Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 711714 times)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3900 on: August 18, 2019, 12:42:20 AM »
Terry, thanks again (and I hope you feel better).
I get the feeling that maybe the comparison was only for residential electricity (the average family) but the grid also supplies industrial and commercial users.
I promise to dig this up and revisit the calculation this week.
Thanks,
and if you should run into one of those earlier discussions it might help some of the newer posters get a feel for what's been previously discussed.


A link from an often unreliable source mirrors some or NeilT's concerns, but pushes the crunch date out to 2040 (because of UK's slow acceptance of EV's.)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/cars/article-7353297/Surge-electric-car-sales-crash-National-Grid-2040.html
Terry

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15396
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3901 on: August 18, 2019, 02:29:25 AM »

This is not so easy because we are not talking of a few customers with many kW, but of thousands of cars with different loading speed available, and different levels of urgency for a loaded battery. Furtheore sometimes loading will have to be faster as required because power will be available. I believe that this will be managed by defining different prices and you will define which price you're ready to pay for when you will plug your car to the grid. Maybe you will even be able to define a price where you agree to sale power.

Well, I just wrote some science fiction.

Science fiction?  Not at all!  Smart meters can work much like smart chargers do today.  They communicate with the car before charging starts, agreeing on a charging format, number of amps, volts, etc.  Ramping down the rate of charge as the battery’s State of Charge nears 100%. Grid computers can cycle periods of charging amongst hundreds or thousands of EVs so that a proper electric load is maintained.  And charging apps have already been used in testing that allow owners to save money by allowing some flexibility to their car’s charging and timing, or paying more when they need a full charge immediately.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

iamlsd

  • New ice
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3902 on: August 18, 2019, 03:17:47 AM »
South Australia wind farms are covering all electricity demand at the moment which is happening more often: Wind Generation is 1,312 MW with Demand 1,161 MW. Exporting close to 500 MW to the other states.



BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3903 on: August 18, 2019, 08:28:20 AM »
Dukes is the official source of uk energy stats. Renewables up fourfold over the same period.Total supply (incl.imports) down 8 percent since 2010. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electricity-chapter-5-digest-of-united-kingdom-energy-statistics-dukes

Note that although imports are up, this is not because of a shortage of domestic supply. Uk often imports heavily when wind generation is high,  as prices are then low. Particularly at night when France has excess nuclear too. Uk holds capacity auctions to ensure sufficient supply to meet peak demand, essentially paying generators to remain in reserve. I believe this reserve has never actually been required in the years since the system started operating. Either way, demand at this time of year is way below peak (maybe 60% of peak?), so there was loads of spare capacity available. However, day to day demand is met through a market system, with a reserve to meet surges in demand plus more importantly sudden failures of power stations. Normally non-renewable power stations are a bigger problem in this regard, simply because they're bigger, so you lose more in one hit. However Hornsea is so big that it's more like a small thermal power station.

Clearly something went badly wrong on this occasion, but it really has nothing to do with a lack of potential supply.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3904 on: August 19, 2019, 06:12:57 PM »
A bit old (Jan 2019) from the EIA of the USA
(https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37952)

New electric generating capacity in 2019 will come from renewables and natural gas


It is still only change at the margin but shows new wind & solar far above Natural Gas, and significant coal retirements.

Given recent announcements, coal retirements may be under-estimated.
"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)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3905 on: August 19, 2019, 09:55:30 PM »
And the above graph gave a really optimistic feeling - Coal has been sent into reverse bigly
So then I looked at the US EIA site for data on Solar + Wind production - really impressive.

But then I added Natural Gas used for electricity - and saw it is 3 times more than Solar+PV
(First graph).

And then I looked at Total Natural Gas consumed - and in energy terms 9 times as much as Solar + Wind. Direct consumption by residences, commerce and industry consumes 2/3rds of the natural gas.
2nd Graph.

Do I dare add Gasoline? no, not today.

A long way to go - even with exponential growth methinks forget Paris 2015, 1.5 & 2 degrees.
It makes me think that most countries, even those that are committed to sorting this out, can't do it in the timeframe required.



"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)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15396
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3906 on: August 19, 2019, 10:12:22 PM »
Quote
A long way to go...

Yes.  But perhaps in a shorter time period than today’s data would suggest.  The future will be different than the past.  In all likelihood, the solar and wind curves will soon become exponential (following the normal new tech adoption curve), and fossil fuels will peak.  It’s the only scenario that makes sense.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 846
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3907 on: August 19, 2019, 11:31:33 PM »
Quote
It makes me think that most countries, even those that are committed to sorting this out, can't do it in the timeframe required.
Technically they can. Economically they can. Politically they won't.

etienne

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3908 on: August 20, 2019, 07:03:15 AM »
Quote
A long way to go...

Yes.  But perhaps in a shorter time period than today’s data would suggest.  The future will be different than the past.  In all likelihood, the solar and wind curves will soon become exponential (following the normal new tech adoption curve), and fossil fuels will peak.  It’s the only scenario that makes sense.
Solar can become exponential, but wind is more complicated, it requires more skills to install and more administrative work, easy spots have been built (at least in Luxembourg) and each new project comes with public opposition.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 15396
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 403
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3909 on: August 21, 2019, 04:51:45 PM »
U.S. Government Delays First Big U.S. Offshore Wind Farm. Is a Double Standard at Play?
It ordered an expanded review for Vineyard Wind at the same time Trump is weakening environmental rules for fossil fuel projects that contribute to climate change.
Quote
As the Trump administration takes steps to expedite fossil fuel projects and reduce environmental regulations, it has veered in the opposite direction on offshore wind, delaying a highly anticipated project in Massachusetts.

Vineyard Wind was set to be the country's largest offshore wind farm, with construction expected to start this year on a project that could power more than 400,000 homes. But this month, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) said it was expanding its review of the environmental impacts of the project to include a "more robust" analysis of the potential cumulative impact if other offshore wind farms are built.

The expanded review is potentially broad, with ramifications for Vineyard Wind and several other projects. And yet, the office has provided almost no details on the scope. The project developers said that they had not received any documents showing parameters of the review. ...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19082019/vineyard-wind-offshore-renewable-energy-delay-boem-environmental-cumulative-review-nepa-massachusetts
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3910 on: August 21, 2019, 05:51:22 PM »
U.S. Government Delays First Big U.S. Offshore Wind Farm. Is a Double Standard at Play?

Why the question mark?

You can't get much more blatant than this.
A review broad, without limits in scope or duration, to be conducted at some time in the future.
The Trump guy in that bureau has been told to do all he can to kill the project - a long enough delay will ensure the capital needed is no longer there.

If it was a bunch of oil & gas  drilling rigs... perhaps a different story.

"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)

mitch

  • New ice
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3911 on: August 21, 2019, 06:54:39 PM »
Yes, definitely a double standard.  At the same time the Trump administration is slow walking renewables, it is fast-tracking oil and gas permitting on public lands:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-permits/under-trump-u-s-drilling-permits-on-federal-lands-soar-idUSKCN1RO18A


interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3912 on: August 22, 2019, 05:45:18 AM »
U.S. Government Delays First Big U.S. Offshore Wind Farm. Is a Double Standard at Play?
Why the question mark?
Its a legal protection. Without the question mark they have to prove it. Proving motivation is difficult. With it they can just present the evidence of the results. 

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3913 on: August 22, 2019, 09:56:04 PM »
I am going to be a Jeremiah about the mountain to climb for renewables to replace fossil fuels.

I attach 2 graphs about the sources of energy production from the IEA up to 2017. The best I can do without paying for newer data.

Note that renewables includes biomass of all types.
Note that fossil fuels still provide 80% of energy production. Include nuclear and biomass and I guess we are talking 90% or more.

Ho hum.

12 yrs, 11 yrs, 10 yrs, 9 yrs.......
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3914 on: August 23, 2019, 12:12:58 AM »
Jeremiah
You just can't go around showing people these things. It's lamentable that you've put the available data into an easily assimilated form and shoved it under the noses of those of us that believe we deserve to live long and enjoyable lives.


Since your 1st chart is easily misread, it's an acceptable representation of the factual data. People with faith in their children's future can gaze into this and be reassured that even though the nasty black and purple colors have expanded over time, so have the soothing greens and reds. The suspect yellow has obviously expanded, but perhaps this just can't be helped.


Your 2nd chart is an abomination!
Even an unlettered Trumparian can glance at it and see that any progress made in the last 45 years hasn't amounted to much more than could be expected from random fluctuations over time.


Coal usage hasn't gone down - it's being used at a higher percentage now than it was 45 years ago.


Purple has dropped a bit - but most of that drop occurred during Reagan's reign? Your disinformation chart asks us to believe that we've done damn little to cut our use of oil since the days of Bush the Elder. This cannot stand!


Then there is that peaceful green color that we're so proud to have enhanced. If your chart were to be believed we'd see that green energy in 1972 it made up nearly 15% of our mix. Now with windmills dotting the horizon and photo voltaic panels found on every second rooftop you're showing us that now we are still at nearly 15% renewable! My municipality now burns it's trash, yet you're showing that we've made ~no progress. Pish Tosh Sir, nothing but Pish Tosh!


We have made progress with nuclear generation though, we may not be where we were in the '90s but even your foul chart shows progress since 1972. Ha even you can't deny progress on that front.


And we're finally looking at yellow. It's ff, but it's the good ff. In 1972 a little more than 15% of our energy was in the form of natural gas, now it's more than 20%. That may not be progress, but at least it shows movement.


This chart can't be allowed.
We need affirmation that we've been making progress, not just running in place for all these decades.
Those that became adults in 1972 are now retired do you expect them to believe they've made no progress?


How about those born since - they glance at this chart and see that they've accomplished nothing with their triple paned windows, low thermostat settings and PV everywhere. Show me on the chart where their efforts helped even a little bit.


Jeremiah
This is not going to impress the masses. They won't sing your praises, they'll toss you in a well.
Grab yourself a few princesses and head south of the border, down Mexico way.
Terry




Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 697
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3915 on: August 23, 2019, 12:54:38 AM »
How about those born since - they glance at this chart and see that they've accomplished nothing with their triple paned windows, low thermostat settings and PV everywhere. Show me on the chart where their efforts helped even a little bit.

Leave me out of it. I'm depressed enough as it is.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3916 on: August 23, 2019, 01:25:00 AM »
How about those born since - they glance at this chart and see that they've accomplished nothing with their triple paned windows, low thermostat settings and PV everywhere. Show me on the chart where their efforts helped even a little bit.

Leave me out of it. I'm depressed enough as it is.


I didn't draw that discisting, depressing and despicable chart. 8)
 To the well! drag him to the well! >:(
Terry ::)

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3917 on: August 23, 2019, 01:28:08 AM »
Don't worry, there's no such thing as facts anymore. We'll be fine.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3918 on: August 23, 2019, 02:41:36 AM »
Gerontocrat


Your charts are seriously among the most disturbing things I've seem WRT the (progress?) we've made over the last half century.


Mr Keeling's curve has suddenly lost its mystery.
Why does the US fight Oil Wars? - because the world keeps burning more & more oil.
Will fracked gas find a market in the face of clean cheap renewables? - You betcha.
Have we made any difference? - To what? 


Are we determined to broil our babies? - Yea, but we'll have the AC cranked down & armed guards at the gate.
Terry
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 02:49:08 AM by TerryM »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3919 on: August 23, 2019, 02:43:17 AM »
Wind farms: climate protection vs. nature protection
https://www.dw.com/en/wind-farms-climate-protection-vs-nature-protection/a-49994827
Quote
Our warming world needs alternatives to polluting fossil fuels. Wind energy is part of the solution, but how bad are wind turbines for nature?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3920 on: August 23, 2019, 03:34:46 AM »
Even if that IEA data is true, which I doubt, the renewable revolution can't stop. Not now that we are so close. Renewables are hitting a tipping point**. Like climate change.

*I doubt IEA as a source, not Gerontocrat, he is just the messenger. Would love to see a different or more recent source.
** This thread was started in 2013 and used to be named "Renewables Reach a Tipping Point..."
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3921 on: August 23, 2019, 04:47:00 AM »
Would love to see a different or more recent source.

https://ourworldindata.org/search?q=energy

It is what it is... :/
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 04:56:03 AM by petm »

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 846
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3922 on: August 23, 2019, 05:53:55 AM »
I think the use of primary energy as the metric is problematic. The true metric should be useful energy, or the actual work to be done. An EV uses far less energy per mile compared to an ICE. Fossil fuels have loads of energy, but most is wasted, so to replace them you need less energy than might appear.
Of course, the rate of replacement is minuscule compared to the scale of the problem.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3923 on: August 23, 2019, 10:57:17 AM »
Even if that IEA data is true, which I doubt

*I doubt IEA as a source,

I think it is at best foolish to dispute the IEA data. It is used by businesses and Governments without question. Where necessary, they use IPCC standards for measurement, e.g. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels from 14.6 billion tons in 1972 to 32.3 billion tons in 2016.

At worst, to dispute World Standard data is eerily similar to the language of Climate Science Denial.

Note: The IEA even show in their tables where data from one source does not equal the data from another source. e.g. where the country by country total of imports does not equal the total of country by country exports. That shows confidence.

Quote from Oren
Quote
I think the use of primary energy as the metric is problematic. The true metric should be useful energy, or the actual work to be done. An EV uses far less energy per mile compared to an ICE. Fossil fuels have loads of energy, but most is wasted, so to replace them you need less energy than might appear.

How true.

The first graph I attach shows some indication of some of the energy lost from production to consumption. It does show that efficiency of energy use has gone down over the years, not improved. It does show the amount of fossil fuels wasted in producing electrical energy, i.e. the difference between primary energy used and energy produced in electricity generation.

It does not include the wastage of energy in an ICEV compared with an EV. The second graph shows consumption by use. Transportation is the biggest and growing (in 2016 nearly 30% of all energy use), and within that ICEVs must be the biggest by far, ***circa 80-85% ?). We know that an EV is two to three times more efficient in using energy (from the battery to the wheels) than an ICEV (from the fuel tank to the wheels).

So the potential energy savings from wind+solar+EVs are vast, in the same way the existing Fossil Fuel Empire is vast. The Empire will fight back - to the "last dead cold hand".

And for some time, this has to be all I'm going to say about that
_____________________________________________________________
***https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/transportation.pdf
"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)

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3924 on: August 23, 2019, 12:54:05 PM »
Quote
I think it is at best foolish to dispute the IEA data. It is used by businesses and Governments without question.

Please see this graph and article:



https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/06/iea-gets-hilariously-slammed-continuously-pessimistic-renewable-energy-forecasts/


I trust the IEA data as much as I trust Trump's Federal data on employment or GDP. That is, I don't trust it at all, even when I understand important people does trust it and there are trillions of dollars and billions of lives riding on their data being right.

To be clear I don't think these graphs grossly misrepresent the real energy mix. I think that somewhere along the process a small bias was introduced against renewables, resulting in an understating of renewables. So the truth is probably better than it looks in this graph but not as good as we all hope.  More recent data should look much better even with the IEA bias.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3925 on: August 23, 2019, 01:36:44 PM »
I think the use of primary energy as the metric is problematic. The true metric should be useful energy, or the actual work to be done. An EV uses far less energy per mile compared to an ICE. Fossil fuels have loads of energy, but most is wasted, so to replace them you need less energy than might appear.
Of course, the rate of replacement is minuscule compared to the scale of the problem.

Then perhaps it's useful to consider per capita consumption. But the story there is no less bleak, not to mention the global population is still rising fast.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-use-per-capita

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3926 on: August 23, 2019, 01:44:34 PM »
Quote
I think it is at best foolish to dispute the IEA data. It is used by businesses and Governments without question.

To be clear I don't think these graphs grossly misrepresent the real energy mix. I think that somewhere along the process a small bias was introduced against renewables, resulting in an understating of renewables. So the truth is probably better than it looks in this graph but not as good as we all hope.  More recent data should look much better even with the IEA bias.

There is historical data - there are forecasts.

Historical Data
The IEA does not collect the data - it is sent to them by Governments and industry bodies according to agreed industry formats, including some developed by the IPCC.
 
Is some of the country data wobbly? Probably.
Do these wobbles significantly reduce the credibility of the published data ? I do not think so.

Forecasts
Yes, the IEA has been woefully behind the curve on both the speed of renewables development in both quantity and price, and in retirement of old plants in some countries, e.g. coal generation plants..

I don't look at them. But it will take a few years yet, even at exponential growth, for renewables to cut the fossil fuel empire off at the knees.
"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)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3927 on: August 23, 2019, 02:20:29 PM »
And as regards the IEA forecasts what do we find....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/23/australian-thermal-coal-exporters-warned-of-falling-demand-from-india

Australian thermal coal exporters warned of falling demand from India

Report says outlook in India is ‘finely balanced and uncertain’ despite resources industry’s high hopes

Quote
Thermal coal exporters face “significant risk” that demand from India will decline, a report by the Australian office of the chief economist says. It also warned of long-term uncertainties in the market considered a “great hope” by miners.

The report, released on Friday, came as the resources minister, Matt Canavan, prepared to visit India to spruik the Australian resources sector. He argued India has an “astonishing” appetite for Australian thermal coal that could support “three to four new Adani-sized coalmines”.

But those comments appeared at odds with the conclusions of the government’s economic advisers: that while India and southeast Asia were seen by the resources industry as a “bright light” that could help sustain Australian thermal coalminers as industrialised nations pivot away from fossil fuels, the outlook in India was “finely balanced and uncertain”.

“While India is one of the great hopes for thermal coal exporters, alongside southeast Asia, it also presents significant risk,” the first paragraph of the report said. “If India’s thermal coal imports decline, there could be substantial implications for seaborne markets.”

This month India announced a plan to cut its coal imports by a third, counting on an increase in domestic production and in renewable energy output.

Demand for thermal coal is falling in north Asia – the destination for most Australian exports – and Europe and North America, and it is broadly expected this decline will continue in the coming decades.

As demand slows, particularly in China, the benchmark thermal coal price has sunk to a three-year low: US$61 a tonne.

The resources sector has repeatedly relied on International Energy Agency (IEA) predictions of growing energy demand for thermal coal in India and southeast Asia to offset reduced amounts sent to traditional export markets.

The argument being pushed by advocates of the thermal coal sector, that growth in these new markets could support new mines – or a new coal basin – ignores the more dramatic shifts away from coal in developed economies, analysts said. Tim Buckley, the director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said: “The hope was that India and southeast Asia might provide something of a cushion [for the thermal coal industry] on the way down. But this isn’t a gentle slide to oblivion.”

Buckley said solar power in India was three times cheaper than the assumptions used in the chief economist’s report, based on outdated IEA predictions.

“They’re underestimating the importance of low-cost renewable energy,” he said.

“Growth of thermal coal demand in India is financially challenged by the fact renewable energy is 30% cheaper, so what bank in their right mind would finance a new coal-fired power plant?”
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3928 on: August 23, 2019, 11:33:20 PM »
This probably belongs in the Stupid Questions thread, but what does the "Transportation" designation include?


Is transportation of raw materials to the widget factory listed here, or under industrial.
Is the transportation of widgets from the factory to the mall included, or is this under commerce?
When mom drives to and from the mall to bring home the widgets to hang on her wall, is this counted as transportation, or residence?
Is transportation of a honeymooning couple to Hawaii and back transportation?  is sending solar panels to Hawaii and returning with a load of bananas also included under this designation.


Lastly if a Mega-Giga-Factory stretches for 10 miles along an Interstate is moving a widget component from one end of the factory to the other considered transportation or industrial? Is it the same designation whether the part moves by conveyor belt, is moved by truck through the parking lot, or is transported via the Interstate?


As I said, probably belongs with "Stupid Questions"
Terry

Archimid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 266
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3929 on: August 24, 2019, 12:57:09 AM »
Is some of the country data wobbly? Probably.

I agree.  I think it is very safe to assume that the data is wobbly. It must be when talking about international data gathered in non standard ways, in different languages and subject to political review. That, should result in a random distribution of the error of the data. Thus we can give this data authority. The data has a process behind it with very good algorithms to make the best out of the data. 

I imagine that's why you post it. You know there is a process behind the data thus it is likely the data conveys the general trends. We are behind. I totally agree with that if that is the case.

However, I hope you can admit that there are other biases at play all through the dataset. Strong biases to prop fossil fuels over other fuels before the data even reaches the IEA and very likely within the IEA. That's very likely why their forecasts have been so consistently downwards wrong.

Quote
Do these wobbles significantly reduce the credibility of the published data ? I do not think so.

I agree that even after the bias, the general picture is about accurate, thus credible. But I don't trust them because they have not earned my trust. Quite the opposite. I distrust them. I also distrust the IPCC, even when it pains me to do so.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3930 on: August 24, 2019, 07:30:27 AM »
Various people have mentioned that using TPES is problematic, but I don't think the reason has been fully explained. To explain why I think the TPES graphs are misleading, I'll imagine a country where:

All space heating is provided by natural gas + electricity
All transport is fuelled by oil (petrol/diesel) + electricity
All industrial processes are Powered by electricity

As a result, coal, hydro, wind, nuclear and solar are only used to generate electricity.

The amount of electricity they generate is as follows:

Hydro: 100 TWh/year
Wind: 80 TWh/year
Solar: 60 TWh/year
Nuclear: 40 TWh/year
Coal: 35 TWh/year

Which of those would be shown as the biggest share/% on Gerontocrat's IEA graph for total primary energy? And which would be shown as the smallest? And what would their order be in size?


blumenkraft

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 984
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3931 on: August 25, 2019, 07:10:53 PM »
We know how to build an all-renewable electric grid
The question is when, not how.


Link >> https://www.fastcompany.com/90394510/we-know-how-to-build-an-all-renewable-electric-grid
Refugees welcome

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3932 on: August 25, 2019, 08:55:30 PM »
We know how to build an all-renewable electric grid
The question is when, not how.


Link >> https://www.fastcompany.com/90394510/we-know-how-to-build-an-all-renewable-electric-grid

Incredible things are possible if a nation puts its mind to it. Imagine if the US redirected 80% of military spending (a great improvement on wasting it on the "flying pig" F35 or the useless Littoral Class ships), together with highly progressive carbon taxes and the rescinding of all the rich people's tax cuts of the past few decades? That should be enough to build a modern US-wide electricity grid together with the required renewables. During WW2 nobody gave a shit about "deficits" anyway. From 1935 to 1974 Canada funded a third of government expenditures from "printing money", until the rich and bankers got their and shut it down (a requirement of being a member of the Bank of International Settlements).

The thing missing is the political power necessary to overcome all the bastards who are in the way, including the corrupt to the core Democrats (excepting people like Bernie and OCAS), and the Liberals in Canada.


blumenkraft

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 984
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3933 on: August 25, 2019, 08:58:42 PM »
Well, that's kind of what the green new deal does. Bernie is your man, Rboyd. ;)
Refugees welcome

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3934 on: August 25, 2019, 09:05:02 PM »
Well, that's kind of what the green new deal does. Bernie is your man, Rboyd. ;)

If he ever gets a chance to be the Democratic candidate (the DNC and media are playing their usual games on this) and then beats Trump (in a head to head with Bernie, Trump is toast), a good chance he will die of "natural causes" early in his term (he's old so "shit happens" as the media will say). Unless he picks someone like Tulsi Gabbard as his VP, as the establishment would hate her as President even more. Even then, he would still have the corrupt Senate to fight with, plus Wall Street, plus big business, plus the rich, plus the military (and they have lots of guns and can create lots of self serving foreign crises for him) etc...

Yes, I am jaded ....

Lets not forget The Military Industrial Complex generally (who own a chunk of the media and provide jobs in every congressional district by design), the CIA (who have quite a few friends in the media), the media (who are heavily funded  by the MIC, fossil fuel companies, ICE car companies, advertising for rich people's consumption etc. and are concentrated into 6 massive media conglomerates).

The last time the rich and powerful retreated a bit was in the face of possible revolution in the middle of the 1930's depression. Even then they did it grudgingly and started taking it back immediately after WW2.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 09:12:10 PM by rboyd »

blumenkraft

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 984
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 458
  • Likes Given: 643
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3935 on: August 25, 2019, 09:38:21 PM »
a good chance he will die of "natural causes" early in his term

Erm, no! Statistics says otherwise. Life expectancy for a 77yo is ~10 years.

Quote
Even then, he would still have the corrupt Senate to fight with, plus Wall Street, plus big business, plus the rich, plus the military (and they have lots of guns and can create lots of self serving foreign crises for him) etc...

What's the message here? The system is rigged and therefore lets not even try to change it? Because this is what i'm reading.

Refugees welcome

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3936 on: August 25, 2019, 09:48:41 PM »

All industrial processes are Powered by electricity

As a result, coal, hydro, wind, nuclear and solar are only used to generate electricity.
I don't think so. There are many industrial processes that need heat in large quantities, and they use gas as its much cheaper. E.g.s pottery industry, bricks(?), cement production to make the lime from calcium carbonate). Steel still uses coal for the initial transformation of iron ore to pig iron, I think.

Look at the attached image from the US IEA for 2018. It shows you how much of each primary energy source goes to each type of user directly, and how much to electricity generation. It also hows you the energy lost in generating that electricity - and by golly it is a lot.

"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)

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3937 on: August 25, 2019, 09:49:04 PM »
Unfortunately, human energy is not renewable. There are too many elderly candidates.  :P

petm

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 675
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 334
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3938 on: August 25, 2019, 09:52:10 PM »
It also hows you the energy lost in generating that electricity - and by golly it is a lot.

Electrical system energy losses 25.3!  :-\ :'(

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3939 on: August 25, 2019, 10:33:52 PM »

That is the gain  in using the oil products to generate electricity rather than directly to drive  transport.
 

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3940 on: August 25, 2019, 10:58:36 PM »
Gerontocrat, I wasn't saying it was a realistic scenario. Just asking what the order of those energy sources would be in that scenario. Do you know the answer?

Edit. The point is that I think some people will be surprised by the answer.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3941 on: August 26, 2019, 05:57:59 AM »
a good chance he will die of "natural causes" early in his term

Erm, no! Statistics says otherwise. Life expectancy for a 77yo is ~10 years.

<snipped>

I bolded the quote marks that explain why rboyd believes that a triumphant Bernie might not have a lifespan quite as long as the expected lifespan of a defeated Bernie.  ::)


After all many of those who were tasked with guarding Epstein's life will still be drawing their paychecks after the results of the election are known. :(


Terry

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3942 on: August 26, 2019, 09:12:18 AM »
I hate that eia chart it makes it look like fossil fuel don't waste energy and renewables do. Most of the losses in electrical system are fossil fuel losses. They completely ignore the low efficiency of transportation. I hate this disinformation campaign.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3943 on: August 26, 2019, 11:00:48 AM »
As no-one has volunteered an answer, I'll answer my own question. The order is coal,nuclear, hydro, wind, solar.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5138
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3944 on: August 26, 2019, 01:33:42 PM »
^^
An explanation?
Thanks
Terry

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3945 on: August 26, 2019, 04:30:44 PM »
Sure.It's a chart of primary energy. IEA considers primary energy of renewables to be electricity so it just converts twh to barrels of oil equivalent.. For nuclear it considers thermal energy to be primary energy, and it considers average efficiency of thermal power stations to be 33%, so it multiplies the twh before calculating BOE. For coal the primary energy is the chemical energy in the coal, so there's an additional loss.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3946 on: August 26, 2019, 08:54:25 PM »
Incidentally, the IEA used to assume a conversion efficiency of, I think, 36% for renewables, so that their numbers would be more directly comparable to those of fossil fuels and nuclear power. However, they decided that the conversion figure had no basis in any real conversion loses, and it created spurious losses in their overall energy balance. On the other hand, it means you can't use primary energy figures to accurately assess the contribution of renewables.

Even taking that into account, the contribution of renewables to overall useful energy is still quite small, but not as small as the tpes number implies. For example, hydro generates, globally, significantly more than nuclear, but on a primary energy basis it looks like less.

I believe BP still makes an adjustment to renewables to make them more comparable.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3947 on: August 27, 2019, 10:35:11 AM »
For reference:

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2017/september/commentary-understanding-and-using-the-energy-balance.html

"The IEA had at a point used the “partial substitution method”, based on the assumption that hydro, wind, solar electricity had displaced thermal generation. This involved using an average thermal conversion efficiency (e.g. 36%) to back-compute their corresponding “primary energy equivalent”. This made their shares in the primary energy supply greater (around three times as much). However, the principle was abandoned as it relied on arbitrary conversion factors and was creating some transformation losses inside the energy balance that did not really exist."

My bold.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3948 on: August 27, 2019, 10:38:48 AM »
This page is also useful for understanding the IEA methodology:

https://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/questionnaires/faq/

"For instance, in the case of nuclear electricity production, as heat is the primary energy form selected by the IEA, the primary energy equivalent is the quantity of heat generated in the reactors. However, as the amount of heat produced is not always known, the IEA estimates the primary energy equivalent from the electricity generation by assuming an efficiency of 33%, which is the average of nuclear power plants in Europe. In the case of hydro, as electricity is the primary energy form selected, the primary energy equivalent is the physical energy content of the electricity generated in the plant, which amounts to assuming an efficiency of 100%."

Again my bold.

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 846
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3949 on: August 27, 2019, 11:14:52 AM »
Heat  ::)

Ergo, EIA charts undercount renewables. The absolute percentage of useful energy from Renewables is higher than the ~15% shown in G's chart upthread (the one that started the whole discussion).
Even the percentage over time is not comparable, because changes in the fossil fuel mix could lead to big changes in the wasted heat.