Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 744118 times)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3800 on: August 04, 2019, 11:46:09 PM »
Sorry for being a nag. Can you take the private discussion on PM. I should have done sth similar at a different thread and I apologize...

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3801 on: August 04, 2019, 11:49:15 PM »
Sorry for being a nag. Can you take the private discussion on PM. I should have done sth similar at a different thread and I apologize...
Ramen
My Bad :-[
End of discussion
Terry

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3802 on: August 05, 2019, 01:53:19 AM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

Thankyou for the reality check, I get tired of the "feel good" b.s. and shiny object celebrations while we continue on the wrong path. On a global basis renewables are not reducing fossil fuel use, let alone significantly reducing it as is needed.


Maybe so but they are starting to make a difference in many markets. Also more important in the last year or so the momentum is starting to shift towards renewables. For the longest time there were only token projects now that they are cheaper more and more substantial projects are happening. Greed is for many a stronger motivator than doing the right thing. If you have been following this topic for years your frustration is understandable. While the change is still too slow some of us still want to track the milestones along the way. 

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3803 on: August 05, 2019, 03:26:15 AM »
<snipped>
Maybe so but they are starting to make a difference in many markets. Also more important in the last year or so the momentum is starting to shift towards renewables. For the longest time there were only token projects now that they are cheaper more and more substantial projects are happening. Greed is for many a stronger motivator than doing the right thing. If you have been following this topic for years your frustration is understandable. While the change is still too slow some of us still want to track the milestones along the way.
My frustration stems in part from the fact that "in the last year or so" the Keeling curve has bent even further upward! - These are the milestones we're experiencing & the millstones around our necks that we're accumulating.


Renewables have only given the energy sector the smokescreen they apparently needed to produce more, and most of what they produce is dirty energy.


If we've $1,000 to keep the wolf from the door, are we better spending $100/wk and living on the cheap, or living swell spending $150.00/wk while winning $25.00/wk playing craps with fixed dice?


The wolf gets fed in either case, but there's always a chance he might starve to death before the 10 weeks is up.
Terry

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3804 on: August 06, 2019, 04:07:56 AM »
I agree it is frustraiting. Maybe I am niave but I believe we are close to turning the corner on this.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3805 on: August 07, 2019, 11:54:11 AM »
From BP statistical review of energy 2019:

Global electricity consumption 2008: 20433.3 TWh
Global electricity consumption 2018: 26614.8 TWh

Average growth: 618 TWh/year

Renewables excl. hydro 2017: 2166.5 TWh
Renewables excl. hydro 2018: 2480.4 TWh

Growth rate: 314 TWh/year

Hydro 2017: 4065.4
Hydro 2018: 4193.1

Growth rate: 128 TWh/year

Combined renewables growth: 442 TWH/year

Renewables covered 442/618=71.5% of average growth in global electricity consumption.

I've used the 10-year average in electricity consumption growth to reduce the noise. I'm only using the last year's growth rates for renewables because they're growing so quickly that the 10-average would massively understate the current situation.

Within a few years, it's likely that renewables will cover more than 100% of growth in demand, i.e. electricity generation from other sources will decline. Of course this doesn't deal with all of the other areas where fossil fuels are used, but it is much more than just some token effort.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3806 on: August 07, 2019, 12:35:33 PM »
What your analysis does not capture is electrification of industry ( that is how lots of heating will be done and EVs) the growth of electricity demand will accelerate due to those transitions. Growth of renewable electricity has to triple just to cover future growth let alone replace the current production... tall order

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3807 on: August 07, 2019, 01:23:38 PM »
Why is it such a tall order? Renewables have grown much faster than that over the past 10 years. In 2008, non-hydro renewables generated around 400 TWh and they grew 50-60 TWh in 2009. Now they're growing at 300+ TWh/year, so 5-6 times higher.

And where does the "triple" come from, anyway? And over what time frame? Electrification is already taking place, but a lot of the increase in demand has so far been offset by greater energy efficiency. EVs may change that somewhat, but not so much as to prevent renewables overtaking demand growth.

be cause

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 892
  • Citizenship .. a Lurker gets asylum
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 219
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3808 on: August 07, 2019, 01:33:16 PM »
A BP exec. was only saying on Bloomberg the other day that natural gas had an increasingly important part to play in the greening of energy going forward .. b.c.
2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 + 3 = 2019 ...

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3809 on: August 07, 2019, 01:37:39 PM »
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?  ;) Anyway, natural gas is better than coal, so if it replaces coal as a stop-gap measure, that may be a good thing, provided that it isn't used as an excuse to slow down the development of renewables.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3810 on: August 07, 2019, 01:38:40 PM »
Because the rate of increase won't stay steady. It can't. The various bottlenecks in production, logistics, sourcing of materials, labor and project management have not been observed because we are still talking about small numbers.


bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3811 on: August 07, 2019, 01:43:34 PM »
I fail to see the good news here.

Despite all the enthusiasm renewables are not even close to cover the growth of electricity generation, let alone replacing fossil fuels. Big part of renewables is hydro which is likely to experience diminishing returns as the most suitable locations are being exploited. Soon the nuclear fleet built in the 70's and 80's needs to be replaced.

And we must not forget that decarbonizing electricity generation is the easy part. Industrial heat, traffic incl aviation and shipping, land use etc. are lot tougher nuts to crack. And then we have all the other CO2e gasses such as methane.

No wonder the Keeling curve is getting ever steeper.
In PIOMAS we trust

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3812 on: August 07, 2019, 01:48:24 PM »
...because we are still talking about small numbers.

But we're not talking about small numbers, are we? Just one year's growth in renewables was equivalent to 1.66% of total global electricity generation. That's a very big number - only slightly less than Germany uses in a year, and over 50% more than the UK uses. Clearly growth will slow at some point, but the fact that renewables are now the cheapest option in many places will help to sustain strong growth for many years to come.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3813 on: August 07, 2019, 01:49:16 PM »
Despite all the enthusiasm renewables are not even close to cover the growth of electricity generation, let alone replacing fossil fuels.

As I pointed out, they covered over 70% of typical growth in the last year. Isn't that close?

bluice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 131
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3814 on: August 07, 2019, 02:10:19 PM »
Despite all the enthusiasm renewables are not even close to cover the growth of electricity generation, let alone replacing fossil fuels.

As I pointed out, they covered over 70% of typical growth in the last year. Isn't that close?
Not close enough if we want to have emissions peak and decline in a decade or two to avoid catastrophic CC. Remember this is the electricity generation only.
In PIOMAS we trust

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 393
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3815 on: August 07, 2019, 04:22:37 PM »
Instead of using units of electricity growth per year, you should use percentage?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2550
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3816 on: August 07, 2019, 04:46:38 PM »
Grown 5 or 6 time in last decade. Another doubling should be possible. Then growing at 140% of electricity growth. Will then clearly be causing more ff retirements than natural end of life of plant.

At that rate, it would still take a long time for ff to drop out of mix. Some further growth may well be possible, but even then we are still going to want transition to be completed quicker.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3817 on: August 07, 2019, 05:26:10 PM »
Instead of using units of electricity growth per year, you should use percentage?

Not really for analysing absolute growth in renewables vs absolute growth in overall electricity consumption, where the idea was to look at whether all demand growth can be met by renewables. But we can certainly do a % analysis as well:

Annual growth in global electricity consumption 2008-2018 = 2.7%
Annual growth in non-hydro renewables 2008-2018 ~18% and 2017-2018 = 14.5%
Annual growth in hydro 2017-2018 = 3%

Assuming overall growth remains 2.7%, non-hydro remains 14.5% and hydro remains 3%, growth in hydro + non-hydro exceeds demand growth in 2022. In around 20 years from now, non-hydro + hydro cover all of the world's electricity needs. That's obviously unlikely to happen, but it gives an idea of the changes that would occur if current growth rates continue.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3818 on: August 07, 2019, 09:40:01 PM »
Instead of using units of electricity growth per year, you should use percentage?

Not really for analysing absolute growth in renewables vs absolute growth in overall electricity consumption, where the idea was to look at whether all demand growth can be met by renewables. But we can certainly do a % analysis as well:

Annual growth in global electricity consumption 2008-2018 = 2.7%
Annual growth in non-hydro renewables 2008-2018 ~18% and 2017-2018 = 14.5%
Annual growth in hydro 2017-2018 = 3%

Assuming overall growth remains 2.7%, non-hydro remains 14.5% and hydro remains 3%, growth in hydro + non-hydro exceeds demand growth in 2022. In around 20 years from now, non-hydro + hydro cover all of the world's electricity needs. That's obviously unlikely to happen, but it gives an idea of the changes that would occur if current growth rates continue.

From the Solar Power Europe (leading solar industry group) outlook report, by 2023 they expect 180GW of net new solar capacity to be added, with solar having a utilization rate of about 25%: an extra (45GW*24*365) 394,200GWh per year, or 394TWh.

The Global Wind Energy Council (the global wind industry association) forecasts that approx. 60GW of net new wind energy will be installed in 2023. With a capacity utilization of 30%, thats (20GW*24*365) 175200 GWh per year, or 175TWh.

So the net new output of solar+wind in 2023, according to the associations representing the global manufacturers of solar and wind systems is forecast to be 394+175 = 569TWh.

In 2018 Global electricity demand was over 22,000 TWh and grew 3.5% against the previous year (a little bit above trend), thats approx. 770TWh. So it is possible, with a bit of improved capacity usage and some overshoot of actuals versus forecasts that solar+wind could just about offset the trend increase in global electricity usage in 2023. We are also overdue for a recession that would reduce incremental electricity growth.

I ignore any biofuel additions, as much of this is not anywhere near "zero-carbon", and in some cases possibly worse than burning coal, as with the US-sourced wood pellets being burned in UK power stations or bio-diesel from palm oil plantations.

The GWEC forecast sees very little growth in the yearly additions of wind energy. Although some may see this as very pessimistic, their earlier "pessimistic" forecasts have been proven to be accurate. The solar industry forecasts have tended to be overshot by the actual outcomes, although not by massive amounts (unlike the EIA/IEA forecasts).

The above only affects electricity demand, leaving the possibility that emissions may still increase (especially when fugitive methane emissions are accurately accounted for). A possible offsetting factor may be a rapid increase in EV usage, especially in China.

http://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SolarPower-Europe-Global-Market-Outlook-2019-2023.pdf

https://gwec.net/global-wind-report-2018/
- name and email address required for download

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html

« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 09:55:15 PM by rboyd »

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3819 on: August 08, 2019, 02:58:20 AM »
We want to replace electricity though, not just barely keep up with growth.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3820 on: August 08, 2019, 02:59:43 AM »
If by 2023 there still a lag of 40-50% from total needs....the 1.5oC is long gone...

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3821 on: August 08, 2019, 10:07:07 AM »
If by 2023 there still a lag of 40-50% from total needs....the 1.5oC is long gone...

Well, rboyd didn't include hydro, which could add another say 100-150 TWh. There's also likely to be some growth in nuclear. So that would leave you very close to break-even.

Obviously what happens in the future depends on lots of big and small decisions between now and then, particularly by governments/regulators, as well as technological developments, but there's no reason why renewables can't start to reduce demand for fossil fuels for electricity generation by around 2022-23. After that, they should cut into demand by increasing amounts year on year.

With greater support and a sense of urgency from governments around the world, their contribution could be massively increased. Doing more to improve energy efficiency would also make a big difference. I'm not saying we will get there, but we could do, if it were prioritised by governments and people/societies.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3822 on: August 08, 2019, 09:46:04 PM »
I could not agree more, but when I see the governments that are/will be in place (neoliberal Boris in the UK and a conservative douchebag to replace the liberal douchebag in Canada, Macron, Trump and the right-wingers masquerading as Democrats in the US etc..) I don't see any major movement on the policy support side.

A possible hope is China, which will want to reduce its dependence on energy imports across oceans and from "unfriendly" nations as fast as possible given the increasing belligerence of the USA to its rise. They may go full tilt EV's and renewables to remove their dependency. I am sure that they remember the US oil embargo on Japan that led to Pearl Harbour.

Probably a new crisis when the next IPCC report comes out in 2022 which cannot fully ignore/obfuscate the latest science, probably nothing changes until then. If we are in recession then the politicians will ignore the report, if we aren't its probably prime time for geo-engineering.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4536
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 912
  • Likes Given: 1307
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3823 on: August 08, 2019, 10:26:16 PM »
It does seem the only ones with a long term plan as well as execution are the Chinese. And for them renewables and EVs would be a very big strategic advantage, removing dangerous dependence on imports, reducing local pollution and long term damage of AGW, and hurting the economies of fossil fuel extractors, including major power rivals USA and Russia. I am certain they are aware of this.

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3824 on: August 08, 2019, 10:29:21 PM »
Oren, you just summarized a chunk of the PhD dissertation that I am working on! Unfortunately I need to pad it a little to 85,000 words.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3825 on: August 09, 2019, 12:31:50 AM »
It does seem the only ones with a long term plan as well as execution are the Chinese. And for them renewables and EVs would be a very big strategic advantage, removing dangerous dependence on imports, reducing local pollution and long term damage of AGW, and hurting the economies of fossil fuel extractors, including major power rivals USA and Russia. I am certain they are aware of this.

They are also researching hard coal to  chemicals...

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3826 on: August 09, 2019, 01:35:50 AM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.

Then emissions need to go to zero.  That'll be about 2050.

Meanwhile, direct air capture and carbon sequestration needs to be deployed, along with land use changes that sequester more carbon and build up carbon sinks.  The Democratic candidates for President in the US are talking about that now, so hopefully we'll see that deployment in the US in the 2020s.  A lot of these applications, such as biochar to replace (or at least offset some) chemical fertilizers are being used in small scales now.

So when the carbon sinks are beefed up and the carbon emissions are near zero, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will start declining.  I assume that's what you mean by the Keeling curve curving back on itself.  I think we'll see that in the 2040s.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3827 on: August 09, 2019, 06:00:52 AM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.



Ken
We don't have a few years, we used them up a few years ago.


A few generations ago we probably had a few years.
A few decades ago we might have had a few years.
A few years ago we didn't still have a few years.


Right now the few years needed are a few years behind us.
We can't run fast enough to catch what's already behind us.
Terry


Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3828 on: August 09, 2019, 08:36:12 PM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.



Ken
We don't have a few years, we used them up a few years ago.


A few generations ago we probably had a few years.
A few decades ago we might have had a few years.
A few years ago we didn't still have a few years.


Right now the few years needed are a few years behind us.
We can't run fast enough to catch what's already behind us.
Terry

Terry,

Please see the IPCC report published in 2018, available at this link:

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

They clearly point out that we still have a chance to keep the temperature rise to 1.5C (and a much better chance to keep it under 2C).

Quote
C.1. In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). For limiting global warming to below 2°C 12 CO2 emissions are projected to decline by about 25% by 2030 in most pathways (10–30% interquartile range) and reach net zero around 2070 (2065–2080 interquartile range). Non-CO2 emissions in pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C show deep reductions that are similar to those in pathways limiting warming to 2°C. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.3a) {2.1, 2.3, Table 2.4}

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1187
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3829 on: August 09, 2019, 08:54:01 PM »
The 1.5 degrees UN IPCC report is politicized soft-denial, as have all such reports been for at least 10 years. They assume gargantuan amounts of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, use a ridiculously low risk tolerance (i.e. 66% and 50% confidence intervals vs. the 95% and 99% ones used in most risk management), make too-low assumptions for Earth System sensitivity to GHGs, and ignore non-linear possibilities (e.g. a Blue Ocean Event), etc.

AbruptSLRs posts are a great source of education on the overly-conservative assumptions of the UN IPCC. It does seem that for the next report (2022) even they may have to accept some of the failings in their take on climate science. I won't hold my breath though, they have been failing since 1990 while making such optimistic prognostications.

Hard Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Not Happening
Soft Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Happening BUT We Can Spin Fairy Stories About How We Can Fix It Whilst Keeping Growing the Global Economy At 3% Per Year.

I will now go back on topic to renewable energy (before the topic police notice).

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 825
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 92
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3830 on: August 09, 2019, 10:12:51 PM »
The 1.5 degrees UN IPCC report is politicized soft-denial, as have all such reports been for at least 10 years. They assume gargantuan amounts of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, use a ridiculously low risk tolerance (i.e. 66% and 50% confidence intervals vs. the 95% and 99% ones used in most risk management), make too-low assumptions for Earth System sensitivity to GHGs, and ignore non-linear possibilities (e.g. a Blue Ocean Event), etc.

AbruptSLRs posts are a great source of education on the overly-conservative assumptions of the UN IPCC. It does seem that for the next report (2022) even they may have to accept some of the failings in their take on climate science. I won't hold my breath though, they have been failing since 1990 while making such optimistic prognostications.

Hard Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Not Happening
Soft Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Happening BUT We Can Spin Fairy Stories About How We Can Fix It Whilst Keeping Growing the Global Economy At 3% Per Year.

I will now go back on topic to renewable energy (before the topic police notice).

AbruptSLR posts a lot about studies based on the RCP8.5 emissions scenarios.  Given that renewables are now cheaper than coal, renewables plus batteries are cheaper than peaker natural gas plants and renewable powered ICEs are projected to be cheaper than gasoline powered cars by 2024, there's no way we'll burn enough fossil fuels to generate the emissions for RCP8.5.

You can deny the IPCC reports.  Keep in mind that that makes you a climate science denier though.

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3831 on: August 10, 2019, 06:54:09 AM »
The 1.5 degrees UN IPCC report is politicized soft-denial, as have all such reports been for at least 10 years. They assume gargantuan amounts of carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere, use a ridiculously low risk tolerance (i.e. 66% and 50% confidence intervals vs. the 95% and 99% ones used in most risk management), make too-low assumptions for Earth System sensitivity to GHGs, and ignore non-linear possibilities (e.g. a Blue Ocean Event), etc.

AbruptSLRs posts are a great source of education on the overly-conservative assumptions of the UN IPCC. It does seem that for the next report (2022) even they may have to accept some of the failings in their take on climate science. I won't hold my breath though, they have been failing since 1990 while making such optimistic prognostications.

Hard Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Not Happening
Soft Denial: Anthropocentric Climate Change Is Happening BUT We Can Spin Fairy Stories About How We Can Fix It Whilst Keeping Growing the Global Economy At 3% Per Year.

I will now go back on topic to renewable energy (before the topic police notice).

AbruptSLR posts a lot about studies based on the RCP8.5 emissions scenarios.  Given that renewables are now cheaper than coal, renewables plus batteries are cheaper than peaker natural gas plants and renewable powered ICEs are projected to be cheaper than gasoline powered cars by 2024, there's no way we'll burn enough fossil fuels to generate the emissions for RCP8.5.

You can deny the IPCC reports.  Keep in mind that that makes you a climate science denier though.

Ken we all hope you are correct! However while energy use is increasing faster than renewable energy generation, I'll stick with AbruptSLR.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1728
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 393
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3832 on: August 13, 2019, 02:05:12 AM »
How cheap does energy storage have to get for the Renewable Revolution?
$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs for full availability but
$150/kWh for 95% availability:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity

SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3833 on: August 13, 2019, 03:15:33 AM »
How cheap does energy storage have to get for the Renewable Revolution?
$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs for full availability but
$150/kWh for 95% availability:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity
?

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3834 on: August 13, 2019, 09:59:25 AM »
They're saying that for storage to be competitive for ensuring the 100% availability of a renewable-based grid, it would need to be far cheaper than for ensuring 95% availability. This is because you need to provide a disproportionate amount of extra storage to cover relatively rare events of low renewable energy generation. However, the good news is they ignored lots of other ways to help deal with those events, such as interconnectors, demand response, etc., so the real-world cost target would be higher (and hence more easily attainable).

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1754
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 741
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3835 on: August 13, 2019, 04:52:37 PM »
Study: All Major Chinese Cities Capable of Generating Solar Power More Cheaply Than Grid
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-08-major-chinese-cities-capable-solar.html

A team of researchers with the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Mälardalen University and Tsinghua University has found that all of China's major cities are now in a position to produce electricity from solar power more cheaply than can be had from the grid. In their paper published in the journal Nature Energy, the group describes how they estimated solar energy costs for all the major Chinese cities, and what they found when they compared them to costs associated with the grid.

The researchers started by estimating solar energy system prices and electricity production in all of the major Chinese cities. They then compared what they found with prices from the grid. Next, they estimated solar electricity prices at the grid scale, and compared them to electricity generated strictly from coal. The calculations accounted for estimates of the lifetime of solar systems. They report that they found that all 344 of the major cities they studied were currently in a position to generate electricity at lower costs than the grid supply—without subsidies. They also found that 22 percent of those cities could also produce electricity at a lesser cost than possible with coal.





City-level analysis of subsidy-free solar photovoltaic electricity price, profits and grid parity in China, Nature Energy (2019).
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

vox_mundi

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1754
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 741
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3836 on: August 13, 2019, 04:58:09 PM »
Researchers Convert Used EV Car Batteries Into Units to Power Farms
https://warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/researchers_convert_used

As part of a Circular Economy for electric vehicle battery systems, as the number of such vehicles increases rapidly, the need to find the best way to reuse and recycle vehicle batteries becomes just as intense. Now researchers at WMG, University of Warwick, have found a way not just to recycle those used batteries, but repurpose them as small energy storage systems (ESS) for off grid locations in developing countries or isolated communities. The repurposed units, each containing approximately 2kWh of energy capacity, will be able to power a small shop, a farm holding, or multiple residential homes.

... "When an electric vehicle's battery reaches the end of its useful life it is by no means massively depleted. It has simply reached the end of its useful life in a vehicle. It is generally accepted that an EV battery has reached end of life when its capacity drops to 80% of a fresh battery. While this is no longer enough to satisfy drivers, it remains immensely useful for anyone who seeks to use the battery in a static situation."
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3837 on: August 14, 2019, 08:22:45 AM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.

Then emissions need to go to zero.  That'll be about 2050.

Meanwhile, direct air capture and carbon sequestration needs to be deployed, along with land use changes that sequester more carbon and build up carbon sinks.  The Democratic candidates for President in the US are talking about that now, so hopefully we'll see that deployment in the US in the 2020s.  A lot of these applications, such as biochar to replace (or at least offset some) chemical fertilizers are being used in small scales now.

So when the carbon sinks are beefed up and the carbon emissions are near zero, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will start declining.  I assume that's what you mean by the Keeling curve curving back on itself.  I think we'll see that in the 2040s.
Jeez Ken
I envy you your vision of the future.
Terry


NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1326
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3838 on: August 15, 2019, 07:50:41 PM »
On the other hand...

Out headlong rush to renewable power is having consequences.  Those consequences are causing questions to be asked. Questions I have constantly put forward, only to be nixed every time on here.

After all I know nothing and can be dismissed out of hand as an alarmist.

So, on Friday, the UK had a fairly significant power outage.  Trains stopped running, at least one hospital had a failed backup generator fail to start and Newcastle Airport terminal went dark.

So what happened.  Well a relevantly insignificant <800mw gas power station had to emergency power down due to an internal issue.

This caused a cascade power demand at a peak time which overloaded the Hornsea offshore wind farm connection.  It, quite simply, disconnected to protect itself.

But the Hornsea wind farm is rated at a nameplate power of 6GW.  It, quite simply, just went away.  The UK grid, usually under fairly high stress, started to go into cascade failure protection and started shutting down high power consumption sites where the grid frequency dropped the most.

Where are the fast reacting power sources to cover this demand?  Well those are mainly gas and they were either already working or offline for routine maintenance.

It took all day to sort out the mess and, finally, the problem was resolved and things got back to a semblance of normal.

This I have gleaned from many different sources using the knowledge that I have gained from this very site.

I'm very sure that the final analysis will show two things.

1 - that when renewable sources were added to the grid, the standard protections were put in place without any real consideration to the difference between standard power stations and the very on-off nature of renewable energy

2 - That Coal nameplate power was taken offline and replaced with renewable nameplate power to the same capacity.

Why is this critical?  Because Coal delivers somewhere close to 90% of nameplate power over the long term.  Whereas renewables deliver between 0% and 60% of their nameplate power.

Meaning that the UK grid has been losing power for years, if not close on two decades.  Analysis showed that exactly this situation was avoided, narrowly, 3 times over the last two months alone.  But luck has no place in country wide power generation and delivery and luck ran out on the 4th time.

So, why am I posting this now?  To say "look I was right"?  NO, not really.  I don't care if you believe me or not or if you live in lala land or some wonderful renewable energy haven in the sky.  What I care about is transitioning from our fossil fuel systems to near 0 CO2 emission generating systems as fast as possible.

So what this long intro is about is this article which has popped up in the UK press.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7353297/amp/Surge-electric-car-sales-crash-National-Grid-2040.html

The fact that it is the first time I've seen any outlet, stating the problem this clearly, is significant.  What is more significant is that it is likely to be only the first of a succession of warnings which will stunt our transition to near 0 CO2 emission generating systems unless there is a clear answer which covers it.

The problem is that the only answer which can resolve this situation, without spending more on the grid than we do on wind farms, is to double our Nuclear power strategy and deliver it in half the time.

Just about everything the article says is simple truth viewed from a neutral standpoint.  There is no real capacity in the UK generating system to cover a transition of fuel energy to electrical EV energy.  Even if we only need to transition half of it due to the additional efficiencies of Electric, there simply is not anything like enough capacity to even scratch the surface.  Trying to rapidly ramp up EV's is only going to make things worse, much, much worse.

People need to stop riding their hobby horses about "green" power and start getting into net 0 CO2 emission power generation.  And they need to get there fast.

Otherwise the UK is going to wind up like Germany.  CO2 emissions rising and a rapid shift to coal fired power.

After all the UK has 300 years worth of coal under the ground at 1970's consumption levels.

Every time the UK grid has a blackout, from now on, renewable energy and EV's will take the blame.  That blame will grow and grow into a movement to rival all the greens in the country and overwhelm them.


Far from the UK leading a charge to 0 carbon emissions, the danger is that the UK will go with Germany and drive the other way into Coal.

Is that really what the "Renewable Energy" people want?  Honestly I thought they wanted what I did.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3839 on: August 15, 2019, 07:56:15 PM »
Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

First emissions need to peak.  That'll be within a few years.

Then emissions need to go to zero.  That'll be about 2050.

Meanwhile, direct air capture and carbon sequestration needs to be deployed, along with land use changes that sequester more carbon and build up carbon sinks.  The Democratic candidates for President in the US are talking about that now, so hopefully we'll see that deployment in the US in the 2020s.  A lot of these applications, such as biochar to replace (or at least offset some) chemical fertilizers are being used in small scales now.

So when the carbon sinks are beefed up and the carbon emissions are near zero, the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will start declining.  I assume that's what you mean by the Keeling curve curving back on itself.  I think we'll see that in the 2040s.
Jeez Ken
I envy you your vision of the future.
Terry

I concur...

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1465
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3840 on: August 15, 2019, 08:00:12 PM »
Who quoted an article:
 
"The problem is that the only answer which can resolve this situation, without spending more on the grid than we do on wind farms, is to double our Nuclear power strategy and deliver it in half the time."

There certainly seems to be a substantial problem with the grid in the UK.  But I think this is the wrong solution.  Quite simply, overbuilding renewable sources can be done in far less time (and far lower cost) than building nuclear reactors.

Add some battery load-balancing, long distance transmission, and bit of demand management, and there should be a reliable grid adequate for the EV transition.

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3841 on: August 15, 2019, 08:16:37 PM »
Long - term storage solutions ( week / month ) are needed

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3842 on: August 15, 2019, 09:13:53 PM »
Long - term storage solutions ( week / month ) are needed

A robust, redundant national high-voltage DC grid that connects the west to the east and the south to the north will greatly reduce the need for longer term energy storage.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3843 on: August 15, 2019, 09:17:27 PM »
Long - term storage solutions ( week / month ) are needed
Why?
Building much more capacity than we need is far cheaper than building weeks of storage for edge cases.
The example in England was a cascade caused by one large fossil fuel plant failing . The same happened in Australia with the loss of one coal plant causing a cascade. Why does renewable energy get the blame for the effect of a fossil fuel plant failing ? A reasonable sized Battery system could have stabilized the grid for the few minutes needed to stop the cascade and shed load in a controlled manor. A Smarter grid with the ability to shed non essential loads like car charging will also go a long way to minimize such failures.

 

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3844 on: August 15, 2019, 09:32:31 PM »
Using Uruguay as an example ( mostly clean power with thermal as backup ). During 2018 the longest stretch of thermal production ( to be replaced with storage) was 500 hrs. The thermal generation profile had a 20 hr 250 MW peak and a breadth of 500 hrs at 50 MW discharge. So to be economically efficient you need to build high discharge rate short term storage and lower discharge rate but much longer discharge cycle storage.


KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3845 on: August 15, 2019, 09:51:34 PM »
Quote
The electricity sector of Uruguay has traditionally been based on domestic hydropower along with thermal power plants, and reliant on imports from Argentina and Brazil at times of peak demand. Over the last 10 years, investments in renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar power allowed the country to cover in early 2016 94.5% of its electricity needs with renewable energy sources.[1]

Hydropower provides a large percentage of installed production capacity in Uruguay, almost all of it produced by four hydroelectric facilities, three on the Rio Negro and one, the Salto Grande dam shared with Argentina, on the Uruguay River. The production from these hydropower sources is dependent on seasonal rainfall patterns, but under normal hydrological conditions, can supply off-peak domestic demand.
Hydro power is storage.
Over building  wind and solar allows more use of even run of river hydro for demand peaks and negates the uncertainty of rainfall risk.
No one says it will be easy or cheap to go fossil fuel free.
Unabated climate change  will be  far more costly. 

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5436
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 539
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3846 on: August 15, 2019, 09:57:07 PM »
NeilT
I'm not going to duplicate your entire post here, just this snippet:

Just about everything the article says is simple truth viewed from a neutral standpoint.  There is no real capacity in the UK generating system to cover a transition of fuel energy to electrical EV energy.

and this link:

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7353297/amp/Surge-electric-car-sales-crash-National-Grid-2040.html


The UK it seems is going to be our canary in the mine to test the efficacy of rapidly switching to EVs, without first building out a reliable, clean grid that will be able to handle the additional load.


Today it was noted that for the first time EV charging stations outnumbered gas stations.
Is this a date that generations of school children will have to memorise as the UK continues to glorify the advances that the Kingdom has made down through the ages? Or will it and the blackout that preceded it be seen as precautionary signs that everyone capable of thought should have been able to read.

Do we want a chimney free future where a few gas/diesel sipping cars merge with huge E-Buses and Trolleys - Or a chimney filled future more easily compared to Dicken's London. Coal fired power plants that darken the overheated sky as the elite meet not in Hansom Cabs or on bicycle paths, but in the air conditioned back seats of robot cabs while speeding through careening crowds of EVs in sweltering East London.

Poetic license, or a jaundiced look at two futures.

At ~2.5% England has it's fill of EVs. Are there other nations whose grids are already showing signs of stress? Germany of course - and Poland has already jumped the shark - No Paris Accord will stop the sooty Poles from burning what is only theirs by rite!
Is France winding down or cranking up her dependency on Nuclear Power?
What of the others. America still has one of the dirtier grids - yet they collectively cheer on the successes and excesses of Mad Man Musk, who's already given up on this orb and boasts of his dream of dying on Mars of all places.

I've been preaching, and the good Gerontocrat has been posting figures that prove that we can't proceed with EVs without severely constricting our driving habits - or virtually doubling the size of our grid.

Solar won't get us there, wind turbines won't get us there, and we appear no more ready to build our our Nuclear base than we are to return to the moon. Did we really fall this far behind in one generation?

The answer is sadly yes. Our engineers haven't brought a nuclear plant on line on time and within budget within anyone's lifetime. We buy Russian Rocket engines or rent space on Russian vessels to visit the ISS. But we don't worry because MMMusk has everything in hand. We hope.

Will we stop racing toward the cliff now that the UK has demonstrated the abyss that lies in this direction. Before we leap to the promised future from the polluted present we need to build a bridge to that future. Without it our EVs will just be pulling down the curtains on the present without being capable of making the leap to the future we envision.

Build a more perfect, more robust and more robust grid. Then decide whether we'll use this new energy to power individual cars, or, dare I say it - power mass transportation! Or we can blindly follow our British Brethren, overselling EVs with little thought as to how we will power them.

Sometime soon the UK will be making a decision that will dwarf Brexit. Build out the grid while discouraging private EVs, or continue to subsidize the very instruments that are causing the blackouts while waving their hands at the grid.

We're not that far behind.
Terry
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 10:10:56 PM by TerryM »

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6816
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1711
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3847 on: August 15, 2019, 10:02:32 PM »
Using Uruguay as an example ( mostly clean power with thermal as backup ). During 2018 the longest stretch of thermal production ( to be replaced with storage) was 500 hrs. The thermal generation profile had a 20 hr 250 MW peak and a breadth of 500 hrs at 50 MW discharge. So to be economically efficient you need to build high discharge rate short term storage and lower discharge rate but much longer discharge cycle storage.

You managed to tweak a brain cell or two and I found this.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/how-three-battery-types-work-in-grid-scale-energy-storage-systems/

Li-on for high discharge rate short term storage,

Redox-flow batteries - for much longer discharge cycle storage
Quote
Many flow batteries are characterized by extremely long cycle life—tens of thousands of cycles, or (theoretically) unlimited cycle life.

flow batteries are ideally suited for long-duration peak shifting (which is altering the time of day at which electricity is used to reduce “demand charge” on electricity use) or demand-shifting duties, and with the short-duration services.

Choosing the right battery
Quote
Picking an ideal battery application and designing the best system and operating strategy can make or break the economics of an energy storage project. Learning about the benefits and challenges of the different commercially available battery technologies is key to making the right choice.
"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)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3848 on: August 15, 2019, 10:20:33 PM »
Thx , was running low on motivation :)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6816
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1711
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3849 on: August 15, 2019, 10:23:02 PM »
Terry...

The UK Government is all mouth, no trousers.

It claims we will be world leaders in transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2050.
It claims to be supporting the UK as a world leader in battery technology.

A very recent Select Committee report said "nothing is happening".

Just one electrical company has zero-carbon as its business policy, and has even commissioned the UK's first(?) big battery and sold its gas-fuelled generators. They see no practical problems in doing this, instead they see enhanced profitability.

Our Government is still blocking onshore wind.
Our Government has killed solar power incentives.
Our Government is dumping the consumer with what might be the most expensive new electricity in the world - Hinkley C Nuclear. (Unproved design and maybe 2 more)

To double capacity of the grid over the next 30 years (2050 is the target) is not undoable. It took a lot less time to completely replace the use of "town gas" with LNG, including building a new national grid almost from scratch and changes to all commercial and industrial premises and all 20+ million homes.. That was when we did things, not just spun things.

So you and NeilT may be right. Maybe we will be screwed. But it will be a failure of Government, not of renewable technology.

I won't see all the cock-ups, but I will see some.
"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)