Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1518348 times)

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #200 on: December 26, 2013, 03:21:39 PM »
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/giant-battery-can-store-renewable-energy-16852


Giant ‘Battery’ Can Store Renewable Energy

[...]
I guess I had assumed that they had already been doing this for some time.

Wili you are right that they are already doing this for some time:

Since 1977 there are power lines between Denmark and Norway - wind power is flowing from Denmark to Norway and hydro power is flowing back with now >1.6 GW  http://new.abb.com/systems/hvdc/references/skagerrak

Since 2008 there is a power line between Netherland and Norway with 700 MW - transmitting nuclear power from Netherlands to Norway during the night and hydro power back during daytime http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorNed

A power line between Germany and Norway is planned - construction will start next year and it shall be operative in 2018 and another one after 2020 http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/seekabel-stromaustausch-mit-norwegen-11794385.html
One DC -line (to avoid losses due to capacitance of 2 close conductors) will transmit 1.4 GW and cost 1.4 billion euro http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NorGer

Since Norway produces about 130 TWh/year from hydro (about a quarter of Germanys production of 556 TWh/year) http://www.europa-auf-einen-blick.de/norwegen/energie.php it would be possible to cover 20% of German demand from hydro power in future - if
1) we build 50 power lines like NorGer
2) Norways power plants produce electricty only during that time, when wind and PV is low and Norway is using electricty from Germanys wind & PV during the other time
3) Norways hydro power plants must be equiped with 5x the turbines power compared to now (but same capacity - so neither new dams nor pump storage are needed).
4) Reduction of Norways hydro power capacity (due to the power lines like NorNed less hydro power was necessary) should be reversed to pre 2008 levels.

Including similar actions in Sweden, Austria, Swizerland and Italy existing hydro power plants equiped with additional turbines could act as battery for total Europe http://www.umweltrat.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/1001596/publicationFile/66394/2010_05_Stellung_15_erneuerbareStromversorgung.pdf

So the path to 100% renewables is surely feasible - but massive investions are needed.





SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #201 on: December 26, 2013, 04:31:49 PM »
Another view from the German perspective - how to proceed now?

After a dozen years of Energiewende in Germany it is now the time for politics to get to the next stage.

What are the results of the first step?

The technological development of renewables and their scaling have winners. The main reason for EEG ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Act ) was to push various renewable energies like photovoltaics, wind on-shore, wind off-shore, CSP, geothermal and biogas / biofuel to get them competitive using scaling effects.

The winners in Germany are: photovoltaics and wind on-shore

Both have been prooven to be scalable and further potential for the future and both can compete on system level with fossils or nuclear. All other sources are more expensive or not scalable enough

Now it is time for Energiewende 2.0 to build the energy business ready for >80% renewables. The new secretary now in charge for doing this did formulate 12 theses to draw the big picture
http://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/downloads/publikationen/Impulse/12_Thesen/Agora_12_Insights_on_Germanys_Energiewende_web.pdf

1) it is all about wind and solar
2) "Baseload" power plants disappear altogether, and natural gas and coal operate only part-time;
3) There's plenty of flexibility – but so far it has no value;
4) Grids are cheaper than storage facilities;
5)  Securing supply in times of peak load does not cost much
6)  Integration of the heat sector makes sense;
7) Today's electricity market is about trading kilowatt hours – it does not guarantee system reliability;
8) Wind and PV cannot be principally refinanced via marginal-cost-based markets;
9)  A new Energiewende market is required;
10) The Energiewende market must actively engage the demand-side;
11)The Energiewende market must be considered in the European context;
12) Efficiency: A saved kilowatt hour is the most cost-effective kilowatt hour.

E.g. including the heat market into the electricity market (6) could be done using efficient heat pumps. During high wind times the supply spikes are used for heat storage.
By this way >80% electricity and  >60% of all energy can be renewables.

By including "hydro storage" abroad (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg18176.html#msg18176) and later also the transportation sector (battery / wind gas / wind petrol /wind kerosine) a path to 100% renewables for all sectors could be feasible. On a system level such systems should be competitive with systems based on fossils (in the case you have to import that fossils and do not get it "for free" by robbery from your children...).

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #202 on: January 03, 2014, 11:31:59 AM »
Point 12 strikes me as the most important. We really need to take a hard look at what we use energy for.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #203 on: January 03, 2014, 05:23:39 PM »
But what is the mainstream message being broadcast in the US right now?  We are in an ENERGY boom!  Natural gas, oil, yippie!  It was on the news yesterday that the oil shale play in thje Bakken formation in North Dakotra and Montana went over 1 million bbl/day last month.  WE ARE SAVED!   People are being encouraged to use more not less.

Sorry ranting.

But what is really happening with the Bakken?  Compared to 2009 it now takes 1 1/2 wells to equal the production rate from 1 well in 2009.  Hmmmm.  Existing wells are in a production decline of negative 63,000 bbl/day.  This is expected to be around negative 80,000 bbl/day by the end of this year.  It will take about 130 new wells PER MONTH to offset this decline.  Keeping in mind that the best locations have already been drilled and that decline rates are increasing there is a good chance that the Bakken will hit peak production in 2015. 

In the meantime government subsidies for oil, gas, and corn to ethanol are about 3 times as high as they are for wind and solar.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #204 on: January 03, 2014, 08:03:05 PM »
Point 12 strikes me as the most important. We really need to take a hard look at what we use energy for.

Here is a simple visual for  the U.S. These are different for each nation or region of the world. Europe, for example, uses less of their consumption for transportation than the U.S. What is most striking  about this visual is the rejected energy component, well over half of the energy generated. This rejected energy is the waste calculated by use (residential, commercial, industrial, transportation). 25% of the energy consumed via transportation is actually used, the remainder is wasted. Fully 2/3 of the electricity generated is  'rejected energy'. This is not explained but I would imagine it includes things like transmission loss.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 06:32:13 PM by Shared Humanity »

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #205 on: January 03, 2014, 09:23:56 PM »
Point 12 strikes me as the most important. We really need to take a hard look at what we use energy for.
Wili, it is quite well known what we use the energy for. The broad picture is shown nicely by Shared Humanity above. In Germany that is similar - a bit less for transportation and more for industry but qualitatively the same situation.

For a individuum in Germany (and quite similar in US) I would rank personal energy consumption like this:
1) Most energy is used for producing the things you buy - machines (like cars), electronics, food, ...
2) Transportation (cars, flights)
3) Heating / cooling your home
4) smallest part: Electricity you use at your home (mainly cooling and heating in the kitchen)

So to save energy you should:
1) use your old stuff as long as possible, buy reused things, buy long lasting high quality things, avoid fashion/life-style stuff you have to buy every 1-2 years again
2) use trains, busses, bikes
3) insulate your home, use efficient heat pumping or calorific value boiler, use moderate temperatures (wear a T-shirt in summer and a pullover in winter indoors)
4) buy a smaller A++ fridge (or how a efficient device is rated at your place), use LED instead of bulb - such things pay off very fast

A lot of those things are regulated in EU to lower consumption. Only transportation is very poorly regulated - just to please our car industry :'(
E.g. bulbs are not allowed anymore, there are laws forcing you to update your heat equipment (yearly house search by the chimney sweeper), regulations for minimum thermal insulation if you touch your houses face), taxes for petrol and electricity (more than 50% of the energy costs for consumers are allready taxes).

What is poorly regulated is No.1 - the things. It makes not much sense if the kWh used to produce something is saved only by moving to other places in the world.

That is the a big problem in our global world: Similar to Apple not paying tax for its incredible profits by moving the profits to a tax haven like Ireland the production moves to countries with low energy costs, unfair conditions of work or bad environment protection - that does not help anyone - it is only good for a few individuals and for a short-term. I think taxes or customs could help to address that problem.
E.g. if one country has a carbon tax and the other doesn't - it would make sense to take customs charges to take the difference at the border. In this way the consumer has a chance to feel the real costs and to make a proper choice.   

But to come back to points 1-12): While point 12) is surely the easiest way to get to the future it will not be a nice future without points 1-11). We will need energy and it must be emission free. And it must be emission free _very_ soon. Therefore, all those points must be done right now. Maybe you skip a few points and add a few more appropriate for your country, since that points are specially for Germany. E.g. in other countries off-shore wind, nuclear or geothermal could be ranked higher for good local reasons. It just has to be renewable in less than a generation.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #206 on: January 03, 2014, 11:33:42 PM »
SATire, yes, in principle we should be able to vastly reduce the first three items from your first list. But the whole economy is right now based on every higher levels of #1 (and to some extent of the others.)

So how quickly can we rethink the basis of our economy?

I'm not a hunter, but I often point out to students who are disgusted by it for moral reasons that when they shop at a mall, there are not any legal limits set, even though the mall and its parkinglot and access roads...probably wiped out a whole ecosystem/biome that probably once supported many wild animals. That development wiped those animals out much more effectively and permanently than hunters keeping within limits could have. (But I don't let hunters off the hook too easily either. No free passes in my classes! >:( :D)

We need some kind of counter to tally what percentage of an atomic bomb worth of GW energy each purchase creates or some such, but also the force of actual law as well as moral suasion behind it.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #207 on: January 04, 2014, 06:30:37 PM »
75% of the energy consumed via transportation is actually used, the remainder is wasted.
Shared Humanity - I think you confused the shades of grey: 25% of energy are used for transportation and 75 are wasted as heat... That is typical for combustion engines - in electric trains the situation is _much_ better and similar to your statement.

Thanks. I reversed the numbers by accident.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #208 on: January 04, 2014, 08:32:37 PM »
Well, well, well. Cracks form in the monolithic industrial agriculture system. 

Quote
Ethanol producers are panicking amid speculation that the ethanol mandate could be drastically reduced or scrapped entirely this year as the biofuel loses its allure and bipartisan allies and former friends team up against it.

December saw California Democrat Dianne Feinstein—a renewable fuel champion--coordinate efforts with Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn to come up with a Senate bill to get rid of ethanol from the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), citing fears that corn-based fuel production mandates will harm livestock producers.

In November, Washington proposed cutting the biofuels mandate for 2014 by 16% to 15.21 billion gallons....

Quote
...Beyond that, poultry companies are going bankrupt due to rising prices of feedstock as crops are diverted to ethanol. The rising costs of farming and egg production are taking their toll on states like Minnesota.

On the other side of this divide we have the biofuels producers for whom uncertainty is rising fast as a resolution on the ethanol mandate looms. States like Iowa are leading the lobbying here because they have been reaping the benefits of all that demand for corn. This has come along with new jobs. Iowa will certainly baulk at the proposed cuts because the bulk of US biofuels are made from corn, with soybeans, grasses, crop waste and Brazilian sugarcane playing lesser roles.
...

This situation is being assisted by the surge in oil production in the US as well as the continuing drop in fuel consumption here.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Producers-Panic-as-Ethanol-Mandate-Loses-Support.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JackTaylor

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #209 on: January 06, 2014, 01:57:38 PM »
Quote
JimD:
"Well, well, well. Cracks form in the monolithic industrial agriculture system"

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Producers-Panic-as-Ethanol-Mandate-Loses-Support.html
Never - Never - Land - of - Make - Believe; being pushed off on folks like me.

I believe there were good intentions among (some) pol's when RFS was approved

I also believe there was a profit seeking agenda among (some) pol's when RFS was approved.

I hope it continues to develop as an issue and eventually be repealed or modified as I believe in renewable's but not starvation, damage to engines, ff ghg for nitrogen fertilizer,,, etc...

Numerous times what seems to be a good idea turns out to have more un-predicted (undisclosed?) aspects. 
Personally, I for one remember the lead up time to RFS,
and now I'm unable to recall whether I supported - opposed - or was uninterested - ambivalent.
Better get my butt in gear and pay closer attention to things, LOL.


 

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #210 on: January 06, 2014, 08:41:46 PM »
Numerous times what seems to be a good idea turns out to have more un-predicted (undisclosed?) aspects. 
Personally, I for one remember the lead up time to RFS,
and now I'm unable to recall whether I supported - opposed - or was uninterested - ambivalent.
Better get my butt in gear and pay closer attention to things, LOL.
Jack Taylor - I think you are right with your feelings. And there is a reason why biofuels are not included in point 1) in post #201: Biofuels will not save the world - they may only help a tiny little bit. 

The reason is following: Biofuels make no sense if you grow them instead of food (very low energy return on energy invested - worse than tar sands, and we will need that soil more urgently for our food). Biofuels make a lot of sense if you make them from waste (e.g. waste from paper industry like in Sweden or from waste resulting from food production). If they are made from waste you can not scale that energy source - e.g. would you read more newspapers to fuel more cars??? So - biofuels from waste make sense, it is some kind of re-use and is important. But it is not part of the "tipping" of renewables like wind or solar. Wind and solar deliver allready 25% of electricity here - we just have to double that another two times, which is easily feasible. The last 75% will cost less than the first 25% because of the scaling, which worked much better than expected. Maybe 1-2 more doublings for heating sector and transportation (windgas) and we are in the future.

JackTaylor

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 209
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #211 on: January 06, 2014, 11:01:21 PM »
Quote
SATire:
~ bio-fuels from waste make sense, it is some kind of re-use and is important. But it is not part of the "tipping" of renewable's like wind or solar ~
Yes, bio-fuels from waste make sense, but not from food stocks.
 
Eliminating the "profit motive" for food producers is going to take a lot  of work - time.

Where there is a "profit motive" there will be a BIG fight to change policy.

I hope your country does go well past the 33% renewable's level in a practical and economic way.

Was it a good scare from the Fukushima EVENT that truly promoted progress in renewable's there?

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #212 on: January 07, 2014, 07:15:25 AM »
"bio-fuels from waste make sense"

Except that there are no 'wastes.'
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #213 on: January 07, 2014, 08:38:11 AM »
Was it a good scare from the Fukushima EVENT that truly promoted progress in renewable's there?
No, definitly not. Evidence: The action to boost renewables and to exit nuclear was taken in the years 1998-2002, that was prior to Fukushima (2011). Just look at the historical facts.

That absolut growth of renewables is biggest in recent years is due to the tipping. That is a property of a growth curve (so, growth is not allways a bad thing ;-).

Fukushima only forced our conservative party to exit nuclear, too. It forced the "exit from the exit of nuclear" the conservative did in 2010 - that is why we call our cancellor sometimes "double U-turn Merkel". Fukushima made the conservative to accept to exit nuclear first and coal secondly - of course that may be different in other countries. But to boost renewables was never beyond question.

I hope your country does go well past the 33% renewable's level in a practical and economic way.#
Thank you. We hope that, too. And our new government has poeple with good plans for that, as I did explain in post #201.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 08:44:46 AM by SATire »

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #214 on: January 10, 2014, 12:51:14 AM »
Battery advance could boost renewable energy take-up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25674738

Quote
The researchers say their new battery already performs as well as vanadium flow batteries, but uses no precious metal catalyst and has an underlying chemistry that is metal-free, instead relying on naturally abundant, more affordable chemicals called quinones.

These water-soluble compounds are organic (carbon-based) and are similar to chemicals that store energy in plants and animals.

"These molecules are cheap and they're in all green vegetables, as well as crude oil," said co-author Michael Aziz from the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #215 on: January 10, 2014, 02:30:13 PM »
Battery advance could boost renewable energy take-up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25674738
Thank you CRandles for sharing this. From your link I have learned that the technology and the benefits are similar to power2gas - so similar hugh storage capacity and efficiency could be possible.

The storage capacity of e.g. batteries is often overrated: E.g. if all German cars would be electrical, they could store about 10 kWh x 43 Million cars = 430 GWh. Since Germany takes about 70 GW during the week, all that batteries would help us 430GWh/70GW= 6 h through a cloudy cold winter day - after 6 h all German cars would be empty...

So we need the big storage capacity for gas (thanks to cold war) or that flow batteries to be able to bridge 2-4 windless weeks in winter. However, that will be needed to do the step from 80% renewables to 100% - that is on roadmap for 2050. And we will need that time since power2gas is still prototype here - the largest plant is only 6 MW - we would need >10 GW to build up a 2 week reserve in 3 windy/sunny months...

But power2gas will probably needed much earlier to get the transportation 80% fossil-fuel-free: For long distant travel, transportation and flights we need hugh amount of power2gas - I have no idea where to get all that CO2 from, that would be needed and that of course must not come from fossils again ;-)

edit: Didn't I mention in post #200, that we have a battery in Europe? How could I forget that 130 TWh/year battery Norway! No further need for battery can be hold responsible for making us not aiming at 100% renewables!
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 02:41:11 PM by SATire »

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #216 on: January 10, 2014, 03:38:50 PM »
I doubt that Norway can store 130TWh, where did this number come from?

Some interesting news from Spain:
Quote
Surge in wind power and hydropower drives emissions down by more than 23%
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013

This is probably one of the first examples that renewables have actually reduced coal consumption. It's good news, because it means it can be done.

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #217 on: January 10, 2014, 04:43:15 PM »
I doubt that Norway can store 130TWh, where did this number come from?
You are right, they can not store it now. But in post #200 I explained it could be done (after executing points 1-4, some effort but feasible) without new dams and without pump storage. The number is the Norway consumption per year (near 100% hydro, link given above). It becomes a storage, if water would not flow continuously through the turbines but pulsed. So it would deliver electricity only during low wind times. Thus 5x turbines capacity and 70GW power lines are still to be build to form that battery. That is way cheaper than any other storage option.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 04:53:30 PM by SATire »

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #218 on: January 10, 2014, 04:49:55 PM »
Some interesting news from Spain:
Quote
Surge in wind power and hydropower drives emissions down by more than 23%
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013

This is probably one of the first examples that renewables have actually reduced coal consumption. It's good news, because it means it can be done.
It is very heartening to read that positive news. Since it must be done it is very comforting to learn examples that it can be done. And it is encouraging to read good news from other countries and to realize, that we (Germany) have been way to lazy in recent years. I hope we will do better soon.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #219 on: January 10, 2014, 07:35:15 PM »
I doubt that Norway can store 130TWh, where did this number come from?

Some interesting news from Spain:
Quote
Surge in wind power and hydropower drives emissions down by more than 23%
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/06/wind-power-spain-electricity-2013

This is probably one of the first examples that renewables have actually reduced coal consumption. It's good news, because it means it can be done.

Not so fast please.  Let us not forget that Spain is in the middle of what can only be called a depression and economic activity has fallen off a cliff.  That is a huge impact on energy consumption.  If you have renewable capacity and reduced demand (from the article consumption of electricity fell 2.1%in 2013 - that is a really rare occurrence in an industrial country) the first thing the power company is going to do is curtail the use of plants for which they have to buy fuel. 

So claiming that the renewables cut coal usage is going a little too far unless one attributes some of the decline to economic factors.  Some of that declining economic activity was responsible for part of the rise in percentage of renewable generation and part of the decline in emissions. 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #220 on: January 11, 2014, 01:14:58 PM »
Let us not forget that Spain is in the middle of what can only be called a depression and economic activity has fallen off a cliff.  That is a huge impact on energy consumption.  If you have renewable capacity and reduced demand (from the article consumption of electricity fell 2.1%in 2013 - that is a really rare occurrence in an industrial country) the first thing the power company is going to do is curtail the use of plants for which they have to buy fuel. 
JimD - you are right that the good numbers from Spain are the result of a combination of BAU, "Green-BAU" and "de-growth-BAU" (ok - I am not very sure how you actually distinguish the different BAU's...).

Good thing: Absolut number of power from renewables raised
Bad thing: Depression resulted in a breach of confidence mid 2013 (cutting subsidary) - future invest in renewables in Spain is now unlikely
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2013/05/08/renewable-energy-in-spain-the-good-and-the-downright-ugly/

But the 2.3% decrease in consumption is not the only reason for big reduction of CO2 emission. Also is a decrease of consumption not purely related to economic crysis. E.g. in Germany electricity consumption peaked in early 2000s and there is no crisis now. But production did not clearly peak - export soars and that is import of emission. That is quite similar to China - they emit CO2 for the benefit of others. That is making them looking worse and importers looking better than actually true, since the consumption of goods is the thing, that must be reduced. 

Maybe one should not judge a single year. Green-BAU is on its road to renewables and is a long-term project accepted by majority of the poeple.
Current southern european "de-growth-BAU" may be a matter of a few years but nothing poeple really want to have. Maybe similar to the thing that happened in eastern Europe earlier, poeple are glad moving from de-growth-BAU to the new green-BAU. ("new green-BAU" sounds like a contradiction - I am not sure how poeple actually define green-BAU, since that started 1980-2000 and is relatively new...)

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #221 on: January 11, 2014, 09:27:45 PM »
Germany exports electricity to Netherlands (alot) and also Switzerland, Austria and Poland (less). So you have to look emissions in these countries if you want to see whether German coal really increased emissions.

Overall, emissions in EU are decreasing, but slowly. Economics plays a big role and EU has additional problems with lack of growth.

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #222 on: January 12, 2014, 12:30:32 AM »
domen,

actually I was talking also about exporting of things and not only electricity. For the production of things lot of energy is used. Therefore it made sense to mention also China in this context. By importing products you export emissions - that can not be related to sucess with renewables.

German increase of emissions is mainly due to increased use of brown coal (lignite) and I explained that some pages up. And that may be a reason of very low price for CO2 emission. And of course due to the fact that nuclear is replaced by renewables first.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #223 on: January 12, 2014, 06:36:12 PM »
SATire

Your point about exporting emissions is very valid to the US as even not counting our exported emissions due to having our products manufactured in China and elsewhere we are still easily the largest emitters.  Add in the exported emissions and.....it is ugly.  Few people here have any understanding of that issue at all.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #224 on: January 13, 2014, 06:08:10 PM »
This is the first potential very large capacity battery concept that I have read about that really seems to address all of the serious faults of battery technology.  It will be interesting to see how development goes.

Organic Mega Flow Battery Promises Breakthrough for Renewable Energy

Quote
The paper reports a metal-free flow battery that relies on the electrochemistry of naturally abundant, inexpensive, small organic (carbon-based) molecules called quinones, which are similar to molecules that store energy in plants and animals.

Quote
Flow batteries store energy in chemical fluids contained in external tanks -- as with fuel cells -- instead of within the battery container itself. The two main components -- the electrochemical conversion hardware through which the fluids are flowed (which sets the peak power capacity), and the chemical storage tanks (which set the energy capacity) -- may be independently sized. Thus the amount of energy that can be stored is limited only by the size of the tanks. The design permits larger amounts of energy to be stored at lower cost than with traditional batteries.

Quote
The new flow battery developed by the Harvard team already performs as well as vanadium flow batteries, with chemicals that are significantly less expensive, and with no precious metal electrocatalyst.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140108154238.htm
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #225 on: January 13, 2014, 08:20:31 PM »
Organic Mega Flow Battery Promises Breakthrough for Renewable Energy
JimD - it looks like CRandles was just 3 days faster than you ;-)
Personally I would call this kind of storage "hydrogene storage" and not battery - but you may call me nitpicking. This way electrolysis + gas storage + fuell cell would also act as huge battery.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #226 on: January 14, 2014, 06:39:50 PM »
Ah, I missed his post.  Well it deserves extra I guess  :)
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #227 on: January 16, 2014, 08:48:50 PM »
I'll bet this is a surprise to a whole bunch of people.

Global Clean Energy Investment Fell for the Second Year Running

Quote
Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) has released a report stating that despite increasing interest in and awareness of clean energy technologies, for the second year in a row global investment in renewable energy has fallen. Last year it was down to $253 billion, and in Europe it fell by a staggering 41% compared to the year before.

This news has come just as investors meet at a United Nations summit aimed to encourage investment in clean energy and build momentum towards the shift to a clean energy economy. It marks the second year of declining investment in the sector, down from the record high of $318 billion in 2011. It has been calculated that in order to make the transition global investment in renewable energy technologies must reach $1 trillion a year by 2030.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Global-Clean-Energy-Investment-Fell-for-the-Second-Year-Running.html
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #228 on: January 17, 2014, 08:34:26 PM »
It's not that much of a surprise, because Europe has substantialy cut back subsidies.

Notice that renewable capacity growth is still speeding up, despite lower investment. This is because they have become much cheaper, even cost competitive in many places.

But of course lower investment is not good news. Investment in renewables should be heading up, not down.

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #229 on: January 18, 2014, 08:37:02 PM »
Whilst we live in hope that renewables will reach that tipping point, the reality may be that they cannot. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/seven-sustainable-technologies.html 

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #230 on: January 20, 2014, 11:41:49 AM »
Johnm, thank you for posting that blog post from "the Druid". However, I find it unconvincing, relying as it does on precise numerical comparisons of energy return on energy invested (EROEI). Furthermore, references aren't provided for most of the stated EROEI values.


For the example of solar PV, the Druid says...

"According to best current estimates, the EROEI needed to sustain an industrial civilization of any kind is somewhere between 10 and 12; according to most other calculations—leaving out the optimistic estimates being circulated by solar promoters as sales pitches—the EROEI of large scale solar photovoltaic systems comes in between 8 and 9 ... [so] the energy return from solar PV isn’t high enough to support the kind of industrial system needed to manufacture and maintain solar PV."


And similarly for wind power...

"...estimates of the EROEI of windpower cluster around 9, which again is too little to support a society that can build and maintain wind turbines."


  The first obvious question concerns the rigour and true uncertainty in the unsourced estimates for "the EROEI needed to sustain an industrial civilization". With what confidence can one model that, or place constraints, for an as-yet unknown future technological state? Can it really be boxed in to within plus-or-minus 10%, as claimed? (Namely, 11 +- 1).


  And that matters, as the EROEI values quoted for today's renewable technologies are close to that: 8 or 9 for PV (though with one study giving much lower), and 9 for wind.


  The pessimistic conclusion of the article hinges largely on the above numerical comparison.


  I am more accepting of the further argument that is made only for wind power - notably not for solar -  that the size of the wind resource might be too small to supply 100% of the world's energy needs.

  It has to be wondered why the equivalent presentation isn't made for solar where, in contrast, the amount of energy available is easily large enough at least in principle. Enough solar energy falls on the world's deserts that collecting over only around one percent of their area could supply the world's entire energy needs, as was pointed out as early as before World War One by solar thermal electricity pioneer and visionary Frank Schuman(n?) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman, and Google for further information on this fascinating person and his achievements.


  The relative size of the solar and wind sources is unsurprising given that the wind is itself largely driven by solar energy. The extra energy conversion to mechanical energy for wind makes it entirely sensible for the harvestable wind resource to be, say, around three orders of magnitude down on its driving solar resource.





So in summary I would argue that the solar energy resource is easily large enough to sustainably supply our future on timescales of decades and centuries, even on its own. The Druid's argument to allegedly exclude this scenario, which is based on a fine balance of EROIE calculations, lacks force.


  Personally I am optimistic on a sustainable energy future, perhaps involving some growing pains but eventually with at least a comparatively high standard of living to today. The largest contributing energy source will presumably be solar energy.







« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 11:49:54 AM by slow wing »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #231 on: January 20, 2014, 02:43:33 PM »
Enough solar energy falls on the world's deserts that collecting over only around one percent of their area could supply the world's entire energy needs, as was pointed out as early as before World War One by solar thermal electricity pioneer and visionary Frank Schuman(n?) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shuman, and Google for further information on this fascinating person and his achievements.

Thanks for that link, slow wing. I had never heard of Frank Shuman. I always find it amazing to read about people with such foresight. From the Wikipedia article:

Shuman's visionary ideals, most of which were not publicly accepted until sixty years later, were evident when he made the statement, "One thing I feel sure of... is that the human race must finally utilize direct sun power or revert to barbarism."

We have proved the commercial profit of sun power in the tropics and have more particularly proved that after our stores of oil and coal are exhausted the human race can receive unlimited power from the rays of the sun.
    —Frank Shuman, New York Times, July 2, 1916


1916! Almost 100 years ago someone was already getting it...

The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #232 on: January 20, 2014, 03:06:21 PM »
I agree with slow wing, the values in that article (linked by johnm) are probably not right. That is a common problem due to scaling of PV - e.g. 2 years old numbers are often way of newer numbers. In the time needed to review a paper most numbers are old...

E.g. here you may find EROI in Germany for PV~4 (poly Si) (Southern Europe ~7) and Wind ~ 16 - and they included a lot of things which were not included in previous years...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544213000492
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erntefaktor

If you look at a quite densely populated country with not very much sun like Germany you can easily conclude, that PV and wind are sufficiently available there. So I would estimate that would also hold for about 95% of places in the world. Maybe very dense populated places like Singapura or Monaco need some import in future. But wind and sun are surely sufficient for current world energy consumption and also for some further growth.

And a few words related to "growth" of renewables. In Germany they want to stabilize the transition. That means: stop of growth of renewables is now desired. That makes sense - in the time between 25% and 75% you should have linear growth of renewables (= constant installation of power, thus decreasing investments since plants become cheaper).

Keep in mind it just makes no sense to grow exponentially until you hit 100% and than you destroy your production capabilities suddenly. Instead you should have exponential growth until about 25%, linear growth until 75% and than reduction of installation until you reach a production of plants needed for steady replacement. That would be stable and future proove. Government will discuss that plan (given above) on Wednesday with our industry - they are all needed in the boat of course.

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #233 on: January 20, 2014, 03:37:37 PM »
Hi Slow wing,
To me, having followed the link to the Druid’s article Johnm33 gave, the content isn’t that unconvincing. Apart from all the ‘cultural identity’ strangeness of which this ‘Archdruid’ Greer seems to be an exponent, I guess there is good reason to suppose renewable energy sources will not suffice to support a high tech civilization.

Personally I would be happy to imagine the basic technologies mentioned in that article to be sufficient to support some kind of livelyhood for people in the future.
As you may know, I’m on the other hand quite pessimistic that the collapsing ecology can support life in much more than quite basic life-forms when the accumulated pollution and global warming settle in a new equilibrium.

SATire,
I admire the way you sustain your opinion with numbers and valuable examples. I have not much at hand to support my stance. But keep in mind it is hard to imagine that "Rome could fall".

Neven,
I didn't read that about Shuman, but I'd say a lot of chances would have looked much better if the EROEI from fossil deposits would have been used to invest in renewables much earlier. We have partied the stuff and now miss the basic capital in a wrecked economical system to make suitable adjustments.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 04:23:20 PM by werther »

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #234 on: January 20, 2014, 04:21:03 PM »
But keep in mind it is hard to imagine that "Rome could fall".
From my perspective Rome did not fall but was kicked over. That was a long-term/high-risk project and a lot of effort/killing was necessary. This transition to renewables is a comparably simple thing, it is a low risk task and nobody needs to be killed for that.

The work against population increase could be more risky. In some countries that did stabilize allready - maybe some increase due to immigration, but that should not count. In other regions no progress is feasible due to fundamental religions - such things could smell like a burning Rome. Luckily this thread is only about planning/reviewing a simple engineering project.

werther

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 747
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #235 on: January 20, 2014, 04:36:24 PM »
OK, thanks SATire...
Maybe some illustration on that 'Rome' meme... While campaigning for our local Green Party saturday, I stood on the tenth floor of an appartment building and could overlook 15 miles, featuring a rehabitated harbour basin filled with large scale Offshore equipment, the refineries at Pernis stretching all the way in the direction of the North Sea some 25 miles to the West and the shiny new scyscrapers of Rotterdam imitating Manhattan to the East.
Confronted with that scale and the dash that it represents, it is almost unimaginable that could collapse....
Such an image sticks to the mind, personal and collective, like it probably did to inhabitants of the ancient world up to the moment they heard of the sacking of Rome.

SATire

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 514
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #236 on: January 20, 2014, 04:57:14 PM »
I understand you, Werther. And you know how to proceed - in my region we call it "the dutch way of decision making": When green party was elected 1998-2002 the first thing was to ask nuclear industry for suggestions how to exit nuclear - and to plan and execute the exit together with them. You can not exit a show without the poeple running the show. So - I am sure you will find a consensus at your place ;-)
 

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #237 on: January 20, 2014, 05:10:04 PM »
There is always a lot of loose talk about EROEI numbers for various technologies.  This happens for many reasons.  Marketing, protecting your industry from another, failing to take into account the dozens of relevant factors in each individual calculation, ideology, and so on.  As and engineer and someone who has followed this issue and the arguments and calculations for a decade on the internet I must say that you cannot believe hardly anyone's numbers.  Even from links where the work is done by fairly qualified people unless you closely examine their assumptions and agree with them (and you can be certain that others will not agree with them).  Most people do not perform realistic calculations and they frequently high or low ball the numbers because they are not being objective (scientific?) in their analysis. 

All that being said, John Michael Geer, independent of his religious agenda, has been a participant in discussions regarding EROEI for the entire time I have followed it on the internet.  He is not a neophyte nor is he uneducated in the issue.  He writes an editorial/opinion piece each week and it is not reasonable to expect him to put links in such commentary.

Here is a link to a Scientific American article on EROEI and the aggregated values of EROEI for different energy sources.  It gives one a better understanding of the issues in calculating values and their worth in a specific or general discussion.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eroi-behind-numbers-energy-return-investment/

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/03/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win/

Every oil well has a different EROEI.  Just as each wind installation and solar and so on.  Different designs result in different EROEI.  Location makes a big difference.  Does the calculation take into account the entire life cycle of the energy source and the technology being discussed?  Does it take into account the fossil fuels used to make the equipment which generates solar or wind power (no body performs large scale manufacturing without fossil fuels)?  Does the EROEI calculation of an electric car take into account that coal is being burned to generate the electricity it is charged with?  Does it take into account the decommissioning of a nuclear plant (and cleanup after accidents)? And so on.  Rigourousness is very difficult and controversial.  Real world numbers are always less than theoretical.

It is quite possible that everyone's numbers are accurate in  some respect.  And just as likely that none of them are accurate in some respect.

Some things, however, are certain.  We will never again have an energy source which rivals the early sources of crude oil in terms of EROEI.  Or of coal.  Civilization as structured today was built on EROEI numbers which are very likely never going to be seen again with any other energy source.  That is just physics.  This begs the question.  Can we maintain the current form of civilization with other technologies which have dramatically lower EROEI.  Many very thoughtful people have looked into this over and over again for many years and the answer seems to clearly be no we cannot.  This is what the article by Geer was getting to.   

Another critical factor in making this transition to alternatives is that roll over time involved in building replacement energy infrastructure. The proponents of solar, wind, electric cars, etc almost always do not take this issue into account.  The reason for that is it quickly bogs them down in the reality of resource requirements, competing interests, the effects of a degrading financial system, and the sheer vast scale of the work required, increasing deleterious effects of AGW, etc.  Is the solar/wind power installation resulting in a reduction in fossil fuel power generation (not yet anywhere) or is it just going to increased capacity to handle the increasing demand of a growing population and a growing economy.  Which does us almost no good at all.

Ladies and gentlemen.  We do not have the time left to make a transition to an alternative energy infrastructure which could even come close to supporting our current global infrastructure and population.  Let alone one of 9+ billion people.   And such a concept is not likely possible in any case.  And realistic EROEI numbers for the alternate power sources provide very little promise of changing that conclusion in any way.  Green-BAU at its best.

We must deal with reality or it will deal with us.  Our only choices are solutions which fall into the realm of what is possible.  EROEI numbers of 10-12 cannot support anything close to 7-9 billion people nor our vast infrastructure. 

We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #238 on: January 21, 2014, 05:02:25 AM »
Game changer, or more politics?


http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/clean-energy-experts-to-offer-obama-a-path-forward-without-congress-20140120

Clean-Energy Experts to Offer Obama a Path Forward Without Congress:

The White House was briefed on new report to be released Tuesday


Quote
President Obama's efforts to sidestep Congress on environmental issues will get a big boost Tuesday from more than one hundred independent experts who will suggest some 200 ways he can build a legacy on climate change and clean energy through executive action.

Nearly a year in the making, a report from green-energy leaders will make recommendations for executive-branch actions in six areas: energy efficiency, renewable markets, renewable-energy financing, alternative-fueled vehicles, new business models, and natural-gas rule-makings.

"This is an exercise to have a group of people who are outside the Beltway think about how to help the president move a clean-energy agenda forward with a Congress that doesn't act," said Bill Ritter, a former Colorado governor who spearheaded the report as part of his work directing the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State University.

"It isn't that the president can do all of this over the remainder of his second term; the thought is to give the president a menu of options," said Ritter, who would not disclose details of the report.

I don't see anything about stopping or limiting the mining of coal or the drilling for oil and NG (except maybe the tighter rules on the latter mentioned last in the list).
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 05:14:55 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #239 on: January 23, 2014, 02:57:29 PM »
Natural gas prices continue to rise.  The current and future price increase of nat gas will give alternative energy a BIG boost in coming months AND years.

Although much of the "pricing" of nat gas is REGIONAL right now....there is more and more LNG (liquified natural gas) shipping that is taking place.  As well....the "early wells" (fracking wells is what I am talking about here) are starting to run out.

I fully expect nat gas prices to head back up to the $8 level or beyond in the next year or two.  We are at $4.69 yesterday in the US....from a low of $1.90 in March of 2012 (and $3.25 in August of 2013).

There are still a LOT of issues with natural gas THAT WILL NOT GO AWAY.  "Small things".....like poisoning of aquifers, nearby streams, nearby neighbors wells.....etc.  That is really the 64,000 pound elephant in the room of "natural gas."  Kind of like the issue of sucking in 900 degree smoke with tobacco:  How could that POSSIBLY BE BAD FOR YOU?

I think the tipping point has ALREADY BEEN REACHED for alternative energy.  Now....it is just a matter of additional increases.  And I expect it to happen MUCH FASTER than most people expect it to happen.

A higher cost of nat gas will do a LOT of good for alternative energy.

 
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #240 on: January 23, 2014, 04:31:30 PM »
No argument here about the rising price of natural gas being good for the alternative energy industry.   It they persist and are not a weather related spike.

But, any rise in natural gas prices which are not just short term spikes will also make the price of coal much more attractive to the power companies.  The prime factor in the improvement in the US carbon emissions numbers has been the low natural gas prices.  This could reverse in a heartbeat if those prices rise much further.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #241 on: January 23, 2014, 06:21:23 PM »
<<It they persist and are not a weather related spike. >>

Part of it is certainly weather related (at least SHORT TERM).  But again, keep in mind that nat gas prices have been going up since early 2012 when they were under $2.00.....so a large portion of it is not weather related.



FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #242 on: January 23, 2014, 08:23:11 PM »
To better clarify my point.  The natural gas rise from 2012 to date (not counting the current spike) was not sufficient to boost coal consumption nor was it enough to really impact renewables. 

But we are getting close and the price is not likely to drop back all the way to before the spike I would hazard a guess. 

Since renewables have only, so far, been used to increase capacity they are not going to effect the coal/natural gas dynamic much.  The power companies will ramp up coal consumption as soon as the economics cross that nearby line again but going the other way this time.  And US emissions would then rise.  It is a dual edged sword.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #243 on: January 24, 2014, 12:36:37 PM »
Longer term.....some good things are happening "under the covers".

1.  China understands....and their people are beginning to demand....that they take care of their pollution issue.  While coal is not going to "disappear" for some time....China is moving faster than anyone else in the alternative arena.

2.  For several reasons.....I think nat gas is heading higher over coming years:  (a) easy frac wells are behind them, (b) increased scrutiny by residents, (c) increased worry about what is actually happening to the water supply (it's being poisoned in case nobody here knew that) (d) increased shipment of LNG to countries with high priced local nat gas (which is NOT us).

3.  Climate change isn't going away....and the drumbeat will only get louder against fossil fuels.  Far too slowly for my liking....but it will continue to happen.

This is a 20 year movement to renewable energy.....and that is part of a growing realization that we need to build a "sustainable economy" around the world.  There is a long way to go....but I believe NEAR TERM climate events over the coming 1 - 3 years will continue to move us in the right direction.
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #244 on: January 28, 2014, 05:37:44 AM »
Tick...tick.....tick.....tick.  Slowly but surely, alternative is moving forward.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/27/3206691/google-swedish-wind-energy-investment/
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #245 on: January 30, 2014, 11:05:54 AM »
Natural gas hit $5.47 yesterday.  It was $3.40 three months ago on November 1st, 2013.

Obviously the recent cold snap has a BIG SHORT TERM effect on nat gas....but there is more at play than just the short term spike due to a cold January.

FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #246 on: January 30, 2014, 01:28:09 PM »
Two announcements from Shell today:

1)  They will NOT try to drill in the Arctic in 2014.

2)  Announced lousy earnings today (conference call later on in the day).

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/30/shell-shelves-alaskan-arctic-drilling-oil

Going forward......oil companies margins are going to shrink as cost to develop oil increases which is great news for alternative energy companies.
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #247 on: January 31, 2014, 11:02:14 AM »
England not so giddy about fracking......

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/30/3222091/fracking-defensive/

We are in...if not PAST....the tipping point.

1)  China has horrible pollution problems with coal....and they know it
2)  The onion on fracking continues to be peeled back in this country and elsewhere
3)  Costs of renewables continue to come down while NAT GAS and Oil are, and will be, on the rise over time.
4)  With each passing month....and each passing "event" (fires, record high temperatures, ice melt, etc)....we continue to march into the bowels of warming...

I believe we are past the tipping point.....and the next stage in this "process" will be the "oh shit moment" for the public.  Most climate scientists reached the "oh shit" moment years or decades ago.  Now....it will be the public's turn.  And it won't happen all at once....but more and more people.....with each passing event......and each passing set of "bad numbers" (temp, ice melt, etc) realize we are truly f***ed if we don't get off our ass and get down to some "serious" work on climate change.

I'm not talking about Al Gore apocalypse....but I am talking about the continued "grind" of news that keeps pointing at global warming and our friends in the fossil fuel business.  The type of news like "wildfires on the Oregon coast IN JANUARY" which has never happened before.  The problem with fires on the Oregon coast has never been to put them out.....it was trying to get a fire started!!!

The truth NEVER goes away.....it just waits for people to discover it.


FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #248 on: January 31, 2014, 04:52:10 PM »
Buddy

If you are saying the tipping point means that the growth of renewables is pretty well set in and thus there will be the typical slow change over in technology which normally takes several decades is now going to happen.  Then I agree with you, but I would not think such qualifies as reaching the tipping point.  To me that is just the normal historical pattern of switching out technologies.  And it won't make any difference to lessening the dire effects of AGW at all.

To me the tipping point should be defined in one of a couple of different ways.  On would be when the growth  of renewables is used to "retire" fossil fuel capacity vice just adding to total capacity.  This, if/when it occurs is only barely sufficient to count as it will not make any meaningful difference in carbon emissions in time to matter.  The other would be when panic over AGW results in a deliberate massive surge across the globe in power generation from renewables and the shuttering of massive fossil capacity.  We are obviously many years from this point, maybe even 20-30 years.

So to me we are no where near the tipping point.  But, YMMV
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #249 on: January 31, 2014, 06:02:56 PM »
Jim:

You're right....tipping point can, and likely does, mean different things to different people.  When I say "tipping point", I mean "the time that someone can LOOK BACK ON IN THE FUTURE, and say "that was the tipping point back there".   I think.....when people look back to the LAST 16 MONTHS (September 2012 - January 2014) we will be saying........THAT was the tipping point.....that period of time.

For me....this last 16 months WAS the tipping point:  (1) Arctic ice sheet set all time low in late September of 2012 (2) Greenland ice sheet had record melting in 2012, (3) Record drought in middle US and south/middle US (Texas, Oklahoma, etc), (4) record drought in California in calendar 2013, (5) record wildfires in southwest US (6) Continued DROP in solar and wind costs relative to fossil fuels, (6)"grid parity" reached in some areas of he world, (7) most current IPCC report that is "more agressive" in its assessment, etc.

To me...tipping points are like "bottoms" or "tops" in the stock market:  You can only REALLY tell where they ACTUALLY HAPPENED when a period of time passes....and you're able to LOOK BACK and say:  "It was there"........ "that was the point of no return".

Going forward.......I believe we will continue to see VERY LARGE GROWTH in the solar, wind, and other renewable resources over the next 5 - 15 years.  And as the economy's around the world continue to recover and grow, some of that growth will INITIALLY be enabled by fossil fuels (nat gas and coal).  But as alternative energy sources continue to expand and become more accepted, more affordable, and establish a LARGER BASE.......the speed of installation in absolute terms will quicken.

It's kind of like the growth of Southwest Airlines.  Once SWA established their business model and established a few markets to "prove" their business model.......the rest was just multiplication.  They just kept adding markets.

The business model of solar and wind has been proven and other areas of alternative energy are being developed........and everyone KNOWS where the cost of fossil fuels is going in the LONG TERM (up....as remaining supply of untapped resources goes down).  So if grid parity has been reached in JUST A FEW markets....and we KNOW that LONG TERM COSTS of fossil fuels are GOING UP......the rest is just time and multiplication (although it will be a LONG TIME to replace fossil fuels).

I consider myself a "late bloomer" to the idea of alternative energy.  As some of you know, Thomas Edison in 1931 was quoted as follows:

"We are like tenant farmers chopping down the fence around our house for fuel when we should be using Nature's inexhaustible sources of energy — sun, wind and tide. ... I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."

I do believe we will reach an "oh s**t moment" sometime within the next 1 - 3 years where more people...and more policy makers........will be saying..."oh s**t we REALLY need to get going."  It is just like the "bank debacle and housing debacle" of 2007 - 2009:  It will be the "Lehman moment".....when Lehman "flatlined" and then people understood the true magnitude of the issue.  In my mind...the "tipping point" was WAY BEFORE the "oh s**t" moment.









FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."