Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 911277 times)

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3300 on: January 30, 2019, 06:08:15 PM »
A recently published study indicates that if current fossil fuel infrastructure is replaced by renewables when it reaches the end of the useful life, there's a good chance global warming can be limited to 1.5 degrees:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07999-w

Quote
Committed warming describes how much future warming can be expected from historical emissions due to inertia in the climate system. It is usually defined in terms of the level of warming above the present for an abrupt halt of emissions. Owing to socioeconomic constraints, this situation is unlikely, so we focus on the committed warming from present-day fossil fuel assets. Here we show that if carbon-intensive infrastructure is phased out at the end of its design lifetime from the end of 2018, there is a 64% chance that peak global mean temperature rise remains below 1.5 °C. Delaying mitigation until 2030 considerably reduces the likelihood that 1.5 °C would be attainable even if the rate of fossil fuel retirement was accelerated. Although the challenges laid out by the Paris Agreement are daunting, we indicate 1.5 °C remains possible and is attainable with ambitious and immediate emission reduction across all sectors.

This is a conservative scenario.  Given that new renewables are now cheaper than existing operating coal and don't have the other pollution associated with coal, in the US and Europe, coal plants are being retired before the end of their useful life. 

And renewables will soon be cheaper than new natural gas plants.  Add in the fact that batteries are becoming much cheaper, renewables plus battery storage are replacing peaker gas plants in California and will soon do so across the US.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 832
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3301 on: January 30, 2019, 06:54:20 PM »
More on the Xcel Energy commitment:

First Major U.S. Utility Commits to 100% Clean Energy
Quote
As reported by Vox, Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, “one of the biggest utilities in the U.S., committed to going completely carbon-free by 2050 (and 80 percent carbon-free by 2030).” Vox referred to the announcement as “another sign that carbon-free energy is going viral,” and gave the following arguments for this major shift―of which Xcel Energy is only the tip of the iceberg:

- Renewables are getting cheap compared to other sources, including natural gas;
- Consumers are demanding clean energy;
- The political landscape in the eight states where they operate has shifted: politicians are listening to the sustainability mindset of their constituents and are doing something about it; and
- They want to shift to investments and technologies that give them better margins.

Xcel Energy’s public remarks on the news stated the following:
“The company believes that its 2030 goal can be achieved affordably with renewable energy and other technologies currently available. However, achieving the long-term vision of zero-carbon electricity requires technologies that are not cost effective or commercially available today. That is why Xcel Energy is committed to ongoing work to develop advanced technologies while putting the necessary policies in place to achieve this transition.”

Vox also notes in their article that when it comes to carbon emissions, cities, who account for 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions, make the difference―more than any actions by the federal government. As they put it, “Cities can move utilities, and utilities can move the energy industry.”
https://www.joiscientific.com/first-major-u-s-utility-commits-to-100-clean-energy/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3302 on: January 30, 2019, 08:49:21 PM »
One thing I love about living in the northwest US is my PUD.
Lewis county PUD
Hydro 83.58%
Nuclear 10.51%
Coal 3.2%
Natural Gas 1.82%
Wind 0.57%
Other 0.32%
so 5.02% fossil fuels and for those idiots who say renewable energy is too expensive our power rate here is just under $0.06 per kilowatt-hour.

Also Seattle city light has been 100% carbon neutral for many years.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 08:54:44 PM by interstitial »

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3303 on: January 30, 2019, 09:16:46 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.


That's some wonderful researching guys!


The figures and charts above don't see the exponential shift to EVs that some here are projecting, nor do they address the inevitable introduction of Battery powered heavy trucking.


PG&E's financial problems indicate that electricity is being retailed for far less than the costs of generating, transporting, apportioning and billing. In addition, at present there are no provisions presently for upkeep, improvement and maintenance of the highway/roadway systems already in place.


Without massive funding increases, many of the electric providers are unable to maintain their present infrastructure, let alone build out a system capable of handling the additional load that EV's will impose.


PG&E is apparently behind by ~$60B. Should taxpayers pick up the bill? Should a City dweller who always takes the BART subsidize his Two Tesla neighbor's Watt Guzzlers, or should the bill fall on rate payers alone. Should a subsistence farmer's electrical bill increase so that the Supercharger down the highway can receive adequate wattage? Should schools pay much more so that Little Johnny doesn't swelter without an AC in the classroom?


EV's are a disruptive technology - and the disruption spreads far from it's immediate roots in the transportation sector.


It's not an intractable problem. Subsidize non-polluting mass transit systems.
Terry

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3304 on: January 31, 2019, 12:25:52 AM »
PG&E's financial problems are primarily based on a court ruling that they are responsible for all the damage of a wildfire started by their powerlines even if the equipment was properly maintained. They will have to bury all of their powerlines to prevent this problem. That is a ridiculous court decision and the reason they have cited for their intent to file for bankruptcy.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3305 on: January 31, 2019, 01:51:09 AM »
PG&E's financial problems are primarily based on a court ruling that they are responsible for all the damage of a wildfire started by their powerlines even if the equipment was properly maintained. They will have to bury all of their powerlines to prevent this problem. That is a ridiculous court decision and the reason they have cited for their intent to file for bankruptcy.


It may be ridiculous, but they're still $60B behind the 8 ball. Who would you put on the hook for the bill?
If I park a truck full of dynamite in front of your house, should you pay for rebuilding your house if my truck explodes? Whether or not I violated any laws?
Terry

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3306 on: January 31, 2019, 04:58:07 AM »
"PG&E's financial problems indicate that electricity is being retailed for far less than the costs of generating, transporting, apportioning and billing. In addition, at present there are no provisions presently for upkeep, improvement and maintenance of the highway/roadway systems already in place.


Without massive funding increases, many of the electric providers are unable to maintain their present infrastructure, let alone build out a system capable of handling the additional load that EV's will impose."

The utility was not negligent and used best practices in my opinion they shouldn't be held responsible for the dry conditions. But that wasn't really my main point.

My main point is that PG&E's financial problems are related to the lawsuit () not generating transporting apportioning and billing as your statement implies. Your statement also implies that other utilities are under similar financial durres and they aren't.



interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3307 on: January 31, 2019, 04:59:49 AM »
This is a quote but I didn't do it right.
"PG&E's financial problems indicate that electricity is being retailed for far less than the costs of generating, transporting, apportioning and billing. In addition, at present there are no provisions presently for upkeep, improvement and maintenance of the highway/roadway systems already in place.


Without massive funding increases, many of the electric providers are unable to maintain their present infrastructure, let alone build out a system capable of handling the additional load that EV's will impose."

My response
The utility was not negligent and used best practices in my opinion they shouldn't be held responsible for the dry conditions. But that wasn't really my main point.

My main point is that PG&E's financial problems are related to the lawsuit () not generating transporting apportioning and billing as your statement implies. Your statement also implies that other utilities are under similar financial durres and they aren't.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3308 on: January 31, 2019, 07:23:52 AM »

interstitial

Does the fact that electrical lines are typically run above ground, as opposed to the best practice of buried utilities indicate a sufficiency of funding?
Do you believe that coal generating facilities would be in operation if utilities could afford to replace them with something better?


PG&E may be the most obviously insolvent utility in the US today, but it's certainly not the only one feeling the pinch.
Terry


PS
Welcome to the forum!

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 664
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3309 on: January 31, 2019, 12:19:12 PM »
I was talking to a utility administrator once and he said it costs about three times as much for new underground local utility lines compared to overhead lines. Further overhead lines don't have to be dug up for upgrades and repairs. California electric costs are already high but you want to dramatically increase them. Maybe you are swimming in money but for the rest of us costs matter. ultimately I expect california tax payers will end up footing the bill for those wildfires.

Mostly I know about the utilities in Washington state especially my local utility. I don't really know that much about utilities in areas other than Washington and california. Unfortunately national organizations tend to assume we are similar to california when we are nothing like them. We have much greater hydro resources and good wind but far less solar. Further we built new generation as needed rather than blocking new generation for decades then racing to build it all at once (at greater expense) when people finally realized they needed power. So I guess I am a bit touchy when people assume that californias utility problems represent the larger region. A few years back, after california passed a renewables bill, there was an similar initiative to get to I think it was 20% (I am not sure of exact numbers this is from memory) renewables on then some future date. It passed but since we were already around 60%(it varies for the different local PUD's) many decided to add that percentage of new renewables. Another article in the national news complained about when california passed some solar law and condemmed Washington for not doing the same. Solar is not ideal for the area so it didn't make that much sense. We did add a number of very large wind farms though.   

Five to ten years ago the local coal plant was running 24/7. Recently they shut down the coal plant nearby because it couldn't compete with renewables. While the loss of local jobs was a blow to the area other businesses are moving in. The local natural gas co-generation is less then fifteen years old and was built to supply base load power. While they haven't shut it down yet it is almost never running any more. This was accomplished by "repowering" one dam and adding turbines to an existing dam. Hydropower is now around 83.58%(2016) up from about 60% ten years ago.
 

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3310 on: January 31, 2019, 10:33:33 PM »


I think it would help enormously if people posting PR pieces would simultaneously (first check) and then provide the proper context of what's being posted here. Full disclosure would be nice and the bare minimum requirement

Quote
In Australia, PV and wind comprise most new generation capacity. About 4.5 gigawatts of PV and wind is expected to be installed in 2018 compared with peak demand of 35GW in the National Electricity Market. At this rate, Australia would reach 70% renewable electricity by 2030.

Based on an reneweconomy.com.au article written in January 2018 and not in 2019~!

There is no evidence whatsoever here that 4.5GW Capacity of PV/wind was installed in 2018 in Australia. It's a "projection" by a PR website.


Note that the article I linked to was posted on website called "Cosmos" and included quotes from researchers at the Australia National University. 

The Australian Government officially accredited 3.4 Gigawatts of new solar and PV large scale projects completed during 2018 in data as of December 31, 2018 on their website:

http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target/Large-scale-Renewable-Energy-Target-market-data

Note that this does not include expansions at existing sites (they only list one 25 MW solar installation at an existing wind farm) or small-scale (presumably residential and commercial rooftop) installations.  They note that another 4,989 MW of new solar, wind (and one biomass) project are committed and another 1,629 MW of Solar and Wind are in the probable category, meaning that there are financial commitments and permits for those installations.






Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3311 on: January 31, 2019, 11:03:44 PM »
Quote
the much more ambitious Labor Party Opposition (more left and progressive than US Dems but still not Green enough for The Greens) who are likely to win Govt soon this year only have a Renewable Energy Target for Electricity Use of 50% by 2030.

Government targets were needed when renewables cost more than fossil fuels and nuclear.  Now that renewables cost less, the targets will be quickly exceeded (see below).  (Targets and/or government requirements are probably still needed for other reasons, such as transportation emissions, at least until EVs are less expensive than ICE vehicles).

Here's some information from the Energy Change Institute at the Australian National University:

http://energy.anu.edu.au/files/Australia%27s%20renewable%20energy%20industry%20is%20delivering%20rapid%20and%20deep%20emissions%20cuts.pdf

Quote
During 2018 and 2019 Australia is likely to install about 10,400 Megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy, comprising 7,200 MW of large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and windfarms together with 3,200 MW of small-scale rooftop PV systems. Combined, this represents 30% of Australia’s peak electricity demand.

(As I noted previously, in 2018 the Australian Government accredited 3,376 MW of new large-scale renewable energy installations and listed another 4,989 MW as "committed", meaning permitted and with financing.  So the 7,200 MW in large-scale projects is a bit of an underestimate).

Quote
If industry is able to continue to deploy wind and PV at the current rate into 2020
and beyond then Australia will:
• comfortably exceed the 2020 large scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) of 33,000 GWh
• be capable of supplying up to 29% renewable electricity in 2020, 50% in 2025 and 100% in the early
2030s
• achieve 26% emissions reductions in the electricity sector by 2020/21
• meet its entire 26% Paris emission reduction target for the whole economy in 2024/25

Again, this assumes the current rate of installations.

Quote
The current deployment rate could well continue. Prices of wind and PV are falling rapidly, potentially opening new markets and placing downwards pressure on electricity prices. Opportunities are broadening beyond the wholesale market as companies recognise the economic and environmental credential benefits of renewable energy. Developments in PV and wind both globally and within Australia are happening far faster than public discourse suggests. It is therefore highly desirable that national energy planning has a real-world view of the facts on the ground in order to prepare for this rapid change.



Quote
Prices of wind and PV continue to fall rapidly, and the scale of deployment continues to rise rapidly. PV and wind now comprise 60% of annual global net new capacity additions (Figure 1), and nearly 100% in Australia.  As prices decline an ever-increasing portfolio of market opportunities present themselves, and annual deployment is expected to continue to increase.

The silicon solar cell (which constitutes 95% of the world solar market) is disrupting the global energy industry just as the silicon chip previously disrupted the electronics industry.

Quote
PV and wind electricity prices in Australia are currently $50-65/MWh [22] and falling. The best available global prices for PV for large systems in similarly sunny countries are in the A$30-50/MWh range [23,24], which is likely to be matched within Australia during the next few years. Continuously falling costs of PV and wind will continue to place downwards pressure on electricity prices.

For comparison, the average wholesale price of electricity in NSW in 2018 is $82/MWh [25,26]. Thus, increased amounts of renewable electricity will put downwards pressure on prices.

Quote
The expected cost of electricity from a new coal fired power station is about $70/MWh [27] which is higher than the cost of PV and wind. Soon, PV and wind will be competitive in Australia with the marginal cost of operating an existing black coal fired power station (fuel and maintenance). There is an increasing corporate appetite to buy renewable energy directly [13,14], a trend that could lead to premature closure of existing coal power stations. PV and wind may soon match the wholesale price of gas in Australia ($9/GJ) [28] which
means that PV electricity could directly compete for provision of industrial heat.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3312 on: January 31, 2019, 11:19:09 PM »
One of the more interesting developments in renewable energy is the use of corporate power purchase agreements (PPAs) between companies with large electricity demand and solar or wind power plants.  These are being increasingly used in Australia, as explained in this article from PV Magazine, dated August 15, 2018:

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/08/15/1-gw-renewable-energy-program-launched-in-south-australia/

Quote
Last year, Australian zinc metals producer, Sun Metals heralded the industrial sector’s shift to renewable energy with a landmark 125 MW solar project at its zinc refinery in Northern Queensland. The project, which at the time marked the biggest intervention in Australia by a major energy user to source some of its electricity needs from renewable energy, opened earlier this week.

This was followed by a few major power purchase deals in the heavy industry and manufacturing, such as Australia’s largest solar PPA – Bluescope Steel deal with ESCO Pacific to cover 20% of its electricity requirements over seven years from NSW’s Finley Solar Project, and Australian brewer Cartlon United Breweries’ a 12-year PPA with BayWa to purchase 74,000 MWh a year from the 112 MW Karadoc solar farm in Mildura.

But, SIMEC Zen’s solar ambitions top them all. So far, the company has inked a 15-year PPA with Victoria’s 100 MW Numurkah Solar Farm to support firm retail supply contracts to commercial and industrial customers in Victoria, including the Melbourne-based Laverton steelworks. It has also started developing its own large-scale solar projects.

The 250 MW Cultana Solar Farm boasts an 600 GWh of energy generation per year – enough to power almost 100,000 average homes – drawn from 780,000 solar panels.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3313 on: January 31, 2019, 11:23:43 PM »
Here's another article from PV magazine, dated November 15, 2018, about a proposed project in New South Wales.  This is speculative, but indicates what is now currently possible given the drop in prices for renewables.

https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2018/11/15/nsw-in-line-for-4-gw-solar-wind-and-battery-hybrid-project/

Quote
New South Wales could become home to a 4 GW solar, wind and storage facility, which would be the largest single renewable energy project developed in the National Electricity Market.

The Walcha Energy Project, located approximately 55 km south of Armidale on the New England Tableland, is said to be ideally positioned with excellent wind resources and land well suited for large scale solar. The site has also been recognized for its renewable energy potential and included in AEMO’s Integrated System Plan as the New England Renewable Energy Zone (REZ).

It is also located close to the backbone of the NSW transmission system and the coal-fired power plants in the Hunter Valley which are scheduled to be retired from 2022 onwards, Estate Energy said in a statement.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3314 on: January 31, 2019, 11:32:28 PM »
4 GW is big news, but 11 GW is even bigger:

https://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/macquarie-joins-22b-wa-solarwind-hub-project-20181008-h16ca8

Quote
An ambitious $22 billion renewable energy hub proposed in Western Australia's Pilbara region has been given a major boost with the news that Macquarie Group has joined the project as an investor, attracted by the potential to use the region's abundant solar resources for the production of "green" hydrogen.

Macquarie will provide development capital to the Asian Renewable Energy Hub, joining existing partners InterContinental Energy, Vestas and wind farm developer CWP Energy Asia.

Since the launch of the huge hybrid wind and solar project last year, its scale has been increased from an original 6 gigawatts of generation capacity first to 9 GW and now to more than 11 GW as the size of the market available to it - both in terms of electricity and hydrogen - has become more clear.

The original focus of the project when it was unveiled last year was on exported electricity through underwater high-voltage transmission cables to Indonesia has switched to one primarily focused on supply to mines, mineral processors and other industrial energy users in the Pilbara, including expected hydrogen producers.

After discussions with miners and other industries in the Pilbara, and parties in Japan and South Korea interested in the opportunity for hyrdogen production in the region, more than half the upscaled output has now been earmarked for local buyers.


Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1880
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3315 on: February 01, 2019, 12:02:16 AM »
Interstitial , I agree with much of what you are saying re. the costs that a litigious society has imposed on a " public utility " .  I also agree that those costs will be imposed on all electric consumers in the region serviced by PG&E regardless of the comparative risk those users live in. If you choose to live in a forest enviornment and resist trimming trees by your utility company or fail to create a defendable space around your house how is it city residents who don't take those risks should share your liabilities?  if a public utility files bankruptcy and fails to emerge due to liabilities they can't afford I would assume the costs for rate payers would be even greater for whoever decides to assume the service area. I also believe it is relatively affluent customers in high risk urban areas that are shunting their high risk lifestyle costs onto poorer customers .
 Washington is lucky to have vast hydropower resources but I believe many of those dams were funded by federal monies so to some degree Washington also has shunted it's electrical costs onto poorer members of society. It also has resulted in salmon population declines but Calif. is no better in those regards because what hydro and canals we have were also federally funded and also resulted in salmon declines.
Ultimately global warming will exacerbate water shortages and fire issues that threaten current electric costs and dependability. Those issues will probably happen in Calif. before they happen in Washington. I don't think the current law holding utilities responsible regardless of negligence is a good way to address our problems. I don't have much faith that Calif. will figure this out before our electric rates become unbearable and I read that PG&E estimates it's rates would need to quadruple to meet the demands of current liability laws and those proposed by the judge in control of the fire fiasco. That would translate into something like 80 cents a kWh .
 I am working on getting off the grid but that honestly isn't financially feasible for most people and just like the federally funded dams I am using subsidies both federal and state to achieve my goals . Not exactly walking the walk but the system favors a certain portion of the populous and when TSHTF there won't be much protection in having a nice private solar/battery  off grid house. When and if that happens I have other options in walking back modern conveniences. I am however paying costs to try to achieve a carbon free lifestyle and ultimately if the rest of society can't afford the same California figuratively ,will finally fall into the ocean.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 12:10:13 AM by Bruce Steele »

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3316 on: February 01, 2019, 08:45:54 PM »

Quote

The Australian Government officially accredited 3.4 Gigawatts of new solar and PV large scale projects completed during 2018 in data as of December 31, 2018 on their website:

http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target/Large-scale-Renewable-Energy-Target-market-data

Where?

Here on this other page? http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target/Large-scale-Renewable-Energy-Target-market-data/large-scale-renewable-energy-target-supply-data

That is not renewable energy capacity already built. They are talking about "investment" decisions and approvals iow forward looking projections not what was built and grid connected in 2018.

The website says : "Every month the Clean Energy Regulator publishes Large-scale Renewable Energy Target supply data files to track investment in renewable energy.

Quote
Note that this does not include expansions at existing sites (they only list one 25 MW solar installation at an existing wind farm) or small-scale (presumably residential and commercial rooftop) installations.  They note that another 4,989 MW of new solar, wind (and one biomass) project are committed and another 1,629 MW of Solar and Wind are in the probable category, meaning that there are financial commitments and permits for those installations.

None of that is already built working capacity by the look of it. iow There was not 4.3GW of new renewable capacity Built or Supplying electricity in 2018. Which is what I was suggesting before was the 'real world' case. I think I got that right.
[/quote]

Lurk,

The 3.3 GW of accredited projects are installed and operating.  You can search for the larger ones online and find out more information about them.  For example:

The Daydream Solar farm in Queensland was accredited for 180 MW on September 20, 2018.  It began commercial operations in August.

http://edifyenergy.com/projects/daydream-solar-farm/

The Silverton Wind Farm (200 MW total capacity) was accredited on December 5, 2018.  Construction began in 2017 and the first two turbines began providing power to the grid in May 2018.  It was completed in mid-2018.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-turbines-from-silverton-wind-farm-switched-on-24796/

The Coleambally Solar Farm, 188 MW, was accredited on June 9, 2018.  Construction began in January 2018 and it began commercial operations in October 2018.

https://www.power-technology.com/projects/coleambally-solar-farm-new-south-wales/

So many renewable projects are underway that it's easy to lose track of them.  As mentioned before, last year, more than 60% of new electricity generation installed globally was renewable.  With the cost advantages that solar and wind have, that is only going to increase in the future.




Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3317 on: February 01, 2019, 08:54:24 PM »
And I want to thank you for challenging me to provide data on the Australian energy market.  I had no idea there was so much good news coming out of Australia because it's usually overshadowed by depressing stuff about how the coal industry is exporting to China.

One thing I discovered in my research is that Australia, like California here in the USA, has decoupled GDP growth from energy consumption.  In looking up statistics on power generation in Australia's National Energy Market (NEM), I found out that electricity demand has decreased over the past few years.  In part, this is due to residential solar systems, which are counted as reducing demand, not as part of the supply.

There are millions of rooftop solar installations in Australia.  This article is over a year old (January 2018):

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/australia-solar-electricity-statistics-mb0396/

Quote
Close to 1.8 million solar power systems are now installed in Australia – how much electricity have PV installations been generating?

While December figures aren’t available yet, the following are November 2017 estimates of distributed solar electricity generation from the Australian Photovoltaic Institute (APVI).
◾New South Wales (+ ACT): 190,806 MWh
◾Victoria:  140,389 MWh
◾Queensland: 231,648 MWh
◾South Australia: 93,584 MWh
◾Western Australia : 110,614 MWh
◾Tasmania : 15,503 MWh
◾Northern Territory : 7,143 MWh
◾TOTAL :  789,687 MWh


Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3318 on: February 01, 2019, 09:07:04 PM »
This is from a website that appears to provide information for the solar power industry in Australia:



Here's a link to the page:

http://www.sunwiz.com.au/index.php/2012-06-26-00-47-40/73-newsletter/441-2018-australian-solar’s-record-smashing-year-in-eye-watering-charts.html

Some quotes from that page:

Quote
This meant that every month in 2018 was higher than all but the top 5 months - two of which occurred at the end of 2017… and nine of the the top months recorded to date occurred in 2018. Starting to understand why saying “2018 was a record year” is an understatement?

Quote
As a result of all that volume the Australian PV industry hit some pretty significant milestones in 2018. These include:
•2 millionth PV system installed
•A cumulative 8 GW of sub-100kW capacity
•A cumulative 10GW of PV installed overall, when including solar farms
•A cumulative >2 GW of STC systems installed in QLD
•A cumulative >1 GW of STC systems installed in each of NSW, VIC, and WA
•68,000 commercial systems installed

Looking at the national tally in the sub-100kW market, 1.58GW was registered in 2018. This was 47% growth on 2017’s volume. If instead of the date a system registered for STCs we consider the date of actual installation, SunWiz calculates that the tally was 1.64GW. And that’s just for the STC market. By the end of this series of articles, you’ll find that the national tally including LGC systems was as high as 3.89GW.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3319 on: February 01, 2019, 09:07:27 PM »
Australia’s carbon emissions highest on record, data shows

One thing I discovered in my research is that Australia, like California here in the USA, has decoupled GDP growth from energy consumption.  In looking up statistics on power generation in Australia's National Energy Market (NEM), I found out that electricity demand has decreased over the past few years.  In part, this is due to residential solar systems, which are counted as reducing demand, not as part of the supply.

Electricity is only a small part of energy consumption, the other parts are more than offsetting any reduction in electricity emissions.The overall numbers are also understated by the the way in which land use emissions are calculated, and the lack of proper accounting for fugitive methane emissions. Increased natural gas production (for export) is increasing such fugitive emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/dec/13/australias-carbon-emissions-highest-on-record-data-shows

https://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/10647196/data/a-graph-showing-australias-emissions-broken-down-by-sector-data.jpg

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/terrible-rising-gas-output-lifts-australia-s-greenhouse-gas-emissions-20180928-p506q9.html

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3320 on: February 01, 2019, 09:17:08 PM »
The projections in that graph to 2030 seem pretty unrealistic given that electricity generation is increasingly coming from renewables and transportation will be increasingly electrified.  Also, fugitive emissions will decrease as unprofitable coal and gas operations shut down.

As noted in my posts above, industry is increasingly relying on PPAs with renewable power plants for their electricity, so that sector will also see big reductions.  They're going to source their power from the least expensive generators, and that's now solar and wind.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3321 on: February 01, 2019, 10:05:50 PM »
Looking at industry projections, Australian natural gas exports are set to continue to increase over time. There is a lot of new LNG infrastructure being put in place and that usually has an economic lifespan of 40+ years. It also looks like coal bed methane is an increasing percentage of NG production, which will increase fugitive emissions. Also, Western Australia is going to allow large scale fracking. Even if we accept that an increasing share of electricity generation will be from renewables, the increases from other sectors may very well offset the reduction in emissions. As the rate of increases slows, as the share of generation increases (needs for new infrastructure etc.), that problem will get worse.

We see the same in Canada with the Tar Sands, with the process of going from tar in the ground to actual oil producing a large amount of emissions. Same with increases in fracking and LNG, but as with Australia, the government is misrepresenting the fugitive emissions levels.

Another variable for Australia is the possible increase in air conditioning demand as temperatures rise, thats also a global problem of course.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/western-australia-is-being-opened-to-fracking-on-misleading-and-ill-founded-grounds

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-12/rising-demand-for-air-conditioning-alarms-climate-change-experts/10710956

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9677
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3815
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3322 on: February 02, 2019, 09:05:29 AM »
And, as the sun sets on the Aussie Liberal / National Party right-wing government of flat-earth mysoginists, its last gasp effort is to try and force a commitment to a load of new coal-fired electricity generation plants on an unwilling industry. It will be a close run thing.

"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)

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3323 on: February 02, 2019, 11:03:39 PM »
Australia is in the same group as the USA, Middle Eastern fossil fuel exporters, Venezuela, Nigeria etc. There is a deep fossil fuel state that will block any attempt to reduce the value of its assets, or the assets are the main revenue generators for the state. The same in Canada and Norway, they are just better at hypocrisy (especially the Norwegians paying for their EVs with their oil and gas money).

Two great books on the power of fossil fuel interests in Australia:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Coal-Australias-Dirtiest-Habit/dp/1742233031/ref=sr_1_sc_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549144835&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=asutralia+coal

https://www.amazon.com/Scorcher-Dirty-Politics-Climate-Change-ebook/dp/B00DU6DM0G/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549144958&sr=1-3&keywords=scorcher

The best hope for renewable energy may be China, as they have a huge and increasing fossil fuel trade deficit and an increasing threat of US control/interdiction of the sources of those imports. Serves them to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible. Maybe thats why they are pushing EVs so hard - reduce reliance on all that imported oil. They are also trying to frack gas with nuclear detonators in extremely arid regions, so not all that good.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2183466/chinas-plan-use-nuclear-bomb-detonator-release-shale-gas

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6445
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2393
  • Likes Given: 2051
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3324 on: February 03, 2019, 12:37:17 AM »
The Chinese state is much better in long term planning than its Western counterparts such as the US. Achieving energy independence will be a great strategic asset for them, and cleaning up pollution a big plus, so EVs and renewables make a lot of sense. But I am quite sure climate change is also a big consideration for them.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3325 on: February 03, 2019, 02:56:21 PM »
China has woken up to the fact that they have a population 4 times the size of the US in a landmass which is roughly the same size.  Just to unbalance that even more, China has 103 million hectares of arable land compared to 174m in the US.

There is a very real chance that any significant change in the climate, that impacts the ability to grow food and China will see famine and death on a scale never seen before in the world.

If they didn't go CO2 neutral on the energy, they would be shortsighted in the extreme.

Also China is rapidly waking up to the fact that if they can reach the Paris Accord emissions targets, then exceed them, they can start to cut the US out of key markets for goods simply on the CO2 cost of manufacture.

It is a multifaceted problem with many parallel, yet interlocking, solutions.  Our strongest weapon, in the long run, to achieve CO2 reductions, will be GREED.  But only when the value of reducing CO2 emissions exceeds the profits of increasing them.  That won't come from Taxes, it will come from incentives and regulations which restrict how much CO2 can be burned to travel or produce goods.

Once enough investment has been put into renewables and CO2 neutral power, it should become self sustaining.  Although the real cost of ownership has not yet become apparent.  We know that a conventional power station needs plumbing and generators refurbished around every 15 to 20 years.  This is land accessible single site and easy to plan.

I had a quick check on offshore wind and came up with this.

Quote
The offshore marine environment is characterized by harsh conditions. Project developers of offshore wind farms have to cope with many logistical and safety issues that developers of wind energy projects on land do not, or at least not to the same extent. Operation and maintenance costs make up 25–30% of the total costs of an offshore wind farm (Miedema 2012, cf. Sect. 4.2.5). This is almost as much as the cost of the wind turbines and about as much as the costs of construction and installation. Individual offshore wind turbines currently require about five site visits per year: one regular annual maintenance visit, and three to four visits in case of malfunction (cf. Noordzeewind website). With technological progress, this can potentially be reduced to three visits per year. Nonetheless, a future offshore wind farm consisting of 200 turbines of 5 MW each will therefore need some 3000 offshore visits per year.

Note the Bold.  Now recently I had a look at the cost comparison between one of the UK's large offshore wind far projects and our current Nuclear projects.  The costs were roughly half that of Hinckley Point C for around the same Nameplate power delivery, although we have already seen a 1 week wind drought which Nuclear does not suffer from.

According to this article, citing actual stats from real offshore sites, every six to seven years, the cost of maintenance for the offshore wind farm, would come close to the cost of producing a new Nuclear installation.  After 12 to 14 years the cost of the maintenance for the wind farm would reach the cost of producing two nuclear installations to the same capacity of the wind farm.

Which is going to make the case for "cheaper" ongoing costs, verses Nuclear, extremely hard to make.  Even decommissioning is going to look cheaper than funding the cost of two new Nuclear installations, every 14 years, out of the cost of maintaining an existing offshore wind farm.

Worse is that the UK Government official lifetime figures run at 20 to 25 years for offshore wind, yet onshore wind, which lives in a less harsh environment, is showing replacement levels of 12 to 15 years.  Meaning that at the point that a wind farm is looking at having to replace virtually all of its turbines, it will have already cost the same as producing Nuclear power stations to the same power generation.

The lifetime of a Nuclear power station?  40 years initial worst case, extendable to 60 years after inspection with a potential total lifetime of 80 years in the best case.  Yes the plumbing and generating equipment would need to be renewed every 15-20 years, but that is simple on land plumbing.  We already know how to do and cost, this work.

I guess the UK determination to forge ahead with new Nuclear is understandable.  China is intending to do the same with not just two or three but dozens.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3326 on: February 04, 2019, 01:39:37 PM »
Quote
It is a multifaceted problem with many parallel, yet interlocking, solutions.  Our strongest weapon, in the long run, to achieve CO2 reductions, will be GREED. 
Sorry but I think you are totally off with the Neoliberal Pathological Faeries there. (shudder)

Sorry you have me wrong.  I'm a right wing, ex military, knuckle dragging, barbarian (well according to the Neoliberal Pathological Faeries), who thinks that Ghengis Khan was simply a misunderstood reformer.

I also run my own business and do try, through my choice of vehicles and my modes of travel, to keep my footprint down.  In my home my footprint drops, year by year, as I try to do all I can to fit my specific life into a better model.  Solar, for me, is a nice to have to reduce my costs which I can use elsewhere to mitigate my footprint.  Essentially because my power comes from the Nuclear power station 30km downriver.

When I'm away from home working I pay the cost of accommodation closer to my workplace so I can use (mainly), electric public transport, thus mitigating my need to fly when I go home.

You catch more flies with Honey than with Arsenic and what is Honey other than a lure to the greed of the prey.  You bait traps with honey but the entire goal of the trap is that once the prey has entered they have no choice but to remain.

If you are unsure at to what that looks like, go back and have a look at the initiatives that Obama kicked off.  I hate his politics but have no issue with his intelligence at all.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3327 on: February 04, 2019, 01:41:10 PM »
"High polluting gas guzzlers could be banned from our streets at the stroke of a pen too."

Yes, that;'s what I said. But but what about the people and the companies that own those vehicles they will lose that "asset" and the money those vehilces are worth today?

Um yeah. Yes that right. They will take a hit. They will lose out and they will lose money and asset values. You betcha they will. They'll have to sell them as scrap, or as used parts, or ship to another nation dirt cheap who doesn't have such heavy restrictions - like those poorer third world nations - such vehicles would help them develop, would help them increase the agricultural capacity and getting produce to market..... on the cheap!!!

Win Win - Brilliant idea don't you think?

If your pension is not based on the profit of that company, yeah, great.  If your pension is, then it is a Lose/Lose and not so very clever.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3328 on: February 05, 2019, 02:29:50 PM »
If your pension is tied to the success of the company you used to work for, if you health care is tied to the company you still work for then you're a dumb sucker and you're living in an Exploitative System that sucks! You don't have any Rights you have Owners.

Pension funds invest in a range of businesses and this has nothing to do with who you work for.  Sadly FF burning companies have very good returns so pension funds tend to invest in them.

As for needing a pension, or not, if the world craps out?  Big risk if it really does take another 70-200 years as the climate scientists are saying...
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3329 on: February 05, 2019, 10:08:25 PM »
I am also out of topic, this could be in the oil and gas issues, sorry but sometimes I feel that it is needed.

Pension funds invest in a range of businesses and this has nothing to do with who you work for.  Sadly FF burning companies have very good returns so pension funds tend to invest in them.

My sister in law is looking for a new car and she asked me if she should choose gasoline or diesel. My answer was that, if possible, she should wait and see what will happen in the next years. Unfortunately she can't because her car is too old. Anyway, I would say the same about FF burning companies, in the short run, it will be fine, but for my pension fund (I'm 48 now), I wouldn't trust it as investment. FF have a much higher energy density (just compare a 10 kW gasoline motor with its tank and a 10 kW electical motor with the needed solar pannels and batteries), so yes, in the short term it is better, but just like for the car of my sister in law, I wouldn't trust that business to be ok during the next 10 years.

I want to discuss renewable energy here because I believe that we have no other option, I believe in peak oil, not in peak demand, light tight oil and bitumen are a profitable business, but it's like the mouse that eats the cardboard when the corn flakes are finished.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3330 on: February 06, 2019, 10:59:02 AM »
Unnamed Climate scientists say that. The saddest part about that is you believe this kind of stuff Neil. Very sad.

Actually RealClimate reports the general opinion that things will finally start to crap out about the late 2070's to early 2090's but, hey, I'm just an idiot who can't read.

As for the belief?  I'm telling you what people think, why they won't act and what YOU have to do in order to help them understand that this is not a 5-10 year so what issue but the destruction of the habitat for their progeny.

I know that.  Apparently you don't or you would not keep on making this about here and now.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3331 on: February 06, 2019, 11:17:31 AM »
I want to discuss renewable energy here because I believe that we have no other option, I believe in peak oil, not in peak demand, light tight oil and bitumen are a profitable business, but it's like the mouse that eats the cardboard when the corn flakes are finished.

Etienne, if you want to talk about renewables and why there is not enough take up for renewable energy, you also have to talk about the motivations of people, the actions of the huge investment funds which continue to support the FF industry and not the emerging, renewable, clean energy market.

One of the largest impacts to the growth of Solar energy has been the reduction/removal of subsidies for solar energy which has dissuaded people from adding panels to their roof.  Add to that the growing issue of people being unable to sell their home because mortgage companies won't give a mortgage on a house which has a roof that is, in part, owned by someone else and is in "no mans" land as to what happens should it be damaged and you see a virtual halt in growth of rooftop Solar.

The FF industry supports the funds, the funds have lobbies into governments and governments choose where subsidies will go.

As we can see with the Gilets Jeaunes movement, pricing carbon out of the environment can have Massive political impacts, impacts way beyond the initial intent.  I have said, for more than a decade, that you cannot punish the people into using less carbon.  Especially when you do not provide an alternative route for them not to be punished, at an equivalent cost to the original FF route without the punitive taxes.

The GJ movement is exactly the result I expected from this attempt to "price carbon".

If you can't price carbon, then you must build a viable alternate infrastructure which will allow people to chose a non carbon lifestyle.

This is where renewable energy comes in and it is what governments must invest in.

If you look at it from this perspective the solar roof, the powerwall and the EV, combined, are the most powerful tool any government could use in order to make this switch.

The downside is taxes and the collapse of the funds and the rich who pay some 70% of the taxes levied by governments.

The problem is one of killing the goose that lays golden eggs.  The job is to get the goose to lay platinum eggs but that seems to be a socio/political step too far for most governments.

Hence I keep on pointing out that we are not in a position to move, rapidly enough, to renewable energy and that even when we do, some form of baseload power, probably Nuclear, will have to be used.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3332 on: February 06, 2019, 03:15:29 PM »
Egypt Is Building One of the Largest Solar Parks in the World

Quote
The Benban Solar Park is expected to become operational this year, with 32 power stations and a generation of 1,650 megawatts, which will help the country reach its goal of having 20% of its energy be completely derived from renewables.
Link >> https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/egypt-building-one-largest-solar-parks-world

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3333 on: February 06, 2019, 07:30:28 PM »
This peer reviewed study from two researchers in Australia shows that most of the arguements saying we can't go to 100%   renewable sources for our energy are based on myths:

http://pubclimate.ch.mm.st/TheFeasibilityOf100pcRenewableElectricitySystems--AResponseToCritics--Diesendorf--Elliston2018.pdf

Quote
The rapid growth of renewable energy (RE) is disrupting and transforming the global energy system, especially
the electricity industry. As a result, supporters of the politically powerful incumbent industries and others are
critiquing the feasibility of large-scale electricity generating systems based predominantly on RE. Part of this
opposition is manifest in the publication of incorrect myths about renewable electricity (RElec) in scholarly
journals, popular articles, media, websites, blogs and statements by politicians. The aim of the present article is
to use current scientific and engineering theory and practice to refute the principal myths. It does this by
showing that large-scale electricity systems that are 100% renewable (100RElec), including those whose renewable sources are predominantly variable (e.g. wind and solar PV), can be readily designed to meet the key
requirements of reliability, security and affordability. It also argues that transition to 100RElec could occur much
more rapidly than suggested by historical energy transitions. It finds that the main critiques published in
scholarly articles and books contain factual errors, questionable assumptions, important omissions, internal
inconsistencies, exaggerations of limitations and irrelevant arguments. Some widely publicised critiques select
criteria that are inappropriate and/or irrelevant to the assessment of energy technologies, ignore studies whose
results contradict arguments in the critiques, and fail to assess the sum total of knowledge provided collectively
by the published studies on 100RElec, but instead demand that each individual study address all the critiques’
inappropriate criteria. We find that the principal barriers to 100RElec are neither technological nor economic,
but instead are primarily political, institutional and cultural.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3334 on: February 06, 2019, 08:30:11 PM »
The FF industry supports the funds, the funds have lobbies into governments and governments choose where subsidies will go.

[...]

The GJ movement is exactly the result I expected from this attempt to "price carbon".

Well, I already recommended this book earlier in this topic :
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

You really should read it. FF are not here because lobbies, there are real reasons why we use FF. Lobbies are more active regarding regulations of FF.

FF have been first used because there was no way to have enough forests and wagons to produce and transport all the wood needed for cities like London and Amsterdam, it is first of all a land saving (it released land to produce grains instead of wood) and labor saving issue (you don't have to carry as many pounds per kWh with coal than with wood, coal was easier to mine than wood to cut). The fossil fuel story is always about land saving (fertilizers, heating source) and a labor saving (more efficient to produce steel with coal than with wood, more efficient to move a wagon with an ICE than with a horse, easier to regulate an electrical network with gas generators than with PV...), and speed (you don't have to wait until coal sprouts and grows, higher energy density allows bigger engines).
Now that we should go back to renewable energy sources, we have again the issue that land and money is limited (renewables don't have as much ROI), you can't put hydro, wind, solar on more sqr miles than your country has, and you still have to produce food, build houses... A renewable transition is difficult to achieve, efficiency is a key issue regarding production and consumption. We are more people on earth and we have a much higher per capita energy use than in 1800.

GJ is not a carbon pricing protest, but is there because of social inequality. The motto of France is "Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood", doesn't match too well with what's happening these days.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 08:48:55 PM by etienne »

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3335 on: February 06, 2019, 11:46:15 PM »
Off-grid solar is growing in Africa:

https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/africa-embraces-an-8-billion-solar-market-for-going-off-grid/92303

Quote
Nairobi-based M-KOPA started the revolution. Launched commercially in 2012, M-KOPA allows low-income families access to solar energy for as little as $1 per month. This is cheaper and more environmental than the alternatives, kerosene or diesel fuel, and offers a metered payment system tracked through their phone SIM cards. The first firm in the world to develop that innovation, M-KOPA now has 600,000 customers across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and is bringing solar power to 500 new homes every day. It has received $162 million in investments since 2014. But the firm is no longer alone.

Uganda-based Fenix, which launched in Africa soon after M-KOPA, has now reached more than 1 million homes. While Uganda remains its biggest market, it is now expanding to other nations. In 2018, Fenix — which has raised $16 million in investments — entered Zambia, and within nine months had converted 30,000 families to solar energy users. Tanzania-based ZOLA Energy — better known by its earlier name, Off Grid Electric — is now expanding into West Africa, starting with Ivory Coast. It has already reached 50,000 homes in Tanzania.

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3336 on: February 06, 2019, 11:56:31 PM »
The Florida Public Services Commission ruled that solar leases don't constitute the sale of electricity:

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/05/florida-public-service-commission-opens-the-floodgates-for-solar-leases/

Quote
The approval gives Tesla and other solar providers in the state the green light to move forward with solar leasing in the state. Solar is the easiest to get onto rooftops when it does not come at an incremental cost to homeowners and instead, replaces the existing electricity bill with a solar leasing bill that is typically lower than what customers were paying for electricity.

The ruling clarified that the Florida Public Service Commission views Tesla’s solar leases as leasing of equipment and not the sale of electricity, which allows Tesla to continue leasing solar equipment in the state. Click Orlando quoted Florida PSC Chairman Art Graham as saying, “while today’s declaration is limited to the facts in Tesla’s petition, companies operating under the same facts can rely upon this declaration as well.”

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 18337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 832
  • Likes Given: 320
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3337 on: February 07, 2019, 01:26:04 AM »
Off-grid solar is growing in Africa:

https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/africa-embraces-an-8-billion-solar-market-for-going-off-grid/92303

Quote
Nairobi-based M-KOPA started the revolution. Launched commercially in 2012, M-KOPA allows low-income families access to solar energy for as little as $1 per month. This is cheaper and more environmental than the alternatives, kerosene or diesel fuel, and offers a metered payment system tracked through their phone SIM cards. The first firm in the world to develop that innovation, M-KOPA now has 600,000 customers across Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, and is bringing solar power to 500 new homes every day. It has received $162 million in investments since 2014. But the firm is no longer alone.
...

I posted on this a couple years ago — I’m so glad it continues to prove successful.  Stunning how fast mobile phone banking took off in Africa.  And such an improvement over fires and kerosene lamps.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3338 on: February 07, 2019, 11:32:15 AM »
There's a thread for political discussions about the Yellow Vest protests https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2510.0.html which do not belong here.

That being said the issue has nothing to do with a "price on carbon" and everything do do with the Macron Govt paying back his campaign supporters by cutting "wealth taxes" and then trying to pay for it by applying higher Petrol Excise on those least able to afford it - everyone else.

It's a Equity issue not a climate change action one. And it's got nothing to do with renewable energy either.

Please, I live in France, the GJ movement was triggered by the plan to radically rise the price of Diesel fuel, presented as a requirement to allow France to meet its commitments to the Paris accord. This was insult on top of injury from the mandating of a speed reduction from 90km/h to 80km/h on all roads lower than 3 vois, which had left the people simmering with rage when it was billed as another "paris accord" move to allow France to become compliant.

During the protests every speed camera within a 50km radius, of where I live, was destroyed by the GJ.  I live 500km from Paris too.

It's all very well saying that there is a "political" thread on the board.  But  constantly see, written here, that we must have a price on carbon before we can have truly pervasive renewables.

I have constantly maintained that a price on carbon is a political move, not a climate move and that it will never be supported by the voters.  So that we must find a better way of making renewables (and clean energy in general), more viable than carbon fuels.

When I point out that those political consequences have been seen, in full, in France, where support for renewables have just been slashed to the bone I'm told to go and discuss it in the politics forum.

For those who are not aware, France slashed the subsidies on Solar to 0%, making it impossible for anyone to recover the install cost of their roof top Solar. All models were based on the subsidies and because all installations were tied to EDF (the 85% government owned power utility), that meant there was no flexible market to pay more for the power.

This is not just happening in France.  The UK slashed rooftop solar subsidies.  Scotland, who are way over their Paris Accord commitments already, are slashing funding for renewable heating (they were heavily supporting renewable pellet burning CH), personal renewable energy and many other kinds of renewable energy.

All of these "incentives" are being transitioned to "taxes" on the consumer to force people off FF.

The outcome has been a disaster for the SNP, in Scotland and the Tories in the UK overall.  Not just Macron.

If you want to see renewable energy take its rightful place in the mix, then you are going to have to accept some direct realities of the political situation.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7758
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1134
  • Likes Given: 526
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3339 on: February 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM »
The reality, just like Lurk is saying, is that all these cuts are made to benefit concentrated wealth, under the guise of climate accords or whatever. A carbon tax would work perfectly well, if you would transparently distribute all of the tax revenues to the population on a per capita basis.

If you use that tax money to either benefit concentrated wealth or bureaucracy, yes, people will get mad. And rightly so. But the system demands it. If you don't (want to) change the system, don't expect AGW to be solved any time soon.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3340 on: February 07, 2019, 06:21:41 PM »
Neven, I'd Love to change the system.  The problem is the 95% who don't.

I'd love to be renewable in electricity but it won't make a bit of difference, my power is already clean.  I'm already renewable in my heating.

I can't go renewable in my vehicles because I don't have that choice yet.

I need more choice in my ability to go FF free, but all I see are choices being taken away and a half hearted push to EV.

I need to get out more, thinking about it can be really depressing.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3341 on: February 07, 2019, 06:36:25 PM »
This is an off topic link, but this headline i saw today makes a point for me. It shows how people tend to act when the problem shows up on their porch.

Vaccinations jump 500% in antivax hotspot amid measles outbreak
Link >> https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/vaccinations-jump-500-in-antivax-hotspot-amid-measles-outbreak/

I don't know if it's a positive message that people only act when they can't look away anymore, but when it comes to climate change, things are showing up in front of peoples faces now. It's getting harder to look away.

I really hope today people look this way >> https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline


zizek

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3342 on: February 07, 2019, 06:56:06 PM »
Neven, I'd Love to change the system.  The problem is the 95% who don't.

I'd love to be renewable in electricity but it won't make a bit of difference, my power is already clean.  I'm already renewable in my heating.

I can't go renewable in my vehicles because I don't have that choice yet.

I need more choice in my ability to go FF free, but all I see are choices being taken away and a half hearted push to EV.

I need to get out more, thinking about it can be really depressing.

What 95% are you talking about? more than half the world lives in poverty and have minuscule carbon footprints. Not only that, I don't think they have much say when it comes to the excessive lifestyle of wealthy people.

Don't you own multiple properties? And vehicles? But yeah, I'm sure your renewable heating goes so far.

You should be depressed Neil. Because you are the problem. You have every option to downsize your life and call for the sort of necessary action required to combat change, but instead... You come here posting about how any progress that doesn't foster your lifestyle isn't possible..... You are the status quo. You try to find half-measures of reducing your personal footprint to ease your conscious. But nothing you do has any stakes. It's pathetic. You call me an idealist because I call for radical action. Myself and others are busting our assess in our communities -- sacrificing our time, professional prospects, and comfort in the hope we can transform our society into something that has any chance of combating climate change. And you do nothing. You are worse than useless. You are the problem.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3343 on: February 07, 2019, 10:42:56 PM »
I'm sorry to continue out of topic, but we have a civilisation problem, not a personnal problem. Please remember it. A renewable energy transition is a civilisation change, and like in every change, some anticipate more than others. In the peak oil debate, somebody wrote something like "don't wait for the peak oil colapse, downsize now". It's a hard way, and I agree that it is depressing somedays, but there are also great success to be proud of.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3344 on: February 07, 2019, 11:39:54 PM »
Don't you own multiple properties? And vehicles? But yeah, I'm sure your renewable heating goes so far.

Yes, they are my pension. But, please, do tell me more about my incredibly wealthy and extravagant lifestyle that is blocking the move to renewables....

True, 4bn people live in poverty. But it is not the 4bn we need to motivate, it is the 3.5bn who are creating all the emissions.  Most of them don't want change, they just want someone else to step in and "fix it". After all that is what they pay them to do.

Anyway, sorry for driving this off topic.  I think that the political dimension is part and parcel of renewables but it does detract from the whole view of current technologies and their uptake.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 107
  • Likes Given: 98
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3345 on: February 08, 2019, 05:00:27 AM »
The reality, just like Lurk is saying, is that all these cuts are made to benefit concentrated wealth, under the guise of climate accords or whatever. A carbon tax would work perfectly well, if you would transparently distribute all of the tax revenues to the population on a per capita basis.

If you use that tax money to either benefit concentrated wealth or bureaucracy, yes, people will get mad. And rightly so. But the system demands it. If you don't (want to) change the system, don't expect AGW to be solved any time soon.
Agreed Neven, and that is how the Canadian carbon tax has been designed. Where I live, the average person will receive a bigger quarterly rebate cheque than they pay in carbon tax. We are soaking  tourists and government operations do not receive a rebate. The general population seems fairly happy with the system. There are of course plenty of people that hate the current government and therefore oppose anything it implements. I am cautiously optimistic that a well designed and implemented carbon tax will be both socially acceptable and, as part of a suite of other actions, effective. Personally, I have criticized the tax for its overly generous exemptions of certain sectors such as aviation, fishing and mining (I am a fisherman).

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3346 on: February 08, 2019, 11:36:01 AM »
You're arguing about arguing. I don't care where you live you were and still are wrong. I don;t care what you think about carbon taxes being "political" and not climate related. I don't care about your expanding your off-topic rave into the UK and scotland either.

You clearly don't care about whether renewables will succeed or not.  You are not a realist.

I said something.  You said I was wrong.  I pointed out why you were wrong and you come back with this.

There is a place for blind, dogged, intransigent, determination.  The climate and renewable energy forum is not it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Ken Feldman

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1464
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3347 on: February 08, 2019, 09:02:22 PM »
Solar in Germany continues to increase despite losing subsidies:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/germany-s-biggest-solar-park-will-be-built-without-subsidies

Quote
Germany’s fourth-biggest utility will build the 175-megawatt Weesow-Willmersdorf plant over 164 hectares (405 acres) in Brandenburg outside of Berlin, EnBW said on Wednesday. Its power will feed wholesale markets with enough electricity for about 50,000 homes.

Quote
Solar power is staging a renaissance in growth in Germany after slumping earlier this decade when subsidies were cut. Plummeting solar equipment prices driven by China, along with lower battery storage costs, are fanning expansion of both utility-scale and retail installations.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1087
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3348 on: February 08, 2019, 10:56:37 PM »
Well, there is a reason for more PV in Germany.

Here are comparative electricity costs in 2012. Germany is in blue.


It is a French advertisement, so there is no value provided for the countries that are cheaper than France.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2069
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3349 on: February 09, 2019, 09:37:45 AM »
Etienne,

Perhaps you didn't quite understand the advert.  What France is saying is that their electricity is the cheapest of the countries listed.  When you look at the installed PV figures and add the installed Wind figures, this tells a very different story.

There has been Huge criticism in Germany that Solar and Wind projects are being funded by the rest of the electricity consumers.  This chart is a very clear view that this is correct.  Also look at  Denmark.  Massively invested in Wind yet the cost of electricity is more than twice that in France.  In fact the highest in the list.  Tending to show that, for the return, offshore wind is the most expensive power you can generate.

The poster child of "renewable" energy is that it is cheap, in fact so cheap that our costs will plummet.

It is a skewing of the facts, to be true, because what we are seeing, today, is the start up and installation costs being borne by the consumers.  However there are very few people who will be super happy that their electricity costs will fall in 25-50 years so long as they pay double for the next 25 to 50 years.

The other point, not being made by this advert, but I'm pretty sure is being pushed, is that France is already 75% CO2 neutral at the point of production of their electricity.

If there were a bigger advert for a large push to Nuclear I don't know what it is.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein