Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 633543 times)

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3600 on: June 16, 2019, 08:59:51 AM »
Renewable energy capacity exceeds coal in US:


That's not as meaningful as it sounds on first reading.  What is being compared in nameplate capacity.  What the coal plant or renewable generators could produce if they could operate 24/365.  Obviously solar can't due to the uncooperative behavior of the Sun, the wind does not always blow, and many hydro plants don't have enough inflow to allow continuous operation.. 

Coal plants are available for operation about 85% of the time (IIRC) but in actuality we curtail coal a fair amount in the US.

In 2018 the capacity factor (CF =  average power generated divided by the rated peak power) for solar was 26%.  For wind turbines installed post 2013 it's about 43%.  Hydro is about 43%. For coal it was 54%.   A MW of installed coal will produce about 2x as much electricity as a MW of installed solar.  And about 1.3x more per MW installed than wind and hydro.

But things are improving.  US coal is dying fairly rapidly. A lot of what coal is using is being taken up by natural gas, which is a little bit better.  We need to be moving about twice as fast with wind and solar if we want to get close to zero FF for electricity 20 years from now.



b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3601 on: June 16, 2019, 09:40:56 AM »
Wait Bob, i wasn't aware coal is only ~10% better than wind in CF. I assumed it to be way higher.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3602 on: June 16, 2019, 10:01:47 AM »
Wait Bob, i wasn't aware coal is only ~10% better than wind in CF. I assumed it to be way higher.

Coal could be at least 85%.  But we have too much generation at times so we turn some stuff off, as does any grid. 

Our gas peakers run, on average, around 5% although they did hit 11% last year for some reason.

Wind is almost certainly going to increase.  Our wind farms now reporting in the mid 40% range generally use 80 meter hub heights.  The DOE has identified a large number of sites where we should get 60% to 70+% CFs with turbines mounted at 140 meters.  And the really nice thing about that is there are lots of good wind sites in places like the US Southeast where we thought there wouldn't be much harvestable wind.  Going up another 60 meters makes a heck of a big difference.



interstitial

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3603 on: June 16, 2019, 10:04:44 AM »
Wait Bob, i wasn't aware coal is only ~10% better than wind in CF. I assumed it to be way higher.
Capacity factor is how much it gets used overtime not how often it can be used.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3604 on: June 16, 2019, 10:13:07 AM »
Oh, right! m)

Thanks, Interstitial and Bob, makes sense now.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3605 on: June 16, 2019, 10:30:47 AM »
Wait Bob, i wasn't aware coal is only ~10% better than wind in CF. I assumed it to be way higher.
Capacity factor is how much it gets used overtime not how often it can be used.

Right.  "How often it can be used" is the availability factor.  In the US coal plants have an availability factor of about 85% but because they are intentionally not used at times the capacity factor comes in at about 54%.

Nuclear's availability and capacity factor are roughly the same in the US.  We don't turn off reactors when we have too much generation available,  we turn off something else.  Coal and CCNG have ~54% CFs rather than ~85% because they are largely what does get turned off.

France's reactors have lower CFs because France does do some load-following with their reactors.  And, I think, turns some completely off during longer periods of low demand.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3606 on: June 16, 2019, 02:08:13 PM »
Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

Quote
The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.

These figures are global averages and it is worth noting that the cost of individual projects can vary hugely – the cost of producing electricity from a biomass energy plant, for example, can range from as low as $0.05/kWh to a high of almost $0.25/kWh.

However, all these fuel types are now able to compete with the cost of developing new power plants based on fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which typically range from $0.05/kWh to over $0.15/kWh.

These figures are contained in the latest Renewable Power Generation Costs report, released today by the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.

Link >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/05/29/renewable-energy-costs-tumble/#7edd6214e8ce

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3607 on: June 16, 2019, 07:21:21 PM »
Germany's Exit from Coal by 2038 Is a Major Transition


b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3608 on: June 16, 2019, 07:21:40 PM »
One Belt One Road - Xi Jinping's Green Vision?


NevB

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3609 on: June 17, 2019, 02:04:47 PM »
South Australia’s stunning aim to be “net” 100 per cent renewables by 2030

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-stunning-aim-to-be-net-100-per-cent-renewables-by-2030/

What's even more stunning is that this is the conservative SA government making this announcement.

These people were doing all they could to stop renewables not so long ago, however the people of SA have finally realised that renewables are cheaper for them. SA doesn't have much in the way of their own gas or coal and has to import. But they do have some of the best wind and sun resources in the world.





Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3610 on: June 17, 2019, 07:04:54 PM »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 14506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3611 on: June 18, 2019, 02:22:58 PM »
An argument for more localized power generation/storage....

Argentina and Uruguay reel after massive power outage
Quote
"A massive failure in the electrical interconnection system left all of Argentina and Uruguay without power," electricity supply company Edesur said in a tweet.
...
Citing official sources, Argentine media reported that the outage was linked to a failure in the transmission of electricity from the Yacycretá hydroelectric dam. ...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-48652686
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3612 on: June 18, 2019, 06:49:01 PM »
The projections for solar power in the US are increasing as the price advantage over fossil fuels increases.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-solar-outlook/us-solar-installation-outlook-brightens-on-falling-costs-report-idUSKCN1TJ09G

Quote
June 17, 2019 / 9:10 PM / Updated 13 hours ago

U.S. solar installation outlook brightens on falling costs: report

(Reuters) - The U.S. solar energy industry lifted its installation outlook for this year and beyond thanks to robust demand for large-scale projects by utilities buying the clean energy source for its low cost, according to a report published on Tuesday.

In 2019, installations are expected to be up 25 percent from 2018 to 13.3 gigawatts, the report from the Solar Energy Industries Association and Wood Mackenzie said. The groups’ previous forecast called for 14 percent growth this year.

The change is primarily due to late project announcements in Texas, the report said.

The rosy outlook marks an about-face from 2018, when installations fell 2 percent after U.S. President Donald Trump slapped 30 percent tariffs on overseas-made solar panels.

Since then, global panel prices have fallen dramatically due to an oversupply of panels in top producer China, which cut incentives for installations there. Between the first quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019, monocrystalline module prices fell 30 percent, according to the report, effectively canceling out the U.S. tariffs.

Looking ahead, the industry lifted its five-year outlook by 5.1 GW, or about 9 percent, mostly due to new procurement by utilities in Florida including Nextera Energy Inc’s FPL and Duke Energy Corp.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3613 on: June 18, 2019, 06:56:13 PM »
South Korea is accelerating deployment of renewables and phasing out coal quicker as the price advantage of renewables grows.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-energy-renewable-analysis/south-korea-fires-up-on-renewables-to-close-more-coal-plants-idUSKCN1TJ0JK

Quote

June 18, 2019 / 12:15 AM / Updated 8 hours ago

South Korea fires up on renewables, to close more coal plants

Jane Chung

SEOUL (Reuters) - As renewable energy powers up in South Korea, coal-fired generation, long the bedrock of the country’s electricity supply, is being tapped to give up room.

Facing choking smog in its major cities and under pressure to meet emission reduction targets, the world’s fourth-biggest coal importer is expected to accelerate targets for green energy in an updated 15-year energy plan later this year.

...

South Korea began its transition to cleaner energy in a 2017 power supply plan that aimed to boost the share of renewables from about 6% to 20% by 2030, while scaling back coal and unpopular nuclear.

Amid public anger, the government in March designated pollution a “social disaster”, and a month later pledged to boost renewable energy to up to 35% of total energy supplies by 2040.

The 2019 energy plan is expected to reflect the push for even more renewables and more gas-fired power at the expense of coal, imported from countries such as Indonesia, Australia and Russia.

Coal imports fell nearly 9% in the first four months of 2019 when coal’s share of the country’s energy mix fell by more than 5 percentage points to around 37%, although most of the slack was taken up by nuclear, rather than renewables. Nuclear energy, spurned in the wake of Japan’s 2011 Fukushima disaster, is set to fall by 2030 as older plants close.

...

South Korea operates some 60 coal power plants, mainly owned by state-run utilities, which last year supplied about 42% of the country’s electricity.

Over the next 15 years, the government had initially planned to retrofit some 20 of these with anti-pollution gear when they reached 30 years of age in a bid to extend their operating lifespan, but this has been shelved.

A “shared understanding” has emerged that “retrofitting is not that cost-worthy,” said Seok Kwang-hoon, a member of the government’s power supply plan working group and an adviser at civic group Green Korea.

The energy ministry has told state-run utilities to put retrofitting plans on hold, added an industry source familiar with the matter, who asked not to be named.

However, the change comes even as seven new coal-fired plants are set for completion by 2022. Coal-fired capacity will rise in coming years before easing by 2030, suggesting the government will have to take further measures to reduce coal’s share of energy output.

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3614 on: June 18, 2019, 07:02:14 PM »
Vietnam is bringing utility scale solar online.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/b.grimm-brings-online-677mw-of-solar-in-vietnam

Quote
B.Grimm brings online 677MW of solar in Vietnam


By Tom Kenning
 Jun 17, 2019 10:41 AM BST

Thai firm B.Grimm Power has brought into commercial operation two huge solar PV projects in Vietnam, including a 420MW plant in Tay Ninh Province and 257MW installation in Phu Yen Province.

The 420MW installation was spread across two plants, Dau Tieng 1 and Dau Tieng 2, which came online to supply electricity to the national utility EVN on 3 June and 13 June respectively.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3615 on: June 18, 2019, 07:26:21 PM »
Vietnam is bringing utility scale solar online.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/b.grimm-brings-online-677mw-of-solar-in-vietnam

Quote
B.Grimm brings online 677MW of solar in Vietnam


By Tom Kenning
 Jun 17, 2019 10:41 AM BST

Thai firm B.Grimm Power has brought into commercial operation two huge solar PV projects in Vietnam, including a 420MW plant in Tay Ninh Province and 257MW installation in Phu Yen Province.

The 420MW installation was spread across two plants, Dau Tieng 1 and Dau Tieng 2, which came online to supply electricity to the national utility EVN on 3 June and 13 June respectively.

That's good news because Vietnam had been going the wrong way with coal.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3616 on: June 18, 2019, 07:47:26 PM »
Net public electricity generation in Germany '02-'19

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3617 on: June 18, 2019, 08:07:25 PM »
Cross-posted from the Coal forum.  News this good is worth repeating.

Quote
In November 2018, Kenya commissioned its first commercial-scale solar power plant, the 54.6 MW Garissa Solar Power Plant. It will sell its electricity to Kenya Power, the major distributor of electricity in Kenya. This solar farm is now the largest in East and Central Africa. It will supply about 2% of Kenya’s electricity needs which currently hovers around 2,370 MW.

The success of the Garissa Plant has led two the development of other solar projects which are now under construction. A new 40 MW project in Eldoret, near my home, and a 50 MW project in Nandi County. I expect that this will be the beginning of many more solar projects connected to the grid. First they can be done quickly and the price is relatively cheap for Kenya at 5.5 cents per kWh. For comparison, geothermal power is 8 cents per kWh, the Lake Turkana Wind Farm at 8.5 cents, the planned coal power plant at 7.5 cents, and diesel generators at 20 cents or higher. Only old hydropower at 3 cents per KWh is lower, but this is because they were mostly built in the 1980s and have long since paid off their capital costs. Any new hydropower is going to be much higher and with excess capacity now in Kenya, all future hydropower developments have been put on hold.

Breaking news: On Tuesday, June 12th, Kenya’s Energy Principal Secretary, Joseph Njoroge, announced that, due to excess capacity in Kenya, the 1,050 MW Lamu Coal Power Station and a planned 150 MW gas peaker plant will be delayed 4 or 5 years until electricity demand increases. In my opinion these two plants will never be built. Hurrah, a win for our side.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3618 on: June 19, 2019, 11:58:13 AM »
25% growth in 2019 predicted compared to 2018.

U.S. Solar Market Sees Best Q1 in History

Quote
Crossing the 2 million solar installations threshold was just one of many highlights on the quarter
Link >> https://www.seia.org/news/us-solar-market-sees-best-q1-in-history

Too little, too late. But hey, better than nothing.

Tom_Mazanec

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3619 on: June 19, 2019, 05:53:34 PM »
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3620 on: June 19, 2019, 06:09:20 PM »
Renewable energy has biodiversity costs:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/shift-to-renewable-energy-could-have-biodiversity-cost-researchers-caution/

Interesting article -

Quote
“The transition towards a renewable energy and transport system requires a complex mix of metals — such as copper, cobalt, nickel, rare earths, lithium and silver — many of which have only previously been mined in small amounts,”

We only mined for copper, nickel, and silver in small amounts in pre-EV/RE days? 

Quote
“The mining of many metals used for renewable energy technologies and EVs already impacts wildlife biodiversity,” Dominish told Mongabay, citing the example of bauxite mining.

Bauxite ore is used to produce aluminum, a key component in almost all renewable technologies

How much bauxite do we mine that gets turned into soda cans in landfills vs. the amount of aluminum that is used for solar panel frames, stays in use for decades, and is easily collected for recycling?

Quote
New mines that will become active in the next two years, listed in the Earthworks report, include one for cobalt in the Katanga region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), nickel in Zambia, and rare earth metals (a group of 17 elements such as scandium and yttrium) in South Africa’s Western Cape region. These highly biodiverse sites are not the only areas at risk; threats to wildlife from such mining can be found nearly worldwide.

Battery technologies are moving away from cobalt. 

"We use less than 3% cobalt in our batteries & will use none in next gen" - Elon Musk Jun 2018

"Tesla has succeeded in reducing the cobalt content of the Model 3’s batteries to just 2.8% as of last year."  Apr 2019

"Scandium is a rare earth metal from the transitional metal group. It is a soft but strong metal with a high melting point that is mostly used with aluminium alloys in the manufacturing of sporting equipment, aircraft, light bulbs and future predicted use in fuel cells." 

"The largest use of the element is as its oxide yttria, Y2O3, which is used in making red phosphors for color television picture tubes. Yttrium metal has found some use alloyed in small amounts with other metals and It is used to increase the strength of aluminium and magnesium alloys."  Apparently a small amount is used in solar panels.

Quote
“We need conservation scientists to identify the sites that house immense biodiversity value and should therefore be off-limits to mining,” Sonter added, while allowing that mining in some areas would be necessary: “These sites must be [robustly protected against] threats posed by mining, but also flexible enough to ensure a transition to a renewable-energy economy is feasible.”

At present, though, conservation officials are largely unaware of the increased threat to biodiversity that is posed by the shift to a renewable energy economy, according to Sonter.

We absolutely need to avoid the most critical parts of the ecosystem.  Except we might not have the luxury of saving "0.01%" if it means the destruction of "50+%".  We haven't yet had to make very tough decisions about accepting the bad over the terrible but it might come to that.

Quote
Recycling will be “the most important strategy” to reduce primary demand for battery metals, according to the report, although some materials, like lithium and manganese, are not currently recovered at high enough rates.

The first step in recycling EV batteries is to obtain enough used batteries to support a recycling program.  Tesla designed in battery recycling at their Reno Gigafactory but when you're selling batteries that last half a million miles or more it will take time for used batteries to show up for recycling.  Used batteries are the most concentrated source of raw materials for battery manufacturing to be found.  Shred, separate, reuse.

My take?  Yes, we need to be aware and we need to work to minimize the damage we create.  But we need to balance that against the damage we are avoiding.  Think of the damage being done now by mountaintop removal and open pit mining, fracking for oil and gas, massive oil spills and simply sloppy oil production and transportation practices.  Think about the metals we already use for ICEVs, for oil rigs, for pipelines, for refineries.

Honestly, if we had no option but to mine as much steel, copper, and aluminum for solar panels, wind turbines,  Evs, and batteries as we now mine for fossil fuel use and ICEVs wouldn't we produce a net gain for the environment? 

And we must be careful to not let "It's not a perfect solution" keep us from replacing something truly terrible with something that is less than perfect.  We're in a crisis situation.  We need to make progress, take the steps we can take now.  That should buy us some time to seek out better solutions.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2019, 06:40:02 PM by Bob Wallace »

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3621 on: June 19, 2019, 06:42:52 PM »
BTW, Tom the title of the article you linked is "Shift to renewable energy could have biodiversity cost, researchers caution".

The article is a warning, a flawed warning IMO, but only a warning.  Not a report of biodiversity damage already occurring as your post inferred.

John Batteen

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3622 on: June 19, 2019, 07:14:33 PM »
Meanwhile, fossil fuel extraction continues to be completely without impact on biodiversity.

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2030
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 157
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3623 on: June 20, 2019, 01:17:14 PM »
Australia’s biggest manganese metals project may go 90% renewables

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-biggest-manganese-metals-project-may-go-90-renewables-55385/

Quote
The developers of what is expected to be Australia’s biggest manganese metals project are looking to source up to 90 per cent renewables for the electricity supply of its energy-intensive operations, and believe it could achieve price parity with Chinese suppliers if it does.

Cross posting to the batteries thread.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3624 on: June 21, 2019, 02:08:23 PM »
My understanding of the need to remove CO2 comes from reading about the Paris Climate thing, back in 2012.

Yeah, there is also a lot of wishful thinking involved along with politicians.

The ones who understand what's happening here are so few, they are not heard. The vast majority of politicians are interested in the status quo for a variety of reasons.

You hear politicians talking about voluntary self-commitment from the industry, ignoring the fact that it never worked in the history of mankind.

Oil and gas and coal are subsidized, externalities are ignored, etc etc

And lies are spread. Lies about technical solutions that aren't there. Because it's an easy way to weasel out.

The sad truth is, almost no county is inside the Paris boundaries. It's all a sham!

Quote
Getting to an absolute zero emission scenario isn't likely to happen

Agreed.

The positive message i can give, you dramatically increase the likelihood of legislation passed with mass protests. Highways need to be blocked in all major cities, general strikes worldwide, airports need to be droned, we need civil disobedience big time.

The message must be clear: $150 carbon tax, increasing every year by $5. A strong netting for poor people.

Quote
; for one, the steel industry needs to use carbon to turn iron into steel.  And there's not a government on Earth that would allow that industry to be shut down.   Ever.   Unless, of course, a better material is found for them to build weapons.  :(

You 1) bring emissions down to zero by implementing renewable energy in all sectors (transport, warmth and electrical power) and 2) stop cutting down trees, and actively support reforestation

Those are the options at hand. They both work. Both are not utopic in the slightest. Everything with it is well understood. We do know this for a fact.

There are no other options that have proven to work.

Quote
Is there any research going on that is looking at reducing CO2 without adding more CO2?
 

There is research done on renewables and how they produce energy carbon-free, yes. On negative emission though, there is nothing that has shown to work (as far as i'm aware of).

It is too late to prevent a very negative outcome for humanity and the whole planet frankly. What we can do from now on is to dramatically lower our global CO2 footprint to mitigate the worst. There is nothing else we can do.

Sorry Karl, i wish i had better news...

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3625 on: June 21, 2019, 07:34:32 PM »
Europe is on track to get 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040.

https://thinkprogress.org/europe-will-be-90-renewable-powered-in-two-decades-experts-say-8db3e7190bb7/

Quote
“By 2040, renewables make up 90% of the electricity mix in Europe, with wind and solar accounting for 80%,” predict the experts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) in their annual energy outlook released this week.

“Cheap renewable energy and batteries fundamentally reshape the electricity system,” explains BNEF. Since 2010, wind power globally has dropped 49% in cost. Both solar and battery prices have plummeted 85%.

In fact, many countries are already at very high levels of renewable power: Iceland (100%), Paraguay (100%), Costa Rica (98%), Norway (97%), Uruguay (96.5%), Kenya (91%), New Zealand (84%), Austria (80%), Brazil (80%), Austria (74%), Canada (65%) and Denmark (61%). The main renewables in these countries are hydropower, wind, geothermal, and solar.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 14506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3626 on: June 21, 2019, 07:42:02 PM »
New Jersey selects Denmark's Orsted for major offshore wind project
Quote
New Jersey on Friday selected Denmark’s Orsted A/S to develop a 1,100-megawatt wind project off the coast of Atlantic City, the largest ever offshore wind procurement by a U.S. state.
...
The solicitation, which board members described as historic, marks the first step toward New Jersey’s goal of contracting 3.5 GW of offshore wind by 2030. Under Governor Phil Murphy, the state has pledged to eliminate carbon from its power sector by 2050.

The project, called Ocean Wind, is expected to be completed in 2024, Orsted said in a statement. New Jersey utility Public Service Enterprise Group has an option to become an equity investor in the project, Orsted said.

Ocean Wind is expected to generate enough electricity to power 500,000 New Jersey homes. It will also generate $1.17 billion in economic benefits and create 15,000 jobs, Fiordaliso said. New Jersey’s BPU estimated that the project would add $1.46 to residential customers’ monthly bills. ...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-newjersey/new-jersey-selects-denmarks-orsted-for-major-offshore-wind-project-idUSKCN1TM22J
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3627 on: June 21, 2019, 08:54:51 PM »
Quote
Europe is on track to get 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040.

That's 20 years from now.  Renewable energy technology continues to improve, costs continue to drop, concern over climate change continues to increase, climate change deniers continue to die off.  Based on that I expect Europe will be at 90% renewable years sooner and close to 100% by 2040.  The only non-renewable could be remaining nuclear plants.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3628 on: June 22, 2019, 08:36:51 AM »
Quote
East Coast utility National Grid is rolling out a new program that allows Tesla Powerall owners to leverage their batteries to sell their stored power during peak grid utilization periods.

The new program is called ConnectedSolutions and leverages the combined storage capacity of residentially installed Tesla Powerwalls as a centrally managed virtual power plant to offset the need to install more inefficient peaker plants. Most peaker plants sit idle for much of the year, just waiting for the one or two times that grid usage spikes enough that they are needed, usually as a result of heavy air conditioning usage on hot summer days. When they are actually called on to provide power, the extended startup and shutdown cycles result in some of the dirtiest, most expensive power on the grid.

National Grid reached out to Powerwall owners in Massachusetts and Rhode Island with an offer this morning to enroll in the program and generate some extra cash without having to do anything differently.

...

Tesla told us the program is open to any National Grid customer in Massachusetts and Rhode Island — whether they currently have a Powerwall or if they buy one in the future. It’s estimated that the program could put upwards of several hundred dollars back into the pockets of owners per year, providing an easy way to tap into a passive energy storage asset and actually provide a tangible return on the investment. The actual amount earned will depend on the actual contribution a Powerwall makes throughout the year which depends on grid utilization, weather, and a number of other external factors.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/20/tesla-powerwalls-tapped-for-east-coast-utilitys-new-virtual-power-plant/

Similar to the way Tesla intends to let Tesla EV owners to add their personal cars to the Tesla robotaxi fleet and earn a very good return on their investment.  I can't think of another company that sells you stuff and then helps you make money on your purchase.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3629 on: June 23, 2019, 09:08:41 AM »
China’s first 100MW molten salt solar plant hits maximum power

Quote
China’s first 100MW molten salt solar thermal power plant has successfully hit its maximum power levels.

Built by Beijing Shouhang IHW Resources Saving Technology, the three billion yuan (£345m) project in Dunhuang uses 12,000 mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto a receiver, which is then used to heat the molten salt.

It is capable of generating 390 million kWh of clean power each year, enough to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 350,000 metric tonnes – engineers at the facility say it has already reached or exceeded its designed values.

Unlike the intermittency associated with traditional solar energy systems, the molten salt allows energy to be stored and later used to generate power on demand.

Huang Wenbo, Vice-Chairman of the company, said the power plant, which is among China’s first batch of solar thermal power generation demonstration projects, has proven its ability to operate in “the harshest environmental conditions” across all different seasons.

Researchers suggest a new design of rechargeable battery created using salt could boost efficiency and reduce costs.

https://www.energylivenews.com/2019/06/21/chinas-first-100mw-molten-salt-solar-plant-hits-maximum-power/

For those who are using, 'the sun is not shining at night' BS, here you have your all night solar power plant.

The energy transition is not a technical question. It's a question of political will. And there is nothing else to it.

interstitial

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3630 on: June 23, 2019, 09:42:08 AM »
b_lumankraft
I like the idea of this technology but I wonder what the economics of it are. I know that there have been a number of these solar salt facilities built across the world but no one seems to want to talk financials on them. Or at least last time I checked which was years ago.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3631 on: June 23, 2019, 10:23:08 AM »
1) The question isn't if it's economically feasible, Interstitial. The question must be, is it bringing us closer to our zero emissions goal?

2) Yes, it is economically feasible. The plant in Spain for example:

Quote
The 11 megawatt (MW) solar power tower produces electricity with 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats. It took four years to build and so far cost €35 million. PS10 produces about 23,400 megawatt-hours (MW·h) per year, for which it receives €271 per MW·h under its power purchase agreement, equating to a revenue of €6.3 million per year

So when someone thinks renewables can't provide the baseload needed, just point them to this.

morganism

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3632 on: June 23, 2019, 10:19:02 PM »
Interesting new method for power storage here, using methane clathrates as hydrogen storage

Hydrogen-natural gas hydrates harvested by natural gas

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-hydrogen-natural-gas-hydrates-harvested-natural.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405829719303903?via%3Dihub

"They expect that the findings can be applied to not only an energy-efficient gas storage material, but also a smart platform to utilize hydrogen natural gas blends, which can serve as a new alternative energy source with targeted hydrogen contents by designing synthetic pathways of mixed gas hydrates."

"HNGB will utilize the existing natural gas infrastructure for transportation, so it is very likely that we can commercialize this hydrate system. We are investigating the kinetic performance through a follow-up strategy to increase the volume of gas storage.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3633 on: June 23, 2019, 10:42:49 PM »
Interesting new method for power storage here, using methane clathrates as hydrogen storage

Hydrogen-natural gas hydrates harvested by natural gas

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-hydrogen-natural-gas-hydrates-harvested-natural.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405829719303903?via%3Dihub

"They expect that the findings can be applied to not only an energy-efficient gas storage material, but also a smart platform to utilize hydrogen natural gas blends, which can serve as a new alternative energy source with targeted hydrogen contents by designing synthetic pathways of mixed gas hydrates."

"HNGB will utilize the existing natural gas infrastructure for transportation, so it is very likely that we can commercialize this hydrate system. We are investigating the kinetic performance through a follow-up strategy to increase the volume of gas storage.

"A hydrogen-natural gas blend (HNGB) can be a game changer only if it can be stored safely and used as a sustainable clean energy resource."

And we solve what problem by extracting more fossil fuels?

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3634 on: June 23, 2019, 11:13:33 PM »
Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project has some data in Wikipedia. 

Edit: removed chart etc.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2019, 11:20:06 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3635 on: June 23, 2019, 11:37:59 PM »
Quote
... During a test run on January 14 [2015], the intense heat from the mirrors reportedly incinerated and/or vaporized more than 100 birds. ...

Unless someone has reliable data otherwise, here is what I understood happened.

When the heliostats were "parked" so that their reflections were not hitting the tower collection there was an observation of "streamers", something catching fire and falling out of the sky.  Someone made a off the hand comment that they were happening about every two minutes.  No actual data was collected.

A guy who is anti-wind took that 'about one per two minutes', stated that a bird was being killed every two minutes by the solar tower and turned that into some number of birds that solar towers kill per day/year. 

It turns out that most of the streamers were airborne stuff and insects, not birds.  It's the case that the problem was quickly and permanently solved by simply adjusting the program so that beams from no more than two heliostats converged when the system was parked.  Over and done.  Using that higher number for solar is bad reporting.

The same guy has made claims that many, many more birds are being killed by wind turbines.  He says that many are injured and fly outside the search area where they die.  He has produced no data to back his claim.

Early on when wind turbines were being built there were numerous methodology studies which looked to see how far from turbines the search area should extend.  Biologists carefully searched very wide areas around turbines and determined the distribution of dead birds over distance from the turbines.  They did things like put out pieces of raw chicken in test areas to determine what percentage of killed birds might be removed by animals prior to the morning count.  Good, tight science.  Verify your methods.

The high end of bird kills in the article comes from the same guy making assumptions as the solar tower bird kills.  And the sad thing is that he was part of teams that counted and published reports on bird kills for years before he started his strange claims.  He knows how to do proper research. 

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2787
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 194
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3636 on: June 24, 2019, 12:03:46 AM »
Boy am I glad I removed the offending sentence before (long before) Bob posted his 'correction'!  Not fast enough, obviously!  (I did read an article on how cats are worse than coal (or anything else) in killing birds.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 14506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3637 on: June 24, 2019, 01:36:26 AM »
... (I did read an article on how cats are worse than coal (or anything else) in killing birds.)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agrees: cats are the worst.

https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.php
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3638 on: June 24, 2019, 05:05:49 PM »
1) The question isn't if it's economically feasible, Interstitial. The question must be, is it bringing us closer to our zero emissions goal?

2) Yes, it is economically feasible. The plant in Spain for example:

Quote
The 11 megawatt (MW) solar power tower produces electricity with 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats. It took four years to build and so far cost €35 million. PS10 produces about 23,400 megawatt-hours (MW·h) per year, for which it receives €271 per MW·h under its power purchase agreement, equating to a revenue of €6.3 million per year

So when someone thinks renewables can't provide the baseload needed, just point them to this.

Why back such great projects with dubious claims? That’s an expensive PPA, meaning that somebody else is footing the bill. Most likely the tax payer. Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

Economics is allocating our scarce resources most efficiently. Using them on uncompetitive technologies is waste of precious natural resources and manpower.

In PIOMAS we trust

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3639 on: June 24, 2019, 05:31:19 PM »
Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

How can it be that you are not actually reading what i write, but still be triggered by it somehow?

As stated above it is competitive!

Actually, it's way cheaper than gas peaker and also cheaper than nuclear.
Link >> https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

So what do you mean with 'dubious claim'?

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3640 on: June 24, 2019, 05:34:06 PM »
Europe is on track to get 90% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2040.

https://thinkprogress.org/europe-will-be-90-renewable-powered-in-two-decades-experts-say-8db3e7190bb7/

Quote

In fact, many countries are already at very high levels of renewable power: Iceland (100%), Paraguay (100%), Costa Rica (98%), Norway (97%), Uruguay (96.5%), Kenya (91%), New Zealand (84%), Austria (80%), Brazil (80%), Austria (74%), Canada (65%) and Denmark (61%). The main renewables in these countries are hydropower, wind, geothermal, and solar.
That is a list of countries with major hydropower resources and generation, with the exception of Denmark and to a certain extent Kenya. Denmark is in the Nordic Nordpool power market from where it purchases the rare abundant and storable Norwegian hydropower to back up its intermittent wind power. Impossible to copy elsewhere.

Kenya generates a large share of its tiny electricity consumption by geothermal power, in addition to hydro and fossils. Which is great but hard to copy elsewhere.

What exactly should we learn from that list? It’s good to have mountains and rivers?
In PIOMAS we trust

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3641 on: June 24, 2019, 05:37:06 PM »
Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

How can it be that you are not actually reading what i write, but still be triggered by it somehow?

As stated above it is competitive!

Actually, it's way cheaper than gas peaker and also cheaper than nuclear.
Link >> https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf

So what do you mean with 'dubious claim'?
Interstitial raised the very good question of Spanish concentrated solar’s economics. You claimed it is cost competitive while showing it is not.
In PIOMAS we trust

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3642 on: June 24, 2019, 05:45:58 PM »
You claimed it is cost competitive while showing it is not.

WTF dude? Where? When?

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 113
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3643 on: June 24, 2019, 05:53:46 PM »

Why back such great projects with dubious claims? That’s an expensive PPA, meaning that somebody else is footing the bill. Most likely the tax payer. Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

Economics is allocating our scarce resources most efficiently. Using them on uncompetitive technologies is waste of precious natural resources and manpower.

Economics only allocates resources efficiently when subsidies are eliminated and external costs are built into price.  The current situation makes it almost impossible to objectively determine what energy sources are "too expensive."  A greem energy source that is twice as "expensive" as, say, natural gas--might actually be an economic bargain.

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3644 on: June 24, 2019, 05:57:31 PM »
You claimed it is cost competitive while showing it is not.

WTF dude? Where? When?
Emphasis mine:

2) Yes, it is economically feasible. The plant in Spain for example:

The 11 megawatt (MW) solar power tower produces electricity with 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats. It took four years to build and so far cost €35 million. PS10 produces about 23,400 megawatt-hours (MW·h) per year, for which it receives €271 per MW·h under its power purchase agreement, equating to a revenue of €6.3 million per year
In PIOMAS we trust

bluice

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 78
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3645 on: June 24, 2019, 06:01:01 PM »

Why back such great projects with dubious claims? That’s an expensive PPA, meaning that somebody else is footing the bill. Most likely the tax payer. Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

Economics is allocating our scarce resources most efficiently. Using them on uncompetitive technologies is waste of precious natural resources and manpower.

Economics only allocates resources efficiently when subsidies are eliminated and external costs are built into price.  The current situation makes it almost impossible to objectively determine what energy sources are "too expensive."  A greem energy source that is twice as "expensive" as, say, natural gas--might actually be an economic bargain.
Yes of course. That’s why co2 emissions must have a cost.

But it doesn’t mean all kind of renewable technology should be subsidised indefinitively. At some point they must prove their competitiveness, as many have done.
In PIOMAS we trust

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3646 on: June 24, 2019, 06:28:26 PM »
it receives €271 per MW·h under its power purchase agreement

This number is not showing that it's not competitive. It shows that there is a special contract, nothing more, nothing less. Since this is a pilot project, this is not very surprising.

The (subsidised) number shown is on the same level than the high-end rooftop solar while providing additional storage capability. So, the €271 per MW/h is competitive.

But what it is in any way or form: It is economically feasible << which is what i actually said in the first place.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3647 on: June 24, 2019, 06:31:12 PM »
1) The question isn't if it's economically feasible, Interstitial. The question must be, is it bringing us closer to our zero emissions goal?

2) Yes, it is economically feasible. The plant in Spain for example:

Quote
The 11 megawatt (MW) solar power tower produces electricity with 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats. It took four years to build and so far cost €35 million. PS10 produces about 23,400 megawatt-hours (MW·h) per year, for which it receives €271 per MW·h under its power purchase agreement, equating to a revenue of €6.3 million per year

So when someone thinks renewables can't provide the baseload needed, just point them to this.

Why back such great projects with dubious claims? That’s an expensive PPA, meaning that somebody else is footing the bill. Most likely the tax payer. Most importantly the technology is working but it is not (yet) cost competitive.

Economics is allocating our scarce resources most efficiently. Using them on uncompetitive technologies is waste of precious natural resources and manpower.

Offshore wind is much more expensive in the US than in western Europe.  Why?  Because Europe started installing offshore wind several years ago and over time has learned how to do the job for less money.  US prices will drop as we get more experience, strengthen our supply chains, and develop the ship/port infrastructure we need.

Thermal solar is cheaper in places where more has been constructed.  Our prices will probably come down if we build more.  But, remember, thermal solar with storage is not competing with PV solar.  Thermal solar/storage is competing with whatever we use to fill in when the Sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing.  Thermal solar, unlike PV solar, can store the Sun's energy for when it is most needed and sell into that market.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3648 on: June 24, 2019, 06:35:23 PM »
But, remember, thermal solar with storage is not competing with PV solar.  Thermal solar/storage is competing with whatever we use to fill in when the Sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing.

Exactly! It has additional capabilities. So the direct comparison is flawed in the first place.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 14506
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3649 on: June 24, 2019, 09:33:09 PM »
Astounding price. 5 US cents / kwh, for a capacity factor likely > 50%. This is just over half the price that the IEA thought offshore wind reach by *2050* just a couple years ago.

Offshore wind is on path to be both cheaper and higher capacity factor than onshore.

Dunkirk Strike Price Is EUR 44/MWh
The Dunkirk offshore wind farm will deliver electricity to the French national grid at a strike price of EUR 44/MWh, Commission de régulation de l'énergie (CRE) has revealed
Quote
The commissioning of the wind farm is expected in 2022.
The strike price for this tender was initially expected to be below EUR 70/MWh.
The results of the Dunkirk tender have prompted France to increase its offshore wind tendering target to 1GW per year until 2028.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/06/20/dunkirk-strike-price-is-eur-44-mwh/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.