Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1518222 times)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2750 on: May 24, 2018, 10:20:53 PM »
The EIA just released the May monthly electricity report.  It covers the first quarter of 2018. 

Comparing the first quarter of 2018 to 2017 -

Wind generated electricity increased 19%.

PV solar generated electricity increased 33%.

That suggests the US will transition more fossil fuel generation to renewables in 2018 than they did in 2017 when 2.2% changed hands.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2751 on: May 24, 2018, 10:24:50 PM »
Quote
Perfectly operating nuclear isn’t being retired early

But it is.  Kewaunee was the first operating and licensed reactor to be closed for purely economic reasons.  Other reactors are being closed because they cannot compete in the energy market even though they require no repairs and have years to go on their license.

Oyster Creek will close later this year because an upgrade would be required for it to stay in operation but that's the exception.

In Canada the closures have been down to not refurbishing. I didn't realize the US economics were so bad that nuclear plants can't make money even when they don't have to pay for maintenance.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2752 on: May 24, 2018, 10:26:25 PM »

Sig

Thanks for the GE link. My grandfather was GE's first Superintendent. He resigned prior to WWI when he came to distrust the direction the board was heading. Probably 100 years too early. ::)
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2753 on: May 24, 2018, 10:34:11 PM »
Quote
Perfectly operating nuclear isn’t being retired early

But it is.  Kewaunee was the first operating and licensed reactor to be closed for purely economic reasons.  Other reactors are being closed because they cannot compete in the energy market even though they require no repairs and have years to go on their license.

Oyster Creek will close later this year because an upgrade would be required for it to stay in operation but that's the exception.

In Canada the closures have been down to not refurbishing. I didn't realize the US economics were so bad that nuclear plants can't make money even when they don't have to pay for maintenance.

Back in 2012 the New York Times published an article reporting that 25% of US reactors were in danger of going bankrupt.  Now the number is even higher.  60% of US nuclear plants (which isn't 60% of US reactors) are in trouble.  The 40% that are competitive are largely plants with multiple reactors which allow them to spread some overhead costs over reactors.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2754 on: May 24, 2018, 10:36:42 PM »
My grandfather was GE's first Superintendent. He resigned prior to WWI when he came to distrust the direction the board was heading. Probably 100 years too early. ::)
Terry
Looks like something happened in late 2016 for the markets to take the share price down so consistently.
"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: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2755 on: May 25, 2018, 02:04:29 AM »
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf 

is monthly statistics, horribly affected by seasonality.

i bet somewhere on that site there are year to year stats, and i think Mr. Wallace is correct in his numbers that wind and solar are growing rapidly, although from a very small base. I further agree with him that coal is dead, and that natgas replacement of coal is chasing ever lower utilization rates.

sidd




numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2756 on: May 25, 2018, 03:45:53 AM »
ASILurker: if you’d been doubling your apple consumption every two years for the past 20 years or so, I’d be worried about apples. But you haven’t, whereas solar power has been growing at that rate. The numbers Bob posted are not a blip, they’re part of a long-term trend.

At this point, at a linear rate of replacement we don’t switch fast enough. But there’s plenty of reason to expect the growth to be exponential at double-digit rates for a while yet.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2757 on: May 25, 2018, 07:03:17 AM »
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/epm.pdf 

is monthly statistics, horribly affected by seasonality.


Sure. Including YTD Quarterly Statistics. I do not see any problem nor 'horrible'. Either way, the Data being reviewed is still comparing apples with apples. From Jan-March 2017 it was the same season/s as this year.  :)

A fair justifiable comparison on all counts. The same applies to MLO ghg data weekly, monthly and YTD. Of course Decadal data comparisons are more useful as far as establishing longer term trend lines. But that's another story / issue.

Of course quarterly comparisons are not the sort of thing one would want to use to make an important decision but they can be telling.

In the case of wind and solar in the US decadal comparisons are meaningless.  Wind and solar are just now entering the playing field at any sort of significant level. A decade ago they provided roughly 1% of US electricity and now they are closing on 10%.  And their growth is accelerating.  Q1 2017 to Q1 2018 comparisons give us a hint that they are going to show acceleration again in this calendar year.

A few more years of acceleration and we might get to the point at which we're replacing 4% or more of fossil fuels with renewables.  That would put the nasty, evil US of A in the position to become fossil fuel free prior to 2040.

You'll have to excuse me if I get a little happy when I see progress.  I want to see us avoid extreme climate change and when we strengthen our hand I think it a good thing.  Makes me want to do a happy dance.


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2758 on: May 25, 2018, 09:43:44 AM »
Quote
People like Kevin Anderson (and there are very many) say reductions in FF consumption of every kind plus ghg emissions reductions of every kind need to be in the order of 10% cut  globally per year every year at least for the next 20 years starting several years ago.

I don't understand that.  Right now the US gets about 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels.  62.8% in 2017.  If the percentage of electricity produced by fossil fuels dropped by 10% per year then the US would no longer be using FF for electricity seven years from now.

Cutting the percentage by 10% doesn't make sense.  Each year the amount cut would decline.  Ten percent of a decreasing number. 

It's going to be the other way around, at least for awhile.  There will be an increase in the amount of renewable generated year on year as more utilities start aggressively cutting FF use.  Later on we may settle into a somewhat steady year to year growth.

For the US to reach 0% FF in 20 years for electricity there needs to be an average drop of 3% per year.  For transportation it would take 5% per year since we're close to 100% petroleum based transportation at the moment.

2016 to 2017 the US saw a 2.2% decrease in electricity generated using fossil fuels.  That's the largest annual drop to date. 

My guess is that the US will increase the annual drop in fossil fuel use for electricity up until the point at which EVs start selling well.  At that point there will be higher demand for electricity.  Fossil fuel use will drop, but it will be petroleum rather than the coal and NG used for generating electricity.  Hopefully we'll get coal use down a lot lower before EVs start increasing electricity demand.


BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2759 on: May 25, 2018, 09:46:13 AM »
ASILurker: if you’d been doubling your apple consumption every two years for the past 20 years or so, I’d be worried about apples. But you haven’t, whereas solar power has been growing at that rate. The numbers Bob posted are not a blip, they’re part of a long-term trend.

At this point, at a linear rate of replacement we don’t switch fast enough. But there’s plenty of reason to expect the growth to be exponential at double-digit rates for a while yet.

Not only that, the increase in overall consumption in the first quarter was related to a cold winter, and is not representative of recent trends, and the drop in hydroelectric power generation reflects the fact that hydro is very "noisy" year to year, and had a good year last year.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2760 on: May 25, 2018, 10:53:20 AM »
Quote
People like Kevin Anderson (and there are very many) say reductions in FF consumption of every kind plus ghg emissions reductions of every kind need to be in the order of 10% cut  globally per year every year at least for the next 20 years starting several years ago.

I don't understand that. 
<snipping out the US stuff>

Starting with an already posted screenshot by Kevin Anderson from the Gordon Goodman Memorial Lecture 2017:


Cross post from the Paris thread (another of those ingredients on that plate on the wall).
Adding the paper itself at the bottom, also cross posted two videos earlier in the Exponential growth thread.
-------------------------

Yet another article.

Alternative pathways to the 1.5 °C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0119-8
Quote
Mitigation scenarios that achieve the ambitious targets included in the Paris Agreement typically rely on greenhouse gas emission reductions combined with net carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere, mostly accomplished through large-scale application of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, and afforestation. However, CDR strategies face several difficulties such as reliance on underground CO2 storage and competition for land with food production and biodiversity protection. The question arises whether alternative deep mitigation pathways exist. Here, using an integrated assessment model, we explore the impact of alternative pathways that include lifestyle change, additional reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and more rapid electrification of energy demand based on renewable energy. Although these alternatives also face specific difficulties, they are found to significantly reduce the need for CDR, but not fully eliminate it. The alternatives offer a means to diversify transition pathways to meet the Paris Agreement targets, while simultaneously benefiting other sustainability goals.

Adding Table 1 & Fig 1 plus one line from the paper:

A rapid transformation in energy consumption and land use is needed in all scenarios.



Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2761 on: May 25, 2018, 04:33:10 PM »
ASILurker: if you’d been doubling your apple consumption every two years for the past 20 years or so, I’d be worried about apples. But you haven’t, whereas solar power has been growing at that rate. The numbers Bob posted are not a blip, they’re part of a long-term trend.

At this point, at a linear rate of replacement we don’t switch fast enough. But there’s plenty of reason to expect the growth to be exponential at double-digit rates for a while yet.

Not only that, the increase in overall consumption [of Green Apples] in the first quarter was related to a cold winter, and is not representative of recent trends, and the drop in hydroelectric power generation reflects the fact that hydro is very "noisy" year to year, and [so Red Apples] had a good year last year.

That made me laugh. Good one!  ;D

I go to Costco when I buy toilet paper and purchase a pack of 48 rolls which lasts months. It is not that I wipe my ass a lot all at once and then go months without toilet paper. I wipe my ass only when needed which is almost always daily unless I am having difficulties.

I know.

TMI

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2762 on: May 25, 2018, 08:42:04 PM »
Quote
People like Kevin Anderson (and there are very many) say reductions in FF consumption of every kind plus ghg emissions reductions of every kind need to be in the order of 10% cut  globally per year every year at least for the next 20 years starting several years ago.

I don't understand that. 

OK. What do you not understand? Try asking a question instead of talking.

I described how I interpreted "10% cut globally per year".  If you start with 100% and cut 10% a year then you reach 0% in ten years.

Or if it means starting at some higher level and cutting 10% of the residual each year then you are decreasing your efforts each year when the job should be getting easier each year.

Did I really need to add "Obviously that's not what it means.  What is the meaning?"?
 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2763 on: May 25, 2018, 08:45:08 PM »
Quote
I go to Costco when I buy toilet paper and purchase a pack of 48 rolls which lasts months. It is not that I wipe my ass a lot all at once and then go months without toilet paper. I wipe my ass only when needed which is almost always daily unless I am having difficulties.

Install a handheld bidet.

Save a forest.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2764 on: May 25, 2018, 09:17:57 PM »
Install a handheld bidet.

Save a forest.

I'll second that. This is the best thing I installed in our new home. Very pleasant and fast.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20376
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2765 on: May 25, 2018, 09:28:00 PM »
Or if it means starting at some higher level and cutting 10% of the residual each year then you are decreasing your efforts each year when the job should be getting easier each year.
Oh no it doesn't. The 80-20 rule does apply. Getting rid of coal and most nuclear and NG plants is easy, if the plonkers who presume to govern us let it happen,. Just build loads of solar and wind installations. It is the last bit where even battery storage (at current technology and cost) won't do that makes it hard to get to 100%.
"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 #2766 on: May 25, 2018, 09:28:38 PM »
Install a handheld bidet.

Save a forest.

I'll second that. This is the best thing I installed in our new home. Very pleasant and fast.

Not only cuts paper use but I suspect it cuts water use.  A lot of water is used in paper manufacturing.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2767 on: May 25, 2018, 09:37:48 PM »
This is one of the most exciting things I've read in a long time.

Quote

"GTM Research did the math in a new report, Trends in Solar Technology and System Prices, which projects that utility scale fixed-tilt systems could reach 70 U.S. cents per watt by 2022.

....

For this analysis, pv magazine chose to increase the system cost above to 75¢/W to account for single-axis tracking. Our opinion is that this price is actually giving an extra penny or two, considering efficiency gains.

For capacity factor – we started with the 30.2% that we’re getting in California single-axis trackers last year and the year before, and we added 12.5% for the bifacial panel gain. That brought us to a capacity factor of 34%.

Next, we brought the capacity factor to 38%, an increase of about 11.8%. We did this because 20% bifacial solar panels mean an increase in panel efficiency of 17-25% from today’s product, and 38% seemed conservative.

Next we adjusted O&M costs to $7.50/kW to align with increases expected here as well. Currently, there are contracts sneaking out at $8-10/W – some influenced by the tax credit, some by super dense installation areas.

That leaves us with a simple, levelized cost of renewable energy at 1.5¢/kWh. This price does include profits for the utility scale developers.

And, if the solar power developer were to partner with a strategic tax equity investor who discounted the tax credit and depreciation by 25% – lowering the effective capital cost to 52¢/W to install, we get a price of 1.1¢/kWh. The cheapest electricity on the planet...."


https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/05/25/the-path-to-us0-015-kwh-solar-power-and-lower/

The impact of 1 to 1.5 cent per kWh electricity would be enormous.  And this is an analysis that seems reasonable.   

Solar under 2 cents and wind at or below 2 cents means that resistance to decarbonizing the world's grids should crumble.  It would create a rush to replace fossil fuels with renewables, the sort of World War II effort that Jacobson and Delucchi talked about in their 2009 Scientific American paper, their blueprint to a renewable energy world.

Those sorts of electricity prices would speed the movement to EVs, leaving oil behind.  And 2 cent and lower electricity from the turbine/panel would create a rush to find new movable loads, cutting our need for storage and dispatchable generation.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 09:50:58 PM by Bob Wallace »

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2768 on: May 25, 2018, 09:58:13 PM »
ASILurker, if you’re surprised that solar capacity has been growing exponentially for decades, and doing so globally, perhaps you should ramp down your tone of extreme superiority.

In order to limit to 1.5 C (or even 2 C) without negative emissions, it’s too late. The second half of this century will have to work with that. That’s been clear a while already; RCP2.6 goes negative, and we’re above its curve already. The fast we go, the less catch-up we need later.

Currently, and this is new, we’ve hit the spot where the cheapest energy is renewables in many situations. As prices continue to fall quickly, while prices for the fossil fuel competition are expected to rise, the number of situations increases. That’s what’s fueling the worldwide exponential growth in solar and wind deployment, and it’s why it’s reasonable to expect the exponential growth to continue a while longer.


Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2769 on: May 26, 2018, 03:20:41 AM »
Check out what this guy is getting in his solar panels here at 18 North.

TODAY our solar roof generated 68 kWh. My house consumption was 25.8 kWh giving us a surplus of 42 kWh of energy. That's enough to charge a @Tesla Model 3 56%, good for 175 miles. That's just one day! This is the new #PuertoRico.  #PowerWall2

https://twitter.com/tecnocato/status/999167490402996224

I think we haven't seen the real solar growth inflection point yet. This is about to get good.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2770 on: May 26, 2018, 04:32:43 AM »
Check out what this guy is getting in his solar panels here at 18 North.

TODAY our solar roof generated 68 kWh. My house consumption was 25.8 kWh giving us a surplus of 42 kWh of energy. That's enough to charge a @Tesla Model 3 56%, good for 175 miles. That's just one day! This is the new #PuertoRico.  #PowerWall2

https://twitter.com/tecnocato/status/999167490402996224

I think we haven't seen the real solar growth inflection point yet. This is about to get good.

Imagine if s/he invested in a vibrant energy efficiency remodel!  That is a lot of energy use for a home.  Heat pump water heaters and solid insulation would cut lots of that usage!
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2771 on: May 26, 2018, 04:45:34 AM »
That is a lot of energy. I see the house has a sustained load of about 1 KW. Most of that may be air conditioners or maybe server farms. For water heating I have to guess that the most energy efficient way is solar water heaters.

  Insulation is probably an issue he hasn't considered. His house is likely concrete, so that's good insulation, but he probably has aluminum/glass windows without good seals. I don't think insulation has ever been a priority in building codes, so there may be a lot to gain from better windows.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2772 on: May 26, 2018, 05:24:39 PM »
If you’re building new, solar hot water might still make sense because you can design it to be simple (short pipes to where the hot water needs to go).

For a retrofit, if you’re getting solar PV then it’s now cheaper to add more panels and install a heat pump than to install solar hot water.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2773 on: May 26, 2018, 07:08:57 PM »
What might make a lot of sense would be to install a water heating system that heats a large amount of water in an insulated unpressurized tank.  Then the solar collector can be a unpressurized, drain down design where the circulating pump runs only when the temperature difference between collector and storage tank indicates energy can be harvested.

Then use 'ground source' heat pumps for both domestic water heating and space heating through the water tank. 

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2774 on: May 26, 2018, 07:13:09 PM »
Concrete is not insulating, it's mass. 

In places with hot days and cool nights a concrete building with external insulation can cut cooling costs.  Just open up windows at night and let the concrete cool down with external air.  During the day the concrete will absorb heat from inhabitants/solar gain through windows/etc. and reduce the amount of AC needed.


Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2775 on: May 26, 2018, 10:36:01 PM »
The type of solar water heater that I see used around here look like this one.



It doesn't require pumps or electricity and they work even in cloudy days during "winter". I believe some of them have a back up heating element for worse case scenarios. I've stayed in many places that use this type of solar water heater and the water is nice and warm at all times of the day even during winter. Of course winter here is 80 degrees during the days and 65 at night(a very cold night), so heat can be conserved for days.

About concrete walls, I don't mean solid concrete walls. They are cinder block walls covered in concrete to flatten surfaces.  This video shows an example of the typical house construction.



I imagine that the empty space in the cinder blocks provide a bit of insulation and there might be some insulation as a function of the the thickness of the walls. I wouldn't know where to start to add insulation to these walls. I don't think insulation has ever been a design consideration. There was simply no need for it in the past.
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 #2776 on: May 26, 2018, 11:07:55 PM »
That's a solar "batch" heater.  As water heats in the tubes it rises and is replaced by cooler water in the tank.  It's fine for places where it never freezes.

Concrete block walls offer little insulation.  R values of 1.9 to 2.5.  Best in a sunny place like PR would be to apply exterior insulation and a light colored stucco finish.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/increase-rvalue-concrete-block-wall-54431.html

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2777 on: May 27, 2018, 11:21:27 PM »
Archimid
That is one fancy solar heater!
All of the ones I'm familiar with were DIY projects designed to survive the desert sun - meaning plastic wouldn't do.
Low initial expense, low maintenance, moderate efficiency, but would lower your water heating bill by ~80%.


The concrete block construction was interesting. Is anything similar to adobe utilized on the island?
With adobe the objective is to build with a 12 hour time lag through the walls for heat. The outside's noonday heat warns the indoors at midnight and the cool outdoor midnight temperatures arrive indoors the following noon.
The consistency of the local mud/clay, added sand and straw, and finally the width of the bricks are adjusted in each region until the correct mix is found for that particular area. That formula is then copied by future builders.


Adobe is of no use where seasonal variation is what you are attempting to modulate, but if diurnal variations are a problem, adobe construction shines.
Terry

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2778 on: May 28, 2018, 03:01:12 PM »
Perhaps it has been mentioned here, but it was a surprise to me to read that a utility-scale geothermal plant uses fossil fuel:  pentane.  The plant in Hawaii had 50,000 gallons on site.  So, not as “clean” as one might think.

Other surprising discovery:  lava from the volcano is burning underground plant material, generating blue flames of burning methane gas.

Lava from Kilauea oozes over well at geothermal plant
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hawaii-volcano-latest-kilauea-lava-breaches-puna-geothermal-plant-2018-5-28/
Article and video.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2779 on: May 28, 2018, 05:56:20 PM »
Quote
Perhaps it has been mentioned here, but it was a surprise to me to read that a utility-scale geothermal plant uses fossil fuel:  pentane.  The plant in Hawaii had 50,000 gallons on site.  So, not as “clean” as one might think.

They aren't burning it but using it as the refrigerant (working fluid) which is compressed and expanding to extract the energy to produce electricity. Refrigerants are chosen to match the operating temperatures of the expansion to optimize the energy extraction.

So not fossil fuel per se.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2780 on: May 28, 2018, 06:51:34 PM »
cross posted from the batteries thread

Proposed Salton Sea (California) geothermal plant to produce renewable energy for 1,000,000 homes and enough lithium to power 6,000,000 electric cars per year.

http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/simplified-overview-on-planned-lithium-production-from-geothermal-operations/

Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2781 on: May 28, 2018, 07:06:44 PM »
Nitpick Alert

Lithium would be separated out of the waste water after it is used to heat the power cycle.  The lithium would then be used for lithium-ion batteries.

Lithium doesn't "power" cars but work as a major part of the energy storage chemistry in batteries.  Lithium is not used us, not a fuel.  It can be recovered and reused.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2782 on: May 29, 2018, 01:46:16 AM »
Renewables jump in PJM auction:

"Wind resources increased by 529 MW, PJM reported, from 887 MW last year to 1,416 MW this year. Solar jumped from 125 MW last year to 570 MW this year, an increase of more than four and a half times. "

"But more than 11 GW of DR [demand response] cleared the auction this year, up from 7,820 MW the year before. "

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/pjm-loses-a-quarter-of-its-nuke-capacity-in-latest-power-auction/524247/

www.pjm.com/-/media/markets-ops/rpm/rpm-auction-info/2021-2022/2021-2022-base-residual-auction-report.ashx?la=en

sidd

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2783 on: May 29, 2018, 02:54:45 AM »
Quote
"But more than 11 GW of DR [demand response] cleared the auction this year, up from 7,820 MW the year before. "

That means the ability to add a lot more wind and solar without storage or curtailment.

Sciguy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1969
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 188
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2784 on: May 29, 2018, 07:19:34 PM »
The economics of solar and wind are getting better and better.  This article has some very encouraging news:  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-20/storage-will-be-the-next-biggest-thing-in-energy

Some excerpts:

Quote
Unlike almost all their rivals in the energy-generation space, solar panels and wind turbines are mass-produced goods. That means they’re subject to the rules of continual improvement and falling costs that we see with semiconductors, household products and clothing as production volumes rise and factories undercut each other. Traditional power plants are essentially large-scale construction projects, which rarely achieve the same sorts of efficiency dividends.

As a result, the cost of new-build renewables has been sinking. The highest-cost solar and wind projects in the U.S. will now produce electricity at least as cheaply as the lowest-cost coal plants, according to a report last year by Lazard Inc.

Quote
By the early 2020s, renewables will have gotten so cheap that it will be more cost effective to build them than to operate even an existing coal or nuclear plant, Jim Robo, CEO of Florida-based NextEra Energy Inc., said during an investor call in January


etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2785 on: May 29, 2018, 07:29:23 PM »

Quote
By the early 2020s, renewables will have gotten so cheap that it will be more cost effective to build them than to operate even an existing coal or nuclear plant, Jim Robo, CEO of Florida-based NextEra Energy Inc., said during an investor call in January

Well, I understand this as :
Solar will get nuclear and coal bankrupt" because they are both baseload and baseload will loose most of its value. The only electricity that will be worth producing will be cheap renewable or expensive peak production.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2786 on: May 29, 2018, 07:39:42 PM »
These are operating expenses - maintenance, fuel, operation - cents per kWh in 2014.  (The most recent data I've found.)

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

Nuclear 2.68
Fossil Steam 3.90   
Hydro 1.19   
Gas Turbine 4.26

Plants have to recover, on average, that much per kWh sold to avoid bankruptcy.  As wind and solar approach 2 cents per kWh they will take the market from the more expensive sources.  If those plants run fewer hours they have to increase their earnings per kWh that they do sell to cover the fixed costs.

As fossil fuel and nuclear plants raise their prices in order to stay in business it becomes possible to install more wind and solar, curtailing some of the possible production, and still coming to market cheaper than large thermal plants. 

The more wind and solar installed, the worse the problem becomes for thermal plants.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2787 on: May 29, 2018, 07:43:26 PM »
Quote
The only electricity that will be worth producing will be cheap renewable or expensive peak production.

By the time we arrive at a 100% renewable grid we may find that we need little to no expensive peak production.  A combination of overbuilding wind and solar along with using dispatchable loads and a modest amount of storage may let us avoid expensive peakers.  We might keep some peakers (or CCNG) plants operational for emergencies such as transmission line outages.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2788 on: May 29, 2018, 07:47:51 PM »
Found the 2016 opex numbers...

Nuclear 2.54
Fossil Steam 3.60   
Hydro 1.10   
Gas Turbine 3.02

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

With 2 cent wind/solar hydro is the only one of the gang of four that stays in the game.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2789 on: May 29, 2018, 08:36:15 PM »
Cross-posted from the Nuclear thread, here’s a piece on how the PJM Capacity Auction works:

How a Capacity Market Works
Quote
Pretend that the grid operator had to meet 550 megawatts of demand. This is absurdly low of course, it’s closer to 170,000 in PJM, but the process is much easier to imagine with smaller numbers. The grid operator will hold then hold an auction to try to get the 550 megawatts of demand met at the lowest cost to consumers.

So then every resource bids into the auction in at its total cost of operation. In our hypothetical auction below, I’ve arranged the stack from lowest to highest cost bids, and drawn a line at the point where enough capacity has been acquired to meet demand.

As you can see [below], the cheapest resource is one wind turbine bidding in 50 MW of capacity at $30 per MW. But wait! Just because they bid in $30 per MW, that does not mean that the turbine receives 30 per MW. All it means is that the wind turbine is now committed to have 50 MW of power available in 3 years from now. Looking further up the stack, another turbine bids in 50 MW at $50 per MW. Even higher up the stack, you can see efficiency bid into the auction at $130 per MW, and a coal plant bid in at  $150 per MW.

So what compensation do they receive? In this example, all of the resources, including the wind turbine at the bottom, receive $150 per MW. This is called the “clearing price,” and it is set by the most expensive unit needed to meet demand. In this case, that is the coal plant (shown in orange).

This is important to understanding the dynamics between different resources in the market.

In this example, efficiency actually displaced a coal plant (shown in purple) whose total cost of operation was $160 per MW. Think about it this way; if efficiency had not bid into the market, then demand would have been 100 MW higher and that coal plant would have to be called on to meet demand. Then the clearing price would have been $160 per MW.

...

The other story here is that in capacity markets, lower cost resources can have the effect of suppressing prices for all of the resources since they ensure that demand can be met at a lower cost. For utilities who own lots of expensive generation, this is bad for business. For a company who owns lower cost resources, it is good. Consumers always benefit from lower prices. ...
http://www.theenergycollective.com/adamjames/237496/energy-nerd-lunch-break-how-capacity-market-works-and-why-it-matters
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 #2790 on: May 31, 2018, 06:59:12 PM »
Because even in Scotland, some things are more important than views from a golf course.

Scotland offshore Wind farm that was opposed by Donald Trump fitted with final turbine
The last of 11 turbines has now been erected at the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre off Aberdeen.
Quote
Bosses at Vattenfall confirmed the last of the 11 turbines at its European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) off Aberdeen was put in place on Saturday, May 26.

The turbines installed there include the most powerful in the world, while it is also the  first commercial project to use a new style of foundations, each of which weigh almost as much as 10 Boeing 747 aircraft.

Meanwhile, the giant  turbines are 191 metres tall, with each blade being 80 metres long, while the 164-metre rotor has a circumference larger than that of the London Eye.

The Aberdeen Bay development will be Scotland’s largest offshore wind test and demonstration facility and will trial next generation technology. ...
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/wind-farm-that-was-opposed-by-donald-trump-fitted-with-final-turbine-36953239.html
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 #2791 on: June 01, 2018, 06:12:53 PM »
Australia -

Quote
The continuing fall in the cost of new wind and solar farms, and the emergence of new firming contract products, is allowing large corporate and industrial users to slash energy costs by up to 40 per cent.

TFS Green, a Melbourne-based wholesale energy and environmental market broker, is on Friday launching its new “Renewable Energy Hub”, a day after the formal announcement of its first transaction with the Kiamal solar farm and Mars Australia.

TFS Greens’s Chris Halliwell says wind and solar is clearly delivering electricity at a 40 per cent discount from what is available to medium and large users elsewhere on the grid.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-solar-slashing-corporate-energy-costs-40-82862/


Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2792 on: June 01, 2018, 07:57:49 PM »
Breaking news:
Trump Prepares Lifeline for Money-Losing Coal and Nuclear Plants
- Energy Department is weighing emergency electricity reserve
- Move would be unprecedented intervention in energy markets
Quote
Trump administration officials are making plans to order grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear plants in an effort to extend their life, a move that could represent an unprecedented intervention into U.S. energy markets.

The Energy Department would exercise emergency authority under a pair of federal laws to direct the operators to purchase electricity or electric generation capacity from at-risk facilities, according to a memo obtained by Bloomberg News. The agency also is making plans to establish a "Strategic Electric Generation Reserve" with the aim of promoting the national defense and maximizing domestic energy supplies. ...
Quote
While administration officials are still deciding on their final strategy -- and may yet decide against aggressive action -- the memo represents the Energy Department’s latest, most fully developed plan to intervene on behalf of coal and nuclear power plants, pitched to the president’s top security advisers. ...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/trump-said-to-grant-lifeline-to-money-losing-coal-power-plants-jhv94ghl
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 #2793 on: June 01, 2018, 09:15:57 PM »
I'm afraid we're stuck with this fool for some time longer.

It took much of President Obama's term to clean up most of the Bush/Cheney mess.  The Middle East will probably suffer from that administration for many more years.

It will take a long time to clean up Donnie's mess.

Stuff happens when you don't show up at the polls and outvote the stupids.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2794 on: June 02, 2018, 01:23:22 AM »
Breaking news:
Trump Prepares Lifeline for Money-Losing Coal and Nuclear Plants
- Energy Department is weighing emergency electricity reserve
- Move would be unprecedented intervention in energy markets
...

More:  FERC has shown they are not inclined to prop up aging power plants.  If they prevent old plants from charging customers more to keep themselves in business, what would be the point?

The Real Barrier to Trump's Coal Bailout? His Own Appointees
Quote
The members of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, most of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, have already thwarted one effort to bail out uneconomic power plants, killing a 2017 directive by Energy Secretary Rick Perry that sought to keep struggling facilities in business. Now, Trump has directed Perry to take "immediate steps" to stop coal and nuclear retirements -- but the latest plan, like the last, may be at the mercy of the commission’s five members.

“If they plan to recover the charges from electric customers, there doesn’t appear to be any way that they can get around having to go back through FERC to implement this,” said Alison Silverstein, an independent energy consultant who helped write a grid study for the Energy Department last year. “Even if FERC does not have the ability to judge whether the rationale for the order is sound, it still has the responsibility and jurisdiction to review and approve the method for selecting the plants and charging the money.”
...
But invoking that emergency authority almost guarantees FERC’s involvement, Eisen said. Depending on how the emergency orders are written, the commission likely would be responsible for setting the payments to generators. That could slow implementation of the orders, and frustrate efforts to boost revenues for coal and nuclear plants that currently can’t compete against cheaper power sources such natural gas and renewable energy.

"By virtue of the fact that FERC would have to set whatever rates are prevailing for those plants -- that process would take time," Eisen said, adding, "I’m not entirely sure whether FERC would set rates that were anything other than market rates."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-01/the-real-barrier-to-trump-s-coal-bailout-his-own-appointees
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2795 on: June 02, 2018, 02:02:59 PM »
Very good, IMHO. This will publicize to all that coal (and nuclear) are a losing proposition, held up by subsidies and executive orders, and that the way of the future is renewables.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2796 on: June 02, 2018, 04:25:40 PM »
Very good, IMHO. This will publicize to all that coal (and nuclear) are a losing proposition, held up by subsidies and executive orders, and that the way of the future is renewables.

I agree. When consumers get that their utility rates are higher to support inefficient industries, they will vote any bastard out who supports such legislation.

Americans vote their pocketbooks.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2797 on: June 02, 2018, 07:29:30 PM »
As wind and solar subsidies fade away and subsidies become more obvious for coal and nuclear it's going to make some interesting times for those who have been attacking wind and solar over subsidies.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25753
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2798 on: June 02, 2018, 09:01:20 PM »
The point is already being made that conservatives in the U.S. used to complain loudly that the government should not be in the business of “picking winners and losers” in energy and technology.
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 #2799 on: June 02, 2018, 09:27:24 PM »
But doncha see, this is all about making losers win!

It's affirmative action for coal and nuclear.  Protect them from the oppression of renewable energy.

Boiling water matters!!!