideration in earthquake-prone areas, I suspect.

Oh come on, there you go, doing engineering risk analysis. Darn you!

Real world is always more difficult than the lab.

That said, I like this idea and I like using simple tried and true laws of physics.

 

[explanade]

There's another energy startup, called Malta, funded by the likes of Bloomberg and Gates.

Their idea is molten salt for energy storage.

 

[ERD50]

There's another energy startup, called Malta, funded by the likes of Bloomberg and Gates.

Their idea is molten salt for energy storage.

This was discussed back in post #137, and followed up with some real world concerns. Also, no real numbers provided, - interesting, but lots of issues between the lab and reality ....

If you have better info, please post sources with your pro/con analysis.


-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

This was a pretty novel approach that just showed up on my twitter wall:

Energy Vault to build grid-level, gravity-fed battery from a tower of concrete blocks -- Michael Irving -- November 8th, 2018
https://newatlas.com/energy-vault-concrete-tower-battery/57164/
...

Well, it's not really novel, gravity storage has been around for centuries. Ever see the weights on a Grandfather's clock?

So if this had much going for it, why wouldn't we see it used more already? There is demand for energy storage that can be quickly dispatched like this. There's really nothing standing in the way. We understand the technology fully, nothing advanced is required. It's not like molten salt, next gen nuclear, batteries made of unobtanuium, or anything. We can do this today - we could have done it decades ago at scale.

I've researched this pretty deeply before on a tech forum. Sure, there are things about gravity storage that are attractive - simple, reliable, no advanced tech or materials, no long term losses, easy to understand, can be done safely. So why don't we do it?

Easy - just run some back of the envelope numbers. The math is simple, gravity x mass x height. It takes a LOT of mass, and a LOT of height to get much energy at all. I don't see anything in the linked article that describes the size required for these gravity towers, do you? "big?" Hmmmm?

Assuming "up to 35 MWh and 4 MW peak power" is in the same unit, it would take ~ 200 of these units to supply the power of one typical fossil fuel plant (~ 800 MW). And it would run out in less than 9 hours.

https://power-calculation.com/potential-energy-gravitational-calculator.php

For example, lift 3700 kg ( ~ 8200 pounds) 100 Meters (~ 328 feet), and you get a mere single, lonely kWh. Since a US home uses ~ 30 kWh per day, you need 30 of those to back up a single home for a day. Imagine 30 towers capable of supporting 8200 pounds 300 feet in the air on my property!

So, how big is this tower?

Also consider their claim of dispatching this energy in 2.9 seconds. Think about the incredible mechanical stresses of starting/stopping that amount of mass that quickly.

I wish you fans would actually critique this stuff objectively, and present numbers and context, rather than just post flying car dreams.

-ERD50

 

[38Chevy454]

I wish you fans would actually critique this stuff objectively, and present numbers and context, rather than just post flying car dreams.

-ERD50

Physics always wins

 

[UtahSkier]

There's another energy startup, called Malta, funded by the likes of Bloomberg and Gates.

Their idea is molten salt for energy storage.

I drive by a molten salt solar plant a couple of times a year.

Solana Generating Station

The Solana Generating Station is a solar power plant near Gila Bend, Arizona, about 70 miles (110 km) southwest of Phoenix, completed in 2013. When commissioned it was the largest parabolic trough plant in the world and the first U.S. solar plant with molten salt thermal energy storage.[3] Built by the Spanish company Abengoa Solar, it has a total capacity of 280 megawatts (MW) gross, from two 140 MW gross (125 MW net) steam turbine generators, which is enough to power 70,000 homes while avoiding around 475,000 tons of CO2 every year.[4] Its name is the Spanish term for "sunny spot".[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

 

[eroscott]

4-Jan-2018
Hawaiian Electric Industries Announces ‘Mind-Blowing’ Solar-Plus-Storage Contracts
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiian-electric-industries-announces-mind-blowing-solar-plus-storage-cont
“It’s hard to overstate the scale of this announcement.”

This week Hawaiian Electric Industries sent seven new solar-plus-storage contracts to state regulators. Six come in at record-low prices for the state, under 10 cents per kilowatt-hour.
...
Past solar-plus-storage prices in Hawaii came in at 13.9 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2016 and 11 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2017. One of the projects announced this week by HEI is more expensive than the latter price — 15 megawatts of solar and 60 megawatt-hours of storage at 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. But another 90 megawatts of solar and 360 megawatt-hours of storage came in at what Finn-Foley called a “jaw-dropping” 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. That means that from 2016 to 2019 solar-plus-storage PPA prices in the state dropped by 42 percent.

Will Giese, executive director at Hawaii’s Solar Energy Association, called the pricing “mind-blowing.”