Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Sep 27 2018 6:26pm

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 27 2018 5:50pm
China's wont stay unused.
They are despeate to get power to many of the remote population that had their open coal/ wood fired stoves and house fires, conficated by force a few years ago in order to meet some random emission target.
The millions of homes were promissed electric cookers and heaters as replacements.....bu unfortunately the planned power plants to supply those heaters were stopped by Central Authorities.
Don't worry. They will get their power. It just might not be from coal.

=====================
China bumps up renewable energy target to reduce reliance on coal
Non-compliant companies will be hit with fines.

Rachel England, @rachel_england
09.26.18

China, the world's biggest energy consumer, is stepping up its push into clean power with a revised renewable energy target. The nation is now aiming for renewables to account for at least 35 percent of energy consumption by 2030, whereas its previous target only stipulated "non-fossil fuels" making up 20 percent of energy use within the same time frame.

The new plan, called the Renewable Portfolio Standard, aims to tackle the country's soaring pollution levels by reducing its reliance on coal. The legislation also raises targets for individual provinces, and calls for non-compliant firms to pay compensation charges to grid companies, which will be used to cover government subsidies for renewable projects.

It's an encouraging step, especially from such an energy-hungry country. But in comparison to many other parts of the world, it's essentially an exercise in keeping up. The EU has a target of 40 percent renewables by 2030, for example, while the US -- although not beholden to any nationwide regulation -- is home to over 30 states with enforced or voluntary renewables targets hovering around the same levels. California has pledged 50 percent by 2030, Colorado 30 percent by 2020 and Minnesota around 25 percent by 2025.

Nonetheless, it's still an aspirational target -- China's an influential economy and will do well to lead by example. It's also already a major producer of renewable energy and indeed, renewable energy technology, so the target increase is undoubtedly designed to help bolster markets in this area, and reduce reliance on trade deals with the rest of the world. It's no secret that they're in jeopardy at the moment.
=======================
China and India lead the surge to solar energy
Emerging markets leave developed nations behind in race for renewable power

Kiran Stacey SEPTEMBER 24, 2018
Financial Times

This year, emerging markets will overtake developed nations in terms of the amount of renewable wind and solar power they have installed, according to Moody’s, the credit rating agency.

In the decade to 2016, the amount of solar power generated across the world has risen by 50 per cent, while wind has increased by 22 per cent, according to BP’s annual review of world energy.

While developed economies have been leaders in the development of renewable power, much of the recent momentum has come from developing nations — and from China and India in particular, which are now the biggest and the third-biggest renewable electricity markets, respectively.

Swami Venkataraman, co-author of the recent Moody’s report, said: “Countries such as China and India [are] leading the charge, as new renewables become competitive with other sources of power even in developing nations.”

Fuelled by a dramatic reduction in the costs of wind and solar technology, both China and India have raced ahead with installing renewable power as they look to build on their impressive economic growth. The pace of this new installation of renewable power sources has cheered defenders of the Paris climate agreement even after President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the accord. “The magnitude of the technology cost deflation is way ahead of anything forecast by anyone in the world,” says Tim Buckley, director at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Last year, China added 50 gigawatts of solar power capacity, according to the International Energy Agency — more than it added for coal, gas and nuclear power capacity put together, and equivalent to the combined solar capacity of France and Germany.

India, the world’s fastest-growing major economy, added around 9.5GW of solar. The country is on course to hit 28GW by the end of 2018 — six times what it had installed three years ago.

Wind is growing less quickly, but from a higher base. Last year, China added 15.6GW of wind capacity — an increase of 10 per cent.
==========================
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 27 2018 7:24pm

I think i am inclined to believe the photos of actual plants actively being constructed, than take the reported word of some random Chinese official about targets for 2030 !
And they need the power now..259 GW of it , night and day, !
That would be the equivalent of over 1000GW nameplate of solar.... plus some rediculous amount of batteries...
.....i do not think that is realistic at all !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 27 2018 10:00pm

All of these reports confuse the terms " Power" and "Energy" with electricity. Which is only 20- 40% of total energy consumption. If California produces 50% of it's ELECTRICITY from rebuildables by 2050, it is still using 80% of it's total energy from non-renewables. Most of which is fossil fuel.
.
Etc. for the rest of the areas referenced in those articles.
.
The other key concept to a more sustainable future:
.
"In our view, at some point scientists and policy makers must begin discussing the one scenario that world leaders seem to want to avoid at all costs, i.e., managed economic contraction."

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 28 2018 2:51am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 27 2018 5:36am
"Currently there is a deficit in the energy availability and 35% of India’s commercial energy needs are still imported. Figure 1. Shows the anticipated growth in energy use in India by fuel source."
India is a big country and the issue is apparently some stations being built in rural areas with little demand. No doubt at the same time there's a city somewhere else struggling to get enough power.

Solar and wind power are both excellent at supplying power locally in a decentralised system so would help here. India also has lots of sun. India also happens to be installing record amounts of solar.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Sep 28 2018 11:10am

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 27 2018 7:24pm
I think i am inclined to believe the photos of actual plants actively being constructed, than take the reported word of some random Chinese official about targets for 2030 !
Here are some pretty pictures, then:

http://time.com/china-massive-floating-solar-field/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/g ... 306340.htm
And they need the power now..259 GW of it , night and day, !
Really? So unlike every other country out there, they need exactly the same power night and day, hot and cold, weekday and weekend? Would love to see your supporting evidence of that (if you have any.)
That would be the equivalent of over 1000GW nameplate of solar....
Well, given that they are installing 25GW solar every six months, and 10GW wind every six months - and assuming that they don't accelerate that at all - they'll have that in 14 years. If they keep the same ramp rate they have now, it will be under 10 years. And unlike coal plants, that comes on line incrementally that whole time, increasing generation by at least 70GW every year.
Last edited by billvon on Sep 28 2018 2:21pm, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1745
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Sep 28 2018 1:20pm

Hillhater wrote:
Sep 27 2018 7:24pm
I think i am inclined to believe the photos of actual plants actively being constructed, than take the reported word of some random Chinese official about targets for 2030 !
And they need the power now..259 GW of it , night and day, !
That would be the equivalent of over 1000GW nameplate of solar.... plus some rediculous amount of batteries...
.....i do not think that is realistic at all !
Was a great report from endcoal thanks for pointing it out, I do visit their site and quote their URLs on here from time to time.
The Endcoal coal group seems to be quite well funded and they don't like coal, so I have little reason not to believe them, and it makes perfect sense that China would be resuming its long-term coal power-station plans with the Trump administration dumping the Paris accord etc.

One thing we can work out from real-world data is how big a Tesla battery would have to be to merely run 259GW/259,000MW of power from batteries just for a tiny >24 hour< period, the thing is though when you examine the extreme variability of power in renewables a week worth of battery or even 6 months worth of storage can quite reasonably be argued for, but lets just do a single day.

download/file.php?id=240415
The Tesla/Hornsdale 129MWh battery reserve in SA is 22,000m2 or 0.022km2, according to GoogleMaps
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=2300
^As shown in my previous Tesla battery analysis post, mainstream media typically display large lithium-ion batteries as powering entire suburbs, so its important that we can break down how much power you get from a certain sized Tesla battery from real-world data and how mainstream media/folks envision large battery deployments be used, that is to power a city for a day for example.

259,000MW_required_load x 24_hours = 6,216,000MWh battery required.
6,216,000MWh / 129MWh_Hornsdale_build_size = 48,186_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations
48,186_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations x 0.022km2 = 1060km2 sized battery to "replicate" the NEW coal power-stations China is building to merely handle 24 hours.

That's 1060square kilometres! If you include the time it took to build the big Tesla battery which was done at a frantic pace in less than 100 days, some claim 61 days, it would probably take (61_days x 48,186 = 2,891,160/365) = 8,053 years.
Taking 100s to 1,000s of years to build truly-large scale renewables for a single large country constantly comes up on the calculator and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read books like "Roadmap to nowhere" which is a book at real-world maths on renewables.


If we take the unconfirmed never revealed claim the battery construction cost was $50million dollars then,
48,186_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations x $50,000,000 = $2,409,300,000,000
That's 2.4 trillion dollars, for around 20% of China's expected 1300 GW generation by 2020, according to Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrici ... r_in_China

A week's worth of battery is 7,420km2 or 16.8 trillion dollars, and if you want storage for all of Chinas electricity usage instead of just this newly built 259GW's worth then just times it all by 5-6 times again, but at these levels, whos counting any more.

I wonder how much coal would be burned to create 1060 km2 of Tesla batteries built in the Hornsdale format, these are questions that I have never seen any research on.

And this is just to store energy, doesn't even create it, if it was a place that rained you could dam up 1060km2 of land and create a hydroelectricity plant, where you not only get to store the energy but the energy builds up for free via rainwater.

The thing I always think about when I look at 18650 or 21700 cells is how much coal must have been burnt merely making the steal cylinder and the nickel coating of the cell.

Looking around I found co2 emissions for crude steel is quoted as high as 2703 kg CO2/tonne crude steel, rolled steel which is a more refined product must be even higher, but I think I will use the 2703 kg CO2/tonne number and try and work it out. Then there is the nickel.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4916301458

Stuff on emissions on Nickel not that hard to find it seems https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... -batteries

The energy consumption for Nickel production is massive compared to other metals at "207.5 GJ/t for nickel"
With co2 emissions coming at "19.53 t CO2/t nickel for finished nickel production"
http://www.coalcostcurves.com.au/Carbon ... ons_ME.pdf <- great PDF for co2 numbers from metals production.
Nickel coated cells is a crucial part of the 18650-21700 cell as it greatly increases terminal conductivity and eliminates rust potential.

Got some raw numbers to work with there, all we have to do is work out how much steel and nickel goes into each cell and we should have some remote baseline numbers on how much co2 is emitted creating 1000km2 worth of Tesla battery storage.

OK I found a pretty straightforward breakdown PDF of a 18650 cell, for the cell they looked at it was 10.09grams of the cell was the metal case out of the 45grams total. Haven't found data for 21700 cells on the cylinder/can weight. I am adding an extra 30% for 15grams since an extra 30% of everything is the general claim for 21700 cells.
https://www.gdch.de/fileadmin/downloads ... nter02.pdf

The Hornsdale/Tesla grid battery uses the 21700 cell for about 17Wh worth of energy per cell.
https://insideevs.com/tesla-turns-on-wo ... australia/
129MWh is 129,000,000 Wh
129,000,000wh / 17wh = 7,588,235 cells of 21700.
7,588,235 x 15grams of steel/nickel mix = 113,823,529grams = 113,823.529kg = 1138.235294117647 tons.
There is probably just as much steel/metal cage/box protecting the cells in weight than the metal encasing each actual cell, but I will exclude that for now.
Considering there is 2703 kg CO2/tonne in crude steel manufacture (it would be nice to get the co2 numbers on finished rolled-steel) and 19.530 tons of co2 released for finished nickel I am >guestimating< that a metal mix for a 21700 cell's cylinder/casing would be about 7 tons of co2 would be released per ton in metal 21700 cell metal can/casings.

1138_hornsdale_21700_casing_tons x 7_co2 = 7,967.6470588 tons of co2 released for manufactured metal cylinder casings of the complete Hornsdale Tesla battery.
I don't know how right I am, just doing numbers out loud here.
OK so 8,000 tons roughly is nothing to worry about.

If we go back to the 48,186_Hornsdale_battery_reserve_stations x 0.022km2 = 1060km2 sized battery to store 24 hours worth of China's new coal power-station additions, and x it by 8000 tons, its 383,929,041 tons worth of co2 produced for 1,060km2 worth of Tesla 21700 cell casings. 383million tons of co2 is about 2 years worth of Australia's annual coal-fired electricity generation.

I am glad I am working this out, at least in some form, these kinds of questions have been rattling inside my head for a while and its been getting annoying.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Oct 11 2018 1:09am, edited 20 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range https://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear https://goo.gl/ZhFFot
https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 29 2018 4:11pm

Very concise and pulling no punches weekly essay by Martenson today on the subject of the impending liquid fuel depletion. Wise scientists and forward thinkers have been warning us about this for 60 years but our time blind and reward hungry stone age brains subconsciously refuse to accept it.
.
https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/114 ... ll-reality
.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 29 2018 5:01pm

Interesting that of the top ten largest power stations in the world, nine are hydro (No. 6 is nuclear): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... r_stations

No.1 is the Three Gorges plant at 22.5GW.

A proposed plant in the Congo would be 39GW and a proposal for a tidal plant in Penzhin would be 87GW.

It's great when you don't have to dig your fuel out of the ground and what is hydro if not stored solar? :)

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 29 2018 10:20pm

Many other energy sources , including oil, coal and gas, can be considered stored solar energy.......
.... since solar energy was required to produce the primary materials .
And, just like those, hydro is not an infinite supply
Africa is full of potential, but sadly little of it is ever realised ! The Congo river scheme has been around for 50 years, but has never got beyond 2.5GW,..and even that is badly maintained and runs under capacity.
Anyone who knows Africa, knows that the prospects for that scheme are slim.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Sep 30 2018 3:52am

Why yes, coal etc is stored solar. But it's produced so slowly over millions of years that the amount we can burn to use it sustainably is laughably small.

By contrast sunshine is replenished each day and wind and hydro are fully replenished at most annually. On a meaningful, human, timescale these energy sources are being constantly replenished, even RENEWED, if you will.

The amount of embodied energy in a concrete damn is horrendous, but it should remain useable for possibly hundreds of years.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Sep 30 2018 6:58am

Punx0r wrote:
Sep 30 2018 3:52am
By contrast sunshine is replenished each day and wind and hydro are fully replenished at most annually.
....except for those days when there is little or no sun, and those years when there is little rainfall and the dams run dry.....
....ask N Zealand or Tasmania ( both highly dependant on hydro) , what dry weather costs in emergency diesel generation.
On a human timescale, hydro is a finite , limited resource..
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Sep 30 2018 7:55am

Hydroelectric is the most dense and dispatchable and lowest cost rebuildable electricty generation method. And cheapest storage method when new installations are set up to run both down hill and up. All remaining viable areas of 1 turbine size or greater must be developed with any environmental or social issues secondary.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Sep 30 2018 12:34pm

Punx0r wrote:
Sep 28 2018 2:51am
Solar and wind power are both excellent at supplying power locally in a decentralised system so would help here. India also has lots of sun. India also happens to be installing record amounts of solar.
St. Eustatius (small island of ~4000 people) relied on several diesel generators for all their power. They recently switched to solar+storage. Their old system required 3 large diesels to be running at various times during the day. With the new system, they shut down all the diesels during the day and run one at night to take care of nighttime loads. They will be saving about 200,000 gallons of diesel a year, and will save millions on both fuel and maintenance on the generators. (In addition, they are now more reliable overall - they can run one generator and have two backups.)
--bill von

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 12 2018 9:02am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 23 2018 1:34am
You need a reality check..
I never said SolarPV needed. "a lot of maintenance", What i said was they wont last 50+ years.
Obviously you can't even remember what you wrote. I will help you:
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 15 2018 10:06pm
Obviously the idea that a solar farm could function for 30-50 years without major rebuilds and upgrades , is laughable...
And this was a reply to:
Cephalotus wrote:
Aug 14 2018 7:17am
Actual estimation for solr modul degradation is less than 0.2% per year, which means the solar modules could last an average 40, maybe 50 years......
So lets review..
Fossil fueled power generation is cheaper overall than solar or wind for a utility /grid supply.
Depends on the price of solar and wind (falling), on the price of fossil fuels and the Price for emitting CO2 to the atmosphere.

There are already solar PV plants that produce solar electricity for less than 3 USct/kWh.

Let's say a coal power plant emits 800g CO2 for 1kWh of production. 3USct/kWh would translate to a price of only 37,5USD/t CO2.

So a quite realistic future Price of just 37,5 USD/t CO2 would cost 3 USct for 1kWh of electricity from coal.

How do you believe a coal power plant can stay competitive in the future?

Believing in coal power plants is like believing in Diesel cars as the future technology

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 12 2018 9:24am

sendler2112 wrote:
Sep 27 2018 10:00pm
All of these reports confuse the terms " Power" and "Energy" with electricity. Which is only 20- 40% of total energy consumption. If California produces 50% of it's ELECTRICITY from rebuildables by 2050, it is still using 80% of it's total energy from non-renewables. Most of which is fossil fuel.
Partly true.

On the other hand most of the road traffic sector will be electrified until 2050 as most of the domestic heat sector.

Cephalotus   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 12 2018 9:34am

TheBeastie wrote:
Sep 28 2018 1:20pm
One thing we can work out from real-world data is how big a Tesla battery would have to be to merely run 259GW/259,000MW of power from batteries just for a tiny >24 hour< period, the thing is though when you examine the extreme variability of power in renewables a week worth of battery or even 6 months worth of storage can quite reasonably be argued for, but lets just do a single day.
Using anual weather data for the last 50 years an european electricity grid would take a bit less of a 3 day storage System to be powered entirely with wind + solar and nothing else.

This is without smart demand Systems and with older wind power plants, without hydro power and without biomass.

Realisticly you would use batteries for around 1h of storage capacity and do the rest otherwise. Hydropower, gas, biomass, connection to Africa and middle East, etc...

This is for 100% renewable electricity Generation.

For 90% RE it is much much more easy.

I say let's do 90% RE first and than look further what technologies and prices are available then.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 13 2018 4:42pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 12 2018 9:02am
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 23 2018 1:34am
You need a reality check..
I never said SolarPV needed. "a lot of maintenance", What i said was they wont last 50+ years.
Obviously you can't even remember what you wrote. I will help you:
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 15 2018 10:06pm
Obviously the idea that a solar farm could function for 30-50 years without major rebuilds and upgrades , is laughable...

And this was a reply to:
Cephalotus wrote:
Aug 14 2018 7:17am
Actual estimation for solr modul degradation is less than 0.2% per year, which means the solar modules could last an average 40, maybe 50 years......
How, in your mind , does that equate anything mentioning maintenance ?
Electronics tend to be replaced or superceeded , rather than maintained or repaired .
What electronic equipment ,..even small scale, never mind large utility scale, ...do you know that still functions effectively after 50 yrs.
Everyone raves on about the pace of progress of electrinics , how the technology changes year on year..and how the cost reduces at an equally dramatic rate, ....
...so how can you expect todays PV systems (not just the panels) to be economically operational in 50 yrs ??
So lets review..
Fossil fueled power generation is cheaper overall than solar or wind for a utility /grid supply.
Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 12 2018 9:02am
Depends on the price of solar and wind (falling), on the price of fossil fuels and the Price for emitting CO2 to the atmosphere.
There are already solar PV plants that produce solar electricity for less than 3 USct/kWh.
Let's say a coal power plant emits 800g CO2 for 1kWh of production. 3USct/kWh would translate to a price of only 37,5USD/t CO2.
[/quote]
I think you mean there are already PV plants with supply contracts for 3 c/kWh ...whilst the sun shines. ..?
Which has little to do with the cost of production, and nothing to do with the cost to consumers. !
Remind me how they will supply power for those 18 or so, hours tht there is no useful sun ?
And why compare production costs to some politically initiated tax tax on an essential gas
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 13 2018 4:48pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Oct 12 2018 9:34am
Using anual weather data for the last 50 years an european electricity grid would take a bit less of a 3 day storage System to be powered entirely with wind + solar and nothing else......yada, yada, yada,..
Wake me up and we can discuss this when it has been shown to work !.....anywhere, never mind on a national scale !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 15 2018 3:03am

Well the latest IPCC report is in and the target of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels appears to already be busted - even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the inertia in the system means it's likely to happen anyway. If the current commitments made at the Paris Agreement are maintained we're looking at 3°C of warming by 2100.

Limiting warming to 2°C is going to take a gargantuan effort by the developed world and needs to be started immediately. In terms of resources and innovation required, the scale of the task has been compared to pretty much all of man's achievements in the 20th century (peacetime and wartime) combined.

Meanwhile Trump has said he no longer believes AGW is a "Chinese conspiracy" but that he's still not sure climate change is linked to man's activities and he certainly doesn't want to pay for fixing it :roll:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9239
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 15 2018 4:08am

Punx0r wrote:
Oct 15 2018 3:03am
Well the latest IPCC report is in and the target of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels appears to already be busted - even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the inertia in the system means it's likely to happen anyway. If the current commitments made at the Paris Agreement are maintained we're looking at 3°C of warming by 2100.
Ahhh, good , i feel comforted now.!
If the IPCC says it will happen , then it most likely wont !
They have a near perfect record for failed predictions.
You do realise they are not a Scientific body, dont you?
They are merely a group of political appointees set up by the UN in 1988 to find a solution to a pre-assumed problem of AGW.

Ever heard of the NIPCC ?
The NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change .. They ARE a Scientific body, and have a different view.
The NIPCC report finds that while climate change is occurring and a human impact on climate is likely, there is no consensus on the size of that impact relative to natural variability, the net benefits or costs of the impacts of climate change, or whether future climate trends can be predicted with sufficient confidence to guide public policies today. Consequently, there is no scientific basis for the recommendation that the use of fossil fuels should be restricted.

According to its Summary for Policymakers, the new NIPCC publication shows:

Fossil fuels deliver affordable, plentiful, and reliable energy critical to human welfare. Wind and solar are not practical and reliable substitutes.
Fossil fuels create a better environment for the ecosystem because they require less surface area than renewable energy sources.
Sixteen of 25 identified impacts of fossil fuels are net positive, eight uncertain. Only one is net negative. Areas of impact measured include agriculture, air quality, extreme weather events, and human health.
Forcing a transition from fossil fuels to wind and solar power would inflict tremendous economic hardship, reducing world GDP by some 96 percent and plunging the world back to economic conditions last seen in the 1820s and 1830s.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... z5TzNdCvUF
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 713
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Oct 15 2018 8:20am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 4:08am

Ahhh, good , i feel comforted now.!
If the IPCC says it will happen , then it most likely wont !
They have a near perfect record for failed predictions.
You do realise they are not a Scientific body, dont you?
They are merely a group of political appointees set up by the UN in 1988 to find a solution to a pre-assumed problem of AGW.

You are wrong about everything you just wrote. There are hundreds of scientists that contribute to the IPCC reports--scientists with decades of experience researching climate change, atmospheric physics, oceanography, hydrology, glaciology, and global dynamics. I have personally met some of them. You might know that had you ever bothered to actually read one of the IPCC climate assessments. The models, in fact, do very well at predicting the observed trend in warming and are effective at bounding the range of outcomes that might be expected in the future. The group you link to is just a denier-funded propaganda machine for the petroleum industry. Follow the money. It isn't the climate scientists who are getting rich off of the status quo.
Last edited by jimw1960 on Oct 15 2018 1:29pm, edited 1 time in total.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4812
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 15 2018 9:21am

I followed my gut and put "NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" into google. The second result is a Wikipedia article on Fred Singer, who apparently founded it up in 2004. He is a well-known climate denier who has previously tried to argue that UV doesn't cause skin cancer and second-hand smoke can't cause lung cancer.

Try not to conflate a serious organisation staffed by hundreds of respectable scientists with a fringe loony.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1754
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 15 2018 11:05am

Hillhater wrote:
Oct 15 2018 4:08am
Ahhh, good , i feel comforted now.!
If the IPCC says it will happen , then it most likely wont !
They have a near perfect record for failed predictions.
They actually have a pretty good record for accurate predictions - going all the way back to 1995. If anything, they were too conservative, and we are seeing more warming than predicted.
Ever heard of the NIPCC ?
The NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change .. They ARE a Scientific body, and have a different view.
They are a public relations effort by Fred Singer, famous climate change denier, and the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank that represents the interests of oil and coal companies. They are the same group that worked to deny the risks of smoking to benefit tobacco companies.

(Of course, at this point, you probably think cigarettes are good for you, too.)
--bill von

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 913
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 15 2018 4:00pm

This is the common mistake in confusing the words "energy" and "power" when we mean to say electricity. Most people are doing this. Most written articles are doing this. Which for Germany, electricity is only 21% of primary energy consumption.
.
33% of ELECTRICITY is from renewables. Which includes biomass. 22.4% of ELECTRICITY in germany is from solar and wind.
.
.
Image
.
.
But solar and wind is only 4.1% of the total primary "ENERGY" comsumption in Germany. Biomass makes 7.1% of the "ENERGY" in Germany. This is obviously much different than the common misrepresentation that we keep seeing. More energy comes from burning wood for heating than from wind and solar put together after their decades long best effort to replace all energy with with rebuildables.
.
.
Image
.
.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factshe ... mix-charts
.

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7140
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Oct 15 2018 4:19pm

Wood is a renewable fuel. It's a waste of good material to burn it, but it's renewable and carbon-neutral.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Post Reply