Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1530480 times)

SteveMDFP

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2519
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 594
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3000 on: August 20, 2018, 05:46:23 PM »

All good points thanks. Remember that while methane fugitive emissions don;t last long in the atmosphere as CO2, it actually turns into CO2 at the end of that process and last as long as all the other CO2. And burning methane turns it into CO2 even faster plus a lot of heat.  :)

True, but arguably irrelevant.  CO2 in the atmosphere is reported in parts per million.  Methane in parts per billion.  If you magically oxidized all atmospheric methane to CO2 overnight, I'm not sure the increase in CO2 would be larger than the error bars.

I'm one of those who've questioned standard methodology on GWP of methane, I think it's seriously underestimated for practical purposes.  However, it's still mostly a footnote to the CO2 picture.  That is, unless very large emissions might suddenly happen from, say, the East Siberian seabed.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3001 on: August 20, 2018, 05:59:05 PM »
Tesla is expanding Gigafactory 1 in Nevada, increasing its battery manufacturing capacity and making it the largest rooftop solar installation in the world:

https://electrek.co/2018/08/20/tesla-solar-array-expansion-gigafactory-1/

Quote
Originally, the plant was supposed to produce 35 GWh of battery cells and 50 GWh of battery packs. The company later claimed to have found ways to improve efficiency and increase production capacity to 105 GWh of battery cells and 150 GWh of battery packs within the same structure.

Tesla recently claimed to be at 20 GWh of battery production and plans to ramp up to 35 GWh by the end of the year.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1972
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3002 on: August 20, 2018, 06:06:28 PM »
Are you sure about those numbers?
Actually only Johnson Controls is an American battery manufacture. The other 2 companies are also Chinese. That makes 1 out of 10.

A123 was an American company but they went bankrupt when their joint venture with Fisker automotive failed due to their faulty batteries. They are now a subsidiary of a Chinese company.
Wikipedia:
"A123 Systems, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the chinese Wanxiang Group"


Tesla is a partner with Panasonic on their battery and solar factories. Panasonic owns the patents for the batteries and has supplied most of the technology to build the Tesla solar roofs. SolarCity may have had some solar panel manufacturing a long time ago but it was transferred to Panasonic when  they opened the PV plant in New York.

But even that is on shaky ground:
"August 16, 2018

TOKYO—Tesla Inc. has backed away from an agreement to buy all of the output from a solar-panel factory it operates with Panasonic Corp., the Japanese company said Thursday, another sign of the uncertain outlook for Tesla’s SolarCity subsidiary."


When I installed my PV system I was sure that affordable (less than $50 per KWH) battery technology was only a few years away. I was wrong. Seven years has gone by and batteries are still 3-5 times too expensive for solar to displace cheap grid electricity. To go off grid with solar you need enough storage to compensate for extended cloudy conditions that can last up to 8 to 10 days straight.

The answer your question is right there - to get completely off fossil fuel for the grid we are going to need hundreds of gigawatt hours to back up intermittent renewable energy. Years, if not decades away.

A123 Systems started with technology invented at MIT and has their global headquarters in Michigan.  They have several locations in the US, as well as in China and Germany.  Yes, they have been purchased by a Chinese firm, but if you look at their key officers and locations, they certainly seem to be an American firm using Chinese money to fund their operations.  So maybe half Chinese and half American?

Tesla manufactures batteries in Nevada at their Gigafactory 1.  As Gigafactory 1 gears up for higher production, I think Tesla is stepping away from Panasonic, as you pointed out.  nufacturing firm.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25922
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3003 on: August 22, 2018, 12:09:20 AM »
U.S.:
Trial begins over renewable energy proposal in Arizona
Quote
The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona proposal would require half the state's energy to come from renewable sources by 2030, compared with the current mandate of 15 percent by 2025.
A campaign opposing the measure is funded by Arizona Public Service Co.'s parent company. APS has said proposal would cause utility rates to rise and harm reliability.
https://apnews.com/988e432567134124b520e375bf1a8be9
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3004 on: August 22, 2018, 01:13:22 AM »
What an interesting link!


I was wondering why an innocuous initiative would be going to trial. Little did I suspect that it was a case where felonious environmentalists were fighting to give Arizona's voters a choice at the ballot box. An evil Californicator is suspected of financing the fiasco.


Let the Games Begin!
Terry

jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3005 on: August 22, 2018, 06:08:07 AM »
AI+PV=Smart Solar.
If you are in the market for a PV system I would recommend these micro-inverters.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/08/20/enphase-going-einstein-with-iq8-solar-power-inverters/
Quote
"Enphase going Einstein with IQ8 solar power inverters"

The IQ8 will allow off grid solar power without the need for energy storage by instantly recognizing local load demands and meeting them with available solar-generated electricity.

In essence, the IQ8 – with all of its integrated smarts – has the ability to understand what is going on in the household and react. The system will feed as much electricity as it has access to based upon sunlight available and solar power capacity, and it will adjust on the fly. Also noted by Run on Sun was when too much energy from the house was being pulled – more than sunlight and installed capacity could provide – the whole system shut down, only to instantly restart when the excess load was removed.

Right now if you have a grid tied PV system the inverters are synced to the grid's frequency and voltage. Result: Grid down = PV system down. This new system will self-island from the grid and then adjust the PV output to exactly match the house load. All without a battery.

No this isn't a magic bullet. It only works when there is enough output to cover the demand which means you still need sun lite. Also needed, but not mentioned, is a transfer switch to instantly switch a 220 volt 3-phase grid feed to/from the inverters. I have been running (28) M-215 micro-inverters for 7 years and have had 3 failures which were covered by their 25yr warranty. When you lose a micro-inverter you only lose 1 panel. If you use a string inverter you lose every panel on that string, typically all or half of your array.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3006 on: August 22, 2018, 09:36:14 PM »
Texas's books the 'Blues Brothers' Jake & Elwood to provide a grid scale Solar+Storage gig.
Let's hope they name the transmission interconnection 'Aretha' in honor of the Queen of Soul.  ;D

https://www.energy-storage.news/news/res-to-put-down-grid-scale-pv-plus-storage-marker-in-ercot-territory

Quote
RES' Elwood battery energy storage system, which along with its 'brother' project Jake, delivers frequency regulation in the US in PJM Interconnection's service area. The pair of projects are named after characters from the film 'Blues Brothers'. Image: RES Group.

Known historically for its oil and in the present day for deploying large amounts of wind energy and latterly for deploying batteries at wind farms, the US state of Texas is less well known for solar-plus-storage projects.

UK-headquartered multinational developer and EPC (engineering, procurement and construction) provider RES Group has just announced however that it has been contracted by Texas utility CPS Energy to execute a 5MW(AC) solar project co-located with 10MW / 10MWh of lithium-ion battery energy storage.


Seriously, Texas is WAY behind deploying solar considering the amount of sun they get annually. (3GW of wind energy but only about 238MW of solar)
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 3943
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3007 on: August 23, 2018, 05:23:43 PM »
A 50% renewable energy grid in fact does have reliability issues and has been shown (in one state in Australia) to push electricity prices through the roof ... eg South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the developed world - from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to more than doubling Avg supply cost in about a dozen years.
The facts don't support blaming renewables for all or even most of SA's energy problems.
Their reliability issues mostly stem from distribution failures, unrelated to generation source. And prices have risen in other Australian states as well.
https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-south-australia-have-the-highest-energy-prices-in-the-nation-and-the-least-reliable-grid-92928

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3008 on: August 23, 2018, 06:09:22 PM »
....a 50% renewable energy grid in fact does have reliability issues and has been shown (in one state in Australia) to push electricity prices through the roof ... eg South Australia has the highest electricity prices in the developed world - from having the lowest electricity prices in the world to more than doubling Avg supply cost in about a dozen years. It's where Tesla built their first 10MW battery this year due to all the problems in that State.
"a 50% renewable energy grid in fact does have reliability issues and has been shown (in one state in Australia) to push electricity prices through the roof " No it hasn't been shown to push prices through the roof.

https://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-are-south-australias-high-electricity-prices-the-consequence-of-renewable-energy-policy-93594

South Australia's high energy prices are more the result of being screwed by the operator plus an ideology-driven Federal Government that just can't get it right, than the 50% renewable energy grid .

Tesla's big battery has reduced reliability problems and reduced the spikes in electricity prices during times of capacity shortage.

If Australia's rabid right-wing coal fanatics are given the boot and rationality allowed to play a role in developing and managing the grid, Australia could easily run the system on a high percentage of renewable energy with high reliability and at a lower cost to consumers.
"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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3009 on: August 25, 2018, 05:15:35 PM »
Nothing. Not a word. Silence.

OK then I'll chip in: If renewables are as cheap to build and provide lower electricity prices for consumers and are as reliable now as the rest fo the 'competition' then why is that South Australia didn't simply undertake a larger program to raise wind/solar supply above 50% to 70% instead of building new 2 x Fossil Fuel Gas Fired Power stations and bring online last year emergency Diesel generated supply to maintain the Grid network and simultaneously put urgent downward pressure on high consumer prices?

Mr. Lurk - who is The Silent One ?

Australia's Federal and State Governments have been screwing up the electrical energy sector for at least 10 years big-time. At Federal level, this has often been deliberate. There is a war going on, where logic, reason and provision of a service to the public have been largely abandoned.

S. Australia's government was Labour - backed by the Unions, themselves dominated by the mining unions (coal, iron ore, and gas). That S. Australia invested in renewables at all was a minor miracle. You say that once the renewable energy percent gets to 50%+ it has to be well-managed. Who can disagree with that ? Conventional sources have to be well-managed as well. (There are plenty of horror-stories in the UK about that).

There is no logic, rhyme or reason in decision-making on energy in Australia. The only lesson to learn from Oz is that while Governments cannot decide on the direction of travel then.......
"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)

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3010 on: August 26, 2018, 09:10:44 AM »
America's Finest News Source: We are Saved

" ... a game changer in the field of renewable energy ..."

" ... the nation’s energy infrastructure could be revolutionized ..."

" ... also had the benefit of being largely pollution-free, as nearly 98 percent of its waste products would be fried-up and eaten afterward."

https://www.theonion.com/green-energy-scientists-unveil-800-000-ton-potato-capab-1828577530

Except I thought it would be Idaho, not Tenessee that would make the breakthru. Or perhaps Ireland or Peru or Russia. Tennessee ? The Onion is slipping.

sidd
« Last Edit: August 26, 2018, 09:16:57 AM by sidd »

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3011 on: August 26, 2018, 12:14:56 PM »

It seems self-evident to me that moving forward to 2030 and beyond more and more electricity markets globally will be coming close to or above a 50% renewable electricity supply generation averaged across the whole year. By 2030 and definitely after some regional, national & internationally connected grids/markets will be at 75% renewable generation or above too.

I think the long term assumed goal to arrive at or above a 95% renewable supply and the shutting down of all Nuclear supply (especially in Europe the US Canada and a few others) post 2030 and the end of all coal fired generators over the same time frame.

Is there a 'best practice' leading light nation at or near 50% renewable electricity supply today showing clearly in practice how such a grid market is managed well, and simultaneously has actually driven down end-user consumer electricity prices (to industry, commercial and residential customers)?
Is there a best practice nation successfully managing 50%+ of electricity from renewables? - You have to go to places with hydro (e.g. Norway) and / or geo-thermal (e.g. Iceland) to find places well above 50% to nearly 100% generation from renewables. Idaho (loads of hydro) has the 5th lowest electricity prices in the USA. Hydro (but not always) solves the baseload and intermittency of renewables problems. In Yunnan, China, hydro is highly variable year to year that gives the coal-powered facilities big problems.

My guess is that installation of renewable capacity and retirement of fossil fuel capacity, though it will happen, is going to be slower than envisaged in the Paris Accord. My guess is also that consumers will see little of the savings from reduced generation costs per kwh (privatisation rules, OK).

In the UK the national grid has summer problems- (link below) enhanced by lack of data on power from distributed systems. That sort of problem is fixable - universal metering into a single database should be completed in the UK by the early 2020's (3 years behind schedule?) https://www.ft.com/content/5381b45a-3caf-11e8-b7e0-52972418fec4

My guess is that given on-line universal metering, and a mix of renewable sources, big batteries and some over-build, an electricity utility will be able to manage OK (if allowed to by politicians) until renewables get towards 80% of generation. The sellers of electricity will receive most of the financial rewards as generation costs reduce - we, the consumers may well get nothing.

And keeping temperature rise below 1.5 degrees is toast,
And keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees is toast.
"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

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3012 on: August 26, 2018, 12:28:39 PM »
America's Finest News Source: We are Saved

" ... a game changer in the field of renewable energy ..."

" ... the nation’s energy infrastructure could be revolutionized ..."

" ... also had the benefit of being largely pollution-free, as nearly 98 percent of its waste products would be fried-up and eaten afterward."

https://www.theonion.com/green-energy-scientists-unveil-800-000-ton-potato-capab-1828577530

Except I thought it would be Idaho, not Tenessee that would make the breakthru. Or perhaps Ireland or Peru or Russia. Tennessee ? The Onion is slipping.

sidd
Is the potato AC, DC or AC/DC ?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25922
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3013 on: August 26, 2018, 01:47:06 PM »
...

https://www.theonion.com/green-energy-scientists-unveil-800-000-ton-potato-capab-1828577530

Except I thought it would be Idaho, not Tenessee that would make the breakthru. Or perhaps Ireland or Peru or Russia. Tennessee ? The Onion is slipping.

sidd

Pretty sure the location was inspired by this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge,_Tennessee

 ;)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

jacksmith4tx

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 266
    • View Profile
    • Photon mine
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3014 on: August 27, 2018, 07:56:49 PM »
Exxon Mobil Invites Texas Bids For Renewable Expansion
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Seeks-Wind-Solar-Power-Delivery-in-Texas-13184746.php
Quote
The largest U.S. oil company sent out a request for proposals with a June 8 deadline, inviting solar or wind power suppliers to pitch contracts that would last 12, 15 or 20 years, according to a document obtained by Bloomberg and people with knowledge who asked not to be named discussing confidential matters. Exxon, based in Irving, Texas, is seeking at least 100 megawatts and would consider proposals for more than 250 megawatts.
The number of companies contracting to buy renewables continues to expand. Excluding utilities, companies and agencies agreed to buy 7.2 gigawatts of clean energy worldwide through July, shattering the record of 5.4 gigawatts for all of 2017, according to BNEF.

“Good to see them dipping their toe in the water, but we’ll have to wait to see if they put their foot in the water,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York.

“I have never seen an oil and gas company doing a corporate PPA anywhere near that size,” said Kyle Harrison, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg NEF, referring to the power-purchase agreements used to buy electricity. “If you’re seeing the biggest oil and gas companies going out and making investments in clean energy, it shows that renewables are cost-competitive."

My guess is they are buying cheap RE in west Texas to supply their other resource extraction activities. We won't know till June 2019.
Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3015 on: August 27, 2018, 10:21:38 PM »
Exxon Mobil Invites Texas Bids For Renewable Expansion
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-Seeks-Wind-Solar-Power-Delivery-in-Texas-13184746.php
Quote
The largest U.S. oil company sent out a request for proposals with a June 8 deadline, inviting solar or wind power suppliers to pitch contracts that would last 12, 15 or 20 years,
Perhaps Tennessee has a back-up potato?
"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)

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3016 on: August 27, 2018, 10:55:18 PM »
Is there a best practice nation successfully managing 50%+ of electricity from renewables? - You have to go to places with hydro (e.g. Norway) and / or geo-thermal (e.g. Iceland) to find places well above 50% to nearly 100% generation from renewables.

Sweden is supposed to be but they have 10 nuclear reactors.  They heavily invested in Biomass too in the early 2010's but it doesn't get a mention nowadays.

In the UK the national grid has summer problems- (link below) enhanced by lack of data on power from distributed systems.

The UK may have issues but, according to what I read, the UK is either at or just above the Paris Accord levels right now.  It is Germany that is expected to fail because they retired their Nuclear and had to replace it with Coal when all the renewables failed to fill the gap.

Brexit has left the EU scrambling to fill the gap as the UK overcommitment to the Paris accord was going to allow other EU states to miss.  Bummer.


And keeping temperature rise below 1.5 degrees is toast,
And keeping temperature rise below 2 degrees is toast.

350.org anyone? 

The last Global CO2 figures from NOAA, 408.97, 2.5 ppm more than 2017.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3017 on: August 27, 2018, 11:06:44 PM »
the shutting down of all Nuclear supply

Very little chance in the UK, we are just renewing our Nuclear and building new stations for the next 40 years at least.  This is our largest CO2 emissions reduction move and the first phase of a rolling programme will end in 18 years time.

Judging by the current negotiations, the UK wants to move roughly 70% of normal baseload power to Nuclear over the next 4 decades.

France is  76.3% Nuclear and has tried, in the past, to get Nuclear declared as "Renewable".  They have no intention at all of shutting them all down any time soon, but they do have 22 of the 58 reaching the 40 year service life in the next half decade.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3018 on: August 27, 2018, 11:20:01 PM »
The reality of wind power.

When the wind does not blow..
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3019 on: August 27, 2018, 11:30:02 PM »
The reality of wind power.

When the wind does not blow..
In the UK When the wind does not blow here it is usually blowing there.
In Aussieland - when the wind does not blow on the land it is usually blowing off-shore or the sun is shining or there are tides or there is some battery storage or some hydro or even a few gas plants.

The shocking thing is it will require some managers to manage real stuff as well as spin and the latest management blah blah paradigm.
"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)

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3020 on: August 27, 2018, 11:33:42 PM »
US wind turbine specific power decrasing capacity factor increases to 42.5 % for 2016 installs

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/a-big-wind-power-trend-you-may-have-never-heard-of-declining-specific-pow/530811/

sidd

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3021 on: August 28, 2018, 01:05:25 PM »
The shocking thing is it will require some managers to manage real stuff as well as spin and the latest management blah blah paradigm.

It will only happen by shining a light on the deficiencies.  Then we can constructively address it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

bluesky

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3022 on: August 29, 2018, 01:05:14 PM »
the shutting down of all Nuclear supply

Very little chance in the UK, we are just renewing our Nuclear and building new stations for the next 40 years at least.  This is our largest CO2 emissions reduction move and the first phase of a rolling programme will end in 18 years time.

Judging by the current negotiations, the UK wants to move roughly 70% of normal baseload power to Nuclear over the next 4 decades.

France is  76.3% Nuclear and has tried, in the past, to get Nuclear declared as "Renewable".  They have no intention at all of shutting them all down any time soon, but they do have 22 of the 58 reaching the 40 year service life in the next half decade.

Anyone who wishes to know more about the numerous flaws of French nuclear plants please read my post, including a planned scaling down of the nuclear power plant:

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« Reply #1561 on: August 28, 2018, 07:35:55 PM »
« Reply #1564 on: Today at 12:19:13 AM »


We do not need more nuclear lobbyist hiding the true deficiencies and the true astronomical cost of this energy that can now be cheaply and efficiently replaced by renewable; It requires more than 10 years to design and build a new nuclear power plant and in the meantime renewable cost would have dropped by another 30 to 40% while, "nucleocrat" (as the French call them) will still be hiding the nuclear decommissioning cost and the never ending cost of long term nuclear waste under the carpet, these staggering costs are still not fully taken into account properly in the financial statements of EDF  / Areva...
The Hinckley Point nuclear power plant in building process in the UK is similar to the Flamanville one in France also build up by EDF, Flamanville is a financial disaster, with a final cost staggeringly higher than the one originally projected, and the delivery of the plant has been postponed for many years due to numerous technical deficiencies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-flamanville/edf-ups-costs-for-flamanville-reactor-after-finding-more-flaws-idUSKBN1KF0VN
https://www.thelocal.fr/20170209/flamanville-frances-own-nuclear-nightmare
Advocating something without exposing the actual facts lead to flawed decision, and spending taxpayer money out of the window, while we can spend money to more efficient and affordable renewable projects, and above all energy efficiency (home insulation, which is really disastrous in the UK), that can deliver their output more quickly, with less uncertainty, and without the safety issue that plague the nuclear power plant industry. French people know well that the nuclear lobby does not want transparency, to hide the flaws of this industry.
 
This is a fallacy and an enormous lie to pretend that nuclear is renewable when we all know that it relies on Uranium minerals, and especially how the French company use to exploit Uranium in third world countries, e.g. Niger one of the poorest country in the world, suffering from the collateral damage of French Uranium mining industry, who would dare calling it sustainable and renewable??!
https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/uranium-in-niger-when-a-blessing-becomes-a-curse/

« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 01:16:05 PM by bluesky »

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3023 on: August 29, 2018, 05:24:58 PM »
Flamanville is a financial disaster, with a final cost staggeringly higher than the one originally projected, and the delivery of the plant has been postponed for many years due to numerous technical deficiencies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-flamanville/edf-ups-costs-for-flamanville-reactor-after-finding-more-flaws-idUSKBN1KF0VN
On another thread you will read that Germany has invested €500bn in Solar and Wind and failed, utterly, to transition their power generation to renewable.

Now we know that the UK is putting in Hinckley Point C.  It is a 7.5GW power station and is being built by EDF at a cost of £19 Billion over the next 18 years (or so).

For a cost of £190bn, France could build 10 of these stations and introduce 75GW generating capacity.  France could then retire 100% of the old reactors and rely on the 10 new reactors.



As France currently only generates a Max of 60GW with Nuclear, that would give a nice increase of 10GW to the brand new, shiny, Nuclear infrastructure.

Because it is only 10 stations, France could locate them around the coast, on elevated land and use deep ocean pipes to bring in and pump out the cooling water.  Decommissioning all existing nuclear stations as they go and removing all the river-based issues with both heat and volume.  You state the issue with water temp, you don’t state the issue with water flow, something I know because I live within 50km of a nuclear reactor in France.

Leaving a full €310bn in the kitty, compared to the failed German experiment, to play with renewables.  Or, even better, to increase industry.

That article, linked above, is a ranting article written by someone who doesn’t like Nuclear power and doesn’t understand engineering.

Just have a look at the project costing.  €11bn over 11 years.  Now look at Hinckely Point C.  £19
Over 18 years.  ALL of the lessons of Flamville have been learned and incorporated into the cost and planning for Hinckley Point C.  The fact that Flamville has been delayed by welding tells me that the inspection tests are valid and working and that the authorities don’t care how much safety costs.

Go back and review the comparison with Germany.  €190bn at HP-C costs (UK is more expensive than France), to completely renew the French power generation with modern, 40 year life, reactors.

As opposed to €500bn thrown away on renewables which can’t do the job.
 

This is a fallacy and an enormous lie to pretend that nuclear is renewable when we all know that it relies on Uranium minerals, and especially how the French company use to exploit Uranium in third world countries, e.g. Niger one of the poorest country in the world, suffering from the collateral damage of French Uranium mining industry, who would dare calling it sustainable and renewable??!
https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/uranium-in-niger-when-a-blessing-becomes-a-curse/

Oh, I don’t call it renewable.  Sustainable?  Certainly right now, for France, if they buy their Uranium from Australia.  The reason they don’t is because Niger is cheap in comparison.

What I do call it is low CO2.  That is the challenge today.  Not personal crusading on Nuclear energy which is disliked because it requires huge safeguards to make it safe.

What, on the other hand, do you call 8 BILLION tonnes a year of Coal.  Extracted and transported to fuel the coal fired power stations which deliver the bulk of the power in the world today??

It is not renewable.  It is not sustainable and it is sure as hell HIGH CO2.

That is the true price of failing to deliver truly viable renewable energy.  It requires hard headed, pragmatic, actions to remove CO2 and bring in renewables in a manageable and viable way.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 3943
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3024 on: August 29, 2018, 05:54:05 PM »
Just for an apples-to-apples comparison, I seem to recall that Hinkley Point will also be funded by guaranteed above-market rates for its electricity. Not really sure if this is true or not, but I'm sure someone here will have the answer.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3025 on: August 29, 2018, 06:23:09 PM »
Just for an apples-to-apples comparison, I seem to recall that Hinkley Point will also be funded by guaranteed above-market rates for its electricity. Not really sure if this is true or not, but I'm sure someone here will have the answer.

Yep, a strike price of around double that of the current cost of electricity.  £92.5 per MWH I believe.

[update] Although we subsidise offshore wind up to £74.75/MWh

Given the relative sunk cost between the two, HP-C is hardly excessive.  Offshore wind capability rarely gets over 50%, on average.  Nuclear is 95% continuous.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 07:05:19 PM by NeilT »
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

bluesky

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3026 on: August 29, 2018, 07:46:58 PM »

Dear NeilT
The problem with these fancy calculations, they miss the humongous cost of decommissioning and the protracted cost of exceptionally long duration nuclear waste, while maintenance cost are also ignored. France only (almost) fully decommissioned one nuclear plant in Brittany, Brenilis, the tally is already 4 times the budgeted decommission cost, and it is not over yet! . Please make some quick homework research ( e.g. Bloomberg energy) and you will see that the renewables cost is decreasing with time and becoming competitive without subsldies, contrary to the nuclear EPR cost. Flamanville final cost will be 3 times the original budget, and delivery has been delayed by 5 years. Why do you think the UK is ramping up its investment in off shore wind, while France is not doing anything? the reason is the EDf Areva / nucleocrat lobbying, and everybody is fed up with an industry which has been constantly hiding the true cost and its safety records ( there has been quite a few near catastrophic accident, Chinon were there was a reactor melting, only revealed recently, Blayays flooded In 1999...) It seems that we have another example of nuclear lobbyist. Well, this is an industry in demise!
French uranium mining company exploits uranium in Niger, because it is a former French colony, with a puppet government, allowing the French company to widely pollute the country including its water table, and this is impacting the health of Niger inhabitants. Please do read in extenso the link of my previous post at 01.05.14 on Niger before using arguments with no rational.
France even organised "coup" at the head of Niger state to protect its uranium interests...

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3027 on: August 29, 2018, 09:52:50 PM »

Dear NeilT
The problem with these fancy calculations, they miss the humongous cost of decommissioning and the protracted cost of exceptionally long duration nuclear waste, while maintenance cost are also ignored.

Oh I don't miss the point at all.  I know rather a lot about nuclear decommissioning costs, the amount of time it takes to finally clear a site, the fundamental cost of the entire package.  Nuclear power was one of my studies when I returned to college and I also asked for an entire transcript of the IAEA investigation into the Chernobyl disaster.

I also know that the British AGR is the safest mainstream reactor ever made and that it was designed to be able to refuel during operation.  It was also the most expensive reactor ever made when it could not refuel in the way it was designed to.  Which is why we are not building any more.

So why, knowing all the issues, do I still say we need Nuclear power right now?
Check it out.

There is a way of saying that. Total and complete abject failure of every international accord on climate change.

Renewables, at their current state, will not replace fossil fuel based power for any country which cannot rely on extreme levels of geothermal.  That leaves us Nuclear.

There is a price tag associated with the western world not using Nuclear as a large part of its CO2 mitigation strategy.  It is called 2 billion lives.

You talk to me about French companies polluting the Niger and the fact that it is far too expensive to stop using fossil fuel by using nuclear.

All I hear is that you are more concerned about paying too much than you are about 2 Billion lives.

Take a step back and consider the view from my point.  Germany has tried what you are talking about.  Really tried. Tried so hard they forced the EU to put 50% tariffs on Chinese made solar products so their home grown industry could continue.  In the process virtually doubling the cost of solar power deployment in the EU.

But, yes, they tried, €500 billion worth.

They failed.  Abjectly.  Germany is unlikely to make the Paris accord targets.  The UK is already there and the UK is going further.  Using Nuclear.

2 billion lives.  What was your cost again?
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

bluesky

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3028 on: August 29, 2018, 11:35:30 PM »
Brennilis, a small nuclear power plant in Britany of 70MW, decommissioned cost jumped from EUR 33million to  EUR 653 million! and it is not over yet!
http://7seizh.info/2015/03/19/brennilis-demantelement-coute-que-coute/

An inquiry from the French lawmakers in 2017, mentioned the abyssal gap between the true cost of decommissioning and what has been provisioned in EDF financial statement:

 http://www.liberation.fr/futurs/2017/02/01/cout-du-demantelement-du-parc-nucleaire-edf-se-fait-demonter_1545688

A wikipedia article on Blayais accident, a near Fukushima miss:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inondation_de_la_centrale_nucléaire_du_Blayais_en_1999

And finally here is the full extenso copy of the article on how French company exploit Uranium in Niger. Should Areva pay the true price of extraction and apply the safety required in any Western European state, the Uranium price would be significantly higher...
While the way Areva subsidiaries behave in Niger is equal to the worst time of colonialism, French nuclear is stained:

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/uranium-in-niger-when-a-blessing-becomes-a-curse/

"According to the World Bank, around 60 percent of Nigeriens live below the national poverty line. With a per capita income of $420, Niger is one of the world’s poorest nations. In 2016, it ranked 187 out of 188 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index.
So what are the possible factors behind Niger’s underdevelopment?
Several international organizations point to high birth rates, recurrent droughts, ever worsening climate change, and the presence of the radical groups such as Boko Haram as the prime causes of poverty in Niger.
But all these factors represent only one side of a coin.
“Our children are already in contact with uranium. They have it in their bones, in their blood and their children will also have it,” Kalla Abdou, former driver for COMINAK told Greenpeace. “We worked with our bare hands. The mining company never informed us about the risks. We relied on what God decided,” lament Salifou Adinfo, a former driller for Areva.
The cases of Kalla and Salifou apparently mirror hundreds of thousands of poor Nigeriens, whose lives are at stake due to large-scale uranium mining, especially in the northern part of the country.
In 1960, when France discovered uranium in its former colony of Niger, many thought the discovery would contribute significantly to the country’s economic and social development. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a curse – a poisoned gift.
 
Uranium farming in Niger
Overall global demand for energy will increase by at least 50 percent in the next 25 years, and will have to be met mostly by non-fossil fuels, particularly nuclear energy, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
For world superpowers, the continent of Africa seems to be a potential source of uranium. And Niger is home to Africa’s biggest uranium reserves, which have been dominated by France for years.
International environmental activists have reported that rampant uranium mining in Niger for over 40 years is a case of exploitation in its most devastating manifestation. Uranium mining practices have endangered the health and livelihood of people living in Arlit and Akokan – popularly known as the twin mining towns in Niger.
Take for instance of SOMAIR and COMINAK, the two subsidiaries of Areva, a French state-owned uranium mining company. SOMAIR, which was established in 1968, extracts uranium from open pits in Niger; it operates a uranium mill with an annual capacity of 2,300 tons.
Similarly, COMINAK was established in 1974; it’s one of the largest underground mines in the world, with an annual capacity of 2,500 tons.
Though Areva earns billions from its affiliates, Niger has seen little profit, and that too comes at the cost of ever increasing pollution and health woes among local communities.
“The gift from Areva is bittersweet for the people of Niger,” says a local activist based at Akokan. “What we see is environmental disasters and health hazards for the local people. The indigenous people of northern Niger are in the frontline of climate change. And uranium mining is making their life worse day by day”.
 
An unequal partnership with the government
Undoubtedly, the partnership between the government of Niger and France is unequal. Although Niger obtained independence from France in 1960, the former colonial power still rules over the country’s rich natural resources.
Activists maintain that for decades, Areva has been operating in Niger without paying its fair share of profits. “The partnership in uranium mining is unbalanced in our country. It is really unfortunate for us,” grumbles Mahamadou Djibo Samaila, former secretary general of the Union of Niamey University Students.
“Uranium is a big industry in Niger,” says Ibrahima Aidara, program manager of the Economic Governance at the Open Society Initiative, West Africa. “But unfortunately, Niger is not benefiting much because they are not getting good revenue, and the damage to society and the environment is also very huge.”
In Niger, uranium represents around 70 percent of the country’s exports but contributes only 5 percent to the national GDP. The government of Niger’s share of the uranium revenue is meagre.
“It is incomprehensible that Niger, the world’s fourth-largest uranium producer and a strategic supplier for France, is not taking advantage of the revenue from this extraction,” says Anne Sophie Simpere, Advocacy Officer of Oxfam France. “We calculated the VAT Areva should pay. Areva could cover the cost of free health care system for vulnerable people and their struggling financial system in Niger. So, on the one hand, you have the poorest country in the world that needs money for its development, and on the other hand, you have a big corporation that needs uranium because that’s the basis of their business.”
 
A campaign against uranium mining
“Interestingly, in France, one out of every three light bulbs is lit thanks to Nigerian uranium mining.  But in Niger, nearly 90 percent of the population has no access to electricity. African countries should be able to count on fair revenue from French companies extracting their resources,” declares Ali Idrissa, the national coordinator of ROTAB, an organization committed to transparency and budgetary analysis. The “Majority of Nigeriens don’t even know that Niger has uranium, and 99 percent never get any benefits from it. We can’t continue with such an unequal partnership.”
Ali Idrissa is a Nigerien Human Rights defender and anti-corruption activist who has dedicated his life to ensuring that natural resources are managed in the interest of and for the benefit of the people of Niger.
His campaign, “Don’t touch my uranium” has encouraged communities, artists, politicians, and international civil societies to campaign for good governance in the gas, oil, and mining sectors.
But the road was never easy for Ali.
“In our uranium rich-country, we need a fair distribution of resources. But our campaign for democracy and freedom has brought intimidation, threats, and detention’’
 
Environmental concerns
“In Africa, there is an increasing number of causalities due to uranium mining,” says Dr. Alex Rosen, vice president of the German affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear war.
Civil societies in Niger are very much concerned and have been raising the issues of radiation for a long time. “Uranium extraction has significantly damaged the environment, forests, and pastures,” says Mamane Sani Adamou, who is associated with Alternative Espaces Cityones, a Nigerien civil society.
In 2014, Greenpeace conducted soil, water, and air tests in Airlit and Akokan, located just a few kilometers from the mines. The samples were studied in collaboration with the France-based Research and Independent Information on Radioactivity Commission (CRIRAD). The findings were disturbing: “The analysis we have performed show that the uranium contamination in four out of five water samples exceeds World Health Organization safety limits,” according to Bruno Chareyron, an engineer in Nuclear Physics from CRIRAD. “We found evidence of radon, a radioactive gas dissolved in water and also chemical elements. Regrettably, this poisoned water is still being distributed to the population and the workers for consumption.”
 
Health problems
In 2005, Shepra, an international network of lawyers which works to promote corporate social responsibility, conducted a groundbreaking investigation in Niger. It found that workers in Niger’s uranium mines were not sensitized on health risks; basic protection measures were not given to them, and hardly any medical assistance was provided if they developed lung cancer due to long-term exposure to radon.
“Radiation has killed many villagers from Garta, Futudou, Himike, Sina-Kwande Nkala and Ghumthi, all in Michika area,” says Dama Zira, Director of Geology at the Ministry of Solid Minerals, the Government of Niger.
Local communities are hardly aware of the impacts of radioactivity, while older generations recall that they have never seen such strange illness before: “People of the affected communities have sacrificed hundreds of goats and lambs to appease deities, seeking for protection from evil spirits which they believe are causing strange illness and sudden death in the communities,” shares Dama.
“Villagers sought spiritual interventions against the high rate of death, miscarriage, and deformed babies. There are cases where children were born with four legs, four eyes, with no eyes or with an enlarged head. Animals were born with six legs,” says Emmanuel Y. Kwace, a senior journalist of the locality.
 
An open secret
In the mining towns of Arlit and Akokan, several cases have been reported where ex-workers died due to unknown diseases. But Areva and the Nigerien government are silent about it, as if it is none of their business.
Almost 12 years ago, Gigo Zaki collapsed at work in the SOMAIR mine. Since then he has been forced to retire and was never informed about the cause of his condition.
“We were not given anything to protect our nose or mouth. We were treated like animals,” shares Gigo Zaki, an ex-worker of SOMAIR mine. “We hope the workers today have a better life. We are no longer useful. We can only watch.”
But the doctors tell a different story altogether.
“The main diseases we find here are coughing, diarrhea, and skin diseases. These diseases are commonly found in other regions of the country as well. They are not related to radiation at all” says Dr. Ayouba Dogon-Yaro of the SOMAIR hospital, which is funded by Areva.
According to Areva, in 40 years of operations, not even a single case has been diagnosed involving a work-related illness. Areva maintains that the diseases occurring in local populations are not the result of mining activities but are rather typical of desert climates.
“The explanation from Areva is not satisfactory and vague,” says a Niamey-based journalist who requested not to disclose their identity for safety reasons.  “Areva has never acknowledged that the hospitals lack the equipment and expertise to properly diagnose diseases related to radioactivity.”
“You see that the death rates linked to respiratory problems are twice that of the rest of the country, along with a large number of birth defects, leukemia, and cancer cases reported,” shares the journalist.
 
A dark future
Far away from Nigerien qualms, over 3000 km away, people live a sumptuous life in cities of France. Owing to its nuclear power status, France enjoys the stature of being a superpower across the globe.
In contrast, ignored by their own government, abandoned by nature, Nigeriens are facing a hard time finding their daily bread.
It’s not just food insecurity; even access to potable water is being denied due to unbridled uranium mining in the region. The situation is pulsating in Niger, and if it’s allowed to go much further the indigenous communities might launch a massive rebellion, resulting in large-scale civil unrest.
Furthermore, the presence of several radical groups with competing agendas can serve as a potential recipe for disaster in the region. And the ripple effects could trigger a wave of unrest across the Sahel.
The future of Niger seems dark.
A threat of war is knelling at the inland of Sahara, a bitter war with France fighting for its insatiable greed for uranium on one side and the Nigeriens defending their scarce resources of land and water on the other.
Who wins? Who loses?
Silently wonders our stripped mother nature"

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20625
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5308
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3029 on: August 30, 2018, 12:08:57 AM »
The hidden costs of nuclear power.

Well done, BlueSky. It needed saying, even in the certain knowledge that nothing will change.
"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)

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3030 on: August 30, 2018, 06:44:12 AM »
Well, cheap flight, 4 liters motors and 5 feet wide television screens are not human rights.

Neither are homes, electricity or available food 365 days a year.

This does not stop Africans, Chinese and Indians producing more people on the planet than all the other countries put together.

Arguing that our lifestyle is unsustainable without addressing the fact that the production of humans on the planet is also unsustainable is disingenuous.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3031 on: August 30, 2018, 07:04:18 AM »
Brennilis, a small nuclear power plant in Britany of 70MW, decommissioned cost jumped from EUR 33million to  EUR 653 million! and it is not over yet!

The question was, "2 Billion lives, what is your cost again".

So Niger is being raped for resources and the French government is doing nothing.  What changed from business as usual?

Africa is being both raped for resources and polluted at the same time.  It is not only French companies who are doing this.

I don't disagree that what France is doing in Niger is wrong.  I disagree that using what a few companies are doing to stop a whole industry of energy production, which does not output CO2, on the off chance that France can do Solar and Wind better than Germany (highly unlikely), is not going to help the people of the planet avoid catastrophe.

You keep pointing out that older Gen1/2 reactors are bad and that it would be better for France to invest hundreds of billions of € in intermittent renewables rather than tens of billions to renew the nuclear grid with gen 2.5 (or newer), reactors.

Did you ever consider that more nuclear in the world might force the rest of the world to invest in sustainable uranium mining in Niger and oust the French companies which are acting so badly?

Of course not.  Because you don't like Nuclear.

Personally I don't like the idea of 2 billion dead people and a huge long emotional diatribe about how a few French companies are doing something wrong, in another country with another government, is not making me change my mind on that.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6785
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3032 on: August 30, 2018, 07:43:25 AM »
Re: 2 billion dead people

Cite ?

sidd

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3033 on: August 30, 2018, 07:59:05 AM »
German renewables generation in 2017=218 TWh
French nuclear generation 2017=390 TWh

If German renewables are virtually negligible, then French nuclear can't be very impressive, being only 77% higher.

Incidentally, comparing capital costs of energy sources isn't relevant, what matters is the lcoe. And of course the operating and decommissioning costs of nuclear are far higher than renewables.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3034 on: August 30, 2018, 10:44:56 AM »
Re: 2 billion dead people

Cite ?

sidd

I'd have to dig.  It was a study done on the breakdown of society due to the impact of AGW.  Desertification, large scale population migration, war, famine, drought....

It is probably an underestimation, the studies were done on a population of 6.5bn.  We're now at 7.5bn.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3035 on: August 30, 2018, 10:50:19 AM »
German renewables generation in 2017=218 TWh
French nuclear generation 2017=390 TWh

Germany, 218TWH out of 650TWh annual production.
France 390TWh out of 550TW/h annual production.

You can't just take the headline you have to compare it to the total.

The problem, for Germany, is that they are unable to sustain the other 432TWh without dropping back into coal.

This is why France is in a better place to meet the Paris accords than Germany.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3036 on: August 30, 2018, 11:21:49 AM »
Germany is in a bad place to meet the Paris accords because they have retired nuclear power ahead of time. German renewables are greatly reducing CO2 emissions, but in parallel the move away from nuclear is increasing emissions. But the move away from nuclear is not caused by the investment in renewables. Germany could have kept their nuclear power stations, and invested in renewables, in which case they would be using far less coal. They didn't, but that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of renewables.

You are also still ignoring the difference between capital costs and total costs of energy. Renewables have relatively high capital costs, but very low operating costs. Natural gas and coal have relatively low capital costs, but high operating costs. Nuclear is somewhere in between. You cannot compare the cost of technologies by comparing their capital costs. You have to look at LCOE.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3037 on: August 30, 2018, 06:45:09 PM »
Germany is in a bad place to meet the Paris accords because they have retired nuclear power ahead of time.

$500bn for 218twh.

Yes nuclear has attendant additional costs.  But absolutely NOTHING on that scale.  The UK Nuclear implementation would need 7.3 reactors to cover that.  At a cost of €163 billion.  i'm sure Germany could use the extra €337 bn to operate the reactors.

Don't ask me why I thought HP-C was 7.5GW, I can't remember.  I calculated based on 3.6.

But, of course, they won't.  Why?  Because the Greens are prominent in German politics and they want to get rid of them.

German solar subsidies are dead.  Wind is predominantly onshore as Germany doesn't have the coastline.

If you were contributing on WebCameron prior to 2010, you would have seen the posted UK report that says the average onshore UK wind production is just 19% of the NamePlate power with an absolute maximum of 30% of NamePlate power.

France is in a better place because the Greens have no space in their government and the government is well aware of the total inability to meet the Paris accords without Nuclear.

So it goes on.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3038 on: August 30, 2018, 08:59:48 PM »
Neil, you seem more interested in soundbites and making a political point than in objective facts and figures, but I'll keep providing them, in case you and others are interested:

"If you were contributing on WebCameron prior to 2010, you would have seen the posted UK report that says the average onshore UK wind production is just 19% of the NamePlate power with an absolute maximum of 30% of NamePlate power."

Onshore UK capacity factor (load factor) according to DUKES 2018 (the official UK energy publication): 28.0%. Obviously this varies from year to year, but it's always higher than 19%.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/736153/Ch6.pdf

"Wind is predominantly onshore as Germany doesn't have the coastline."

April 2018. Germany approves offshore wind farms with 1.6 GW nameplate capacity. Price: 4.66 euro cents/kWh. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-power-offshorewind/germany-approves-offshore-wind-parks-able-to-generate-1610-mw-idUSKBN1HY25I (For reference – Hinkley: 9.25 pence/kWh. The prices are comparable because the price is paid per unit of electricity actually produced.) Germany already has several GW of offshore wind. Yes, there's still much more onshore, but offshore is ramping up quickly.

Finally, here is Lazard's 2017 estimate of the unsubsidised LCOE for different technologies:

Wind: 30-60 $/MWh
Utility solar PV: 43-48 $/MWh
Nuclear: 112-183 $/MWh

Source: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/

Yes, by all means keep using misleading figures about how much money Germany spent developing renewables in the past, when costs were higher. But we're not building in the past, we're building in the present and future. And LCOE is what tells us what is the cheapest electricity source to build now.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3039 on: August 31, 2018, 02:38:40 AM »
Neil, you seem more interested in soundbites and making a political point than in objective facts and figures, but I'll keep providing them, in case you and others are interested:

Ben, I like facts too.

You pointed me to a very nice publication which states the Load Factor.  Interesting when the standard terminology for renewables is Capacity Factor.  OK what's in a name, the measurement is pretty much the same.

So let us look at a study in the early 2,000's on UK wind.

Where it states: 

Quote
The estimation for the mean average CF for wind power in the UK, including wind
farms at all stages of development, was found to be 31.395% to 32.598%

Great, just about what your article is saying.

Then the wheels come off.

Quote
with an
estimated standard deviation of 19.95% and a standard error8 of 0.31%

Followed by:

Quote
As stated above, the standard deviation of the CF was found to be 19.95% which is
quite large considering the mean is only 32%.

No shit sherlock.

So the "mean" gets reported but with such a large standard deviation, sampling needs to be virtually continuous.  However sampling is not continuous on wind farms.

Back to your link.

Quote
Total wind generation increased by 34 per cent to 50.0 TWh in 2017. The high growth for both onshore and offshore wind was due to increased capacity (23 per cent), and also higher wind speeds compared to 2016. Wind speeds have fluctuated over the last three years, with record wind speeds in 2015 resulting in high levels of generation. In 2016, this reversed as wind speeds fell to the third lowest level since 2001, resulting in a slight decline in generation for that year.

Quote
As wind speeds have reverted to being in line with the ten year mean in 2017, comparing generation with a year with unusually low wind speeds have contributed to the high levels of growth

If you look a bit further into my link it shows the deviation between midnight and Early morning as opposed to Mid day and early evening.

Depending on the sampling time, you can get a "mean" result which is twice the actual generated power for the day.

Wind works.  No doubt about it.  However if it was perfect, we would never have made water mills.

The problem I have is that "perfect" wind is always upsold.  You never hear about the downsides and if you try to highlight the downsides you are called "political".

Renewable energy is 80% politics and 20% science.  How could it be otherwise?  It is Governments which are putting in renewable energy.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3040 on: August 31, 2018, 08:50:27 AM »
Neil, my "nice publication" is the latest edition of the UK government's official annual compendium of energy statistics. It contains data up to 2017. Your counter-data is based on data up to 2003, when there was a tiny fraction of the data available and when modern wind turbines were relatively new. It also makes a host of assumptions, whereas DUKES is mainly based on actual grid data. Which do you think is most reliable?

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3041 on: August 31, 2018, 12:18:58 PM »
whereas DUKES is mainly based on actual grid data. Which do you think is most reliable?
My document may be an old one, but it shows quite clearly how the snapshots of wind capacity factor can be misleading based upon when the snapshots are taken.

Which is why I posted an older article.

However, if you are happy with the DUKES reports, never let me challenge that.  Although you might want to consider that the entire installed wind base for the UK was delivering less than 1GW of power for extended periods (more than a day), this month and last month.

When the island is becalmed, all the wind capacity in the world won't help.  This is the reality of wind.  Just as the reality of solar is that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.

Presenting wonderful stats which show that our wind, on average, is producing 28% of the installed capacity does nothing to change the fact that Wind is not and will never be, fit for baseload power.

I say fix that with Nuclear.  You seem to be advocating fixing that with fossil fuel burning.

Odd position on this forum.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 3943
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3042 on: August 31, 2018, 04:16:03 PM »
I think gas makes much more sense than nuclear to back up intermittent renewables and in essence convert them into baseload power. It is highly dispatchable and its finances are much more appropriate for the job. Assuming day-to-night batteries will be widely installed, and including the storage capacity of pumped-up hydro and just plain hydro, leaves gas to back up relatively few days of the year.
You don't need a Hinkley Point C for that, with its staggering cost and its extremely long lead time until construction completion. I think the much cheaper way forward in the next decade at least, maybe the next two two decades, will be massive deployment of wind and solar, backed up with grid-tied storage - and natural gas as a last resort.
I will attempt to quantify this approach when I manage to continue my "research". What level of renewables? How big a storage? What level of gas capacity? I hope I can get some answers based on the actual data.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3043 on: August 31, 2018, 04:36:28 PM »
One tiny little problem with Gas.

CO2 Growth over time..

Decade   Growth
59-68   0.8
69-77   1.2
79-88   1.7
89-98   1.5
99-08   1.9
09-17   2.3
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3044 on: August 31, 2018, 07:21:05 PM »
If days with low sun can be predicted and days with low wind can be predicted and batteries are abundant, then gas plants can be used a bit like Hybrid cars. The ICE engine does not produce enough instantaneous power to operate the vehicle, but it starts charging the batteries before the batteries are depleted, sustaining the charge longer.

Also, there is no such thing as free pie. Society needs to learn how to operate in "low power mode" during times renewables don't produce enough. 

If energy intensive tasks are maximized during renewable abundance and minimized during renewable scarcity then storage needs would be much cheaper.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

bluesky

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3045 on: August 31, 2018, 07:40:03 PM »
If days with low sun can be predicted and days with low wind can be predicted and batteries are abundant, then gas plants can be used a bit like Hybrid cars. The ICE engine does not produce enough instantaneous power to operate the vehicle, but it starts charging the batteries before the batteries are depleted, sustaining the charge longer.

Also, there is no such thing as free pie. Society needs to learn how to operate in "low power mode" during times renewables don't produce enough. 

If energy intensive tasks are maximized during renewable abundance and minimized during renewable scarcity then storage needs would be much cheaper.

This is the proper sustainability to work through; when people set up solar at home for self consumption (which has finally been set up in France after the nuclear lobby opposed to it, thus solar production in France is even lower than in the UK and Belgium the later producing 1.8 time more TWh solar by inhabitant than France with much higher solar potential…this is so paradoxical and unbelievable) people adapt their energy/electricity consumption, there are now very efficient software connected to the weather forecast and in house intelligent grid. The result is that solar panel for self consumption lead to a reduction of more than 40% and sometimes up to 60-70% of power consumption at home. An this make so much sense to produce energy where it is consume, less loss during power transportation, better energy efficiency, and people feel responsible of their sustainable energy consumption, using it more when there is plenty (e.g. running their washing machine and so on) and being careful when its scarcity

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9819
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 3943
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3046 on: August 31, 2018, 08:39:46 PM »
The good news in this regard is that a lot of electricity consumption increases in the next two decades are expected to be from Eva, which can be easily made into a dispatchable load, and even more specifically can avoid charging during those dead winter times.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25922
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3047 on: August 31, 2018, 09:29:59 PM »
California Assembly Passes 100% Clean Energy Bill
Quote
California is on a path to 100% clean energy.

A bill, which would require California to transition to a fully renewable energy grid devoid of fossil fuels by 2045, passed the state Assembly on Tuesday, bringing it one step closer to becoming a reality.

The bill has been under debate for nearly two years and has faced objections from utilities and oil companies and some Assembly members. But on Tuesday, the Assembly voted 43-32 in favor of the bill, which had been introduced by Sen. Kevin de León. Senate Bill 100 will now return to the state Senate, where it is expected to pass. It will then be sent to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature.

Should the bill pass, California will be only the second state after Hawaii to pass a plan to rely solely on clean energy by 2045. But SB100’s ambitions don’t end there. The bill also ups the state’s clean energy goals, requiring that utilities providers generate 60% of their power from renewable sources by 2030. That goal had previously been set at 50% by 2030.

Despite federal attempts to roll back fuel economy standards and erode environmental protections, California has become a leader in combating climate change. In the last year, it introduced a requirement for solar panels on all new homes, extended its cap-and-trade program, pledged to sue the Trump administration over its plan to freeze fuel economy standards, all while exceeding its 2020 emissions target four years early.

And as the world’s fifth largest economy, these developments are not insignificant. If SB100 passes, California would become the largest economy in the world to commit to sourcing its 100% of its energy from renewable sources.
http://fortune.com/2018/08/29/california-sb100-clean-energy-bill/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25922
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1160
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3048 on: September 01, 2018, 01:17:52 AM »
UK: Amazon adding solar + batteries, sized about 18% of total site demand.

Amazon wants to add Tesla Powerpacks to a UK facility
Quote
“Planning permission for a 4.074MW solar PV array is being sought to enable the applicants to reduce their carbon emissions and energy bills for the site and to increase their self-sufficiency in terms of electricity production. The accompanying powerpacks provide a complementary capacity of 3.77MW sought to enable access to power when the solar PV array is not at full performance, therefore decreasing grid connection stress during periods of peak demand.”
https://electrek.co/2018/08/31/tesla-powerpack-amazon-battery-solar-facility/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

NeilT

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6338
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #3049 on: September 03, 2018, 11:53:33 PM »
This is the proper sustainability to work through; when people set up solar at home for self consumption (which has finally been set up in France after the nuclear lobby opposed to it, thus solar production in France is even lower than in the UK

There are significant blockers to putting up Solar in France.  Notably you have to get permission in many areas and it is not a given that the permission will be granted.  Also there is now no subsidy on the generation of power to the grid and the cost of generation (given the huge cost of installation), is more than the money you get back from the panels due to the fact that you generate to the grid at wholesale but consume at retail.

Most French systems were put in grid tie and there is no way of actually using the power rather than pushing it to the grid so they can sell it back to you at twice the price.

I have enough roof space for about 15kwp.  After 10 years of lobbying Mrs S to finally unbend and give me the time to build my own panels and put in my own inverter/battery farm, she finally agreed.

One month before the EU slapped 50% tariffs on Chinese solar products, doubled the price of building your own array and bankrupted the leading Chinese solar manufacturers.

I absolutely REFUSE to buy overpriced German solar components, so I'm back to paying for French Nuclear generated power.


Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein