Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1518124 times)

P-maker

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2350 on: January 07, 2018, 11:15:38 AM »
Bob,
"Market rates" should reflect the risk involved in investments. Should the Australian government decide to support coal export, the whole country would run a higher risk of becoming both poorer and more dirty during a future collapse of the coal market. If the Chinese government decided to support solar panels, they may run the risk of becoming poor (if subsidies go on for too long), but they will have the benefit of a cleaner environment. If Denmark decides to support the development of cheaper wind turbines and decides to support the roll out on a national scale, we will have both the advantage of becoming rich because we produce the best turbines, which will will last for many years (even after the current subsidy "war" in Europe has ended), and we will have the benefit of a cleaner environment as well because all our old coal fired power plants have become obsolete during the process.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2351 on: January 07, 2018, 05:41:53 PM »
The question is whether this is a smart industrial strategy or if it is subsidies.

I don't know but I wonder. Forced closing factories is not ok for me.

The details are hazy now, it's been a while.  China had over 400 companies manufacturing solar panels.  The market was over supplied and IIRC some companies had low quality standards as they pushed for the lowest price.

Based on some criteria China forced about 75% of the companies to shut down.  They ended up with more than 100 manufacturers who had, I think, higher quality standards and had cleaner manufacturing processes.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2352 on: January 07, 2018, 05:47:48 PM »
Bob,
"Market rates" should reflect the risk involved in investments. Should the Australian government decide to support coal export, the whole country would run a higher risk of becoming both poorer and more dirty during a future collapse of the coal market. If the Chinese government decided to support solar panels, they may run the risk of becoming poor (if subsidies go on for too long), but they will have the benefit of a cleaner environment. If Denmark decides to support the development of cheaper wind turbines and decides to support the roll out on a national scale, we will have both the advantage of becoming rich because we produce the best turbines, which will will last for many years (even after the current subsidy "war" in Europe has ended), and we will have the benefit of a cleaner environment as well because all our old coal fired power plants have become obsolete during the process.

What you are talking about is in-country subsidies.  That is not the issue.  The US doesn't care if the Chinese government pays to put panels on every roof in China.

The problem is fair market practices.  Across border activity.

I think people are not looking at the problem but getting sidetracked by "We need more solar panels to fight climate change and cheap panels = more panels installed".

I agree.  We need more solar panels installed.  Cheaper panels = more panels installed.  Good thing.  Back it 100%.

But that is not the issue.



TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2353 on: January 07, 2018, 07:26:59 PM »
IIRC Trump's tariffs are aimed at ALL foreign solar panel manufacturers. As such it's a tariff against renewable energy which equates to a subsidy for the competition, which in this case includes coal, oil and gas.


If China were to retaliate by putting an import tariff on all foreign coal shipments would we cheer, or cry?
Terry

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2354 on: January 07, 2018, 07:53:51 PM »
Oh deer – Poland building 10MW ‘solar cluster’ with animal shapes
Quote
Poland joins the cute and fuzzy animal solar club with its newest planned 10MW facility – a solar park shaped like a deer.  On January 5th, Polski Solar SA announced the plans for the antlered 10 MW solar PV plant.

The plant is to be located in the town of Jelenia Góra, Poland (translated: “Deer Mountain”).
...
https://electrek.co/2018/01/07/oh-deer-poland-building-solar-cluster-with-animal-shapes/

Image of the “planned” installation is below.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2355 on: January 07, 2018, 08:46:06 PM »
IIRC Trump's tariffs are aimed at ALL foreign solar panel manufacturers. As such it's a tariff against renewable energy which equates to a subsidy for the competition, which in this case includes coal, oil and gas.


If China were to retaliate by putting an import tariff on all foreign coal shipments would we cheer, or cry?
Terry

This is a new round of tariff setting proposed and probably wouldn't hold up as  it seems to violate international trade agreements.   

There was an earlier tariff placed on Chinese panels.  China and Taiwan already had duties imposed on their CSPV modules and cells in 2012 and 2015.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2356 on: January 07, 2018, 09:54:05 PM »
Quote
This is a new round of tariff setting proposed and probably wouldn't hold up as  it seems to violate international trade agreements.   

This has never stopped the US imposing tariffs. They often (usually?) lose at the WTO but that takes years while the tariffs do their damage.

Won't have too big an impact on the rest of the world's move toward renewables. Just hurts progress in the US. So BAU.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2357 on: January 07, 2018, 09:56:24 PM »
Quote
This is a new round of tariff setting proposed and probably wouldn't hold up as  it seems to violate international trade agreements.   

This has never stopped the US imposing tariffs. They often (usually?) lose at the WTO but that takes years while the tariffs do their damage.

Won't have too big an impact on the rest of the world's move toward renewables. Just hurts progress in the US. So BAU.

Trump sucks.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2358 on: January 07, 2018, 10:46:43 PM »
Trump sucks.
True, but Canada's problems with America's flouting of international trade law has been an issue as long as I've been alive.
 
Trump isn't breaking new ground here.
Terry

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2359 on: January 09, 2018, 03:25:51 AM »
If Australia were to pump subsidies into coal (which it does, so this isn’t hypothetical) I’d be opposed.

If China were to pump subsidies into solar (which it does), I’d be happy. Just as happy as if the US did (which it does).

If Denmark were to pump subsidies into windmills (which it did), again, I’m happy.

My interest is not aligned with the owners of plants in the US. I seriously don’t care about them. I do care about switching to renewables. If China wants to subsidize the world switchover, more power to them.

The problem are the long-term effects. If China subsidises solar panels until every solar panel manufacturer not based in China goes belly-up, there is no more competition.
At that point, one of the incentives for China-based manufacturers to innovate disappears.

And of course there's also the obvious "big guy bullies everyone else until he's the only game in town".

The Chinese solar panel plants are getting built around the world, not just China, due to a previous round of tariffs. They’ll have trouble hiking the prices when all the competition goes belly-up.

Even if they didn’t have plants around the world, there are many independent Chinese companies. It would be hard for the government to prevent them from undercutting each other to gain market share.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2360 on: January 09, 2018, 03:43:35 AM »
Auction prices for renewables hits new low prices, in Colorado this time:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/xcel-solicitation-returns-incredible-renewable-energy-storage-bids/514287/

Quote
The median price bid for wind-plus-storage projects in Xcel's all-source solicitation was $21/MWh ... and the median bid for solar-plus storage was $36/MWh. Previously, the lowest known bid for similar solar resources was $45/MWh in Arizona.

The summary page also shows bids for for batteries alone, and for gas+battery. Those are peaker plants, so the bid is priced differently. Gas alone remains the cheapest here, but gas+battery might get a boost due to being a “new” type of energy.

The renewables-alone number are also very low: $18.10/MWh for wind, $29.50/MWh for solar PV.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2018, 03:59:43 AM by numerobis »

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2361 on: January 09, 2018, 06:29:50 AM »
Here are wind PPAs through the end of 2016.  $18.10/MWh is good but not exceptionally so.  Perhaps it's really good for Colorado.  The lowest wind prices in the US tend to be a bit further east.



I don't have any 2016 PPA (or 2017 PPA) data.  It looks like the $29.50/MWh for solar may be sweeter.



Keep those prices coming down.  Utilities will shut down fossil fuel plants in order to save money.  (Take a look at the NG prices in the first graph.)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2362 on: January 09, 2018, 07:24:32 AM »
We don't hear a lot about renewables in Mexico, Central and South America.

Look at how PV solar prices have been falling there.  Both Mexico and Chile are bidding in some $0.02/kWh solar electricity. 



This is how we kill fossil fuels.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20370
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2363 on: January 09, 2018, 08:01:41 PM »
For those with healthy wallets  (but as time goes by cost reductions?):-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/tesla-powers-up-new-york-gigafactory-solar-roof-assembly-line

Quote
Solar shingles will cost more than a conventional roof along with photovoltaic panels -- but not “wickedly so,” said Hugh Bromley, a New York-based Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst. He estimates a Tesla roof would cost about $57,000 for a 2,000-square-foot house, compared to about $41,000 for terracotta tiles along with a 5-kilowatt solar-panel system. A plain-old asphalt roof with panels would run about $22,000, Bromley said.
"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)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2364 on: January 09, 2018, 08:27:47 PM »
For those with healthy wallets  (but as time goes by cost reductions?):-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/tesla-powers-up-new-york-gigafactory-solar-roof-assembly-line

Quote
Solar shingles will cost more than a conventional roof along with photovoltaic panels -- but not “wickedly so,” said Hugh Bromley, a New York-based Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst. He estimates a Tesla roof would cost about $57,000 for a 2,000-square-foot house, compared to about $41,000 for terracotta tiles along with a 5-kilowatt solar-panel system. A plain-old asphalt roof with panels would run about $22,000, Bromley said.

Apparently the solar tile roof pays for itself via electricity generated.  More money up front but less than the cost of an asphalt shingle roof over time.

And, realistically, many of these roofs are likely to go on houses where neighborhood restrictions rule out asphalt shingles.  The real comparison should be to terracotta/cement tiles and slate.  $57k to $41k.  It shouldn't take too long to recover the $16k difference.  At $200/month in electricity savings break-even would be under seven years.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2365 on: January 09, 2018, 09:57:19 PM »
Electrek reports solar roof installations for “regular customers” has begun.

Tesla starts solar roof tile installation process with regular customers, production starts at Gigafactory 2
https://electrek.co/2018/01/09/tesla-solar-roof-tile-installation-production-gigafactory-2/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2366 on: January 09, 2018, 10:41:01 PM »
Bob: The comparison roofs (terracotta + solar panels or asphalt + solar panels) also get the same electricity savings, so you can't break even.

Depending on usage and electricity prices, you might break even when compared to a terracotta roof without panels, but if so, the terracotta roof with panels would break even a fair bit earlier than the Tesla roof.

The Tesla roof is a luxury product: there's cheaper ways to get a similar result. There's no shame in that; no reason to claim it's cheap.

In the future, it might well be cheaper to integrate the roofing and the solar panels. It stands to reason that it would be. We're not there yet.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2367 on: January 09, 2018, 11:13:30 PM »
I was about to reiterate the article's comparison, but you beat me to it, numerobis  :)
The Tesla roof, apparently, has a 100+ year life whereas
Quote
Clay tile typically lasts 40 to 60 years, while slate and concrete tiles have a lifespan of 50 to 100 years.
(source)
But, who knows how long the solar panel part of the tiles will last - more expensive to replace than independent panels.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

tombond

  • New ice
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2368 on: January 09, 2018, 11:33:14 PM »
I think we are all agreed that reducing CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to stop climate change is a good idea.
 
Germany and France provide annual data that detail the effectiveness of different technologies to reduce electricity emissions to less than 100g/kWh.
 
Germany is globally acknowledged as the world climate leader because it has installed 100GW of renewables in just 18 years to generate low carbon electricity, mainly wind and solar giving a total at the end of 2017 of 111GW.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power_inst.htm

In 2017 the share of gross German electricity production was;

80GW of coal, gas and other provided 56%.
 
98GW of wind and solar provided 22%.

11GW of nuclear provided 12%.

13GW of biomass and hydro provided 10%.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts

As a result German electricity CO2 emission intensity is 500g/kWh.

Page 26 in  https://www.agora-energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2018/Jahresauswertung_2017/Agora_Jahresauswertung-2017.pdf

To put this in persective the low carbon electricity league table in 2016, ranks the top 33 countries generating 100TWh of electricity or more annually.  Germany is 18th.

It is of interest that the top three with lowest CO2 emissions, Norway, Sweden and France all use hydro or nuclear or both.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/16058-drax-cms-production/documents/Report_PDF---Q3-2017.pdf

While France receives no recognition as a climate leader, for the past 25 years it has continually provided low carbon electricity with an emissions intensity of 100g/kWh or less after installing 63 GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.

In 2017 French electricity CO2 emissions intensity was 77g/kWh, 6 times lower than Germany.

http://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/chiffres-cles-en

It is also of interest that the three countries (States) with the most expensive retail electricity have high penetration of renewables.  These are South Australia, Denmark and Germany.  Prices in A$.

https://me.me/i/retail-electricity-prices-of-nem-states-including-taxes-compared-to-18190146

Note that the electricity prices of the three countries with the lowest CO2 emissions Norway, Sweden and France are lower the the EU average. 

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2369 on: January 10, 2018, 04:07:59 AM »
Numerobis, Solar Roof installations include batteries. I don’t think the number cited by the article includes batteries.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2370 on: January 10, 2018, 04:32:39 AM »
Quote
Bob: The comparison roofs (terracotta + solar panels or asphalt + solar panels) also get the same electricity savings, so you can't break even.

Sorry.  Reading failure on my part.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2371 on: January 10, 2018, 04:38:47 AM »
Quote
While France receives no recognition as a climate leader, for the past 25 years it has continually provided low carbon electricity with an emissions intensity of 100g/kWh or less after installing 63 GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.

We don't celebrate Paraguay as a climate leader because that country generates 10x as much electricity as it uses from hydro either.  Neither France or Paraguay installed low carbon electricity generation to fight climate change.  They did so for other reasons.

We recognize that Paraguay (and some other countries) have low carbon electricity because they have hydro resources.  We recognize that France installed nuclear for national security reasons.

Most countries don't have adequate hydro resources to go 100% (or even 50%) hydro.  Most countries would wreck their economies were they to attempt to go all nuclear.


sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2372 on: January 10, 2018, 06:22:27 AM »
The telegraph is quite anti wind, but can anyone verify and clarify this story, which claims that wind farms make more money when turned off ? This sentence makes me suspicious:

"REF research - based on official, publicly available data - shows that wind farms are currently being paid compensation of about £70 per megawatt hour (MWh) to switch off. In comparison they are typically paid £49 per MWh in a consumer subsidy when producing electricity."

But in the second sentence they  dot no say what the wind farms are paid for electricity sales when they are turned on. The sum pf the 49+electricity sales would be the revenue per MWH when they are turned on, as compared to the 70 they are paid in constraint payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/08/wind-farms-paid-100m-switch-power/

sidd

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2373 on: January 10, 2018, 06:52:39 AM »
The telegraph is quite anti wind, but can anyone verify and clarify this story, which claims that wind farms make more money when turned off ? This sentence makes me suspicious:

"REF research - based on official, publicly available data - shows that wind farms are currently being paid compensation of about £70 per megawatt hour (MWh) to switch off. In comparison they are typically paid £49 per MWh in a consumer subsidy when producing electricity."

But in the second sentence they  dot no say what the wind farms are paid for electricity sales when they are turned on. The sum pf the 49+electricity sales would be the revenue per MWH when they are turned on, as compared to the 70 they are paid in constraint payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/08/wind-farms-paid-100m-switch-power/

sidd

The way I read it is that wind farms make more per MWh by curtailing than producing during some low demand hours.

A version of that happens in the US when demand is low and can be satisfied by the large thermal plants (coal  and nuclear) that are running.  Rather than shutting down and spending a lot of time ramping back up the thermals will bid in lower than wind/solar and eat the loss as their selling price will be below cost of production.

If a wind farm has an operating cost of ~1 cent/kWh and receives a 2.3 cent/kWh production tax credit the farm can make money selling at zero cents.  (0c sale price + 2.3c tax credit - 1c  cost = 1.3c profit.)

In order to get the wind farm to curtail the thermal plant will have to bid in enough under 0c to keep the wind farm from making any money.
---

And that is killing thermal plants.  If they operate at a loss during low demand hours then they need to sell at a higher price during high demand hours in order to recoup their loss.

If they go negative at night because of wind they bump up against solar taking away any ability for high profit during sunny hours.  If they hope to jack up the profits during non-windy, non-sunny hours then natural gas whacks them.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2374 on: January 10, 2018, 07:09:45 AM »
What do you think of these statements showing how great wind, solar and hydro are as energy sources for the future ?

1) they are predictable. Wind, sun and water levels are quite easy to predict.
2) they never break down completely. If you loose 10% of a wind  or solar farm, you have a big problem. Furthermore you have many little units, so massive break down is almost impossible. I wouldn't say the same for coal or nuclear.
3) they are easy to curtail, this can be done fast and precisely. It was directly in the "DNA" of the technology since load management on the electrical lines with renewable production was directly an issue.
4) solar and wind are now cheaper, so some curtailment is not an issue from the financial side.

I find them great.

Etienne

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2375 on: January 10, 2018, 09:58:09 AM »
Another way to turn it would be :
- predictable
- reliable
- gradable
- cheap

what do you want more ? well to chose when it is available, but here the answer is storage and load management.

Etienne

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20370
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2376 on: January 10, 2018, 04:18:43 PM »
The telegraph is quite anti wind, but can anyone verify and clarify this story, which claims that wind farms make more money when turned off ? This sentence makes me suspicious:

"REF research - based on official, publicly available data - shows that wind farms are currently being paid compensation of about £70 per megawatt hour (MWh) to switch off. In comparison they are typically paid £49 per MWh in a consumer subsidy when producing electricity."

But in the second sentence they  dot no say what the wind farms are paid for electricity sales when they are turned on. The sum pf the 49+electricity sales would be the revenue per MWH when they are turned on, as compared to the 70 they are paid in constraint payments.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/08/wind-farms-paid-100m-switch-power/

sidd

The way I read it is that wind farms make more per MWh by curtailing than producing during some low demand hours.

A version of that happens in the US when demand is low and can be satisfied by the large thermal plants (coal  and nuclear) that are running.  Rather than shutting down and spending a lot of time ramping back up the thermals will bid in lower than wind/solar and eat the loss as their selling price will be below cost of production.

If a wind farm has an operating cost of ~1 cent/kWh and receives a 2.3 cent/kWh production tax credit the farm can make money selling at zero cents.  (0c sale price + 2.3c tax credit - 1c  cost = 1.3c profit.)

In order to get the wind farm to curtail the thermal plant will have to bid in enough under 0c to keep the wind farm from making any money.
---

And that is killing thermal plants.  If they operate at a loss during low demand hours then they need to sell at a higher price during high demand hours in order to recoup their loss.

If they go negative at night because of wind they bump up against solar taking away any ability for high profit during sunny hours.  If they hope to jack up the profits during non-windy, non-sunny hours then natural gas whacks them.

This is what happens when you take a natural monopoly and create an artificial market system which creates wild and immediate swings in wholesale electricity prices. Instead of managing power generation to smooth production to match demand, providers play the game of maximising revenue. Switch off your wind turbines and switch on something else when the wholesale price goes through the roof. It is rather like hoarding bread in times of famine and selling it as and when prices sky-rocket. The same is happening with natural gas.

I expect some providers are using similar algorithms as do Hedge Funds to capitalise on short-term variations in demand and supply.
"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)

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2377 on: January 10, 2018, 06:05:57 PM »
Quote
While France receives no recognition as a climate leader, for the past 25 years it has continually provided low carbon electricity with an emissions intensity of 100g/kWh or less after installing 63 GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.

We don't celebrate Paraguay as a climate leader because that country generates 10x as much electricity as it uses from hydro either.  Neither France or Paraguay installed low carbon electricity generation to fight climate change.  They did so for other reasons.

We recognize that Paraguay (and some other countries) have low carbon electricity because they have hydro resources.  We recognize that France installed nuclear for national security reasons.

Most countries don't have adequate hydro resources to go 100% (or even 50%) hydro.  Most countries would wreck their economies were they to attempt to go all nuclear.
You can add Sweden and Norway to that list, after Paraguay and France, as well.

Edit; Adding this: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,776.msg138053.html#msg138053
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2378 on: January 10, 2018, 06:56:56 PM »
Here's a recent article on constraint payments and other relevant matters:

https://theenergyst.com/3-uk-wind-power-wasted-2017/

It's worth noting that whatever the truth about the average price paid for MWh not produced, they only represent a smallish fraction (3% in 2017) of overall wind power, and with the new Western Link they should be reduced further. Texas had a similar problem some years back, but after grid upgrades the amount of wind power that was curtailed plummeted.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2379 on: January 10, 2018, 07:42:40 PM »
Quote
While France receives no recognition as a climate leader, for the past 25 years it has continually provided low carbon electricity with an emissions intensity of 100g/kWh or less after installing 63 GW of nuclear between 1975 and 1995.

We don't celebrate Paraguay as a climate leader because that country generates 10x as much electricity as it uses from hydro either.  Neither France or Paraguay installed low carbon electricity generation to fight climate change.  They did so for other reasons.

We recognize that Paraguay (and some other countries) have low carbon electricity because they have hydro resources.  We recognize that France installed nuclear for national security reasons.

Most countries don't have adequate hydro resources to go 100% (or even 50%) hydro.  Most countries would wreck their economies were they to attempt to go all nuclear.
You can add Sweden and Norway to that list, after Paraguay and France, as well.

Edit; Adding this: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,776.msg138053.html#msg138053

This list hasn't been updated recently but it's still interesting.  There are a number of countries with >60% low carbon electricity. 
 

Albania (100% hydro in 2008).
Angola (96.45% hydro in 2008)
Austria (73.86% renewable in 2009, 12.5% of that non hydro)
Belize (90.91% hydro in 2008) Update: REEGLE says only about 80%.
Bhutan (99.86% hydro in 2008)
Brazil (88.88% renewable with 4.93 non hydro in 2009)
Burundi (100% hydro in 2008)
Cameroon (77.31% hydro in 2008)
Canada (61.95% renewable, with 1.86% non hydro in 2009)
Central African Republic (81.25% renewable in 2008)
Columbia (85.67% hydro in 2008)
Congo (82.22% renewable in 2008)
Costa Rica (93.11% renewable in 2008)
DPR Korea (61.86%  hydro in 2008)
DR Congo (99.46% hydro in 2008)
Ecuador (64.12% renewable in 2008, with 2.21% non hydro)
El Salvador (62.24% renewable in 2008, with 26.92 non hydro)
Ethiopia (88.17% renewable in 2008, with 0.27% non hydro)
Fiji (68.04% renewable in 2008)
Georgia (85.52% hydro in 2008)
Ghana (75.03% hydro in 2008)
Guatemala (61.31% renewable, with 17.5 non hydro in 2008)
Iceland (100% renewable, with 26.27% geothermal in 2009).
Kenya (62.59% renewable, with 21.06% non hydro in 2008)
Kyrgyzstan (90.85% hydro in 2008)
Lao PDR (92.46% hydro in 2008)
Latvia (62.23% renewable with 1.96% non hydro in 2008)
Lesotho (100% hydro in 2008)
Madagascar (66.67% hydro in 2008)
Malawi (86.31% hydro in 2008)
Mozambique (99.87% hydro in 2008)
Myanmar (62.05% hydro in 2008)
Namibia (70.91% hydro in 2008)
Nepal (99.67% hydro in 2008)
New Zealand (72.52% renewable, including 15.42% non hydro in 2009)
Norway (97.11% renewable, including 0.93% non hydro in 2009)
Paraguay (100.00% hydro in 2008), exporting 90% of generated electricity (54.91 TWh in 2008)
Peru (60.53% renewable, including 1.47% non hydro in 2008)
Sweden (60.42% renewable, including 10.58% non hydro in 2009)
Tajikistan (98.25% hydro in 2008)
Tanzania (61.45% hydro in 2008)
Uganda (74.77% hydro in 2008)
Uruguay (61.98% renewable, with 9.33 non hydro in 2008)
Venezuela (69.57% hydro in 2008)
Zambia (99.69% hydro in 2008)

Update April 2013: Portugal joins the list for the first quarter of 2013, with 70% renewable, 27% of which came from wind.
 
If someone is looking for a project a current version would be appreciated.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2380 on: January 12, 2018, 02:18:43 AM »
I’m sure you can quibble with the numbers, ;) but this is a fun way to think about how your personal solar system benefits the environment.  Especially since trees are increasingly in trouble in their own right....

Installing a 5-kW solar system eliminates as much carbon pollution as 5.6 acres of mature trees. It’s like waving your magic solar wand and spontaneously creating a new forest.
https://solarpowerrocks.com/environment/installing-solar-like-creating-small-mature-forest/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

A-Team

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2977
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 944
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2381 on: January 12, 2018, 03:06:21 AM »
Quote
solar system eliminates as much carbon pollution as 5.6 acres of mature trees.
We have 7 kw net-zero system but today I had to seriously top the mesquite tree southeast of the roof because it was shading some of the panels. However new branches will grow like crazy and the slash will not compost here for decades. So go figure.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2382 on: January 12, 2018, 03:54:40 AM »
Mesquite B-B-Q is quite popular in some circles, I've been told, and the wood oxidizing in your cooker isn't all that different from it oxidizing under the scorching sun (just faster).  (As kids, we'd spray paint mesquite screw beans and hang them on our Christmas tree.)
(image)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2383 on: January 12, 2018, 09:04:18 PM »
But of course!

Oil Giants See a Future in Offshore Wind Power. Their Suppliers Are Investing, Too.
Quote
Transporting an offshore wind array from the factory floor to the ocean floor is no easy feat. Giant, specialized marine vessels must carry the blades and turbines—which sit atop rigs hundreds of feet tall—out miles from shore. Steel or concrete foundations are built to hold them in place, and underwater cables are laid on the seabed to transfer the power to land.

One other industry has spent decades constructing and maintaining such massive energy infrastructure that can survive the storms of the open ocean: oil and gas. Now, with global demand for wind power growing, major oil and gas companies like Shell and Statoil are diversifying their portfolios by developing offshore wind, and the companies that provide services to offshore fossil fuel platforms are seeing a new market rising in their wake.

"Offshore wind developing seemed like a natural skill set for offshore oil and gas companies," said Stephen Bull, senior vice president of wind and carbon capture storage for Statoil, a Norwegian oil and gas company. "From the Gulf of Mexico to Brazil and beyond, we see a similar supply chain and skill set and can grow within this area." ...
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/11012018/offshore-wind-turbines-oil-gas-industry-renewable-energy-investment-shell-statoil-block-island

(Cross-posted to the Oil and Gas thread.)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2384 on: January 12, 2018, 10:47:22 PM »
Floating wind towers can be built in drydock and towed to where they will live.  Construction can be done on 'dry land' with fixed cranes and supplies only feet away.  No travel time to get workers out to the site.

If major repairs or refurbishing is needed the turbine can be returned to the dock, fixed, and repositioned.

Towing can be done with generic tugboats. 

I suspect floating turbines are going to dominate.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2385 on: January 13, 2018, 02:24:47 PM »
Quote
India has started the second batch of bids on their march to 20GW this year. It’s amazing – we now see GW numbers thrown around on a regular basis. 2018 is going to see 20GW+ from India and 50GW+ from China. That’s 70-80GW for 2.6 billion people. Thank you folks.
https://electrek.co/2018/01/12/egeb-new-york-city-sue-exxon/

India: SECI postpones 2 GW tender, extends manufacturing deadline
The Solar Energy Corporation of India has postponed the 2 GW PV project tender until further notice. The company has also extended the deadline for expression of interest for setting up the solar manufacturing plant in India until January 29.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/01/12/india-seci-postpones-2-gw-tender-extends-manufacturing-deadline/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2386 on: January 13, 2018, 02:27:20 PM »
Canadian wind power at 2.4¢/kWh – no incentives:

Alberta (Canada) says Haaay! ;)

Our recent wind tender signed 600MW of contracts for a median price of CAD$37/MWh (USD$29.60), with the lowest being CAD$30.90 (USD$24.70). No subsidies.  https://www.aeso.ca/assets/Uploads/REP-Infographic.pdf

https://twitter.com/bcshaffer/status/951570949416960000
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2387 on: January 13, 2018, 03:16:11 PM »
Finally! Alberta is one of only two largely coal-dependent provinces (Saskatchewan is the other).

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2388 on: January 13, 2018, 07:33:14 PM »
Good review of U.S. offshore wind projects.

After an Uncertain Start, U.S. Offshore Wind Is Powering Up
After years of delays, the U.S. offshore wind industry is finally gaining momentum, with new projects being planned along the Atlantic coast. So far, the Trump administration seems to be regarding offshore wind as one form of renewable energy it can support.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/after-an-uncertain-start-u-s-offshore-wind-is-powering-up
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2389 on: January 13, 2018, 11:05:55 PM »
Here's the NREL 100 meter hub height map for offshore wind from the Yale article.



Take a look at the enormous resource along the southern Oregon border down to about Medicino.  To the east, about 50 miles away, is the Pacific Alternating Current Intertie.  A major transmission link that runs from close to LA north well into Washington State.

Put floating farms out there and the entire West Coast could be fed from very strong wind.  I'd love to see some 'output per hour' data to show how consistently the wind blows. 

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2390 on: January 14, 2018, 05:13:23 PM »
Past about 25 m/s, wind turbines shut down. Stronger winds is not always better!

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2391 on: January 14, 2018, 05:48:39 PM »
There's stronger winds and too strong wind.  Offshore CA and OR winds are strong but they're not too strong.  And we don't have hurricanes.



A Cat 3 hurricane has sustained winds of 50–58 m/s.

Visit this site from time to time and compare the current wind conditions for US offshore and Midwest (the Saudi Arabia of wind).  (Great site.  You can grab and spin the globe and zoom in/out.)

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-106.46,42.11,760


This is what things looked like a few minutes ago.



numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2392 on: January 14, 2018, 07:02:48 PM »
I don't see how current conditions matter. Right now the wind is calm in Iqaluit, but it's a good spot for wind turbines anyway. That said, I prefer windy.com to null school -- windy has prettier colours.

Your NREL data shows that the wind blows hard on *average*. That doesn't say all that much about the distribution of winds hour by hour.

This article (figure 13) shows that while capacity factor generally does grow with wind speed, it's less than linear:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/66599.pdf

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2393 on: January 14, 2018, 07:15:14 PM »
Like I suggested, visit the site from time to time.  I do and I have never seen the wind not blowing hard along the 'North Coast'.  The area starting above SF and extending into southern Oregon.

I don't know of a place to get hours of production data for US offshore wind.    I expect it's very different than onshore and as we bring more offshore into the mix our need for storage and dispatchable generation will greatly decrease (assuming a 100% RE grid).


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2394 on: January 14, 2018, 07:49:29 PM »
Here's what California onshore hourly wind looks like.  For a six month period from June through November 2017.



My guess is that offshore is likely to be a lot smoother but I know of no source for the data. 

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2395 on: January 14, 2018, 09:25:30 PM »
I linked you an NREL paper with the relevant model data (the input wind speed data is apparently proprietary).

That paper runs a model hourly and computes the capacity factor based on that. It's not production data because the wind farms don't exist yet.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2396 on: January 14, 2018, 09:36:52 PM »
A single CF number does not tell one the number of hours  that the wind blows.  You can get the same CF with a relatively small number of very windy days or a large number of moderately windy days.

The critical issue going forward, IMO, is the number of hours we can supply demand with electricity directly from PV solar, onshore wind, and offshore wind.  Those are likely our least expensive sources.  Stored energy or dispatchable generation will cost more per MWh.

We need to build the mix of generation that best fits hourly, or at least daily, demand.  That's our route to the least expensive electricity.  And cheaper means less resistance to transitioning off fossil fuels.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2397 on: January 14, 2018, 10:33:55 PM »
Linked is an animated map showing California offshore monthly average wind speed, with other resources at California Offshore Wind Energy Gateway. (I have no expertise, I just did an internet search.)  I know, this isn't hourly data!
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2398 on: January 15, 2018, 09:48:04 PM »
Beautiful!

4+ MW solar PV system on the roof of Rhenus Logistics’ new distribution center near Eindhoven-NL. Looks sharp!
Photo: @KiesZonNu
https://mobile.twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/952445675119267841
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20370
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2399 on: January 15, 2018, 10:22:06 PM »
Linked is an animated map showing California offshore monthly average wind speed, with other resources at California Offshore Wind Energy Gateway. (I have no expertise, I just did an internet search.)  I know, this isn't hourly data!
At what height above sea level? e.g. cci-reanalyzer's wind maps are at 10 meters a.s.l. but the new offshore windfarms have blades 100? 200? meters a.s.l., where I believe there is usually more and more regular wind?
"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)