Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 766934 times)

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4150 on: October 28, 2019, 01:02:17 PM »
Biomass was a big mistake by environmentalists, many of whom were initially in favour.

The idea was (e.g. in Brazil, USA)  that when there was a world surplus of say, sugar, corn, the excess would be used to make biofuel. Logical - a win-win.

What happened ? Expansion and ever increasing environmental damage. Environmentalists just did not see how Agro-Industry would see the economic opportunity.

Naive? Yes. Because good guys just don't see how really shit corporate greed is.
And beaten-up cynics like me who have seen what they do were not listened to.
"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)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4151 on: October 28, 2019, 03:47:40 PM »
What happened ?

A nihilistic government missed to regulate it!

Biomass works great in Germany, where it's regulated.
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4042
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 463
  • Likes Given: 54
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4152 on: October 28, 2019, 03:58:37 PM »
What happened ?

A nihilistic government missed to regulate it!

Biomass works great in Germany, where it's regulated.

Given our desperate need to capture and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere in order to reduce the current levels of atmospheric CO2, biomass is not the direction to go.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4153 on: October 28, 2019, 04:37:11 PM »
Given our desperate need to capture and sequester CO2 from the atmosphere in order to reduce the current levels of atmospheric CO2, biomass is not the direction to go.

There are actually great use cases for biomass in a 100% renewables world, SH. German biomass using actual waste. It's not much, but it contributes to the baseload.

If there is free-market capitalism and you give a fuck about things, you jumpstart the dynamics described above by Gerontocrat. If you forbid making it out of food, it actually saves CO2 emissions.
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1241
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4154 on: October 28, 2019, 08:24:17 PM »
If there is free-market capitalism and you give a fuck about things, you jumpstart the dynamics described above by Gerontocrat.

An accurate description of the neoliberal world that we live in unfortunately, together with the corrupted/ideologically blinded bureaucrats that facilitate it.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4155 on: October 29, 2019, 11:56:41 AM »
Biomass may have a positive effect on landfill problems. As far as AGW is concerned, burning biomass is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Terry

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4156 on: October 29, 2019, 01:46:35 PM »
As far as AGW is concerned, burning biomass is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

How?
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4157 on: October 29, 2019, 02:15:02 PM »
As far as AGW is concerned, burning biomass is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

How?
Because burning waste can reduce landfill needs, and because burning biomass generates more greenhouse gasses than burning coal. ;)


I'd quoted the exact figures with links upstream - but it's been a while.
Terry

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4158 on: October 29, 2019, 02:48:36 PM »
burning biomass

This is not how a biomass plant works.

It harvests energy produced by fermenting biomass. Biomass that would do this fermenting thing without a plant around it harvesting the energy produced.

So let me ask again Terry. How?
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

ArcticMelt2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 581
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4159 on: October 29, 2019, 03:20:50 PM »
Biomass was a big mistake by environmentalists, many of whom were initially in favour.

The idea was (e.g. in Brazil, USA)  that when there was a world surplus of say, sugar, corn, the excess would be used to make biofuel. Logical - a win-win.

What happened ? Expansion and ever increasing environmental damage. Environmentalists just did not see how Agro-Industry would see the economic opportunity.

Naive? Yes. Because good guys just don't see how really shit corporate greed is.
And beaten-up cynics like me who have seen what they do were not listened to.



Don't rely on biomass. Recent research suggests that warming has stopped stimulating the biosphere. Perhaps the rate of warming has become too fast, and we are rapidly overheating.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

Quote
Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago
Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming

The world is gradually becoming less green, scientists have found. Plant growth is declining all over the planet, and new research links the phenomenon to decreasing moisture in the air—a consequence of climate change.

The study published yesterday in Science Advances points to satellite observations that revealed expanding vegetation worldwide during much of the 1980s and 1990s. But then, about 20 years ago, the trend stopped.

Since then, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have been experiencing a “browning” trend, or decrease in plant growth, according to the authors.

Climate records suggest the declines are associated with a metric known as vapor pressure deficit—that’s the difference between the amount of moisture the air actually holds versus the maximum amount of moisture it could be holding. A high deficit is sometimes referred to as an atmospheric drought.

Since the late 1990s, more than half of the world’s vegetated landscapes have experienced a growing deficit, or drying pattern.

Climate models indicate that vapor pressure deficit is likely to continue increasing as the world warms—a pattern that “might have a substantially negative impact on vegetation,” the authors write.

It’s not the first study to document the global decline in vegetation. A 2010 study in Science was among the first to demonstrate that the greening increases of the 1990s had stalled or reversed. That study also suggested that the declines were probably water-related.

That’s not to say every last corner of Earth is losing its vegetation. Some recent studies have revealed that parts of the Arctic are “greening” as the chilly landscape warms. And there’s increasing plant growth still happening in other regions of the world, as well.

But on a global scale, averaged across the entire planet, the trend is pointing downward.

The declines challenge an argument often presented by skeptics of mainstream climate science to downplay the consequences of global warming: the idea that plants will grow faster with larger amounts of carbon dioxide. The argument hinges on the idea that food supplies will increase.

It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but it’s just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability and so on.

Many researchers have suggested that climate change, on the whole, is likely to be a net negative for much of the world’s vegetation, including agricultural crops. The new study would seem to suggest that those consequences are already in motion.

And as climate change affects plant growth, declining plant growth may also affect the pace of climate change.

This is the beginning of the transformation of the planet into a barren desert. I hope scientists will be able to create agriculture based on protected greenhouses or chemical industry (artificial food).

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4160 on: October 29, 2019, 03:50:42 PM »
burning biomass

This is not how a biomass plant works.

It harvests energy produced by fermenting biomass. Biomass that would do this fermenting thing without a plant around it harvesting the energy produced.

So let me ask again Terry. How?

See Drax. It imports wood from all around the world and burns it in what used to be coal fired boilers.

"Our biomass is sourced from established, responsibly managed working forests in the USA, Canada, European Union and Brazil." http://forestscope.info/

This is how large scale biomass generation works. Turning forests into wood pellets.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4161 on: October 29, 2019, 03:59:21 PM »
Richard, i'm talking about biomass plants for energy production. You (and i think Terry too) are talking about homeowners burning wood for warmth, right?
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4163 on: October 29, 2019, 04:52:42 PM »
In addition Scotland has a programme which is replacing oil and gas fired central heating boilers with pellet burners.

The deal assists the homes with loans to buy the boilers and then with buying the pellets.

If you do not buy and burn the certified sustainable pellets from managed sources, then you lose the grant.

It is very well being radical about this and insisting that all homes move to totally sustainable energy, but it is not possible.

Every home that replaces oil or gas heating with sustainable biomass is a net reduction in CO2.  It is also an economic driver for businesses to grow CO2 trapping product. Instead of just cutting it down and burning it without replacement.

So, in a real world, it is Incremental net gains against radical ideology and small bursts of 100% gains.

We live in an imperfect world where recognition of a disaster does not always lead people to pay for mitigating action.  Otherwise nobody would ever die from floods because there would never be any.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1466
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 9272
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4164 on: October 29, 2019, 05:01:54 PM »
All this 'green' CO2 from biomass. Is it like 'dark' matter? ;) ::)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7279
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 488
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4165 on: October 29, 2019, 06:16:29 PM »
So, in a real world, it is Incremental net gains against radical ideology and small bursts of 100% gains.

Is this an incantation or a mantra?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4166 on: October 29, 2019, 06:36:42 PM »
There is some debate about the practice of shipping wood pellets all the way from the usa to the UK to burn for energy.
However what is left after felling forestry is a valuable source of energy.
If you just leave it behind to rot this can happen.
NZ east cape after a rain storm washed "slash" forestry waste  down from the hills.
 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/104527525/forestry-slash-reminder-economic-boon-not-without-problems
 

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4167 on: October 29, 2019, 07:11:31 PM »
There is some debate about the practice of shipping wood pellets all the way from the usa to the UK to burn for energy.
However what is left after felling forestry is a valuable source of energy.
If you just leave it behind to rot this can happen.
NZ east cape after a rain storm washed "slash" forestry waste  down from the hills.

A useful use for such waste can be transmogrified into knocking down old forest to plant wood plantations with consequent degradation of the environment - including biodiversity. NZ forestry does not have an entirely unchequered history. 25 years ago the neo-liberal Adam Smith Economic Institute used to quote NZ forestry as an example of how Capitalist thought  can rapidly increase the return on capital employed.

Not a lot of people know that.
"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: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4168 on: October 29, 2019, 07:18:26 PM »
Meanwhile, another month of data (July) from the US Energy Information Administration.

Two graphs - both changing monthly data to 12 month trailing average to smooth out high seasonal variation

Optimism - growth in wind & solar.

Realism - total energy consumption by source.

One hopeful note - the separation of GDP growth from growth in energy use .
"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)

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4169 on: October 29, 2019, 07:52:08 PM »
^^^

Geroncrat,

Great charts.

Keep in mind that renewables only became cheaper than fossil fuels in the past couple of years.  Most of the investment decisions made for power plants coming on line today were made before that point.  Now that solar and wind are cheaper, the curve should rise exponentially.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4170 on: October 29, 2019, 07:57:40 PM »
Even the IEA, notorious for consistently underestimating the growth of renewables, is projecting tremendous growth for them.  They recently released a report that indicates renewables could generate all of the world's electricity by the 2040s.

https://www.ecowatch.com/offshore-wind-power-world-2641133957.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Quote
Offshore Wind Power Could Produce More Electricity Than World Uses, says International Energy Agency

Common Dreams Oct. 28, 2019 10:41AM EST

A new report from the International Energy Agency released Friday claims that wind power could be a $1 trillion business by 2040 and that the power provided by the green technology has the potential to outstrip global energy needs.

Quote
The IEA finds that global offshore wind capacity may increase 15-fold and attract around $1 trillion of cumulative investment by 2040. This is driven by falling costs, supportive government policies and some remarkable technological progress, such as larger turbines and floating foundations. That's just the start—the IEA report finds that offshore wind technology has the potential to grow far more strongly with stepped-up support from policy makers.

Quote
It would take a major infrastructural commitment to develop wind power to the point that the renewable energy resource could take over the majority of global energy needs, but it's not impossible. As The Guardian pointed out Friday, "if windfarms were built across all useable sites which are no further than 60km (37 miles) off the coast, and where coastal waters are no deeper than 60 metres, they could generate 36,000 terawatt hours of renewable electricity a year."

"This would easily meeting the current global demand for electricity of 23,000 terawatt hours," added The Guardian.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4171 on: October 29, 2019, 08:09:26 PM »
Richard, i'm talking about biomass plants for energy production. You (and i think Terry too) are talking about homeowners burning wood for warmth, right?


While I am very concerned about homeowners burning wood in the winter, I'm equally concerned with municipalities burning trash to generate electricity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy_plant


Biomass is also covered by Wiki.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass


The above I see as negatives because of the CO2 released.




I'm very much in favor of utilizing waste to generate and capture methane by fermentation or anaerobic digestion & see this as a step forward whether done on a farm or on a municipal level.

I was involved with developing/marketing broad spectrum enzymes back in the 1970s. While I was concerned primarily with septic tank/leach field & sewer uses, the same products can and are used to effect the anaerobic digestion of any carbon based waste into usable bio-methane.


The gas can then serve to heat your home, cook your food, or to generate electricity.
Terry


We may have been talking past each other because of different definitions of a Biomass Plant/Biomass Generating Plant. :)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4172 on: October 29, 2019, 08:14:54 PM »
I'm very much in favor of utilizing waste to generate and capture methane by fermentation or anaerobic digestion & see this as a step forward whether done on a farm or on a municipal level.

Yep, that's what i was talking about. Not burning wood or such. :)
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4173 on: October 29, 2019, 08:22:32 PM »
So, in a real world, it is Incremental net gains against radical ideology and small bursts of 100% gains.

Is this an incantation or a mantra?

Neven, I know you don't like my viewpoint, but the nobody really ever gets everything they want.  I sure as hell don't.

I assumed that you knew that the Drax conversion from Coal to Biomass allowed the Scottish Grid to go 100% renewable.

I even thought that people would view one of the largest UK coal fired power stations being transitioned from coal to net CO2 neutral to be a real win.

Apparently I was wrong.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

KiwiGriff

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 229
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4174 on: October 29, 2019, 08:25:52 PM »
Quote
total energy consumption by source.
Another point of note is the useful work potential of a btu in a power station is not the same as the useful work from a btu in 1 l of fuel used directly for transport.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2019, 06:35:44 AM by KiwiGriff »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7279
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 762
  • Likes Given: 488
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4175 on: October 29, 2019, 09:10:25 PM »
Neven, I know you don't like my viewpoint, but the nobody really ever gets everything they want.  I sure as hell don't.

It's easy to berate young people and not be serious about AGW, after getting everything you want out of a sick system you helped build. It's your offspring that will get the hell.

Quote
Apparently I was wrong.

Your incrementalism is wrong. Your whole mindset is wrong.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4176 on: October 29, 2019, 09:15:52 PM »
Cross posted from the Oil and Gas issues forum.

Forbes (a conservative news site in the US that focuses on business issues) published this story today:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/10/29/huge-battery-investments-drop-energy-storage-costs-threaten-natural-gas-industry/#309bb8cd7c3b

Quote
Huge Battery Investments Drop Energy-Storage Costs Faster Than Expected, Threatening Natural Gas

The global energy transition is happening faster than the models predicted, according to a report released today by the Rocky Mountain Institute, thanks to massive investments in the advanced-battery technology ecosystem.

Previous and planned investments total $150 billion through 2023, RMI calculates—the equivalent of every person in the world chipping in $20. In the first half of 2019 alone, venture-capital firms contributed $1.4 billion to energy storage technology companies.

Quote
“These changes are already contributing to cancellations of planned natural-gas power generation,” states the report. “The need for these new natural-gas plants can be offset through clean-energy portfolios (CEPs) of energy storage, efficiency, renewable energy, and demand response.”

New natural-gas plants risk becoming stranded assets (unable to compete with renewables+storage before they’ve paid off their capital cost), while existing natural-gas plants cease to be competitive as soon as 2021, RMI predicts.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4177 on: October 29, 2019, 10:29:10 PM »
Cross-post from oil & gas of a post by me - Ken Feldman doesn't see a problem - I do.

What do you think?


Quote
USA Natural Gas Consumption

There has been much analysis of how solar & wind are becoming cheaper than natural gas for electricity generation

BUT....


In the US of A only just over one-third (36%) of natural gas consumed is used for electricity generation.
The rest is mainly used for:-
- heating homes - 17%
- heating commercial premises - 12%
- heating in industrial processes - 33%
- transportation - 3% (??)

When what you want is to use heat directly - gas is cheap as chips. Renewables can't compete.

Without a carbon tax I don't see how this will be solved.
"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: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4178 on: October 30, 2019, 12:08:35 AM »
^^
No problem at all - IF we enact a stiff enough CO2 tax. ;)
Terry

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1466
  • 0Kg CO2, 35 KWh/wk,130L H2O/wk, No heating
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 9272
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4179 on: October 30, 2019, 05:29:34 AM »
Distribute the CO2 tax revenues over the population with the people with the lowest carbon footprint reveiving most and people with footprints over 2000Kg/y receiving nothing.
It will result in a more equal society and strong incentives to go green. Depending on the carbon tax. With a low tax not much will change. My advise: Step the carbon tax up in three years from $500, $1000 to $5000 per tonne of CO2.

I have no idea how to implement this :)
How do you measure ones carbon footprint?

Well, it doesn't matter.
It is fair and effective so it will never happen under our current rapacious systems.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
   Simple: minimize your possessions and be free and kind    It's just a mindset.       Refugees welcome

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 677
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4180 on: October 30, 2019, 09:26:55 AM »


I have no idea how to implement this :)
How do you measure ones carbon footprint?



You don't tax individuals because that is impossible to measure. You tax activities, eg. cars, plane-tickets, etc etc. It's not that difficult.

Besides, given the huge change in the relative cost of wind and solar, I am quite sure that by 2050 Co2 emissions will collapse globally anyway

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4181 on: October 30, 2019, 03:35:12 PM »
Your incrementalism is wrong. Your whole mindset is wrong.

Since you force me to it Neven.

The CO2 emissions for Austria are 306g per kw/h. When you charge your EV on public power, you emit 54g of CO2 per km you drive.

Scotland, who have nuclear power, hydro power and renewables, with Drax on sustainable biomass, produces 54g CO2 per kw/h.  At 5.6km per kw/h, in Scotland you would emit 9.6g CO2 per km.

Austria refused to commission its nuclear power station and replaced it with coal power instead.

But, I get it, I'm wrong for trying to be pragmatic.  I should be like Austria who are using coal and gas and, lately, biomass.  For a result which is over 5 times worse than Scotland.

I'll remain an Incremental pragmatist and be just wrong thanks.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4182 on: October 30, 2019, 05:59:12 PM »
Cross-post from oil & gas of a post by me - Ken Feldman doesn't see a problem - I do.

What do you think?


Quote
USA Natural Gas Consumption

There has been much analysis of how solar & wind are becoming cheaper than natural gas for electricity generation

BUT....


In the US of A only just over one-third (36%) of natural gas consumed is used for electricity generation.
The rest is mainly used for:-
- heating homes - 17%
- heating commercial premises - 12%
- heating in industrial processes - 33%
- transportation - 3% (??)

When what you want is to use heat directly - gas is cheap as chips. Renewables can't compete.

Without a carbon tax I don't see how this will be solved.

As we discussed in the oil and gas forum, there are renewable solutions for all of those natural gas uses.

The primary one is electrification.  That will take care of transportation and some of the heating uses.  See the EV and Trucks... fora for more about those topics.

Heat pumps have become much more efficient in recent years and can replace the commercial and residential heating done currently by natural gas.  In fact, cities are starting to ban the use of natural gas for new homes and buildings because better alternatives exist.  Here is a link to an introduction on heat pumps:

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-and-cool/heat-pump-systems

Quote
The most common type of heat pump is the air-source heat pump, which transfers heat between your house and the outside air. Today's heat pump can reduce your electricity use for heating by approximately 50% compared to electric resistance heating such as furnaces and baseboard heaters. High-efficiency heat pumps also dehumidify better than standard central air conditioners, resulting in less energy usage and more cooling comfort in summer months. Air-source heat pumps have been used for many years in nearly all parts of the United States, but until recently they have not been used in areas that experienced extended periods of subfreezing temperatures. However, in recent years, air-source heat pump technology has advanced so that it now offers a legitimate space heating alternative in colder regions.

Quote
Geothermal (ground-source or water-source) heat pumps achieve higher efficiencies by transferring heat between your house and the ground or a nearby water source. Although they cost more to install, geothermal heat pumps have low operating costs because they take advantage of relatively constant ground or water temperatures. Geothermal (or ground source) heat pumps have some major advantages. They can reduce energy use by 30%-60%, control humidity, are sturdy and reliable, and fit in a wide variety of homes. Whether a geothermal heat pump is appropriate for you will depend on the size of your lot, the subsoil, and the landscape. Ground-source or water-source heat pumps can be used in more extreme climates than air-source heat pumps, and customer satisfaction with the systems is very high.

Finally, to replace fossil natural gas uses as industrial or chemical feedstock, the byproducts of biochar can be used.  Biochar is an excellent fertilizer and soil conditioner that is seeing increasing use around the world.

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4183 on: October 30, 2019, 06:31:10 PM »
As we discussed in the oil and gas forum, there are renewable solutions for all of those natural gas uses.

What you say is of course correct, Ken.

What do you think is the timeframe until all sectors are converted to a CO2 emissions-free technology?
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4184 on: October 30, 2019, 08:00:25 PM »
As we discussed in the oil and gas forum, there are renewable solutions for all of those natural gas uses.

What you say is of course correct, Ken.

What do you think is the timeframe until all sectors are converted to a CO2 emissions-free technology?

For transportation, most of the natural gas is used for compressors in pipelines that transport fossil fuels.  As fossil fuel use declines, this use for natural gas will disappear.  I expect that we will need far fewer pipelines for natural gas, gasoline and crude oil by 2050.  I don't know how long they last, but it's hard to foresee any new pipelines being built after 2030 as natural gas use peaks and declines due to alternatives being cheaper.

For vehicles, the primary users of natural gas are buses.  The infrastructure for compressed natural gas is expensive and there's the annoying tendency for CNG tanks to explode that deters new investments in them.  Also, batteries have become better and electric vehicles are expected to be cheaper than alternatives in the early 2020s.  Many transit systems have already begun to transition to battery electric vehicles instead of CNG.  As buses can last 12 to 15 years, and some CNG buses are still being made now, expect natural gas to be out of the transportation sector by 2040.

For electrical generation, renewables plus batteries are already cheaper than peaker plants.  Current projections have them being cheaper than operating natural gas by the mid-2030s. So expect natural gas to be completely out of the electrical generation sector by 2050.

Almost half of the buildings that will be in use in 2100 haven't been built yet.  This is probably an underestimate as large portions of the population live in areas where sea-level rise (and other flooding from more intense precipitation) will force them to move.  As more people transition off of natural gas the costs of maintaining the existing infrastructure will be shared by fewer customers, causing the prices to increase.  Look for natural gas to disappear from building heating and other uses (cooking, laundries, etc...) by the 2050s, possibly even earlier, due to the combination of increased costs (even if carbon taxes aren't imposed) and outright bans at the State and local level.

Here's an article about how long buildings last.  Keep in mind that even if the frame of the building lasts for 100s of years, the electrical, heating, roofing and appliances will be replaced when they wear out.

https://buyersask.com/structural/life-expectancy-of-a-house-will-it-last-100-years/

Quote
Maintenance and up-grading
Older homes will generally have had their roofs replaced, new heating and air-conditioning systems installed, bathrooms and kitchens remodeled and plumbing and electrical systems upgraded. However, their basic structural bones, the foundation, footings and framing are basically the same. In areas with earthquakes and high winds owners may have reinforced the structural components to help withstand these forces.

Condo complexes, apartment buildings and high-rise structures often have shorter life spans than single family homes

The basic reason for this is that as components and various systems, such as plumbing, HVAC system, electrical systems and large dual pane windows become worn out or obsolete; and they cost more to replace or update than the value or wroth added. Imagine high rise buildings with large glass facades and dual pane windows where the large insulated  glass panels have began to fail, where they have become foggy, internally streaked and have lost their insulation value which is not unusual after 20 or 30 years. Now think of the cost to replace and upgrade these windows and cladding; it can be astronomically expensive.

These type of buildings may last only 1/2 half or 2/3 as long a single family home and may be torn down

Here's an article about cities banning new natural gas hookups:

https://archinect.com/news/article/150162530/berkeley-s-natural-gas-ban-creates-a-chain-reaction-in-the-west

Quote
When Berkley, California recently made the announcement that it would become the first city in the United States to ban natural-gas installations in newly constructed buildings, public took note. After the news broke, four other California cities established new rules to "encourage buildings to use only electricity," according to a report from Salon. Since then, more cities, such as Santa Monica, San Jose, and Menlo Park have made the change, as well. Several larger California cities are seriously considering such a ban, as are more far-flung cities like Seattle and Brookline, Massachusetts. However, why is there still a group of individuals against this proactive approach to helping mitigate better carbon cutting practices?

Nathaneal Johnson of Salon highlights, "The Berkeley ban outlaws gas in new single family homes starting in January. It will apply to the construction of larger buildings as soon as state regulators put the finishing touches on standards for all-electric buildings. Most of the other cities that have passed ordinances are taking a more moderate approach.

All of these estimated times could be significantly accelerated if a carbon tax were imposed.  It seems like the public is becoming more aware of urgency of reducing our emissions and more politicians are embracing the idea of a carbon tax, or at least a cap and trade system, so it's possible that there could be one in the US in the 2020s.  But even without action at the Federal level, I don't foresee (fossil) natural gas being used in any significant amounts in the later half of this century.



TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4185 on: October 30, 2019, 08:07:23 PM »
^^
Your optimism is noted.


Have you seen any of Gerontocrat's charts?
Terry

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4186 on: October 30, 2019, 08:54:11 PM »
USA Natural Gas

The IPCC reports say man has to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by 2030, starting after 2020.

Let's look at Ken's timetable, which looks very possible to me.

Transportation - only 3 %
Quote
expect natural gas to be out of the transportation sector by 2040.
Electrical generation - 36%
Quote
For electrical generation, renewables plus batteries are already cheaper than peaker plants.  Current projections have them being cheaper than operating natural gas by the mid-2030s. So expect natural gas to be completely out of the electrical generation sector by 2050.
Residential and Commercial  Heating - 29 %
Quote
Look for natural gas to disappear from building heating and other uses (cooking, laundries, etc...) by the 2050s, possibly even earlier,
Industry 30%

No timetable given

If we only had time...?




"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)

blumenkraft

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2159
  • Fans of Hans Club - circa 2018
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 901
  • Likes Given: 1254
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4187 on: October 30, 2019, 08:58:00 PM »
Ken, you are making a lot of accurate and some (IMHO too) optimistic assumptions.

Let's take your timeline and make it only a little less optimistic by saying mankind is CO2 emission-free by 2060. Let's also take the fact into account that the consequences of CO2 emissions is delayed by around a decade or two. Which takes us to at least 2070. That's another 50 years of global warming, at an accelerating rate. As of today, we can only assume the implications of all the positive feedback loops. There will be blacks swans on the way also.

I for one appreciate your optimism, but you do see why sometimes your optimism isn't quite fitting?
"damn .. one apocalypse getting in the way of another .." - be cause

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4188 on: October 30, 2019, 09:04:28 PM »
Britain has already banned gas CH for all new build homes, not just apartments, houses too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47559920

From 2025.

It still leaves the 27 million old homes out there with other options, but it is, at least, a start.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

El Cid

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 677
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4189 on: October 30, 2019, 09:07:48 PM »
I am a perennial optimist and think that most Co2 emissions will be gone by 2050 but still, in my country, almost everyone uses natural gas for heating and as of yet there is no alternative for that. In the EU, natural gas is still used in many many households for heating, and I do not see this being phased out any time soon in heating homes:

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Energy_consumption_in_households


NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1568
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4190 on: October 30, 2019, 09:17:30 PM »

If we only had time...?


My interest in AGW started with the Burke Special on BBC.  There was one episode (as I recall),  which talked about Global Warming and what we might see in a warming world.  They used the BBC weather maps of the day and made a prediction about 2030.

We have far exceeded that prediction.  However it never left me and I brought it back to mind many times over the years to the point where I was able to really mine information on the Internet in the early 90's.

I just checked.  The last Burke special was aired in 1976.

I think the phrase is more accurately.

If only we had listened
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Richard Rathbone

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4191 on: October 30, 2019, 09:49:06 PM »
Britain has already banned gas CH for all new build homes, not just apartments, houses too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47559920

From 2025.

It still leaves the 27 million old homes out there with other options, but it is, at least, a start.

I'm not sure that ban has actually happened. That is a news report of a plan to ban by the then Conservative Chancellor, who is not only no longer Chancellor, he's been kicked out of the Conservative Party too.

The BoJo conservatives have already walked away from a number of environmental promises made by the May conservatives, and I while I haven't heard anything on this particular one, I wouldn't expect it to survive a BoJo majority in December's election.

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4192 on: October 30, 2019, 10:14:48 PM »
USA Natural Gas

The IPCC reports say man has to significantly reduce CO2 emissions by 2030, starting after 2020.

Let's look at Ken's timetable, which looks very possible to me.

Transportation - only 3 %
Quote
expect natural gas to be out of the transportation sector by 2040.
Electrical generation - 36%
Quote
For electrical generation, renewables plus batteries are already cheaper than peaker plants.  Current projections have them being cheaper than operating natural gas by the mid-2030s. So expect natural gas to be completely out of the electrical generation sector by 2050.
Residential and Commercial  Heating - 29 %
Quote
Look for natural gas to disappear from building heating and other uses (cooking, laundries, etc...) by the 2050s, possibly even earlier,
Industry 30%

No timetable given

If we only had time...?


Here's what the IPCC Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5C (published in 2018) states:

Quote
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 12CO2 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}

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

Keeping warming under 2C without negative emissions technologies (NET) is still possible.  To meet the 1.5C goal, it looks like large scale deployment of NET will be required.  Even if we overshoot, we can draw carbon out of the atmosphere. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02516-4

Quote
Negative emissions and international climate goals—learning from and about mitigation scenarios

Abstract
For aiming to keep global warming well-below 2 °C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, a full-fledged assessment of negative emission technologies (NETs) that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is crucial to inform science-based policy making. With the Paris Agreement in mind, we re-analyse available scenario evidence to understand the roles of NETs in 1.5 °C and 2 °C scenarios and, for the first time, link this to a systematic review of findings in the underlying literature. In line with previous research, we find that keeping warming below 1.5 °C requires a rapid large-scale deployment of NETs, while for 2 °C, we can still limit NET deployment substantially by ratcheting up near-term mitigation ambition. Most recent evidence stresses the importance of future socio-economic conditions in determining the flexibility of NET deployment and suggests opportunities for hedging technology risks by adopting portfolios of NETs. Importantly, our thematic review highlights that there is a much richer set of findings on NETs than commonly reflected upon both in scientific assessments and available reviews. In particular, beyond the common findings on NETs underpinned by dozens of studies around early scale-up, the changing shape of net emission pathways or greater flexibility in the timing of climate policies, there is a suite of “niche and emerging findings”, e.g. around innovation needs and rapid technological change, termination of NETs at the end of the twenty-first century or the impacts of climate change on the effectiveness of NETs that have not been widely appreciated. Future research needs to explore the role of climate damages on NET uptake, better understand the geophysical constraints of NET deployment (e.g. water, geological storage, climate feedbacks), and provide a more systematic assessment of NET portfolios in the context of sustainable development goals.


Conservation agriculture and regenerative agriculture are spreading rapidly, and they have the potential to sequester hundreds of billions of tons of carbon while improving soil conditions and increasing food production.  In the US, "Big Food" is actively funding regenerative agriculture to protect it's future revenue streams.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/can-regenerative-agriculture-reverse-climate-change-big-food-banking-it-n1072941

Quote
General Mills, the packaged food giant, is one of several Big Food corporations jumping on the regenerative agriculture bandwagon, escalating the buzz around the idea that capturing carbon in the soil could reverse climate change. The company took the lead when it announced this spring that it would apply regenerative agriculture to 1 million acres by 2030 — about a quarter of the land from which it sources ingredients in North America.

Undisturbed soil naturally contains carbon and microbes, but once it's tilled for farming, for instance, the carbon is released into the air. Regenerative agriculture, a term that is often used synonymously with “carbon farming,” is a set of practices that builds organic matter back into the soil, effectively storing more water and drawing more carbon out of the atmosphere. Examples include applying compost and employing managed grazing, as well as planting cover crops, which protect the soil in winter and prevent erosion while adding nutrients. Though scientists generally agree the practices, especially when used together, work to draw more carbon, there’s an ongoing debate on how much carbon can be stored that way and for how long.

Quote
One much-cited estimate of potential soil sequestration published to date suggests that if regenerative practices were used on all of the world’s croplands and pastures forever — a huge assumption — the soil may be able to sequester up to 322 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

We're getting pretty far off the topic of renewable energy here though.  Maybe we should take this up in the Direct Air Capture topic.


sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5205
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4193 on: October 31, 2019, 07:55:33 AM »
We seem to be burning oil worldwide at the rate of 6ish terawatt, and we generate about 2.5ish terawatt electricity. Assume foraminnit that all that oil is being burnt for motor propulsion, and that if we were to replace all oil motors with electric we would get a factor of three. Thats still 2ish more terawatt we need to generate renewably over and above the 2.5 we generate today.

These numbers are of course, squishy, but i see the electric utilities become much bigger in our brave new electrified world.

I cant believe the electric utilities and falling over themselves to take over the fossil oil transportation market. If i were AEP for example, i would be partnering with every EV manufacturer in the country right now and building out generatin and charging networks as fast as i could.

O i forgot. All that matters to the execs at AEP is this quarter returns and share closing prices.

sidd

etienne

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4194 on: October 31, 2019, 09:10:53 AM »
It is not so easy. You can't multiply by 2 transport and production capacities whithout heavy investments. There is something called marginal cost which consider how much each extra production costs when no investment is required. That part of the production brings a lot of revenues and I guess they try to optimise that part of the incomes. A fast growth of EV without the smart grid technology installed could create major problems to the network.

etienne

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 785
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4195 on: October 31, 2019, 09:24:59 AM »
 At home, I have a 40 Amps 3phases 230V breaker (120 Amps altogether), and behind that, I have 30 x 16 Amps + 4 x 10 Amps breakers, or 520 Amps. On the road, we probably have a similar ratio based on the fact that all houses don't use electricity together, and the fact that electical motors need much more power to start than to run. When loading EV, you use many Amps (typically 3x16 Amps) and if each house loads an EV at the same time, there is no way for the network to provide that power in addition to the usual needs.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5700
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 694
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4196 on: October 31, 2019, 10:16:56 AM »
At home, I have a 40 Amps 3phases 230V breaker (120 Amps altogether), and behind that, I have 30 x 16 Amps + 4 x 10 Amps breakers, or 520 Amps. On the road, we probably have a similar ratio based on the fact that all houses don't use electricity together, and the fact that electical motors need much more power to start than to run. When loading EV, you use many Amps (typically 3x16 Amps) and if each house loads an EV at the same time, there is no way for the network to provide that power in addition to the usual needs.
Ramen!!!
I've lived in American homes with 60 Amp, single phase service. The whole subdivision's electrical service was/is designed for this modest load. Upgrading the neighborhood will be both time consuming and very expensive. Upgrade the city, the state and the country & it will beggar the consumers.


Will the poor family in the middle of the block pay the price for these upgrades?
Will the aging coal generating plant be retired when the need is so great?


PG&E is having problems just maintaining what infrastructure it has. Who will pay for the massive expansion required should EVs live up to their promise?


Terry

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4646
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1006
  • Likes Given: 1334
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4197 on: October 31, 2019, 01:39:18 PM »
Just think how much money is plowed into oil and its refinement and transportation, and you will have your answers.
With the money invested in the short-term fracking boom a lot of the problem could have been solved already.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7214
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1994
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4198 on: October 31, 2019, 04:45:50 PM »
My conclusion is If you have a standard Tesla 3 (or equivalent) in the UK, it is doable and at a cheaper rate.

Data & Analysis

In the UK, the average house has a 100 amp connection to the 220-240 volt supply. The average house also has at least one 20 amp or 25 amp circuit breaker available. Often this is not used, as a modern electric cooker (for which it is there) can be plugged into a normal 13 amp socket.

At 230 volts, one KW power needs 4.35 amps. so a 25 amp rated circuit can take up to about 5.2 Kw load (after deducting 10% for safety).

A standard Tesla 3 has a 55 kwh battery, of which they reckon 46 kwh is useable.
They tell me that the efficiency of recharging batteries is about 90% of the power applied to the battery.

So your 25 amp connection will inject about 4.66 kw into the battery. i.e. if your Tesla3 is flat as a pancacke, about 10 hours to get full up.

If you have a Tesla S (100KWH battery, 95 KWH useable), around 20 hours.

If you have a Tesla 3 in the UK, it is doable and at a cheaper rate. We have the "economy 7" cheapo night-time tariff. Many houses have it for electric storage heaters. Heat up at night, release heat in the day. It makes sense for the electric company when it has fossil fuel dominated electricity generation. Better get those wind turbines built - and why not?

If you have a Model S, what are you doing living in a little house? Bigger houses have bigger electrical supply.

That is my analysis and it belongs to me.
"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)

Ken Feldman

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 115
  • Likes Given: 108
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #4199 on: October 31, 2019, 06:36:31 PM »
Purchase Power Agreements (PPAs) are coming to Asia.

https://www.eco-business.com/news/can-southeast-asia-quench-corporate-thirst-for-renewable-energy/

Quote
Can Southeast Asia quench corporate thirst for renewable energy?

The desire of corporate giants to become 100 per cent renewable is driving clean energy investment and fuelling the energy transition worldwide. As businesses set their sights on greening their operations in Southeast Asia, can the region meet businesses’ clean energy needs?

Quote
Clean and green—how are corporates fuelling the energy transition?

Corporate power purchasing agreements (PPAs) have been a key driver of renewable energy infrastructure around the world, especially that of wind and solar. In Asia, where the corporate procurement market is still in its nascent stages compared to Europe and the United States, there has been an uptick in clean energy PPAs, mostly occurring in India.

At a renewable energy conference in Bangkok in June, experts said that while the US has seen the largest uptake of corporate PPAs so far, renewable energy deals are “set to take a significant chunk of the market in Southeast Asia” in the next three to five years as multinational companies with supply chain partners in the region continue to push for clean energy.

According to information from infrastructure industry source Inframation News, corporate procurement of renewable energy is also predicted to rise in Southeast Asia as countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam review their regulations on renewable energy purchasing.

This year, Vietnam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade plans to introduce the Direct Power Purchase Agreement (DPPA) mechanism, a new policy which will allow businesses in Vietnam to purchase from private renewable energy firms.

Quote
“People are realising that there are more and more companies that want to buy renewable energy certificates. Since there is money to be made from building a solar plant and selling certificates based on the energy it produces, more players are now motivated to build more renewable energy plants,” he said.

“At the end of the day, assuming the electricity demand is the same, as long as you build one more solar plant, one less fossil fuel plant needs to be built,” Kang said.