Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Punx0r said:
Divestment in fossil fuels reaches $6 trillion, expected to reach $10tn by 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/10/fossil-fuel-divestment-funds-rise-to-6tn
Click to expand...

All that does is allow some other hedge fund to buy even more of those shares back, even cheaper.
 
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/california-climate-change-policy-hits-poor-residents-hardest/
.......15 Sept: National Review: California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups
By Robert Bryce
(Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author and producer of the forthcoming book and documentary Juice: How Electricity Explains the World)
Hugely expensive green mandates will hit poor Californians the hardest.
In April, civil-rights groups sued to stop some of California’s policies designed to address climate change. Then on Monday, California governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 100, which requires the state’s utilities to obtain all their electricity from carbon-free sources by 2045…

High electricity prices should be a concern for California policymakers, since electric rates in the state are already 60 percent higher than those in the rest of the country. According to a recent study by the Berkeley-based think tank Environmental Progress, between 2011 and 2017 California’s electricity rates rose more than five times as fast as those in the rest of the U.S. SB 100 will mean even higher electricity prices for Californians.

In addition to cost, the all-renewable push set forth in SB 100 faces huge challenges with regard to energy storage. Relying solely on renewables will require a battery system large enough to handle massive seasonal fluctuations in wind and solar output. (Wind-energy and solar-energy production in California is roughly three times as great during the summer months as it is in the winter.) According to the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based energy-policy think tank, for California to get 80 percent of its electricity from renewables would require about 9.6 terawatt-hours of storage. This would require about 500 million Tesla Powerwalls, or roughly 15 Powerwalls for every resident. A full 100 percent–renewable electricity mandate would require some 36.3 terawatt-hours of storage, or about 60 Powerwalls for every resident of California…

Since 2015, more than 200 government entities from Maine to California have voted to reject or restrict the encroachment of wind-energy projects. In 2015 the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance banning large wind turbines in the county’s unincorporated areas. Three other California counties — San Diego, Solano, and Inyo — have also passed restrictions on Big Wind. Last year, the head of the California Wind Energy Association lamented that “we’re facing restrictions like that all around the state,” adding that “it’s pretty bleak in terms of the potential for new development. The result of the anti-wind restrictions can be seen in the numbers. Last year, California had about 5,600 megawatts of installed wind capacity. That’s roughly 150 megawatts less than what the state had back in 2013.

The land-use problem facing Big Wind in California is the same throughout the rest of the U.S. and Europe: People in cities like the idea of wind turbines. People in rural areas increasingly don’t want anything to do with them. Those rural landowners don’t want to see the red blinking lights atop those massive turbines, all night, every night, for the rest of their lives. Nor do they want to be subjected to the harmful noise — both audible and inaudible — that they produce…
Click to expand...
 
sendler2112 said:
I have been trying for a year now to help him understand the relationship between energy/ economy/ population. Which for our purposes of discussion can generally be stated as being around 1:1:1. There is a slight decoupling of energy as we move more into a service economy, and slight efficiency gains are available. ie. in personal transportation (which is only 15% of total energy at most in the most car-centric USA). So eliminating any particular energy source is not just a matter of choice. If the height of this energy graph goes down, the population, or size of the economy must go down. And the population is still set to increase another 30% by 2100 before education of family planning that we are now promoting worldwide will slowly start to cause a reduction in population. The "peak child" born whenever that may be, has to reach 80 and die before the population can begin to drift down. Even at fertility rates of less the 2.
.
If the economy contracts, by even just a few percent/ year, high unemployment in the double digits and defaults occur leaving 30% of the people standing in a soup line with nowhere to live. Worldwide. We have no economic system that can function on less than exponential 2% world growth at the minimum. So, when energy availabilty goes down, which it will within 20-30 years for liquid fuel which is the most useful of all energy, the economy will go down. No amount of long term forecast degradation of the ecosystems or inevitble resource depletion will be enough to cause humans to adopt a completely new social system now. Until it is forced on us by a complete crash.
Click to expand...
There are economists who claim that the whole "we need increasing population to keep the economy going" is total rubbish, and that its really just a "Social Justice Warrior" ( https://youtu.be/SUhc3Kv4ieE https://youtu.be/oFrZsGbO6N0 https://youtu.be/EXkqZnq4z-I ) argument to import the 3rd world folks because it makes SJW people feel good about them selfs, these economists point to Japan as an example, arguing that mere GDP numbers don't mean anything and what people should really be looking at his how happy the people of Japan are as a whole. Fact is there are no "lines of poor people waiting for soup etcetera", and everything is just fine in Japan despite a massive decrease in population and the practically brutal refusal to allow immigration into Japan.
Japan record for taking in refugees is something like 1 per year and there are plenty of stories out there that claim some people who have flown to Japan and stated they claim to be a refugee have been beaten by authorities unconscious and put on an aeroplane back to their place of origin.

South Korea is somewhat the same, they are very nice places to live, as Paul Joseph Watson pointed out quite nasty to anyone trying to migrate there and their economies are just fine.
https://youtu.be/Sp_LA2qE4aM
I will include a Bitchute URL as apparently a lot of youtube is banned in euro countries these days because Angela Merkel
doesn't like different opinions.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Sp_LA2qE4aM/
[youtube]Sp_LA2qE4aM[/youtube]

What these countries most certainly don't do is have expensive energy.

While I am a big believer in putting money/effort into next-generation nuclear especially the Bill Gates TerraPower TWR technology, because its around 3000 times more efficient and uses nuclear waste as fuel, but, apparently if California or Germany had put all their money into nuclear instead of Renewables they would be on 100% co2 free energy now.

Had They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Already Have 100% Clean Power
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#4de65bb5e0d4
Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources


When it comes to just too many people on this world overpopulating the land to the point it looks like massive cancer from space, I think Australia holds some records in that area despite it being considered a low population country.
All you have to do is look at it in google sat-view and see any green farmland area and understand that it was originally thick with trees in that area, until it was stripped bare for farming paddocks.

South Australia is a good example here, where you can see all this green square shaped paddocks until it hits the desert, and basically these green square paddock areas were once ultra thick areas of trees, now all cleared for food production.
South Australia I think is worthy of the words forrest-less compared to China, comparatively, which is an amazing thing when you think about it.
You can look at the most populated states in the world like Hong Kong/China and see they have 100s of times more trees then Australia does.

South Australia https://goo.gl/maps/fJj9TzoyiUo
Even Hong Kong is comparatively covered in trees -> https://goo.gl/maps/iLuxAV3zaGG2

2018-09-08 (2).jpg

While the Australian government puts out mass population memes
DiWdSDfUcAAW9Q4.jpg


Di1O3ifU4AENqkt.jpg

Hillhater said:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/california-climate-change-policy-hits-poor-residents-hardest/
.......15 Sept: National Review: California Climate Policies Facing Revolt from Civil-Rights Groups
Click to expand...
Apparently it was Obama who really caused the largest amount of damage brought on from the GFC because when he was working during his Community groups/law and legislative career ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Law_career ) Obama was working with the most powerful lobbying groups out there to make/force home loans available to people who couldn't really afford them like the now famous NINJA loans ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_income,_no_asset#No_income,_no_job,_no_assets_(%22NINJA%22) )
https://youtu.be/8Nbvd3FOLUA?t=11m1s
https://nypost.com/2016/03/12/obama-is-setting-us-up-for-another-housing-crash/

So it was kind of nice timing for him to walk into becoming president after causing the biggest financial problem in history so he could take credit for fixing it.
But powerful lobbying to keep electricity prices down is quite a noble thing to do, unless they do it Australia style and tax the hell out of the struggling low-middle income folks/small business people just to pay the electricity bills of ultimately everyone else, then its just causing an unbalancing effect.
 
It takes a lot to make me really angry..
But this report ( copied from another Energy blog site).... sure pushes me to the limit !
If true, (i have not yet found the original source), then this is bordering on "social engineering" and political manipulation ..and points us in the direction of Big Brother.

In QLD engineers are required to be registered and in most states CP Eng (Chartered Professional Engineer), is a defacto standard.
As part of having that qualification you have to agree to abide by ethics policies.

In the ethics policy it requires engineers to use “sustainable” outcomes, and they are not allowed to “compromise the ability of future life to enjoy the same or better environment as currently enjoyed”

This is starting to be actually enforced to the point where if you work on a project that isn’t carbon neutral, you risk being stripped as a practicing engineer.
This is already happened to engineers working on the coal plants that NSW sold. Luckily in NSW there is no regulation requiring registration so they just tell EA to go jump. But in QLD engineers are getting into a tough spot. Victoristan is following QLD and regulating engineers.
Click to expand...
 
Concentrated solar installation is running at $9/ Watt in the USA. Nameplate. The best month Crescent Dunes could offer (after over a year of failure and shut downs due to salt leaks) was 33, 387 MWh. 46MW average on it's best month. 42% capacity factor. On it's best month. $ 21.40 / Watt actual cap cost. Based on it's best month. Sited on 1,670 acres.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project
.
Tracking mirror based concentrated solar is extremely expensive. But it does at least store 10 hours of output theoretically.
.
Ivanpah was $2.2 Billion and has been much more reliable averaging 71MW over 4 years. $31/ Watt based on the actual output. And 3,500 acres.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
.
Green magazines will never tell you any of this. Good thing we have Wikipedia.
 
No bill, wind and solar do not make me angry, they are technologies that impress me and can be excellent in the right applications.
What does irritate (mad as hell, actually :twisted: :lol: ). me is the wrong application of those technologies...such as using them in utility/grid supply generation,.......and that is just another dumb human input.!
 
sendler2112 said:
Concentrated solar installation is running at $9/ Watt in the USA. Nameplate.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
.
Green magazines will never tell you any of this. Good thing we have Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
The SolarReserve "Aurora" Thermal solar tower project in South Australia, is yet to be constructed but its cost at $750 m for the 150MW namplate + 10 hrs storage. Would suggest $5/W . (Budget cost only)
However , they have recently applied to include a 70MW solar PV farm into the plan , which they claim will reduce the cost per MWh produced...and presumeably extend the storage time (if they increase the storage capacity ?)
So it may end up being a "Hybrid" solar plant ......if it ever gets built ! (Federal Gov are phasing out RE subsidies )
 
Hillhater said:
What does irritate (mad as hell, actually) me is the wrong application of those technologies...such as using them in utility/grid supply generation,.......and that is just another dumb human input.!
Click to expand...

Like I said, you must be angry all the time.
===================================================
The US has added more solar power than any other type of electricity in 2018 so far
Jeremy Berke Jun. 13, 2018, 2:25 PM
Business Insider

According to a new report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), a nonprofit group, the US solar market added 2.5 gigawatts of new capacity in the first three months of 2018, up 13% from the first quarter of 2017.

That accounts for 55% of all US electricity added in the first quarter of 2018, including fossil fuels and other forms of renewable energy.

"This data shows that solar has become a common-sense option for much of the US and is too strong to be set back for long," SEIA CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement.

The SEIA report notes that the bulk of the new solar capacity added comes from utility-scale projects, which are large installations that feed power into the grid. Non-residential solar, a category used when companies like AT&T and Nestle switch their electricity source to solar power, was the second largest area of growth.

This growth comes despite the 30% tariffs the Trump administration levied on imported solar panels earlier this year. The tariffs went into effect at the beginning of February, a change that some in the solar industry previously told Business Insider would lead to a reduced demand for solar power.

After the tariffs went into effect, developers killed some $2.5 billion of solar installation projects, according to Reuters. Some US senators recently introduced a bipartisan bill to repeal the tariffs, saying they "jeopardize tens of thousands of workers" who are employed installing and maintaining solar installations in the US.

In 2017, before the tariffs were implemented, it cost around $50 to produce one megawatt-hour of electricity from solar power, according to an analysis from the investment bank Lazard. Coal, by comparison, cost about $102 per megawatt-hour to produce, the report calculated.
==========================================================
 
sendler2112 said:
Punx0r said:
Divestment in fossil fuels reaches $6 trillion, expected to reach $10tn by 2020: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/10/fossil-fuel-divestment-funds-rise-to-6tn
Click to expand...

All that does is allow some other hedge fund to buy even more of those shares back, even cheaper.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Why would a hedge fund be interested in buying stocks that are on a long-term decline? These companies are now stating divestment is a material risk to their business.
 
Stocks ownership is not just about speculating on an ever increasing share price so that you can sell again. Stock holders get paid dividends. Divesting your interests in fossil fuel companies on moral grounds really does just let other pragmatic investors and board members buy even more shares at a cheaper price. And make more money from dividends.
.
Although profit margins will trend lower due to the resources becoming more remote. And more players getting into the game of frac'ing, deep water drilling, and tar sands.
.
Divesting from the USE of fossil fuel is the only way to hurt the industry. And the world is hooked. Due to the debt bubble. With a continued attempt at exponential growth as the only way to pay it back.
 
From the article:

"Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of GMO, one of the world’s most influential asset management companies, said the financial case for divestment was compelling. “Investors with long-term horizons should avoid oil stocks on investment grounds. They face a sustained headwind. Ethical arguments for divestments are simply not necessary."


"In Shell’s last annual report it states: “It could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access equity capital markets.” Furthermore, the World Bank Group has committed to stopping funding oil and gas development and major insurers including Swiss Re have decided to stop underwriting coal projects."
 
Yes. Not buying stocks in crude oil companies is compelling in a 20 year outlook due to ever increasing costs of extraction and diminshing retern on investment.
 
TheBeastie said:
Fact is there are no "lines of poor people waiting for soup etcetera", and everything is just fine in Japan despite a massive decrease in population
Click to expand...

Japan has turned to debt at the highest levels to fuel their economy despite a contracting population.
.
Greece%20vs%20Japan.jpg

.
 
China domestic oil production peaked this year. Their demand is projected to keep increasing to over 3X domestic supply. To a total of the entire world's available exports.
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/114388/what-comes-next
.
.
https://youtu.be/6Py_kax-Kyc
.
.
 
Hillhater said:
Keep in mind bill, You will never be able to install enough wind , solar, batteries etc,...to power the US !
Click to expand...
That's like saying you'll never be able to refine enough gas to switch every car in the US from electric and steam to gasoline. Why, you'd need over a hundred megarefineries! And where would you put all the cars? You'd have to spend TRILLIONS on roads. You would need 20% of the US workforce to drill and refine oil, run the refineries, deal with their problems, build the cars, build and maintain the roads and administer it all. It's almost impossible.

But we did.

There would be no problem powering the entire country via wind, solar and batteries. Dedicate trillions of dollars and 20% of the workforce and you could have it done in 20 years.

However, that's not the most cost-effective way to do it in the mid term. In the mid term, solar and wind will supply the bulk of the energy. Classic hydro and the remaining nuclear plants will supply baseload, and natural gas peakers (specifically rapid startup combined cycle plants) will provide matching generation.

As nuclear plants retire, storage will take up the baseload duties. And as the natural gas plants retire, dispatchable load will replace them.
 
Such a long way to go to replace all primary energy with electricity. Everything has to change. The market forces will not drive this on their own until it is way too late. There has to be strong government intervention with complete grass roots dedication. Now. While we still have the affordable liquid fuel to do it all. This latest chart from EIA in 2017 shows Solar And Wind in the USA still only at 3% of total energy.
.
.
energy_consumption_by_source_large.jpg

.
.
 
Hillhater said:
Im glad you finally agree bill.......that you will never be able to power the US using only wind , solar and batteries ..and hydro too. !
Click to expand...
It's too bad that you can't read; it makes any discussion with you pointless.
 
sendler2112 said:
Such a long way to go to replace all primary energy with electricity. Everything has to change.
Click to expand...
Lots of things, yes. And while we can change ground transport from fossil fuels to electric, it will be a long, long time before we replace aviation and spaceflight fuels with electrical power (or something more exotic, like nuclear thermal.)
The market forces will not drive this on their own until it is way too late. There has to be strong government intervention with complete grass roots dedication. Now. While we still have the affordable liquid fuel to do it all. This latest chart from EIA in 2017 shows Solar And Wind in the USA still only at 3% of total energy.
Click to expand...
Well, market forces are driving it now (hence the 3% number.) And that will accelerate as fossil fuels become more expensive. But I do agree that going all-in now would make the transition way easier and less painful.
 
I have no problem reading bill, even when the content makes no sense.
Your problem is , i also have no trouble rationalising and thinking beyont the bland regurgetated statments that crop up so often !
So, lets just take a quick look at your ideas..
billvon said:
There would be no problem powering the entire country via wind, solar and batteries. Dedicate trillions of dollars and 20% of the workforce and you could have it done in 20 years.
Click to expand...
No..
Even you know that will not work.
We have been over this many times previously..there is not enough funding, useful space for wind turbines, and certainly not enough battery manufacturing capacity,....to make that realistic.
....you must be contemplating some magical future advancements in battery tech.?

billvon said:
......
However, that's not the most cost-effective way to do it in the mid term. In the mid term, solar and wind will supply the bulk of the energy. Classic hydro and the remaining nuclear plants will supply baseload, and natural gas peakers (specifically rapid startup combined cycle plants) will provide matching generation.

As nuclear plants retire, storage will take up the baseload duties. And as the natural gas plants retire, dispatchable load will replace them.
Click to expand...
You again know there is nowhere near enough hydro...and little prospect of suitable sites for future major installations.
What type of storage is going to supply the base load when the wind isnt blowing ?? (Please dont say batteries)
So what is this magical "dispatchable load" that you propose to substitute for fossil fuels when the weather is not cooperating ??
 
sendler2112 said:
Yes. Not buying stocks in crude oil companies is compelling in a 20 year outlook due to ever increasing costs of extraction and diminshing retern on investment.
Click to expand...

Fossil fuel extraction has become progressively more difficult since the 1970's yet there were still plenty of people willing to invest and the returns remained good. There'd still plenty of the stuff in the ground (especially coal), what's changing now is a forecast decline in demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
379
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
336
Hillhater
H
J
Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
7,461
jonescg
jonescg
RustyKipper
    • Like
Ammo box battery with solar charging
Replies
4
Views
732
99t4
9
E
GMAC vs Grin All Axle vs Dual Drive Catrike
2
Replies
28
Views
1,217
edben05
E
Back
Top