Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 09, 2018 12:29 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 12:17 pm

The point I keep trying to help everyone understand is that we have a much bigger problem than climate and environmental change due to continued use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels enabled this entire modern 7.5 Billion human civilization and the numbers for replacing fossil fuels for total energy as it begins to inevitably slip away with solar and wind just do not come close to adding up. The future will be much smaller and simpler.
I do not agree. Imho CO2 is the much bigger problem than lack of C to burn.

http://www.nature.com/articles/517150a

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 09, 2018 12:45 pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 12:22 pm
I provided you data with an accuracity of 15 minutes that is perfectly up to date, available in about any Format that you wish and with data backwards for some years.

You just need to look at it.
Exactly. A rhetorical question really. Solar plus wind electricity is still a small fraction of total energy consumption in Germany or anywhere.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 09, 2018 3:37 pm

Exactly. A rhetorical question really. Solar plus wind electricity is still a small fraction of total energy consumption in Germany or anywhere.
Yes. But solar+wind porvide already much more electricty then provided by nuclear power. At least over here and in many other countries of the world, too.

(don't forget: If you compare primary energy balances, 1kWh electrcty from nuclear counts as 3kWh of primary energy while 1kWh from PV or wind counts as 1kWh primary energy)

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 09, 2018 3:49 pm

Right. So as I said, you may triple the contribution of German solar and wind toward total energy consumption which will place it up into the realm of 10% now. It is a good start.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4322
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 09, 2018 3:52 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 7:52 am
Wind turbine spacing to prevent dominoe cascading damage upon blade breakage requires at least 2.5 diameters between turbines. Vortex shadowing cuts power up to 50% at 2.5D in successive rows so that 7D spacing in the prevailing wind direction is recommended.

...

NY state uses 33 GW Summer and 25GW in Winter when solar panels are completely ineffective.
If there's a lot of space wasted between turbines then maybe fill it with PV. Round here many of the turbines are set in farm land and the land continues to be used as before, save for the small area around the base of the masts.

Bill posted earlier that PV in cold, snowy conditions works surprisingly well (higher output than in summer in some cases), just for fewer hours per day. Keeping panels clear of snow isn't a major technical hurdle.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4322
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 09, 2018 3:56 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 3:49 pm
Right. So as I said, you may triple the contribution of German solar and wind toward total energy consumption which will place it up into the realm of 10% now. It is a good start.
Indeed. It is early days. It's only in the last few years the technology has become mature and cheap enough to really be useful and things are only going to accelerate. I think the energy mix of many countries will change quite a lot over the next 10-20 years.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 09, 2018 4:11 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 3:52 pm
If there's a lot of space wasted between turbines then maybe fill it with PV.
You forgot to quote the part where the required 100GW nameplate of wind turbines just to replace the 20% of total energy that is electricity takes up 1/3 of the total land area of NY state. But that is what we are up against so we might as well quit building casinos and football stadiums and do what we can.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4322
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 09, 2018 4:30 pm

New York is the 7th highest state for population density and is cold. Mileage for many other areas is likely to vary...

User avatar
tomjasz
1.21 GW
1.21 GW
Posts: 3704
Joined: Mar 29, 2014 1:45 pm
Location: Out riding, MN USA
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by tomjasz » Jan 09, 2018 5:44 pm

billvon wrote:
Jan 03, 2018 6:32 pm


Currently coal is the politically correct fuel to support. (Hundreds of jobs for miners, economy in red states, Trump support etc etc.) But I'd recommend looking beyond political correctness at what the best energy source is for the future.
1.6% increase, what a joke!
Thanks Justin_le we're here thanks to you. All the best to the mods for their tireless work keeping it on an even keel.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 09, 2018 6:05 pm

I was looking around on EIA.gov and stumbled on their 2040 projection for electrical production by source for China. Coal is nearly the same level as today with growth taking up any other big strides projected for wind and nuclear. But we can't get mad about their continued carbon emissions since much of that energy gets embodied into everything we all buy that is made there.
.
.
Image
.
.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=33092
.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 09, 2018 6:37 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 4:30 pm
New York is the 7th highest state for population density and is cold. Mileage for many other areas is likely to vary...
NJ, MA, and CT all use more electricity/ km^2 than NY and are similarly dark and cold. All the way from Chicago to Toronto to NYC to Boston to Montreal. In 100 years, 100's of Millions of people will eventually have to give up and move during the winters.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 702
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 09, 2018 6:58 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 6:37 pm
NJ, MA, and CT all use more electricity/ km^2 than NY and are similarly dark and cold. All the way from Chicago to Toronto to NYC to Boston to Montreal. In 100 years, 100's of Millions of people will eventually have to give up and move during the winters.
Or put up a few transmission lines. Might be cheaper than moving 100 million people.
--bill von

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8424
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 09, 2018 7:02 pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Jan 09, 2018 8:53 am
You and your "facts" about Germany...

3GW in summer and (less than) 1GW in winter would be an average of around 2GW multplied with 8760h per year this would be a PV generation of around 16TWh per year.

Real Fact: In 2017 PV production was 38.29 TWh in Germany, more than twice as much as you tell us. And it wasn't a sunny year.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_de. ... l&year=all..
Yes slightly off, ...as i was talking from memory.
So, the annual average is closer to 4.4 GW....from the 43 GW of installed solar ! (10% CF)
And still in winter it is less than 1GW.....of the 60+ GW demand average
I dont think that changes the point i was making...solar in Germany is not very effective by any rational assesment
It may not have been a very sunny year, but looking at the previous few years, .....neither were they !
....Some other "facts" about Germany:
Overall electricity production with renewable energies was 38,5% in 2017:....
..... And a few more facts ...installed RE is 100+ GW (150% of average demand) and is given priority over other generation systems. So that 38.5 % is the maximum output that could be produced.
..and it was all intermittent and unpredictable !
There is also another 90+ GW of fossil/nuclear capacity available to supply the remaining 60+% of the demand, with plenty to spare for when the RE cannot meet demand
[/quote]
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8424
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jan 10, 2018 12:46 am

Another fact regarding Germanys RE costs...
...German utility company Tennet TSO spent almost a billion euros last year on emergency interventions to stabilize the grid. That's what the company announced earlier this week. The costs were thus about 50% higher than in 2016 (660 million euros) and around forty percent higher than in 2015 (710 million). Tennet is responsible for the electricity supply in an area that extends from Schleswig-Holstein in the north to southern Bavaria and accounts for around forty percent of Germany's total area. In particular, Tennet is responsible for important north-south routes.

The reason for the increase in emergency interventions is the increasing number of solar and wind turbines in Germany. The share of renewable energy increased from 29 to 33 percent of the electricity supply last year. Wind and solar power are irregular and often unpredictable. This makes the network increasingly unstable.
......the instability problens could increase significantly with the shutdown of the remaining nuclear power plants. On New Year's Eve, the block B of the Gundremmingen nuclear power plant in Bavaria went from the grid, which now operates seven reactors nationwide. Block B had a capacity of 1344 megawatts, which is slightly higher than the Leibstadt nuclear power plant. The reactor had produced trouble-free for 33 years. Federal Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks (SPD) was "happy" about the shutdown. The last nuclear power plant in Germany should go 2022 from the net. With the nuclear phase-out, they have "laid the foundation for an internationally competitive energy structure in Germany," says Hendricks. According to the Federal Network Agency, the cost of emergency interventions after the end of all nuclear power plants nationwide could rise up to 4 billion Euros
...
https://bazonline.ch/ausland/europa/kos ... y/13230493
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... edit-text=
Much the same as i posted regarding the UK last week !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/exec_summ.php
.
2040 projections from EIA. GDP grows at a constant average of 3%. OECD countries of USA and Europe much slower at 1.7%. World energy grows at 2.8%. Fossil fuels still account for 77% of energy in 2040 with liquid fuel the largest share. Transistion in the transportation sector to electric does not keep up with growth in that sector. Natural gas increases 42%. Coal totals remain flat. At least they didn't go up like everything else. Electricity consumption will increase 45%. Nuclear increases 48% as it shifts almost entirely to China but will only be 11% of the world total. Even with big efficiency gains, the transportation sector energy consumption is expected to grow at 1% per year due to rising standards of living in non OECD countires with liquid fuel still the main source. Electrification is estimated to provide only 3% of transportation in 2040.
.
CO2 emissions are predicted to increase every year and be 16% higher in 2040 than 2017.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 10, 2018 8:41 am

During night, solar production is even Zero and will be forever. :-)

"Cost efficiency" of solar PV is high in Germany, new solar PV plants produce electricity at around 5€ct/kWh. New wind power is around 4€ct/kWh. Both are competitive.

(up to) 4 billion Euro for "grid stabilisation" in the years after shutting down the last nuke is not as high as ist sounds, this is less than 1ct per kWh consumed and cost will get lower with more grid lines.
Germany builds thre new major grid lines to adress that problem: A-Nord, SuedLink and SuedOstLink. They will go online after 2025.
Last edited by Cephalotus on Jan 10, 2018 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am
Nuclear increases 48% as it shifts almost entirely to China but will only be 11% of the world total...
This will be 11% of primary energy production where they count all that unused heat from the nukes.

In end energy it will be only 1/3rd of it and in reality the share will not be 3-4% but below 2% like it is today. IEA projections have never been true.

Nuclear power is irrelevant for world energy consumtion.

After the next big meltdown of a reactor (it will happen, sooner or later) I predict that the nuclear share will shrink even further.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 10, 2018 9:50 am

Cephalotus wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am
sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am
Nuclear increases 48% as it shifts almost entirely to China but will only be 11% of the world total...
This will be 11% of primary energy production where they count all that unused heat from the nukes.

In end energy it will be only 1/3rd of it and in reality the share will not be 3-4% but below 2% like it is today. IEA projections have never been true.
Oh you mean similar to how most solar references are made to nameplate capacity where actual production will be 1/4 at best and Germany averages 11% capacity factor for it's solar. Well, this time you are incorrect about the scheduled nuclear projects in China since this value was taken from the paragraph discussing world electrical in Trillions of kWh so is speaking about actual electricity output. China has scheduled 111 GW which will operate at at least 90%.
.
from the article
.
Electricity generation from nuclear power worldwide increases from 2.5 trillion kWh in 2015 to 3.2 trillion kWh in 2030 and to 3.7 trillion kWh in 2040 in the IEO2017 Reference case. Concerns about energy security and greenhouse gas emissions support the development of new nuclear generating capacity, but reactor retirements and opposition from local populations keep nuclear from expanding in many parts of the world. Virtually all of the projected net expansion in world installed nuclear power capacity occurs in non-OECD countries, led by China’s addition of 111 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity from 2015 to 2040

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 10, 2018 10:20 am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 9:50 am

Oh you mean similar to how most solar references are made to nameplate capacity where actual production will be 1/4 at best and Germany averages 11% capacity factor for it's solar.
That's the song you sing continously, without anyone ever arguing against you about that.

I know that 1kW is not the same as 1kWh and when talking about energy I'm talking about kWh, no matter the technology.
Electricity generation from nuclear power worldwide increases from 2.5 trillion kWh in 2015 to 3.2 trillion kWh in 2030 and to 3.7 trillion kWh in 2040 in the IEO2017 Reference case.
maybe, maybe not, we will see.

What is the world whole energy consumption(!!!) in kWh end energy for 2015, 2030 and 2040?
Virtually all of the projected net expansion in world installed nuclear power capacity occurs in non-OECD countries, led by China’s addition of 111 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity from 2015 to 2040
We will see.

"...Virtually all of the projected net expansion in world installed nuclear power capacity occurs in non-OECD countries, led by China’s addition of 111 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear capacity from 2015 to 2040.

The combined capacity of all OECD nuclear power plants drops by a net 14 GW from 2015 to 2040. Among the OECD regions, only South Korea has a sizable (16 GW) increase in nuclear capacity. Capacity reductions in the United States, Canada, OECD Europe, and Japan (where nuclear capacity in 2040 in the Reference case remains below the total before the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster) more than offset the increase in South Korea’s nuclear capacity..."

Let us assume that it is +111GW increase in global nuclear capacity

For comparison:

New global PV Installation will be around 50GW for 2017 to a cummulative 120GW. This is real world, not IEA prediction/wishes.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/09/14/ ... ergytrend/

If only a constat 50GW would be added year by year in 2040 world global PV would be at more than 1000GW. It is much more likely that it will be much higher, lets say 3000GW (every number is highly speculative here)

You are right that capacity factor of PV is lower than nuclear. Let's say 0,15 (global average) vs 0,9 (very optimitsic).

So (optimistic) 111GW of new nukes at 8760h * (optimistic) 0,9 = 875TWh nuclear electricity

compares to

3000GW of new PV at 8760h * 0,15 = 3942 TWh solar PV electricity

Even at current installation rates and a very pessimistic and unrealistic 1000GW of new PV we are talking about 1314 TWh of solar electricity

In reality we woul need much, much more PV instalaltion, lets talk about 10,000GW and more until 2040 if we want to switch from fossil fuels
.
This is possible, just a matter of will.

1000GW of new nukes would be possible, too, but this will be Ultra expensiv, you have to give them to poor countries almost for free (incl the distribution grid), you have to use breeder technology which includes Plutonium profileration, you have to find a place to dump the waste and you have to deal with an exploding reactor every few years.

And still it would not be enough electricity.

I'm not opoosing nuclear power plants, I just oppose them for my country because of the risc and cost involved in densly populated Areas. If China builds them that's fine for me.
I doubt that they will provide a real solution to the worlds CO2 Problem, especially because nuclear addicts are always talking about nuclear vs RE and never talking about nuclear plus RE.

Probably (and hopefully) we will have one Billion electric cars in 2040. They will Need electricity.

One single shitty Bitcoin transaction now consumes more than 300kWh. The whole bitcoin stuff consumes more electricity than several millions of electric cars for nothing of value. This is insane.

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am
...CO2 emissions are predicted to increase every year and be 16% higher in 2040 than 2017.
We will see.

I assume at that CO2 emissions we will already experince very significant Impacts of a warming atmosphere, including burning Woods, huge floodings, much more water ressource wars, hurricans strengthes never experinced before and so on.

I assume that in such a scenario People will have learned that cheap energy from coal and oil is in reality NOT cheap but very costly.
Last edited by Cephalotus on Jan 10, 2018 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4322
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Jan 10, 2018 10:25 am

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am

CO2 emissions are predicted to increase every year and be 16% higher in 2040 than 2017.
The latest framing of what's required to meet the Paris Climate Accord targets (<2°C warming) are halving of CO2 emissions every 10 years and a doubling of green energy every 5 years (continuing the trend that started 10 years ago). This would see coal eliminated by 2030, oil by 2040 and all fossil fuels (and all CO2 emissions) by 2050.

There's a huge gulf between these two visions of the future...

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 10, 2018 10:49 am

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 10:25 am
sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 7:44 am

CO2 emissions are predicted to increase every year and be 16% higher in 2040 than 2017.
The latest framing of what's required to meet the Paris Climate Accord targets (<2°C warming) are halving of CO2 emissions every 10 years and a doubling of green energy every 5 years (continuing the trend that started 10 years ago). This would see coal eliminated by 2030, oil by 2040 and all fossil fuels (and all CO2 emissions) by 2050.

There's a huge gulf between these two visions of the future...
True. It seems there is wishful thinking. And then there is what is really happening and will continue to happen due to the 1:1 correlation of energy and GDP and our modern economy's complete reliance on growth to forestall worldwide depression . The vast majority of nations will find it increasingly impossible to keep their promises. China Carbon emissions are forecast to be only a few percent lower in 2040 than today due to growth using up all of the increased output from other sources and preventing any significant cuts to coal. It is also interesting that EIA forecasts also show actual electrical production from solar in China to be still completely dwarfed by wind and nuclear.
.
.
Image
.
.
I also saw another similar graphic somewhere but didn't bother copying it showing electrical production from coal for India steadily increasing throughout the same period.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 10, 2018 11:38 am

India coal consumption is predicted to steadily increase through 2040.
.
.
Image
.
.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 355
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Jan 10, 2018 1:04 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 10:25 am

The latest framing of what's required to meet the Paris Climate Accord targets (<2°C warming) are halving of CO2 emissions every 10 years and a doubling of green energy every 5 years (continuing the trend that started 10 years ago). This would see coal eliminated by 2030, oil by 2040 and all fossil fuels (and all CO2 emissions) by 2050.
Technically this would be possible, but we know how the world operates and who is in power.

It is absolutly not realistic that global warming can be stopped at +2K. We can be very happy if we stop it at +3K or +4K.

4K is the diffenrence between the last ice age and the 20th century.

Many countries will get huge, huge problems at +3K or +4K.

Sitting north of the Alps with plenty of water and a rather cold climate my country is probably in a rather relaxed position (if we can keep the refugees out) But at +3K or +4K we will loss some cities because of rising sea over the long term.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 702
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jan 10, 2018 1:49 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Jan 10, 2018 11:38 am
India coal consumption is predicted to steadily increase through 2040.
So they are the next place we need to focus. Cool to see the successes in China and the US.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 636
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Jan 10, 2018 2:39 pm

And they are near the equator and most areas never get snow. If they could adopt a factory and business paradigm that could take days off if electricity is low they would really have a flexible system. Many 100's of millions of people in India and across Africa would be much improved to even have some electric lighting in a distributed system and an ebike.

Post Reply