Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Just found the Adam Taggart (fellow forward thinker) blog page.
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/89245/environment-depleting-resources-crash-course-chapter-23
.
 
SMRs,....one step closer !
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has completed the first and most intensive phase of review for NuScale Power’s design certification application (DCA). NuScale’s is the first and only small modular reactor (SMR) application to ever undergo NRC review. This major achievement brings NuScale Power closer to introducing the country’s first SMR to market, putting the U.S. on a path to beat foreign competitors like Russia and China at a global SMR race.

The NRC is expected to certify NuScale’s design, and the company’s first customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, is planning a 12-module SMR plant in Idaho slated for operation by the mid-2020s based on this certified design.
http://www.nuscalepower.com
 
Factory construction is key to making Nuclear cost competitive. Small sizes are usually much more costly but the cost over runs and graft involved in companies getting filthey rich from halfway building a new PWR make a sealed, factory delivered option very attractive. But only if it is truly walk away passively safe. Indefinitely. including the cooling pools. This is where molten fuel reactors have a big advantage. And also in their 700C operating temp which enables molten salt energy storage so that they can vary their electrical output from 0 to 200% every day to balance large uptake of solar PV.
.
Thorcon also has a good vision if they can really make it happen by building in ship yards which are already adept at making big things.
.
http://thorconpower.com/
.
 
Some good news for a change:
===========================================
Closing coal and oil power plants leads to healthier babies being born, finds study
‘Perhaps it's time for the health of our children to be the impetus behind reducing the common sources of ambient air pollution. Their lives depend on it’

Josh Gabbatiss Science Correspondent
The Independent Online
May 23 2018

Shutting down coal and oil power plants has been linked with a drop in premature births by a new study.

The closure of eight power plants in California prompted researchers to examine the impact this had on births in the surrounding community.

They found the year following the shutdown of each plant saw a decline in the rate of premature births in the local area – an effect that was particularly pronounced in African American and Asian women.

Lead author of the study, Dr Joan Casey of the University of California, Berkeley, said she was “excited to do a good news story in environmental health”.

“We said, let’s look at what happens when we have this external shock that removes air pollution from a community and see if we can see any improvements in health.”

Their results, which were published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, saw the rate of premature births drop by between 20 and 25 per cent (depending on their ethnic background).

The scientists also showed the impact on the premature birth rate became more pronounced the further away from power planets they looked.

Premature births are known to be linked with infant mortality, as well as health problems later in life.

As a comparison, the research team repeated their analysis on eight power plants that had not yet closed – and found no difference in premature birth rates over the same timescale they examined for the decommissioned plants.
=====================
 
sendler2112 said:
Factory construction is key to making Nuclear cost competitive. Small sizes are usually much more costly but the cost over runs and graft involved in companies getting filthey rich from halfway building a new PWR make a sealed, factory delivered option very attractive. But only if it is truly walk away passively safe. Indefinitely. including the cooling pools. This is where molten fuel reactors have a big advantage. And also in their 700C operating temp which enables molten salt energy storage so that they can vary their electrical output from 0 to 200% every day to balance large uptake of solar PV.
All good ideas. However:

1) SMR's (like the NuScale design) still require a lot of infrastructure in the form of external heat exchangers, turbines, pumps, cooling systems, transformers, diesel generators etc. And that will still involve the risks of overruns, graft, companies getting filthy rich by abandoning construction halfway through etc.

2) Molten metal reactors (like LFSR's) have their own risks, like damage and loss of containment due to water ingress.

All those problems can be overcome with time and money, of course. But they have a long road ahead of them, in large part because nuclear power proponents have been promising super cheap nuclear power (one even promised power "too cheap to meter") for over 60 years now - and today it is one of the more expensive forms of power in the US.
 
I thought I had copied this post over here from another thread I am on but I guess I forgot. Just so everyone can get a sense of the scale of rebuildables required to replace all energy in the USA. This info is taken from the Roadmap To Nowhere which put hard numbers to the hardware and land use requirements using their numbers that the careful study by the Solutions Project.org failed to tell us.
.
It would take 130,000 square miles of land and 75 million roof tops (if there were that many pointing south which there aren't). And 1 million, 2.5 MW wind turbines and 50,000 500MW grid scale solar farms. And increase the already fully developed hydro. Just to replace all energy for the USA. And then rebuild every wind turbine every 20 years. And the inverters every 10? And the panels every? All mined, refined, and installed with liquid fueled machines for now. And then what when liquid fuel is $5X in 30 years? And this would still leave many days of widespread black out per year due to the equally incomprehensible quantity of storage it would take that they inadequately address. And to try to shift heavy mining machines and farm equipment to corded electric? and heavy transport to electrolytic Hydrogen with it's terrible round trip efficiency.
.
And many times more raw materials for the rest of the world to do the same. It just does not add up. By a factor of 10. This wishful thinking without ever running the numbers is impeding logical discussion of what really can be done to come down for a softer landing after liquid fuel leaves us.
.
.
31277640_1660836973995408_3255815467859705856_n.jpg

.
.
 
sendler2112 said:
I thought I had copied this post over here from another thread I am on but I guess I forgot. Just so everyone can get a sense of the scale of rebuildables required to replace all energy in the USA.
Good info, but keep in mind that the goal is not "to replace all energy in the USA." It is to reduce the use of fossil fuels to a level that does not keep driving up CO2 emissions, and to reduce the use of coal to the point where it's not a health hazard. (This will have the secondary effect of stretching our supply of such fuels out hundreds of years.)
 
We have a much bigger problem than too much Carbon. Which is too little oil remaining. Every big thing we want to build is only possible with cheap liquid fuel. farming at this scale for 8 billion people is also completely dependant on it. An attempt to replace all energy with rebuildables is not just a consideration of climate change. Our complete world economy depends on an every increasing supply of primary energy. We have no model of world economics which can sustain even brief periods of negative growth.
.
Even with stretching oil will become increasingly remote by 2050. Increasing the price 5X and beyond from there on. Which will absolutely destroy the world economic system we are stuck in. Natural gas for heat and heat processes will follow a similar price/ availability curve 50 years later. Along with many other strategic minerals that are crucial to propping up our existence. We have a flawed free market system of supply and demand which was valid only during the present seemingly cornucopian availability of finite natural resources. so we are still building new sports stadiums and cruise ships because this is where the biggest mid term pay offs lie. We need to find a new way.
 
sendler2112 said:
We have a much bigger problem than too much Carbon. Which is too little oil remaining.
Well, they are pretty closely related, aren't they? If we burn all the extractable oil and coal we warm the Earth a lot - AND run out of cheap oil (well, we already ran out of cheap oil; now we are into tight oil.)
Our complete world economy depends on an every increasing supply of primary energy.
And that, in turn, is based on a steady increase in population - which is another thing we have to get under control.
Even with stretching oil will become increasingly remote by 2050. Increasing the price 5X and beyond from there on.
Yep. But if, at that point, we are using 5x less oil due to PHEV's, efficiency improvements etc, we are still OK - because we are paying the same for the same _work._
We need to find a new way.
Agreed there.
 
Personal transportation is only 30% of oil consumption. Which only 30% of total energy. And all of the other big consumers of liquid fuel do not readily scale to electric conversion.There is too much green washing of our predicament that breeds complacency. One thing that we could do to help EV adoption move more quickly is to increase awareness to the future jam we are facing and lower our expectations of what a "car" needs to be.
.
Do we really need $1,000's for air bags, radar, and cameras. And 60kWh batteries? If we do proceed with 60kWh as the minimum acceptable size then it is crucial to go all in with electrical infrastructure so as to allow charging at work during the day and V2G at night. Every car.
 
sendler2112 said:
Personal transportation is only 30% of oil consumption. Which only 30% of total energy. And all of the other big consumers of liquid fuel do not readily scale to electric conversion.
Long distance rail scales very easily (re: all of Europe.) Trucking scales once you spend the money to put in catenary power (already in pilot installations.) Aviation does not scale well, and this is why 100% conversion to RE would be a bad target.
There is too much green washing of our predicament that breeds complacency. One thing that we could do to help EV adoption move more quickly is to increase awareness to the future jam we are facing and lower our expectations of what a "car" needs to be.
Agreed. (Although the Fiat 500e comes close, and the Arcimoto, Tango and Spira are all good examples of how small you can go.)
Do we really need $1,000's for air bags, radar, and cameras.
No. Electronics come down in price faster than any other part of a vehicle, so in 20 years you'll be spending $100's instead of $1000's for the same functionality.
And 60kWh batteries? If we do proceed with 60kWh as the minimum acceptable size then it is crucial to go all in with electrical infrastructure so as to allow charging at work during the day and V2G at night. Every car.
Per a recent study (can't find the reference now) all you really need is G2V control to stabilize the grid. With nothing more than that (which we have now) we could support ~6 million EV's.
 
If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#5e9673a0121c
From the article..
The last few years have seen growing concern over what happens to solar panels at the end of their life. Consider the following statements:

  • The problem of solar panel disposal “will explode with full force in two or three decades and wreck the environment” because it “is a huge amount of waste and they are not easy to recycle.”

  • “The reality is that there is a problem now, and it’s only going to get larger, expanding as rapidly as the PV industry expanded 10 years ago.”
  • “Contrary to previous assumptions, pollutants such as lead or carcinogenic cadmium can be almost completely washed out of the fragments of solar modules over a period of several months, for example by rainwater.”
Were these statements made by the right-wing Heritage Foundation? Koch-funded global warming deniers? The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal?
None of the above. Rather, the quotes come from a senior Chinese solar official, a 40-year veteran of the U.S. solar industry, and research scientists with the German Stuttgart Institute for Photovoltaics.

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article176294243/Studie-Umweltrisiken-durch-Schadstoffe-in-Solarmodulen.html

sendler2112 said:
This info is taken from the Roadmap To Nowhere which put hard numbers to the hardware and land use requirements using their numbers that the careful study by the Solutions Project.org failed to tell us.
.
I have read most of that book, its a good book, when I am done I am thinking of emailing them a few suggestions on how to make it better.
One thing I didn't like about it was the fact they actually appear to be "too nice" with their cost predictions and requirements. Such as only requiring 4hours of hydro backup, while they do chuck in a blurb somewhere about how many more trillions it would cost for a full 24 hours of hydro energy storage, I think they should make a full table of what would be realistic such as a weeks worth of stored hydro etc.

Probably the most interesting part of the book comes at the start and I quote "A 40-year solar refurbishment schedule would mean the recycling and replacement of 1.23 million square meters of worn-out panels, every single day, rain or shine – forever."

So far this second part on natural gas is very interesting..
That is when states/countries merge in wind/solar they tend to use natural gas as the backup, but when using natural gas which is methane, the average natural gas power plant leaks about 4% of its gas.
Because methane has an incredible 84 times Global warming potential (GWP) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values ) than co2, you end up with just as much co2 GHG warming equivalent than if you just used boring old coal. The only upside to methane is you don't have any of the other contaminants that coal contains. http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/chapter-four/
 
Bloomberg predicts that even if electric cars make up half of new car sales by 2040 that this will save us only 7% of oil consumption.
.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116898_electric-cars-will-exceed-half-the-market-and-displace-7-percent-of-gasoline-consumption-by-2040-report
.
https://bnef.turtl.co/story/evo2018?src=TW
.
 
sendler2112 said:
Bloomberg predicts that even if electric cars make up half of new car sales by 2040 that this will save us only 7% of oil consumption.
Yep. It will take time to replace ICE cars with EV's, and during that time we won't see as much savings (since the ICE cars are still on the road, and have lifetimes of about 10 years.) And of course oil goes to far more things than just cars.

But that would definitely be heading in the right direction. It would be nice to see oil usage start dropping instead of climbing with no end in sight.
 
It would seem that at least some in Germany are begining to realise there is a problem ...
At the site of Germany’s Arbeitgeberverband (Federation for German Employers) Dr. Björn Peters wrote a piece describing the recent “Baden-Badener Energiegesprächen“, an energy pow-wow where political and industry leaders met for 2 days to discuss Germany’s energy future.

“Surprised by the realism”

From the two days of presentations, speeches and discussions, there are clear indicators that German political and industry leaders are “finally” realizing that the Energiewende (transition to green energies) is nowhere near as easy as previously expected and promised to the public.

According to Peters, “We were surprised by the realism among the experts”.

His commentary also notes that although the excitement of the Energiewende was great 20 years ago, today the targets of green energies are still a long way off. He reports:

It is only now, after the construction of over 100 gigawatts of power generation capacity, that the realization is beginning to take hold that the expansion of ambient energies is not getting us closer to the purpose of replacing chemical energy sources.”

Technology still decades away

Peters adds that “the sticking point is that it is only the weather-dependent ambient energies that can be expanded greatly, but they have neither the quantity nor the consistency to meet the requirements for a steady and affordable power supply.” He then notes:

The technological components of an energy supply system based on sun and wind first need to be developed. Just the development of suitable power storage cells for bridging windless and sunless periods still requires many decades.”

Green energies miserably implemented, no planning.
Peters also writes that “the rapid speed of the power production capacity expansion while the remainder of the energy supply system lagged woefully behind was accepted by all those in attendance as a failure of the Energiewende.”

Another problem, Peters noted – citing the Chairman of the German Renewable Energy Federation, Peter Röttgen – was the go-it-alone approach by individual countries in Europe and the complete lack of infrastructure for storing and transporting solar and wind energy all across the continent. “The energy policy must finally be organized Europe-wide.”

Government electric power consumption goals unrealistic...
Another factor that failed to meet expectations was the falling electricity demand. Policymakers had hoped that households, and industry would have lowered their energy consumption by now, mainly through greater efficiency, but that too has not happened. Many of the green ideas simply have limits, or create problems that are worse than the solution.
One example is building insulation, which on many buildings often leads to moisture accumulating in the walls and results mildew and fungus infestation.

Widespread e-mobility “will take decades”...
On e-mobility, Peters comments that battery technology for e-mobility is also woefully inadequate for widespread use, and it will take decades before the technology develops.

A call to get back to the facts...
Next Peters brings describes how one speaker, Jürgen-Friedrich Hake, a physicist at the renowned Jülich Research Center, who, accompanied by much applause from the audience, called “for more realism and neutral assessment of the body of facts.”

Peters summarized:..
In total there was the impression that the numerous unanswered questions of the ‘Energiewende’ have finally dawned on the energy sector. While only a few years ago hope for rapid solutions to the technical challenges was high at the industry conferences, the degree of realism that has since spread is hard to surpass today. Not only are solution to the know problems being sought, but the industry representatives and policymakers are finally beginning to ask the right questions regarding technical concepts, costs and economic impacts.”
 
Looking around for what other people thought about the "reply book" http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/ which was a great read, but not much came up on the first page of a google search.

But it was interesting to see this article on the original author of the idea of 100% renewable energy roadmap "Professor Mark Jacobson" that he disliked criticism against the viability of his 100% renewable energy ideas so much he is suing other scientists for $10million dollars
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/12/12/stanfords-100-renewables-a-roadmap-to-nowhere/#93460c17e25b
In a bizarre and completely unscientific move, Jacobson filed a $10 million libel suit in Washington, D.C. Superior Court against another scientist, Dr. Christopher Clack, who dared to criticize him.

Along with 20 other prominent scientists, Clack was the lead author of a paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that pointed out the scientific flaws in Jacobson’s thesis. Flaws that Jacobson refused to address during the normal scientific peer-review process.


And there were many.

Jacobson also filed against the Academy as publisher, to force them to retract the critique.

This was one of the scientific papers against him that caused the lawsuit http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114.full
So while many other scientists consider Jaconson a bit of a joke, NASA has placed him up high on their profile with stuff on their website about him and how great he is https://www.nasa.gov/ames/ocs/2014-summer-series/mark-jacobson

To me it makes perfect sense he would sue, there is just so much money in the subsidies and supporting of this science in general that suing would be a natural thing to do, because its all just about the money.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/university-fires-controversial-marine-scientist-for-alleged-conduct-breaches
Like the scientist, Peter Ridd from the James cook university who got fired because of his studying of the great barrier reef led him to believe global warming isn't hurting the reef at all and might even be helping it. This belief means you don't get the possible billions of research money handed out by the government who want to please the voters that they are doing something on climate change.

On another note, while watching the news on mainstream media TV, I thought about the fact that it doesn't take much to debunk the viability of wind/solar renewables in terms of its effectiveness against global warming vs Nuclear, but you never see even conservative news TV/article break some of the facts like what is in the roadmaptonowhere.com book into their news.

With the news I am surprised by the lack of a little bit of simple arithmetic explaining things like average output etc, or talking about the fact that while natural gas is frequently used as the friend of intermittent wind/solar that it has an incredible 84 times more warming gas than co2 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Values ) , and that even the "IPCC calculated that a leakage of 2.8 percent would cancel any greenhouse advantage of gas over fossil fuels like oil and coal" https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Natural_gas_transmission_leakage_rates#Leakage_Rates_Worldwide_and_in_the_United_States
But often gas power plant leakage is being measured at 10%, so the "transition" to gas backed renewables is probably increasing global warming even if the total co2 emissions might not technically be going up.

Gas power plants emit up to 120 times more methane than previously thought, study finds
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gas-power-plants-methane-emissions-120-times-more-study-purdue-edf-greenhouse-global-warming-climate-a7641471.html

When looking at natural-gas/methane on the NOAA site, I looked at the only measuring site in Australia and could see methane/nat-gas has rocketed massively higher upwards after 2009 which is around the time when South Australia started moving more to wind and relying on more and more gas.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=CGO&program=ccgg&type=ts
ccgg.CGO.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png

I think the mainstream media know renewables are dumb but the conservative side actually don't try that hard reporting against it because they know letting it unfold on the public for every reason possible such as letting their electricity prices go up and not actually lowering global warming effects means they have news to laugh at the left side for years to come.
And leftwing media report how great renewables are because its just what people want to hear.

I think all up its bad old lazy media, media thats well entrenched into the system and isn't motivated to care and even try and do a good job. The internet has turned upside down so many industries, but because TV gets its own dedicated spectrum separated from the internet, it remains a bad source and ineffective source of information. People still expect to be drip fed good accurate information over TV/Radio but that just doesn't happen anymore and its kind of turned into cancer.
The facts on renewables shouldn't be that hard for journalists to amalgamate and put into something that's easily absorbable but I don't ever see it in the media.
So I have said it before and I will say it again, the faster the TV spectrum is wiped off the map and amalgamated into 5G mobile wireless internet only data, the better media, in general, will become. This issue just boils down into this problem again and again for me when I look at it.
Looking at what the FCC did in the USA looks great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation#Broadcast_incentive_auction
And it needs to happen everywhere, globally. The fact there are "spectrum speculators" that buy failing TV stations and just sit on them waiting for the time when they can finally sell the TV spectrum for internet wireless access is a great sign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_reallocation#%22Spectrum_speculators%22

On 4G mobile I have been able to get 260mbps for a fair while, and most of the carriers in Australia are now offering near unlimited data. But the good news is more cell sites are being upgraded.. Lately I been able to get over 100mbps anywhere I go around Melbourne
3913051757.png
http://www.speedtest.net/result/a/3913051757

Its carrier band aggregation technology that makes these speeds possible and the TV stations sit on billions worth of valuable spectrum that can help continue its rollout for more people everywhere. I am still a big fan on cable based internet mind you, we need both, but we don't need old media sitting on valuable internet spectrum just to do a crap job informing people, its key to the cancer.

*Add* I thought I would post this chart to remind folks how little change to greenhouse gases Germany has changed over the years.
Over the whole year, or typical 24 hours..
If we were comparing these two data sets like they were cars or anything else then it would be considered a joke.
France.004.jpeg
2018-03-12 (11)abb.png
 
Hillhater said:
"....At the site of Germany’s Arbeitgeberverband (Federation for German Employers) Dr. Björn Peters wrote a piece...

....
The technological components of an energy supply system based on sun and wind first need to be developed...

Widespread e-mobility “will take decades”...
On e-mobility, Peters comments that battery technology for e-mobility is also woefully inadequate for widespread use, and it will take decades before the technology develops.

Yaeh, "the expert" has spoken. Battery technology is already here for electric cars, all of the major German OEMs will sell electric cars that run 500km on one charge during the next years, not decades.

The same experts have told us that the German elecricity grid can only take 4% of renewables (mainly water power) and more is impossible.

So far in 2018 share of renewable energy in German electricity grid has grown to a whoping 42.1%! (some nice weather)

EE_Strom_Deutschland.jpg

https://www.energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all

Two times in 2018 we already hit more than 100% RE production compared to consumption

Have 42.1% share of renewable energies means 58,9% less fossil fuels to burn (are at least a number in that ballpark), no matter the volatility in the grid.

This is the reality.

Target for EE electricity share is 65% for 2030 (12 years). I think this is doable. Of curse the last 35% will be much more complicated than the first 35%.

---

I agree that other targets like increasing efficiency in old building are very difficult to meet. Fossil fuels are still cheap as dirt, wo why should anyone invest in more efficiency?
 
Germany has made excellent progress in the share of electricity from rebuildables.
.
.
fig2-gross-power-production-germany-1990-2017.png

.
.
We need to keep in mind that electricity is just a small part of the primary energy that we rely on and fossil fuels will start to show price increases as they reach depleted levels.
.
.
fig9-german-energy-sources-share-primary-energy-consumption-1990-2017.png

.
.
The hardest issue to evercome will be in how to replace liquid fuel for big agriculture, heavy mining, heavy construction and maintenance of further rebuildables, ect.
.
We have 20-30 years until oil production tops onto a production plateu of ever increasing price as we desperately start relying on fraking and tar sands and deep water drilling.
.
Gas will be the next thing to top out in 70 years. Heat for buildings in the populated Northern Latitudes will also get very expensive. Many times higher than today's pricing.
.
Making all personal transportation electric is the first step to stretching what we have left but mining and refining the materials so that everyone can have a 60kWh battery in their 2 ton car can only be justified if V2G ports are installed everywhere and the grid gets smart enough to pay people back for buffering the peak demand and only charging off peak. So that we don't need any stationary battery grid storage. It will all be in the cars.
.
I would like to see ultralight tandem seat vehicles become the norm for commuting but they are held back by cosnumer's and government's desire to make cars "fool" proof in their ability to smash into things without getting hurt. A big waste of materials we will find in increasingly expensive supply as oil price goes 5X and drives up the price of food and mining.
 
Unfortunately, that 218 TWh of renewable power generation in Germany required an installed capacity of 960+TWh (110 GW ) of renewables ..an overall CF of 22% , and represents 33% of the 650+ TWh total consumption.
So if Germany is to achieve even 65% RE supply , they will need to double ALL their RE generation sources, Wind and Solar farms, Biomass burners, Hydro dam generators, and storage systems, as well as the necessary expansion of the grid systems to collect and distribute that generation.
And of course , for total 100% RE supply, 3 times the current RE capacity would be needed.
......BUT , ??% "Thermal"... (coal, gas nuclear).. Backup will still be essential for those dark, windless periods where RE still does not produce.!
Some of them are beginning to realise they cannot afford to go that far.
 
Hillhater said:
So if Germany is to achieve even 65% RE supply , they will need to double ALL their RE generation sources, Wind and Solar farms, Biomass burners, Hydro dam generators, and storage systems, as well as the necessary expansion of the grid systems to collect and distribute that generation.
Yep. At which point the remaining load can be handled by the unused hydro (represents storable energy) and natural gas for peaking - at half the consumption rates they see now. A pretty good result.
And of course , for total 100% RE supply, 3 times the current RE capacity would be needed.
......BUT , ??% "Thermal"... (coal, gas nuclear).. Backup will still be essential for those dark, windless periods where RE still does not produce.!
You seriously think hydro/biomass/storage cannot produce on dark and windless nights?
 
billvon said:
Hillhater said:
So if Germany is to achieve even 65% RE supply , they will need to double ALL their RE generation sources, Wind and Solar farms, Biomass burners, Hydro dam generators, and storage systems, as well as the necessary expansion of the grid systems to collect and distribute that generation.
Yep. At which point the remaining load can be handled by the unused hydro (represents storable energy) and natural gas for peaking - at half the consumption rates they see now. A pretty good result.
And of course , for total 100% RE supply, 3 times the current RE capacity would be needed.
......BUT , ??% "Thermal"... (coal, gas nuclear).. Backup will still be essential for those dark, windless periods where RE still does not produce.!
You seriously think hydro/biomass/storage cannot produce on dark and windless nights?
Except that all the hydro and biomass (Doubled in capacity ) is already used to help produce the 65% level.
Note also that even if the hydro and biomass output were doubled in capacity. (Which is Impossible for hydro !). It would still only be 20 GW total capacity.
So , no, it won’t help much for backup.
 
sendler2112 said:
billvon said:
You seriously think hydro/biomass/storage cannot produce on dark and windless nights?

Difficult for those to make 60GW and for any length of time.
Given that the US has 79GW of hydropower capacity - not so much.

Also keep in mind that every GW of generation from an unreliable renewable (solar, wind) is a GW of potential energy that a hydro plant doesn't have to turn into power. Indeed, repowering existing dams (to increase peak generation capacity) is a relatively cheap and fast way to accommodate greater amounts of unreliable generation while drawing down the reservoir less.
 
Hillhater said:
Note also that even if the hydro and biomass output were doubled in capacity. (Which is Impossible for hydro !)
Why do you think it's impossible? You can keep exactly the same dam and repower a hydro plant to greatly increase generation capacity. And then if you are drawing down the reservoir too much - install more solar.
 
Back
Top