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

[Gumby]

The Navajo Generating Plant in the Four Corner area was turned off yesterday 11/18/2019 at noon, after 45 years of operation. Its 2.25-GW capacity was the largest in the West.

Maybe the largest coal plant. Palo Verde Nuclear Station, in Arizona, produces 3.3 GW. And though not larger, it is interesting to note that the Hoover Dam hydroelectric plant produces about 2.1 GW at peak power.

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, it's the largest coal plant in the West, not even of the entire US.

I forgot to include that important qualifier.

 

[Music Lover]

I had trouble finding estimates for the number of US EVs on the road in 2030, but considering sales are less than 2% now, and new cars remain on the road for something like 14 years average, I'll guestimate 20% of "light cars/trucks" by 2030? If you have a better number/source, please share. I don't think it will change the conclusion much.
-ERD50

I don't think 2% a year equals 20% in 10 years because the other 98% of people are still buying non-EV's. 2% a year would equal 2% in 10 years...or 5 years or 20 years.

Of course the 2% ratio will probably increase as they become more popular.

 

[NW-Bound]

Speaking of capacity, the largest plant in the world is the Three Gorges Dam in China with 22.5 GW capacity.

Of the 10 largest plants in the world, 7 are hydro, 2 are nuclear, and one is coal.

Only one US plant is among the above 10: the Grand Coulee Dam. In an RV trip, I had the opportunity to drive by this dam situated in the middle of nowhere, and spent an afternoon in the visitor center to watch documentary movies.

Just now found that the Grand Coulee has the capacity of 6.8 GW, which dwarfs that of the Hoover Dam (more than 3x), although it does not look impressive because it is not as high.

 

[ERD50]

I don't think 2% a year equals 20% in 10 years because the other 98% of people are still buying non-EV's. 2% a year would equal 2% in 10 years...or 5 years or 20 years.

Of course the 2% ratio will probably increase as they become more popular.

Right. I was assuming an increase in that 2% each year (which has been happening, but it's early). But thinking some more, 20% of the fleet being EV by 2030 sure does seem high. I guess I was afraid the EV fans would jump all over me if I used a lower number!

So EV sales would need to be way above 20% in the years leading up to 2030 in order to replace the older cars to get near 20% of the fleet. If I'm thinking through this right, an average fleet age of ~ 14 years means about 7% of the fleet is being replaced (assumes a fairly static fleet size, which is probably close). So even as EVs reach 20% of sales, that's just 20% of the 7% being added/replaced. Assuming the 7% replaced are almost all non-EV helps the EV numbers, but not by much.

I did a pass at a spreadsheet, but too many moving parts for me to be motivated right now to do it. But now I'd be willing to bet some big money we are not at 20% of the fleet being EV by 2030. It'll grow, but I don't expect those numbers.

-ERD50

 

[Winemaker]

The Navajo Generating Plant in the Four Corner area was turned off yesterday 11/18/2019 at noon, after 45 years of operation. Its 2.25-GW capacity was the largest in the West. Although the plant is in my state, and its power is transmitted to Phoenix, I never thought of looking it up to learn the details of its operation.

The coal it burned was also on Navajo land, and only 70 miles away. It is said that the coal from the mine is among the cleanest, with low sulfur and mercury content. No matter though, as it can no longer compete with natural gas.

This is the latest coal plant that is shut down. Only 25% of US electricity now comes from coal.

From the Web:

In the early 80's I worked at a mine in WV that supplied 3.5 million tons of high BTU medium sulfur coal to a power plant less than a mile from the mine's prep plant. All of the plants power, was sent via high transmission lines to the Big Apple. It did for years before I worked there, and it still does AFAIK.

 

[eroscott]

IBM.com/blogs

Title: Free of Heavy Metals, New Battery Design Could Alleviate Environmental Concerns
December 18, 2019 | Written by: Young-hye Na

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/

<snip>
Many battery materials, including heavy metals such as nickel and cobalt, pose tremendous environmental and humanitarian risks. Cobalt in particular, which is largely available in central Africa, has come under fire for careless and exploitative extraction practices.1

Using three new and different proprietary materials, which have never before been recorded as being combined in a battery, our team at IBM Research has discovered a chemistry for a new battery which does not use heavy metals or other substances with sourcing concerns.

The materials for this battery are able to be extracted from seawater, laying the groundwork for less invasive sourcing techniques than current material mining methods.
<snip>
Overall, this battery has shown the capacity to outperform existing lithium-ion batteries not only in the previously listed applications, but can also be optimized for a range of specific benefits, including:

• Lower cost: The active cathode materials tend to cost less because they are free of cobalt, nickel, and other heavy metals. These materials are typically very resource-intensive to source, and also have raised concerns over their sustainability.
• Faster charging: Less than five minutes required to reach an 80 percent state of charge (SOC), without compromising specific discharge capacity.
• High power density: More than 10,000 W/L. (exceeding the power level that lithium-ion battery technology can achieve).
• High energy density: More than 800 Wh/L, comparable to the state-of-art lithium-ion battery.
• Excellent energy efficiency: More than 90 percent (calculated from the ratio of the energy to discharge the battery over the energy to charge the battery).
• Low flammability of electrolytes

From lab to industry with automotive, electrolyte and battery manufacturers

To move this new battery from early stage exploratory research into commercial development, IBM Research has joined with Mercedes-Benz Research and Development North America, Central Glass, one of the top battery electrolyte suppliers in the world, and Sidus, a battery manufacturer, to create a new next-generation battery development ecosystem. While plans for the larger development of this battery are still in the exploratory phase, our hope is that this budding ecosystem will help to bring these batteries into reality.
<snip>

 

[NW-Bound]

The above sounds very exciting, but they provide no info on what the new cathode material is, nor a hint on the electrolyte.

Surely, a lot of this stuff is proprietary, but that's what patents are for. If they are going to partner with other companies, they would already have something in place to protect their invention. Why so little technical info, other than it will be great?

 

[NW-Bound]

On the headline today: "A $1 Billion Solar Plant Was Obsolete Before It Ever Went Online"

Interested people can find a way to read on Bloomberg the story about the plant Crescent Dunes in Nevada.

The matter is in litigation now, so people involved are not talking. The US Department of Energy provided the guarantee for the construction loan, so the government is on the hook for more than $700M. It is said that the price of PV panels has dropped so much that this thermal plant could be compete. It would have to sell its power at $0.135/kWh.

People may not remember, but in 1980 Martin Marietta built a solar thermal plant with concentrator solar array similar to the ill-fated Crescent Dunes. That plant was never finished, if I recall correctly. Now, 40 years later, this technology is still not a sure thing.

This type of plant uses molten salt for thermal transfer and storage. There are plants built on this principle that are in operation. A few are in Spain, and one plant called Solana has been operating in Arizona for some years. The latter uses parabolic trough mirrors.

 

[explanade]

So PV prices dropped so much that this plant was no longer viable?

 

[Bamaman]

No way 100% renewable is possible. I was reading yesterday how much electricity came out of a 65 acre solar farm, and the output was less than 1% of one average size coal steam plant generator.

In the Eastern U.S. there are few places with enough wind to push a bunch of windmills. And they take an extreme amount of steel to produce. It costs $2 million a mile to hook windmills (or solar panels) into the electrical grid.

Nothing like a good old coal fired steam plant to produce reasonable cost power. But they're being closed down one by one and replaced with natural gas generation on the same sites (because of the existing electrical grids.)

You can forget nuclear as a power source of the future. Georgia Power has one nuc. plant coming on line in 2 years, but it about bankrupted Southern Company with cost overruns and contractor bankruptcies. There is one more nuclear plant planned that has a number of mini-reactor units, and we'll just see if it ever is built.

Capitalism runs on liquid fuels. I still wonder where all the juice is going to come from to power all the electric cars of the future?

 

[mpeirce]

And they take an extreme amount of steel to produce.

Huh, maybe there are different kinds. Around here the first gen windmill blades made of fiber glass/composite are going into landfills already.

 

[explanade]

Coal and natural gas are liquid?

In any event, coal is definitely shrinking. It's around 20% or it will be soon.

They may use some form of liquids to store wind and solar generated electricity.

I will probably be looking at EVs when my car lease is done next year. Thing is, I probably won't live long enough that we have to worry about where all the electricity for cars will come from.

 

[NW-Bound]

So PV prices dropped so much that this plant was no longer viable?

That's what is said in the article. PV solar plants however have no storage, unless batteries are added. On the other hand, thermal solar plants are always planned and built with thermal storage. The Solana plant in Gila Bend, AZ, can run for several hours after sunset using its tanks of molten salt. This is desirable because the price of electricity stays high after sunset due to air conditioning demand in the summer.

One has to be an expert in this field to know why some thermal solar plants can compete economically, while the Crescent Dunes failed before it ever got turned on.

 

[CardsFan]

That's what is said in the article. PV solar plants however have no storage, unless batteries are added. On the other hand, thermal solar plants are always planned and built with thermal storage. The Solana plant in Gila Bend, AZ, can run for several hours after sunset using its tanks of molten salt. This is desirable because the price of electricity stays high after sunset due to air conditioning demand in the summer.

One has to be an expert in this field to know why some thermal solar plants can compete economically, while the Crescent Dunes failed before it ever got turned on.

I know a little bit about the Solana plant from people that worked on the project. It also went way over budget, and has not met its design annual capacity as of yet. The company that built it went bankrupt (at least the US subsidiary). The concept is sound, and the ability to generate for some hours after dark is a plus.

My personal opinion: RE (defined as wind, solar, water) has a place in energy production. It is not a panacea. We (the world) will not be 100% RE in the next 50 years, and probably not for 100's of years if ever.

 

[NW-Bound]

If the world suddenly runs out of fossil fuel, so that people will be willing to pay $1/kWh and downsize to tiny homes so that they can heat and cool it, then these solar plants will proliferate.

But we still have plenty of fossil fuel, particularly coal. And that brings in the endless debate of climate change, as to what is really more costly. I don't know the answer there.

 

[CardsFan]

If the world suddenly runs out of fossil fuel, so that people will be willing to pay $1/kWh and downsize to tiny homes so that they can heat and cool it, then these solar plants will proliferate.

But we still have plenty of fossil fuel, particularly coal. And that brings in the endless debate of climate change, as to what is really more costly. I don't know the answer there.

I worked in the coal energy production industry (for a power plant manufacturer) early in my career. I also worked in pollution control for a while.

We have coal reserves that can last 100's of years. I don't want to get in a global warming debate, but declaring that the gas every mammal exhausts when they breath is a pollutant just astounds me.

 

[HFWR]

Continuing to ignore science while continuing to dump enough CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere to melt glaciers, thaw “permafrost”, acidify and warm the ocean, etc. just astounds me...

That said, I agree that many of the “green” ideas are not ready for prime time, and some are totally disconnected from reality, but the alternative to that doesn’t have to be “throw another lump of coal on the fire”.

 

[Gumby]

I worked in the coal energy production industry (for a power plant manufacturer) early in my career. I also worked in pollution control for a while.

We have coal reserves that can last 100's of years. I don't want to get in a global warming debate, but declaring that the gas every mammal exhausts when they breath is a pollutant just astounds me.

The fact that mammals exhale carbon dioxide is true, but irrelevant. The fact is that carbon dioxide, from any source, is a greenhouse gas. It permits inward passage of the shorter wavelength radiation that arrives from the sun, but it absorbs the longer wavelength thermal energy that is radiated back outwards from the earth to space. The effect is to retain heat energy and warm the atmosphere. Without any greenhouse gas, the earth would be an ice ball. But with too much greenhouse gas, the earth will heat up. Burning coal or any fossil fuel generates carbon dioxide in amounts greater than the system can tolerate. Trying to obfuscate by waving the "pollutant" flag is not particularly helpful.

 

[Taxman59]

To me, it seems ironic that the fossil fuels we are burning now, were created at a time when the climate was much warmer than it is now. The Cretaceous Period had much higher sea levels, warmer air, and more prolific plant life than we have now. Maybe this is a cycle that the planet goes through (with some sort of external trigger to restart the cycle like a meteor?).

Now to head into my bunker and watch the fireworks!

 

[explanade]

Sure planet can survive with much warmer temperatures.

But can civilization?

Many of the most productive infrastructure on the planet is located on coastal areas.

Lose a significant fraction of that and see what it does to global GDP. That's assuming no mass migrations or wars arising from such.

 

[CardsFan]

The fact that mammals exhale carbon dioxide is true, but irrelevant. The fact is that carbon dioxide, from any source, is a greenhouse gas. It permits inward passage of the shorter wavelength radiation that arrives from the sun, but it absorbs the longer wavelength thermal energy that is radiated back outwards from the earth to space. The effect is to retain heat energy and warm the atmosphere. Without any greenhouse gas, the earth would be an ice ball. But with too much greenhouse gas, the earth will heat up. Burning coal or any fossil fuel generates carbon dioxide in amounts greater than the system can tolerate. Trying to obfuscate by waving the "pollutant" flag is not particularly helpful.

Not going there. Over and out.

 

[HFWR]

Not worth arguing, but feel free to post peer-reviewed and/or journaled research that refutes AGW?

 

[Gumby]

Not worth arguing, but feel free to post peer-reviewed and/or journaled research that refutes AGW?

We should probably just let him go.

 

[ERD50]

.... I don't want to get in a global warming debate, but declaring that the gas every mammal exhausts when they breath is a pollutant just astounds me.

The fact that mammals exhale carbon dioxide is true, but irrelevant. ... But with too much greenhouse gas, the earth will heat up. Burning coal or any fossil fuel generates carbon dioxide in amounts greater than the system can tolerate. Trying to obfuscate by waving the "pollutant" flag is not particularly helpful.

While I do feel there is a lot of questionable information and misinformation surrounding global warming (and even more so, regarding the 'solutions'), I'm pretty much with Gumby on this.

Just because CO2 is a natural part of life, doesn't mean that our acts of releasing a lot of it that was stored for millennia isn't having an effect on the climate. I'm not 100% convinced it is, it's actually very complicated, and I have my suspicions about the 'consensus' and their motivations. But none of that is enough to declare it bogus either. Question, yes. But that's as far as I can go.

-ERD50