Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 569970 times)

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3250 on: January 03, 2019, 08:54:50 PM »
Another example of how international renewable energy projects begin nowdays:  on Twitter.

< why is TESLA not in Singapore?
Elon Musk: Govt has been unwelcome
Vincent: The Chinese government is very supportive to the Tesla
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 1/3/19, 12:51 PM
Yes, support of the Chinese government is very much appreciated
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080884388525555712

< Care to explain?
C- Singapore's economy is reliant upon fossil fuels. Their electricity is generated from imported natural gas, and they host multiple gigantic petroleum refineries. Their government is against EVs.

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 1/3/19, 1:07 PM
Singapore has enough area to switch to solar/battery & be energy-independent
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1080888452256657408

Min-Liang Tan: I've got a building in Singapore coming up 2020. Happy to get a solar/battery outfit there to test/showcase it:
     Razer plans new S-E Asia HQ at one-north in Singapore, Business News & Top Stories - The Straits Times
      https://www.straitstimes.com/business/razer-plans-new-s-e-asia-hq-at-one-north-in-spore

EM: Sounds great, will connect you with Tesla Energy
EM: Btw, I like your gaming equipment
MLT: And I'm a big fan of your work at @Tesla , clearly we both have good taste ;)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3251 on: January 04, 2019, 10:17:17 PM »
Quote
“New solar facility in northwestern China sells power at a lower price than coal-fired power plants - for the first time in the country: 0.316 yuan (5 U.S. cents) per kWh for solar v. 0.325 for coal”

Two solar power bases launched in northwestern China
https://www.azernews.az/region/143423.html
https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/1080897862609833985
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3252 on: January 08, 2019, 03:52:26 PM »
PG&E is threatening to declare bankruptcy over a potential  lawsuit regarding it's liability in starting the Camp fire. But there are a whole host of issues that may be involved.
Also remember that PG&E Diablo Nuclear Plant is scheduled for shutdown and decommissioning in 2024 . I have seen initial cost estimates at $1.7 billion for the two Diablo reactors but remember that SCG&E San Onofre Nuclear shutdown 2014 and the decommissioning estimates are over $10 billion with about $ 4 billion already paid by ratepayers in advance. So I would expect Diablo's  costs to rise substantially.
Also Calif. is still expanding commercial solar and there is already a large residential solar adoption rate . So for someone like me that already has solar and will see large rate increases to pay for “fire” risks plus decommissioning risks that the utilities will undoubtably add on to my rates that already have an annual meter fee that is about as high as my electric use bill there will be a strong temptation to just go totally off-grid. Those customers who want to go off-grid can collect a tax rebate for a tesla power wall or other battery options already on the market. So the utility companies are facing increased costs for Nuclear decommissioning, renewable mandates, potential customers pulling out of market, fire costs, endless lawsuits, and at some point maybe increased natural gas costs,
The poor( yes there are poor people ) who can’t put up solar or batteries and that live in apartments or trailers will somehow be asked to pay much higher bills and they will figure out how to use less. New construction in Calif. already will have a solar requirement starting soon . So if anyone thinks PG&E is bluffing they should pencil out the numbers first.
If the state is stratled with all these costs you gotta remember we just elected the most liberal governor we have ever had and he is very very green. So the state won’t back down on solar rebates, new construction solar mandates, or other efforts to choke off existing revenue streams from fishing, lumber, mining, or brown generating options like gas fired generating plants. Also a large coal generator in Arizona that used to send us electricity is shutting down.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3253 on: January 08, 2019, 05:39:15 PM »

If the state is stratled with all these costs you gotta remember we just elected the most liberal governor we have ever had and he is very very green. So the state won’t back down on solar rebates, new construction solar mandates, or other efforts to choke off existing revenue streams from fishing, lumber, mining, or brown generating options like gas fired generating plants. Also a large coal generator in Arizona that used to send us electricity is shutting down.
Perhaps a strain on California's power consumers, but surely a big plus for the region and the world.
My understanding is that Boulder Dam no longer contributes to So. Cal's energy base, but is now only used as peak energy due to low water levels at Lake Mead.


As EV's prices drop and their popularity grows, California utilities will require a massive buildout. Flexible charging schedules will expand peak hours to 24 hours per day. If your AC, TV, oven or clothes dryer aren't spinning your meter at night, your EVs charging up from the day's commute will be demanding juice even as the family sleeps.


Can inexpensive clean energy be rolled out faster than EVs come on line? Where are these plants being built? Who will ultimately foot the bill for the infrastructure?


Once E-Trucking becomes available these vehicles will make diesels obsolete overnight. Instead of needing millions of gallons of diesel fuel, the trucking sector will require TWs of additional power to be generated and distributed across the State. How will this be generated. Who will pay the bills?


Terry

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3254 on: January 08, 2019, 08:34:01 PM »
If the projects are approved, Hawaiian Electric said they will also help double current reductions in oil demand, with reductions totaling about 100 million gallons below 2008 levels.

Hawaiian Electric Announces ‘Mind-Blowing’ Solar-Plus-Storage Contracts
Quote
If the state’s public utility commission approves the power-purchase agreement contracts, it would mean a big boost for the U.S. storage market. WoodMac currently logs 1.4 gigawatt-hours of energy storage installed in the nation, with just 75 megawatt-hours in Hawaii. According to Finn-Foley, Hawaiian Electric’s projects would nearly double what’s installed in the U.S. and grow Hawaii’s market exponentially. Taken together, the projects would also rank as the second-largest storage announcement ever, just behind the recently approved Moss Landing project in California.

But that’s not even the most thrilling part of this announcement for clean energy analysts.

“What’s even more notable is the range of PPA prices,” said Finn-Foley.

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 Hawaiian Electric 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.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/hawaiian-electric-industries-announces-mind-blowing-solar-plus-storage-cont
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3255 on: January 09, 2019, 03:47:56 AM »
Terry, I too agree that closing down coal power plants is a good idea. California will be
shutting down it's last Nuclear plant that is about 45 miles upwind from me. We are cranking out commercial solar power and people are putting in tesla power walls along with their residential solar.
The power wall state rebate is about $3,400  and an additional $3,400 Federal tax rebate results in an installed power wall for about $8,000 in what otherwise would be a $15,000 bill.  All tax payers are shouldering the costs even though it is generally the wealthy that can afford electric cars, solar systems or power walls. Pacific gas and electric has lost about half of it,s stock value in the last couple months however and the reliability of our power grid is starting to look tenuous. Those of us who can afford renewables are ponying up and the state is moving forward with plans to get to a 100% renewable grid by 2045. If however the utility companies go broke there is something going wrong and that is before electric transport ramps up.
 O.K. Solar with a power wall takes away some of the demands for gas power to supply peak power during high demand hours and those of us who get the rebates are required to allow our power walls to cycle to receive the rebates. But those who don't have the money to afford the technology will undoubtably have to pay more for their electricity as we go forward and I believe that power will be less dependable as we move forward. Calif. generally has a mild climate and good solar and hydro resources so it makes sense that we should be taking the lead . Home heating demands are generally less so even with higher electric rates a household total energy cost isn't what it would be further east.
 I plan on forking over the money for a power wall so I will let you know what I think about the new toy as I get some experiance with it. Mostly I am doing it as some sort of insurance against potential brown outs because my annual electric costs are only about $400. Four years on solar and other than crawling up on the roof about once a month during dry season to wash them they are working perfectly.
 
 

 

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3256 on: January 10, 2019, 10:47:27 PM »
California already got 56% of its electricity from renewables and nuclear in 2017, the rest was from natural gas. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant output will have to be replaced, so that will slow progress a little, but the state is still well on its way to renewable only (perhaps with standby gas) future.

Lets remember that an EV utilizes energy much more efficiently than an ICE, and therefore moving from ICE to EV reduces emissions by itself. Using renewable electricity is the cherry on the top. That extra energy efficiency also limits the amount of extra electricity that is required, an estimate for the UK put the need at an extra 10% of currently provided electricity for 100% EV cars - so maybe 30%+ for California for all EV cars and trucks

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-california-aims-carbon-free-2045is-feasible.html

https://greycellsenergy.com/articles-analysis/evs-electricity-demand/

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3257 on: January 10, 2019, 11:06:49 PM »
California already got 56% of its electricity from renewables and nuclear in 2017, the rest was from natural gas. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant output will have to be replaced, so that will slow progress a little, but the state is still well on its way to renewable only (perhaps with standby gas) future.

Lets remember that an EV utilizes energy much more efficiently than an ICE, and therefore moving from ICE to EV reduces emissions by itself. Using renewable electricity is the cherry on the top. That extra energy efficiency also limits the amount of extra electricity that is required, an estimate for the UK put the need at an extra 10% of currently provided electricity for 100% EV cars - so maybe 30%+ for California for all EV cars and trucks

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-california-aims-carbon-free-2045is-feasible.html

https://greycellsenergy.com/articles-analysis/evs-electricity-demand/


Didn't we work out the avg miles driven, the avg electricity used without an EV & the number of miles/KWh just a few months ago?


We'd worked with American averages as opposed to Californian numbers. I'd have to assume that with it's mild climate Californian homes would use less energy, and with California's lauded car culture and extensive freeway grid, that Californians probably exceed the rest of the country in miles driven/month.


I don't have those figures in front of me, but there's no need to guess about the electricity required when we've already done the required math.


Perhaps someone familiar with the search functions could chime in?
Terry

James Lovejoy

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3258 on: January 11, 2019, 12:36:43 AM »
According to https://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/02/07/annual-per-capita-california-driving-1-5-times-the-national-average

California drivers drive 300 billion miles a year.  Cross checking with fhwa data, that seems to include all on-highway vehicles from motorcycles to semi trucks.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/motorfuel/dec17/dec17.pdf

The Tesla 3 gets almost 4 miles per kWh.  That would be 75 billion kWh.  Raise it to 100 billion kWh on the assumption that the overall fleet efficiency will be lower than the Tesla 3's.  According to the California government website: 
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/electric_generation_capacity.html

in 2017 California used 206,328 GWh of electricity.

100 billion kWh is 100,000 GWh.  So by this back of envelope calculation, motor vehicles would require a 50% increase in electricity production.

An impossible task if we switched over instantly.  Over a period of a decade or more it is very doable.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3259 on: January 11, 2019, 02:48:27 AM »
Nice calculation JL.
There are some losses in charging EV batteries, and I think average energy use per mile is a bit higher than the headline number due to car heating/AC and non-flat terrain. So maybe 110,000 or even 120,000 GWh. Still very doable over a decade or two.
Note: there'll also be some retired activities related to petrol - refining, tanker trucks, gas pumps, but they are probably negligible for such a calculation.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3260 on: January 11, 2019, 02:57:14 AM »
Lets remember that an EV utilizes energy much more efficiently than an ICE, and therefore moving from ICE to EV reduces emissions by itself. Using renewable electricity is the cherry on the top. That extra energy efficiency also limits the amount of extra electricity that is required, an estimate for the UK put the need at an extra 10% of currently provided electricity for 100% EV cars - so maybe 30%+ for California for all EV cars and trucks

https://greycellsenergy.com/articles-analysis/evs-electricity-demand/
I note that the link includes several optimistic assumptions - reduction of energy per mile and reduction of total number of cars by 2050, and that looking at the "business as usual" column shows a 25% increase in electricity demand, rather than 10%. But that is still not a very high number over 30 years.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3261 on: January 11, 2019, 12:12:00 PM »
I dug up that old calculation for the USA and chucked in a column for California. The data might be a bit shaky but I think it is in the right ballpark.

The data I have suggests that California electricity consumption per capita is well under half the average for the USA. That's a surprise.

I also cannot find any official data that supports that the average mileage driven per capita in California is 1.5 times the average. The data I could find suggests rather the reverse.

But the table ends up with 100% EVs needing a 50% increase in total electricity generation.

As renewables (+ nuclear) electricity generation is currently at 56%, to power EVs requires a doubling of existing renewable electricity generation capacity. A target of 100% renewable electricity generation for all purposes requires a 177% increase in existing renewable electricity generation  (plus an amount to replace existing nuclear electricity generation).

Given that history tells us since the beginning of the industrial revolution that overall energy demand is likely to increase despite efforts to improve energy efficiency, the target for 100% electricity generation in California requires a tripling at least of existing renewable electricity generation capacity over the coming decade(s).
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3262 on: January 11, 2019, 06:07:09 PM »
It is important to realize that Calif. hydroelectric power can fluctuate with snowpack/ water variability .For example hydro delivered ~ 49 terra watts in 2005-2006 after a good rain year and only produced ~ 15 terra watts in the 2014-2015 water season.  Yes wind/solar have increased their production but much of those gains will be offset by the loss of nuclear. So just a back of napkin calculation would mean we need to triple wind/solar to just stay even with current statewide electric use if we again saw a bad hydro year like 2015. So unless we can cut back ~ 35 terra watts of use during bad rain seasons wind/solar need a lot of extra capacity to maintain base load.
 News today is that Trump is considering cutting $2.5 billion in Army Corp of Engineers water projects for Calif. and another $2.5 billion from Puerto Rico. These cuts would obviate  any chance that Calif. could improve it's Hydro capacity.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-california-wall-funding-20190111-story.html

I would think it is time for Calif. to leave the U.S. 

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3263 on: January 11, 2019, 11:17:18 PM »
I dug up that old calculation for the USA and chucked in a column for California. The data might be a bit shaky but I think it is in the right ballpark.

The data I have suggests that California electricity consumption per capita is well under half the average for the USA. That's a surprise.

I also cannot find any official data that supports that the average mileage driven per capita in California is 1.5 times the average. The data I could find suggests rather the reverse.

But the table ends up with 100% EVs needing a 50% increase in total electricity generation.

As renewables (+ nuclear) electricity generation is currently at 56%, to power EVs requires a doubling of existing renewable electricity generation capacity. A target of 100% renewable electricity generation for all purposes requires a 177% increase in existing renewable electricity generation  (plus an amount to replace existing nuclear electricity generation).

Given that history tells us since the beginning of the industrial revolution that overall energy demand is likely to increase despite efforts to improve energy efficiency, the target for 100% electricity generation in California requires a tripling at least of existing renewable electricity generation capacity over the coming decade(s).

Thanks for dragging out, and improving on your spreadsheet. I'll be sure to copy it for future reference.

Edmund's model 3, after >10,000 miles has averaged 3.11 miles/KWh. The Mod.3 is acknowledged as getting much better mileage than either the model S or Model X.  I'd assume that 3 Miles/KWh for passenger vehicles is probably quite high, and with the Tesla E-Semi expected to come in at an estimated 1mile/KWh, the combined mileage must be much lower.

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017-tesla-model-3-monthly-update-for-september-2018.html

Another niggle in that direction is that as far as I see you've omitted the 20% battery charge/discharge loss, as well as whatever additional costs the charging unit itself imparts.

I fear when allowances are made for these, simply converting the passenger vehicle segment of the market will overwhelm our best efforts, if we restrict ourselves to non-polluting, renewable sources of Californian produced electricity. The trucking sector alone might overwhelm a rapid buildout of the grid and I expect that sector to change to charging as rapidly as vehicles and charging stations become available.

Bruce might be safe behind his (Power)Wall, under the shade of his solar panels, ;D but neighbors needing refrigerated milk for a toddler, or heat for an aged parent, may resent it when either their bills exceed their house payment, or their electrical supplier can't afford to service their rural lines. :-\

I've often driven Tehachapi Pass, and there isn't much room for more windmills. Boulder Dam once kept the lights of the marquee blazing bright at Grauman's Chinese Theater, but today they only let water through when peak power would otherwise cause brownouts in LA.

Terry
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 07:12:05 AM by TerryM »

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3264 on: January 12, 2019, 07:26:34 AM »
Terry, I too agree that closing down coal power plants is a good idea. California will be
shutting down it's last Nuclear plant that is about 45 miles upwind from me. We are cranking out commercial solar power and people are putting in tesla power walls along with their residential solar.
The power wall state rebate is about $3,400  and an additional $3,400 Federal tax rebate results in an installed power wall for about $8,000 in what otherwise would be a $15,000 bill.  All tax payers are shouldering the costs even though it is generally the wealthy that can afford electric cars, solar systems or power walls. Pacific gas and electric has lost about half of it,s stock value in the last couple months however and the reliability of our power grid is starting to look tenuous. Those of us who can afford renewables are ponying up and the state is moving forward with plans to get to a 100% renewable grid by 2045. If however the utility companies go broke there is something going wrong and that is before electric transport ramps up.
 O.K. Solar with a power wall takes away some of the demands for gas power to supply peak power during high demand hours and those of us who get the rebates are required to allow our power walls to cycle to receive the rebates. But those who don't have the money to afford the technology will undoubtably have to pay more for their electricity as we go forward and I believe that power will be less dependable as we move forward. Calif. generally has a mild climate and good solar and hydro resources so it makes sense that we should be taking the lead . Home heating demands are generally less so even with higher electric rates a household total energy cost isn't what it would be further east.
 I plan on forking over the money for a power wall so I will let you know what I think about the new toy as I get some experiance with it. Mostly I am doing it as some sort of insurance against potential brown outs because my annual electric costs are only about $400. Four years on solar and other than crawling up on the roof about once a month during dry season to wash them they are working perfectly.


I had no idea that the subsidy was so high for a power wall.
I've heard that paying attention to the fine print can be important.


Best of luck with your investment.
Terry

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3265 on: January 12, 2019, 07:36:09 PM »
Thanks for the detailed calculations for California. With a 15-20 year timeframe, a tripling of renewable energy is more than doable. It will take that long to retire the last ICE unless they are specifically outlawed. Given that the EV does not need gasoline, and has a much lower maintenance cost, the consumer is simply swapping one input cost for another - so don't quite understand the affordability issue. Will there be standby natural gas plants? Quite possibly, unless the large scale storage issue gets fixed in that timeframe.

I am quite skeptical of most green energy boosterism, but California looks especially well set up given its solar and onshore and offshore wind capacity, plus that of its neighbouring states. Not such a good story for many other parts of the US.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3266 on: January 13, 2019, 09:17:01 PM »
China launches subsidy-free solar and wind power
Quote
BEIJING/SHANGHAI, Jan 10 (Reuters) - China will launch a series of subsidy-free wind and solar projects this year to take advantage of a rapid fall in construction costs since 2012 and tackle a gaping payment backlog, the country's top planning agency said on Thursday.

Last year, the government was forced to suspend all new subsidised solar capacity approvals after a record 53-gigawatt capacity increase in 2017 left it with a backlog of at least 120 billion yuan ($18 billion) in subsidy payments.

The new subsidy-free projects will generate renewable power for sale at the same prices as non-subsidised coal-fired power plants, and will not have to comply with capacity quota restrictions, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced on Wednesday. It added that the projects would, however, receive support on land and financing. ...
http://news.trust.org/item/20190110110245-elvi8/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3267 on: January 13, 2019, 10:29:48 PM »
A flat kWH rate used to be available in Calif. , for me it was about 20 cents per kWh . As of 2019 that option is no longer available and peak rates 2pm to 8pm are now 46 cents per kWh depending on which rate plan you opt for.  The power walls are timed so that they send stored power back onto the grid during those hours. You don't have much choice about when your power wall feeds the grid because the rebates are only applicable if it feeds back it's stored energy and some minimum amounts during those peak rate hours.
 There is now a low rate available at very late night hours of 12 cents so if you can time your use to those hours and utilize a power wall at peak hrs. you still can maintain average kWh rates at something less than 20 cents per kWh. The power wall also needs to be hooked up to a solar system that you already own or purchase to receive the rebates.
 This is a rate plan , with options for SCE

https://www.sce.com/residential/rates/Time-Of-Use-Residential-Rate-Plans#collapse-accordion-15840-5

I don't think most rate payers are aware of the new changes so the power companies will make a bit of a windfall during peak hrs. until people catch on. I used an SCE rate plan because the one available for PG&E was too opaque to understand.
 The power wall contractor I contacted for installation quotes only installed about 100 power walls last year and they service three affluent counties.



oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3268 on: January 14, 2019, 12:27:41 AM »
Quote
China launches subsidy-free solar and wind power
Very good news. These technologies are advanced enough to compete on their own without subsidies, and the Chinese will still provide land and financing, which means rapid deployment will resume.

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3269 on: January 14, 2019, 03:36:46 PM »
PG&E , Pacific Gas & Electric a company that services over 16 million Calif. utilities customers files for bankruptcy . 
 Will the state be left on the hook for decommissioning DiabloCanyon Nuclear plant ? Who will be footing the bill for trimming tens of thousands of trees ? How long will our power grid hold ? Lots of issues and the stock dropped by half today.
 I got my deposit in for two power walls on Friday. I predict they will get very popular and the rebate tiers will fill quickly after which the state rebates will disappear although the federal tax rebate will still be there.
 PG&E did file for bankruptcy once before over the Enron debacle and made it through but I wouldn't bet on it this time. 

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3270 on: January 15, 2019, 09:20:31 PM »
Kees van der Leun: "On Saturday, wind power produced 20% of Europe's electricity!
Denmark 68%
Germany 53%
UK 30%
Portugal 30^%
Spain 27%
Austria 27%
NL 23%
Belgium 20%
(Ireland's data still seem to be missing)"
https://twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/1084544175037661186
Image below.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3271 on: January 16, 2019, 01:37:33 AM »
PG&E , Pacific Gas & Electric a company that services over 16 million Calif. utilities customers files for bankruptcy . 
 Will the state be left on the hook for decommissioning DiabloCanyon Nuclear plant ? Who will be footing the bill for trimming tens of thousands of trees ? How long will our power grid hold ? Lots of issues and the stock dropped by half today.
 I got my deposit in for two power walls on Friday. I predict they will get very popular and the rebate tiers will fill quickly after which the state rebates will disappear although the federal tax rebate will still be there.
 PG&E did file for bankruptcy once before over the Enron debacle and made it through but I wouldn't bet on it this time.
If your power walls & solar panels are of adequate size you may escape the worst of the skulduggery that surely lies ahead.
Good luck to you and to the 15,999,999 others sure to be directly affected.


I assume that the rate plans, rebates and subsidies you've written of will undergo massive changes as PG&E contorts in her death throes, or writhes in extreme agony before recovering.
Trying to CYA and surviving with most of your electrical equipment intact might be more important at this juncture than striving to minimize your monthly usage/billing.


When Enron's rolling brownouts were prevalent, refrigeration, A/C & heat pump compressors, even HVAC and swimming pool motors were over amping and burning out. The only solution is to take them off line, leave them off until the grid is hopefully stable, then bring them back on line sequentially.
Ovens or water heaters that rely on resistance are not affected, but motors, compressors and electronics seldom have the circuitry needed to save themselves from extended periods of varying voltage.


Having quick access to refrigerator, TV, computer, room A/C or heat pump plugs and receptacles might save their replacement costs. Knowing which breakers to throw to keep the A/C or heat pump safe can prevent a damn expensive service call.


Hope I didn't get too carried away, but memories of back to back 18 hour days and major supply houses unable to keep 2 hp compressors in stock are what flash to mind when someone mentions Enron. When PG&E can't pay their servicemen things could begin falling apart at an exponential rate.


Scratch a piggies snout for me :)
Terry

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1294
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3272 on: January 16, 2019, 03:29:57 AM »
Terry, If you wanted to buy a brand new F-250 diesel 4wd truck it would set you back about $80,000.
If you wanted instead a 6.5 K solar system on your roof, a couple power walls, and a fairly nice used
Tesla S 2014 with a ~240 mile range , the whole package would be less than the cost of that new Ford truck.
 The solar system would pay itself back in less than ten years. The power wall probably never would but it would address the intermittency issues and I guess the Tesla is just a way to test the option of living off grid , self sufficient on food and close to zero fossils fuels for transport.
 I see those shiny Ford trucks every day , lots of them. They're everywhere. And how many people might think that Tesla is a luxury, and anyone with solar , a wall, and a Tesla as some kind of elitist.
They wouldn't think for a minute the guy in the big Ford truck was.
 If your _$ 20,000 solar array pays itself back in ten years , you only have about $50,000 into your home energy and transport. Maybe retirement isn't big on my list but if my expenses decrease as I get closer then I am at least headed in the right direction.
 PG&E will emerge from bankruptcy , there will be more fires, and eventually we will change the law that holds the utility company's liable even if there is no malpractice. Trees fall on power lines, power poles fall over . You can't take all the risk out of running power through the grid. People are going to need to accept either the risk of overhead power delivery or pay for buried lines. Suing the power company every time there is a fire started by a utilitiy line is not a sustainable option.
 I am guessing people will figure this out but then I'm buying a power wall because I think it's going to take them awhile . I am also guessing the rebates are going to run out.
 If I had to make a prediction it would be that electric rates here in Calif. are going to get very expensive very soon.
 I do hope Mr. Musk made his power walls resistant to power surges . His rockets land themselves.

 






TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3273 on: January 16, 2019, 06:09:46 AM »
Bruce
Power costs in California are sure to increase.
My city owned utilities in Riverside provide some protection. Perhaps the present kerfuffle will encourage other municipalities to pick up the gauntlet?


I hope the Powerwalls meet your expectations.
Terry

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3274 on: January 16, 2019, 04:47:01 PM »
Tesla Powerwall gets a massive boost in Australia with ~50% subsidy for up to 40,000 homes
Quote
Some public tenants who received a Powerwall as part of the virtual power plant initiative are reporting savings of over $300 per quarter on their electricity bills. Households with higher energy needs could see even more savings.

Tesla already had a long backlog of Powerwall orders, in Australia and globally, but demand is expected to also increase now that it’s being included as part of this incentive. Tesla is talking about a 12-week lead time for the Powerwall in South Australia.

The government program also offers the discount on other home battery pack solutions, like sonnen’s sonnenBatteries. ...
https://electrek.co/2019/01/16/tesla-powerwall-boost-australia-discount/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 728
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3275 on: January 19, 2019, 03:54:30 AM »
Bloomberg: Clean Energy Investment Exceeded $300 Billion Once Again in 2018

BUT, we are at the same $ level as 2011, although with continuing efficiencies much more capacity per $. China was the biggest cut to expenditures in 2018, will probably be a drag in 2019.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/clean-energy-investment-exceeded-300-billion-2018/


Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13399
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3276 on: January 20, 2019, 04:26:58 PM »
Largest ever solar farms for Google data centers to be built in Alabama and Tennessee
Quote
Collectively, the two solar energy companies will put up 1.6 million solar panels on the two parcels, representing the biggest solar installation in both Tennessee and Alabama and the largest solar farms ever built for Google. Combined, the two new facilities will be capable of generating up to 413 megawatts of electricity at peak periods from the sun.

The Alabama farm is 150 megawatts and will be built in Hollywood, Alabama by NextEra Energy Resources to power the nearby data center that Google broke ground on in April of last year. NextEra will sell the power to the Tennessee Valley Authority to power the data center, as Google mentioned in its blog post:

In the coming years, Google will purchase the output of several new solar farms as part of a deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), totaling 413 megawatts of power from 1.6 million solar panels—that’s equivalent to the combined size of 65,000 home rooftop solar systems.
...
Google notes that the benefits of these deals aren’t limited to just Google meeting its long-stated goal of powering all its operations with renewable energy. This means more carbon-free energy on the electric grid, and plenty of economic advantages to the surrounding regions as well.
https://9to5google.com/2019/01/17/largest-ever-solar-farms-google/

Why we’re putting 1.6 million solar panels in Tennessee and Alabama
https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/sustainability/why-were-putting-16-million-solar-panels-tennessee-and-alabama/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4090
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3277 on: January 23, 2019, 09:23:40 AM »
Minnesota study says overbuild and curtail rather than storage:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/

i'm not so sure. Battery prices are falling fast.

sidd

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3278 on: January 23, 2019, 10:16:51 AM »
When it comes to storage, there is also a third way.

Let’s Build a Global Power Grid - With a little DC wizardry and a lot of cash, we could swap power across continents

Quote
Reports abound of homeowners and businesses unplugging from the power grid and opting instead to generate and store their own electricity. Such grid defections may make sense in places where electricity rates are sky-high or service is spotty. But for just about everywhere else, it’s far more sensible to do the very opposite: interconnect regional electricity networks to form a globe-spanning supergrid.
Link >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/lets-build-a-global-power-grid

China is on it already!

China Wants to Build a $50 Trillion Global Wind & Solar Power Grid by 2050

Quote
Built on a backbone of a global ultra high voltage (UHV) grid, the project not only envisions global power connectivity, but global power generation. The grid will connect proposed wind farms in the North Pole, and solar farms built at the equator that transcend national boundaries. It’s exactly what’s needed if such renewable energy sources as wind and energy, which could potentially shoulder the vast majority of the world’s energy generation, will ever become a viable alternative.
Link >> https://futurism.com/building-big-forget-great-wall-china-wants-build-50-trillion-global-power-grid-2050

And another good read on the topic:

New "Internet of Energy” Key to Fighting Climate Change, Expert Says

Quote
“Instead of running all of the world’s generators’ half the time – which is very inefficient – we are talking about running half the world’s generators all the time… much more efficient,” Powers said.
Link >> http://www.terrawatts.com/stanford-news.html

Note how the spokesman for Global Energy Network Institute is called Powers. :)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3279 on: January 23, 2019, 12:26:50 PM »
When it comes to storage, there is also a third way.
Quote
The grid will connect proposed wind farms in the North Pole,.
Oh dear.

The grid will connect proposed wind farms in the North Pole.

Best of luck. Massive development. Just what the Arctic needs.

I smell hubris, a la geo-engineering. Engineers whose eyes are bigger than my stomach.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3280 on: January 23, 2019, 01:04:29 PM »
Best of luck. Massive development. Just what the Arctic needs.

Haha, yeah! That's where i giggled too! ;)

Quote
I smell hubris, a la geo-engineering. Engineers whose eyes are bigger than my stomach.

Well, let me oppose here. The technique is well understood. Also, throwing cables around the whole globe is not rocket science but done all the time for a long time now. The infrastructure to deploy these cables is here. And the distances are not so great. For instance, Russia/USA, Europe/Russia, Russia/China are all conveniently close together.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3281 on: January 23, 2019, 01:43:59 PM »
Best of luck. Massive development. Just what the Arctic needs.

Haha, yeah! That's where i giggled too! ;)

Quote
I smell hubris, a la geo-engineering. Engineers whose eyes are bigger than my stomach.

Well, let me oppose here. The technique is well understood. Also, throwing cables around the whole globe is not rocket science but done all the time for a long time now. The infrastructure to deploy these cables is here. And the distances are not so great. For instance, Russia/USA, Europe/Russia, Russia/China are all conveniently close together.

One thing leads to another. The infrastructure above sea in such a harsh environment will require considerable support systems, and with that in place economic development mining etc will follow, which in turn......

The loss of the Amazon Rainforest starts with a single road.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3282 on: January 23, 2019, 03:58:09 PM »
I think the best solution includes moving users towards more compatible intermittency. Car charging, dishwasher/laundry, water heating, desalination, all can be partially timed to available supply.
Batteries are another obvious part.
I think an interconnected grid can increase efficiency of global resources, but the cost in reliability and security is IMHO unbearable in a world where global unity is receding, rather than inching closer. Imagine just a little war, or even threat of war, that might cut off supplies to countries who cannot produce most of their own electricity. Or some accident that cuts off a continent from its far-off supply.
North Pole wind turbines are just nonsense.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3226
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3283 on: January 23, 2019, 06:39:50 PM »
Minnesota study says overbuild and curtail rather than storage:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/

i'm not so sure. Battery prices are falling fast.

sidd

How is this any different than powering up and down natural gas generated electricity? Batteries certainly have a role but overbuilding seems a logical approach as well.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3284 on: January 23, 2019, 10:41:35 PM »
Minnesota study says overbuild and curtail rather than storage:

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/minnesota-study-finds-it-cheaper-to-curtail-solar-than-to-add-storage/546467/

i'm not so sure. Battery prices are falling fast.

sidd
How is this any different than powering up and down natural gas generated electricity? Batteries certainly have a role but overbuilding seems a logical approach as well.
The Australian Labour Party are talking about using surplus renewable energy to make hydrogen (from water). If there is a market for the hydrogen, e.g. as fuel for energy intensive heavy industry (or backup electricity power plants), it might fit well into an overbuild strategy.

Being Australia, and the Labour party, they could not stop themselves from chucking coal into the mix. Heavy sigh.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/22/labor-promises-to-supercharge-hydrogen-industry-as-green-groups-say-no-role-for-coal
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3285 on: January 23, 2019, 11:42:15 PM »
Where does it come from?

According to the EIA

In 2017 - the last year available.

Natural gas has edged out coal as the largest source for power. At 32 & 30% respectively they dominate electrical production.
Nuclear counts for 20% of the mix, while all of the renewable sources add up to 17%

When we speak of burning or storing grid energy, this is the mix we are speaking of, 63% fossil fuel and 17% renewable.

In 2017 Hydro, + Wind + Photovoltaic combined, equaled 1/2 of the electricity from coal.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Terry

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3286 on: January 24, 2019, 08:56:24 AM »
I think an interconnected grid can increase efficiency of global resources, but the cost in reliability and security is IMHO unbearable in a world where global unity is receding, rather than inching closer. Imagine just a little war, or even threat of war, that might cut off supplies to countries who cannot produce most of their own electricity. Or some accident that cuts off a continent from its far-off supply.
Here is a fresh example for the accident scenario.
Quote
The South Pacific nation of Tonga has been all but cut off from the internet this week after an undersea cable connecting the archipelago to the wider world was severed twice on Sunday, throwing communications across the tiny and isolated country into chaos.

The outage, which the cable’s owner said may have been caused by a ship’s anchor, also knocked out overseas phone calls and is hampering money transfers, airline bookings, university enrolments as well as Facebook connections to family and friends.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tonga-internet/severed-cable-sends-tonga-back-to-beginning-of-the-internet-idUSKCN1PI0A8

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3287 on: January 24, 2019, 09:25:34 AM »
Hey oren,

that's a bummer but not comparable imho.

In a global power grid scenario, when a cable between say Europe and Russia was broken, neither of the two (now separated) grids would stop functioning. You would either prop up your production (locally) or get more power from other parts of Europe or Russia - as it works today.

Connecting grids does nothing bad to the existing grids. It only adds new features.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3288 on: January 24, 2019, 11:06:24 AM »
I do support connecting grids, and of course I am in favor of world unity. But for example if Europe should rely on a huge Sahara solar installation powering up the continent, there would be significant risk. Or even worse should the USA rely on wind power from Siberia. Most countries or blocs would be better off striving for renewable energy independence, if possible, or need to maintain backup gas operations in the event of power cut due to accident or war.
I would say if you import more than a third or a half of your electricty, you're in trouble.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3289 on: January 24, 2019, 12:24:59 PM »
On the question of security:

I'm European. For me dependencies between countries means peace! The economic dependencies after WW2 (thanks to General Marshall et al) in Europe calmed the whole continent down after centuries of war. The strategy was to make Europe interconnected in a way so that a war would also hurt the attacker. It totally worked.  The connections and dependencies have grown into what we now call the EU. A remarkable period of peace and prosperity in Europe is the outcome.

This is a plea for less nationality, and more cooperation in light of the problems we face.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3290 on: January 24, 2019, 06:07:41 PM »
On the question of security:

I'm European. For me dependencies between countries means peace! The economic dependencies after WW2 (thanks to General Marshall et al) in Europe calmed the whole continent down after centuries of war. The strategy was to make Europe interconnected in a way so that a war would also hurt the attacker. It totally worked.  The connections and dependencies have grown into what we now call the EU. A remarkable period of peace and prosperity in Europe is the outcome.

This is a plea for less nationality, and more cooperation in light of the problems we face.
b_lumenkraft, maybe you are relying on those who presume to govern us are aware of "The Great Illusion".

Some might say that it was the nuclear stand-off between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that kept things quiet, and now things are getting noisy again. History is on my side?

From Wikipedia
The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, published in 1910
Quote
Content
In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[3] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[4] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[5] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[6]

According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[5] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."[6]

4 years later, World War I
and 28 years later, World War II

Would it were otherwise.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

etienne

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 548
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3291 on: January 27, 2019, 08:38:27 PM »
I'm reading right now a good book about energy transition, well mainly from renewable toward fossil fuels.
Power to the People Energy in Europe over the Last Five Centuries Astrid Kander, Paolo Malanima, & Paul Warde

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10138.html

The book provides a good view of what living with only renewable energy used to be, and describes the energy transitions (coal, petrol...). Well, it gives the feeling that there is a lot of work to do power the world with renewable energy. I haven't finished the book, I'm still in the coal era.

Here is what they say about themselves :
Power to the People offers new perspectives on the challenges posed today by climate change and peak oil, demonstrating that although the path of modern economic development has vastly increased our energy use, it has not been a story of ever-rising and continuous consumption. The book sheds light on the often lengthy and complex changes needed for new energy systems to emerge, the role of energy resources in economic growth, and the importance of energy efficiency in promoting growth and reducing future energy demand.

Some of the datas in the book are available here : https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~histecon/energyhistory/

Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3292 on: January 29, 2019, 12:13:43 AM »
Interesting article on Solar panel prices and projections of solar power installation over the next few years:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Ultra-Cheap-Solar-Panel-Times-Are-Over.html

It starts with a review of China's decision to cut back on new solar installations last year and the impacts that had on the world-wide industry:

Quote
China surprised everyone in June 2018 by announcing that it would not issue approvals for any new solar power installations in 2018 and would also cut subsidies. The major shift in Chinese solar policies led to local manufacturers flooding the global solar panel market, creating a glut and pushing prices down.

As a result of this, solar panel prices plunged by 30 percent last year. While this jeopardized smaller Chinese manufacturers, the ultra-cheap solar panels created a windfall for solar developers and investors in solar photovoltaic (PV) installations around the world.

The market, however, has started to adapt to these disruptions and prices of China-made solar panels are expected to rebound by 10-15 percent over the next year or two, because the Chinese solar manufacturing market is heading to consolidation as small producers suffered the most from China’s solar policies, Luo told Reuters.

It reviews the estimated installations last year:

Quote
However, we estimate that global PV installations increased from 99GW in 2017 to approximately 109GW in 2018, as other countries took advantage of the technology’s fiercely improved competitiveness,” Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BloombergNEF, said last week.


It makes some projections for 2018 and 2019:

Quote
BloombergNEF expects global PV installations this year to rise by 17 percent from 2018, with three key markets driving demand—China, the U.S., and India.

Quote
its monthly Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO) last week, the EIA forecast that the U.S. will add nearly 5 GW of utility-scale solar PV capacity in 2019 and another 6 GW in 2020. In 2019-2020, the EIA also sees almost 9 GW of small-scale solar PV capacity installed, mostly in the residential sector. The share of renewables excluding hydropower of U.S. electricity generation was 10 percent in 2018 and is forecast to rise to 11 percent this year and to 13 percent next year.

The projections for the next decade are a real eye-opener:

Quote
In the long run, the renewables share, including hydropower, is set to increase from 18 percent in 2018 to 31 percent in 2050, driven largely by growth in wind and solar generation, the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with projections through 2050 showed this week.

Renewables grow to become a larger share of U.S. electric generation than nuclear and coal in less than a decade,” the EIA reckons.

Keep in mind that the EIA has historically underestimated the growth of the renewable energy sector in the US.

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3293 on: January 29, 2019, 01:49:53 AM »
Ken


Did the EIA have predictions for the increased load that EVs will place on the system over the next years? Will solar + wind be able to keep pace with the expected sales of EVs for personal transportation?
When/if E-Semi Trucks enter the market will this require additional coal generation, or will extending the lifespan of those now in operation be sufficient to meet the expected demand?


Terry

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 521
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3294 on: January 29, 2019, 04:38:54 AM »
The share of renewables excluding hydropower of U.S. electricity generation was 10 percent in 2018 and is forecast to rise to 11 percent this year and to 13 percent next year.

In the long run, the renewables share, including hydropower, is set to increase from 18 percent in 2018 to 31 percent in 2050

In the USA. The richest nation on earth? Is this supposed to be good news to anyone? I cannot see it.

Those numbers suggest that 69% of US electricity generation will NOT be renewable energy. Like where is the good news about that in 2050.

Then Ken says: "the EIA has historically underestimated the growth of the renewable energy sector in the US."  Um, well have they? Really? So how "underestimated" is there 31% in 2050? Got a guess? Should it be 32%? 39%? 45% or 80%? Where is the data to support any of those numbers?

The above does not even include heating Energy use, nor land Transportation energy use, nor Aviation energy Use, nor Shipping energy use. 

You're talking here about 2050 when for all intents and purposes the FIRST WORLD NATIONS like the USA must be at least at NET ZERO CARBON EMISSIONS.

And theoretically hypothetically if one wishes to believe the IPCC Projections based upon NET NEGATIVE CARBON/GHG Emissions because of all this not yet viable Negative Emissions Technology and Re-Greening of the Planet on a massive scale before 2050 as well.

Some pro-Climate Change action folks even assume / or hope there will be NO NUCLEAR REACTORS PRODUCING POWER IN 2050 EITHER.

Like hello? Please tell me where the "good news" is in this information? I see none, none at all. 

13% Renewable (non-Hydro) energy electricity supply in 2020? What a bad joke that is. No, it's a nightmare scenario actually.
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3295 on: January 29, 2019, 07:40:26 AM »
Hey Terry,

I've recently seen a German docu on that topic. The German Institute for Economic Research (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) estimates that with 50mio EVs in Germany there is a need for ~20% more power.

Sadly i can't find the original BDI paper.

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3135
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 727
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3296 on: January 29, 2019, 11:38:15 AM »
Like hello? Please tell me where the "good news" is in this information? I see none, none at all. 
The only good news is that there is a bit of progress. Renewable share could be not growing or even shrinking. But obviously, the pace of progress is agonizingly slow and climate change marches on, so you are very much correct. Even the supposedly richest nation on earth can't get even a basic act together, despite technological breakthroughs that have made (partial) solutions much cheaper than they used to be. In the grand scheme of things, we are cooked.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4065
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3297 on: January 29, 2019, 12:17:13 PM »
Hey Terry,

I've recently seen a German docu on that topic. The German Institute for Economic Research (Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung) estimates that with 50mio EVs in Germany there is a need for ~20% more power.

Sadly i can't find the original BDI paper.
I did a search on the institute
( https://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_02.c.299805.de&search-0=electricity+demand+from+electric+vehicles )

Couldn't find your paper but found a paper on EVs to 2030
( https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.494890.de/dp1442.pdf )

and a look at 2050 but using 25 million EVs (including freight transport?)
https://www.diw.de/documents/dokumentenarchiv/17/diw_01.c.524209.de/realvalue_bossmann.pdf
Lots of graphics on this one. e.g. impact on system if people recharge at peak demand hours (early evening) in simmer and winter.

Estimates that 1 million EVs = 0.5% additional electricity demand. So 50 million EVs = 25%.

Certainly could slow down getting rid of coal.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3298 on: January 29, 2019, 01:31:54 PM »
Great find, thank you.

Certainly could slow down getting rid of coal.

Just recently they settled on a phase-out of coal until 2035-2038. That's a done deal now gladly.

Quote
Bis 2022 sollen nun insgesamt 12,5 Gigawatt Leistung aus dem Netz genommen werden, davon drei Gigawatt Braunkohle mehr als bisher ohnehin vorgesehen. 2030 sollen noch höchstens 9 Gigawatt Braunkohle und 8 Gigawatt Steinkohle am Netz sein – Einzelschritte, die Umweltverbände gefordert hatten, stehen nicht im Konzept. Zusammen haben die Kohlekraftwerke derzeit eine Leistung von rund 45 Gigawatt. Rund ein Drittel des Stroms kommt heute aus Kohlekraftwerken.
Link >>https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/politik/entscheidung-in-der-nacht-kohlekommission-einigt-sich-auf-kohleausstieg-bis-2038-31939304

Translates to:
12.5 GW less coal power in the grid until 2022
until 2030 a maximum of 17 GW coal power in the grid
today there are 45 GW coal power in the grid which is like a third of all power consumption.


Ken Feldman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3299 on: January 29, 2019, 06:22:15 PM »
The EIA underestimates of the growth of renewables are on the order of over 300% for generation and 4000% for capacity.  So if the EIA is projecting that the US will be getting 30% of it's electricity from renewables in 2050, it's going to be closer to 90 to 100%.

That includes all electricity generation to meet all demand, whether it's from EVs or cell phones or TVs or electric heaters.

Source on EIA underestimates:

https://qz.com/1103874/the-us-government-underestimated-solar-energy-installation-in-the-us-by-4813-along-with-renewable-wind-and-solar-generation/

Quote
The agency’s “projections bear little resemblance to market realities” because they ignore publicly available evidence, argues the clean-energy non-profit Advanced Energy Economy. It cites the EIA’s 2015 expectation for solar capacity to double by 2026, despite a pipeline of projects that would—and ultimately did—exceed that benchmark by early 2017. Similarly, the EIA expected the installment of 6.5 GW of new wind capacity between 2017 and 2030—even though new US wind installations averaged 6.5 GW per year between 2007 and 2014. “They’re not just conservative about change,” Advanced Energy Economy vice-president Robert Keough told Politico. “ They’re ignoring the evidence of what’s actually happening in the market.”