Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

sendler2112 said:

Human civilization will be much smaller and simpler after the age of fossil fuel. This doesn't have to be terrible if we accept it and move wisely. We're not getting that pony for Christmas that we wanted. But maybe we can get a new bike.

Click to expand...

A world without fossil fuels will be the pure horror for Homo sapiens and not because you can't drive your gas guzzling SUV, but because with all the CO2 in the air the seas will become acid and the planet will be so hot that it is impossible to survice for mammals (incl Homo sapiens) in many regions of the world.

So the fact I believe is that if people are happy with the waste of Lithium battery EVs then I think Hydrogen fuel cells will eventually be the future.
Whether its the kids digging up the cobalt (Tesla lovers seem to say things a long the lines "its great to give 5 yo kids a job" etc).
Runing out of these battery materials will happen as I don't think our recycling processes are that great.
But not a problem with Hydrogen or the new methods of fuel-cell design don't require special expensive metals.

Whether its future nuclear reactors that make hydrogen as a side product of electricity or just ch4 conversion for the near future I think it really will take over, long term.
Apparently there are a lot of new ways to make even the most efficient processes of making Hydrogen better, apparently there is technology that plans to use a nuclear reactors waste heat that would normally go to a huge cooling tower instead run through an electrolysis system because electrolysis can work better in heated water in gas form, or something of that nature.

The major advantage of Hydrogen fuel cell is that its incredibly light so it makes flying EVs very easy as shown in the fuel cell drone video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHlrLU7kTys
Everyone whos had a quadcopter knows how annoying that 20minute limit is and how everytime you reuse you battery it only gives even less time because its being beat to sh1t every time under huge amp draw.

A Hydrogen Fuel cell drone that can fly as long as 2 hours and do it every time reliably beats the crap out of battery based flying.
The Lilium VTOL designers say they need about 280KWh lithium battery pack to be practical ( https://www.electrans.co.uk/lilium-electric-aircraft-vtol-order/ ), which is about 3 times bigger/heavier than the large sizes of Tesla EV battery, so battery based flying EVs just aren't going to happen, as far as I am concerned no magic battery will happen, and instead Hydrogen fuel cell is the magic battery, even if it takes a lot of energy to generate the Hydrogen in the first place, its still more efficient than trying to lug a ridiculously heavy battery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohig71bwRUE

It's been stated in all the local media in Australia many times now that unless you charge your Tesla up in Hydro-electricity based Tasmania then you actually emitting more co2 per km traveled in your coal electricity charged Tesla than in a normal ICE car. But everyone still loves Tesla's, so if people are going to be that dumb or deliberately that selfish and dumb then Hydrogen can't be argued with either.
This is because the inefficiencies of wind/solar renewables are incredibly bad as both are around 20%, in reality Hydrogen fuel-cell based technology is more efficient, just look at SA wind at 6% CP generation below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, fuel cells are generally between 40–60% energy efficient.
This is higher than some other systems for energy generation. For example, the typical internal combustion engine of a car is about 25% energy efficient.
In combined heat and power (CHP) systems, the heat produced by the fuel cell is captured and put to use, increasing the efficiency of the system to up to 85–90%.

Also it should be basic common knowledge that Hydrogen is technically not as easily flammable as gasoline as this video explains in concentrations, unless its in a confined space its then a problem.
https://youtu.be/YJBzEYduKK8?t=1m1s

On another subject here is South Australias week of wind, was about 6% total contribution, one of their worst weeks. The wind has picked back up again but it seems to be really struggling with days dipping into zero wind generation now and then, as reported in the local news papers
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/why-we-cant-rely-on-wind/news-story/cd5aa1db477856ced29132d6bec56c4c
I created this for noobs to help drill in the reality of wind because you would be surprised to find how many folks just assume that wind generation always runs at about 80% capacity rather than the 20% on average around the world we see in the stats.

Here is a few more numbers covering ALL Australian wind generation.to confirm your data Beastie..
Because some still believe that in a big country like australia, there must be wind blowing somewhere all the time..
From a energy monitor site..

.
wind power here in Australia has a Nameplate of 5222MW.
The last ten days totals, starting Monday 18th June. This is the average per hour for all 24 hours of each day for every wind plant in the Australia.

Monday – 1070MW at a Capacity Factor (CF) of 20.5%
Tuesday – 1130MW – CF = 21.6%
Wednesday – 1200MW – CF = 23%
Thursday – 280MW – CF = 5.4%
Friday – 610MW – CF = 11.7%
Saturday – 840MW – CF = 16.1%
Sunday – 650MW – CF = 12.4%
Monday – 490MW – CF =9.4%
Tuesday – 560MW – CF = 10.7%
Wednesday – 390MW – CF = 7.55

Average for the last ten days is 722MW at a CF of 13.8%

Click to expand...

They just don’t deliver.

TheBeastie said:

The major advantage of Hydrogen fuel cell is that its incredibly light so it makes flying EVs very easy

Click to expand...

Hydrogen is incredibly light. The tankage needed to carry it in any quantity is incredibly heavy.

Also it should be basic common knowledge that Hydrogen is technically not as easily flammable as gasoline as this video explains in concentrations, unless its in a confined space its then a problem

Click to expand...

Hydrogen is several times more flammable than natural gas and gasoline.

Ever wonder why your gas stove doesn't explode every time you light it up? It's because natural gas is only combustible within a very narrow range of mixtures with air - 5 to 15%. Outside that range, it will not combust. Got a little air in your gas line when you turn on your stove? The gas line will not explode unless you are within that range. To get it to burn you have to get right at the edge of the orifice, at the point where diffusion into the air reduces the concentration of the natural gas to below 15%. Then it will burn - but only at the boundary between the orifice and the air where the concentration is between 5 and 15%, which results in a controllable flame front.

Gasoline is similar. You need a mixture between 1.4 to 7.6%.

Hydrogen is a very different story. Any mixture between 4 and 75% is combustible. So if you have _any_ air in your hydrogen lines, or a very small leak, a fire is a lot more likely.

Energy required is a lot lower as well. You need .2 millijoules to get a gasoline/air mixture to ignite; you need only .02 millijoules to get hydrogen to ignite.

You lot are nuts get your butts ready for the next level of power generation its been coming in the next 30 years for the last 50 years and it's getting nearer all the time, as a whole we are advanced enough and capable to make it happen everyone talks like the world will wind down after fossil fuels demise but dont be so silly we will speed up and push further faster than ever why capture the sun's hand me downs when we have such an abundance of H2O we can create our own mini sun's all over the globe.

Solar and wind and hydro will all do to keep the oil flowing for longer but ultimately when it slows and becomes to expensive the future big boys will want power at levels unfathomable to the modern day engineer just as our power usage today to a hundred years ago would be mental to a engineer of the time, in the future they will turn to fusing atoms no doubt.

All this bullshit back and forth just show's really how humans have always been over time and it's normally a small collective group of people make the important stuff happen while the general consensus don't have a clue of what's coming in anyway such as Internet and modern day life in general is so different to my youth just 20 years ago with paper books vhs tapes walkmans and basic 4 channel analog TV and those before me with vinyl and radio only with TV broadcast a few hours a day so at the end of it all I'm trying to say,
NO ONE EVER SEE'S CHANGE COMING TILL IT HAPPENS.

Ianhill said:

[...] in the future they will turn to fusing atoms no doubt.

Click to expand...

Sure. But I remember going to see a tokamak fusion reactor back in the 1970s. It had the same problem then that fusion reactors do today-- it took more energy to start it than what the reaction created, and it wouldn't stay lit.

I understand they might work better if we used special Helium-3 fuel from the moon. That sounds cheap and easy.

Let me know when you get your mini-sun lit up. You can race against the zero-point energy guys. When you win, you can make fun of all us boring and unimaginative renewable energy users.

Ianhill said:

You lot are nuts get your butts ready for the next level of power generation its been coming in the next 30 years for the last 50 years and it's getting nearer all the time

Click to expand...

Yep. The first announcement of nuclear power "too cheap to meter" was in 1954. 64 years later, nuclear power is one of our most expensive forms of power.

Sure, that might change in another 64 years. Small modular reactors might turn out to be much cheaper. Thorium reactors of one flavor or another might solve their problems and result in cheaper, safer reactors. Fusion might come along in a decade or four. But in the near future, nuclear's not going to be a cheap source of energy. It's a great thing to keep working on in the hopes that one day it will be.

billvon said:

Yep. The first announcement of nuclear power "too cheap to meter" was in 1954. 64 years later, nuclear power is one of our most expensive forms of power.

Click to expand...

The most expensive being ..wind and solar ? ?

Hillhater said:

billvon said:

Yep. The first announcement of nuclear power "too cheap to meter" was in 1954. 64 years later, nuclear power is one of our most expensive forms of power.

Click to expand...

The most expensive being ..wind and solar ? ?

Click to expand...

Not really. Offshore wind is the highest, but solar PV and onshore wind are both considerably cheaper than nuclear. Per the EIA for sources entering operation in 2022: (levelized system cost, $/mwh)

Offshore wind 124
Advanced nuclear 90
Solar PV 59
Onshore wind 48

Sure , raw generation costs..
But what cost do you put on power when it is not available ? ...(See above post re Australias Wind generation)
Or, you add on the extra cost for equivalent back up supply from gas or other sources. ..(ask Germany)
Or what cost when the unreliability of power forces your major industries to relocate offshore, and ultimately destroy your national economic viability ?

I understand that fusion is a difficult project. From my knowledge ITER will produce a burn in 2025. The goal is sustained partial ignition. With new alternative energy, low cost electricity can be a reality. The idea is to create a DEMOnstration tokamak called DEMO that works from the formula developed by ITER. We need toroidal coordinates and math, new controlling coils, a MHD pickup, CATIA files to do the hard work, and a great manufacturing and machining sector to help. The goal would be reliable cheap electricity from the burn of helium. After studying physics, there is not a lot of classwork on fusion. Even nuclear classes ignore things like tunneling and whatever. I guess the main idea is to help the future do things like develop better algorithms, file management, and cost engineering to make these mega projects reality. Imagine the 1000+ engineering firms in one region coming together to make this project a reality. The new magnets and things could work. Q=10 could work. The dream could be real. H mode and L mode low beta considerations with corona controls could work. I think and I hope for a DEMO tokamak by 2030. It might take a lot, but we spend so much on military. If we stop the giant aircraft carriers and jets, maybe we could build a future of cheap reliable fusion electricity. Fusion on the moon!

Hillhater said:

Or what cost when the unreliability of power forces your major industries to relocate offshore, and ultimately destroy your national economic viability ?

Click to expand...

If all countries use renewable power will they all loose all their respective industries?

Punx0r said:

If all countries use renewable power will they all loose all their respective industries?

Click to expand...

There is no replacement for fossil fuel at this scale. 400 TWh themal we are currently blowing through per day. Can the world really build out 150TWh per day of renewable electricity and connect it all? And convert all procesesses and built out machines to electric so that efficiency increases 3X. And build enough storage? And learn to live through days long black outs in the winter?
.
Renewables are fossil fuel extenders to buy some time to learn how to live smaller and simpler. We need a whole new way. Our current debt based/ growth based, top heavy, economic system will no longer add up for 10 Billion people after fossil fuel.
.
Do the math.

Yes, given the time (~200 yrs) and money (unfathomable amounts) that was invested in building a 400TWh global fossil fuel-based system.

You seem to be confounding physics & engineering with economic & political theory.

Punx0r said:

Yes, given the time (~200 yrs) and money (unfathomable amounts) that was invested in building a 400TWh global fossil fuel-based system.

You seem to be confounding physics & engineering with economic & political theory.

Click to expand...

You left out raw materials and embodied energy. Fossil fuels are so incredibly dense compared to rebuildables there is no comparison in their utility. Wind turbines are immense machines. And they are not renewable. They are rebuildable. Every 15 years.
.
The 200 years build out is more accurate though. 150 TWh production per day goal. Too bad we only have 30 years of affordable liquid fuel left. And $200 Trillion in World debt that can only be paid back over 30 years with 3% or more growth. Which means that to avoid a crash, the world economy (and energy consumption by definition) will have to continue to grow exponentially and double again from 2018 to 2042. 150TWh +++ per day. We do not have the remaining resources left to continue this.
.
We are caught in a Monkey Trap. And rich guys around the world will never turn loose without a fight.

sendler2112 said:

You left out raw materials and embodied energy. Fossil fuels are so incredibly dense compared to rebuildables there is no comparison in their utility. Wind turbines are immense machines. And they are not renewable. They are rebuildable. Every 15 years.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. The EROEI of wind (18-50:1) beats most fuel sources (all liquid & gas fuels) except coal, nuclear, hydro and some geothermal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

One figure I saw quoted was that for construction, installation, operation, deconstruction and disposal a large wind turbine pays for itself in terms of energy in 3-6 months versus a design life of 20-25 years. Even then, the base and mast and likely reusable, with "only" the generator head and blades requiring replacement or rebuilding.

Put another way, a wind turbine factory put next to wind farm requires only raw materials as input to replicate itself. Same as a solar panel factory next to a solar farm makes ever more solar panels.

I'm not even sure why you think the total world debt has to be repaid in full in 30 years or less - it never has been repaid yet in history! Peak oil (yet again), blah, blah...

sendler2112 said:

We are caught in a Monkey Trap. And rich guys around the world will never turn loose without a fight.

Click to expand...

This I agree with and the only outcome will be civil war.

After ww2 UK was on its arse so the bank of England laundered dirty Russian us dollar and that act never stopped, today the UK is flooded with 1bn per month in diddly cash from the one named country alone, Nothing gets done about it because in an enquiry that was heard in house of Lords it was said that 350 million went to the conservative party before the elections and that a building opposite buckingham palace had dealt with more cash in dodgy dealings than an ocean 11''s scam.

So yeah we do have troubles ahead no doubt our cash system is set to fail and the poor areas always pay worst a big change needs to be made as it's only going to get worse with more technology comes better paid jobs but also more unemployment.

In my area the government claim a 4% unemployed but anyone that does not work or claim is not counted and they have rigged the welfare to knock everyone off so the figure is so wrong it's unreal and unfair, Our government stated that it runs it's self like a business and to me that's wrong I refuse to vote after all this shit in UK, Europe wants us down the pan for the sake of one stupid vote everything is falling apart but what can we do there's microscopic bellends in charge and something is gonna go pop.

All country's are falling into the debt game harder and harder it's like there will be a new world order and a single currency coming as face it nearly all the banks are owned by the same group and they have the real control of the markets it's not an accident they need stopping with an iron fist.

Punx0r said:

Put another way, a wind turbine factory put next to wind farm requires only raw materials as input to replicate itself. Same as a solar panel factory next to a solar farm makes ever more solar panels.

Click to expand...

Except raw materials are mined with giant machines burning liquid fuel for which there is no conceivable battery vehicle replacement. Do we have this much raw materials left? For millions of wind turbines and trillions of solar panels and associated electronics and endless amounts of new wire?
.
Historically, debt was outpaced by growth. We needed more money to grease the skids of the economy as we gained more ability to harvest and consume finite resources for an increasing economy and population. More recently as we struggle keep all of the plates spinning as fossil fuel continues to become increasingly remote, debt has outpaced growth 3X. It cannot continue in the current free market system. There will be a major crash. Denying it with endless money creation will just make it much worse when it inevitably happens.

Ianhill said:

sendler2112 said:

We are caught in a Monkey Trap. And rich guys around the world will never turn loose without a fight.

Click to expand...

This I agree with and the only outcome will be civil war.

Click to expand...

The Proletarian Revolution.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
.

Hillhater said:

Sure , raw generation costs . .

Click to expand...

Correct. It does not, for example, add the costs in terms of deaths, sickness, infrastructure damage and waterway destruction from coal. If it did, coal would be far and away the most expensive form of power we have. Nor does it add in the costs of nuclear waste processing/storage. So overall, wind and solar are a lot cheaper over their lifecycle than that chart would indicate.

But what cost do you put on power when it is not available ?

Click to expand...

Zero. You do not pay for power you do not use.

Or what cost when the unreliability of power forces your major industries to relocate offshore, and ultimately destroy your national economic viability ?

Click to expand...

Given that here in the US, grid reliability has climbed as wind and solar have been added - not really an issue.

DemoTokamakSharma said:

The goal would be reliable cheap electricity from the burn of helium.

Click to expand...

Helium-helium fusion is decades away; it's considered a third generation fusion fuel. Given that we don't even have a first generation reactor working, that's a ways off.

sendler2112 said:

Except raw materials are mined with giant machines burning liquid fuel for which there is no conceivable battery vehicle replacement.

Click to expand...

There are already replacements.

Do we have this much raw materials left? For millions of wind turbines and trillions of solar panels and associated electronics and endless amounts of new wire?

Click to expand...

Nope, not endless. But we have enough for a lot of wire.

Your prognostications make some very fundamental errors, like "we will need copper wire forever in ever-increasing quantities." I remember a study I saw from the 1970's that described how, if the need for telecommunications kept increasing, all the world's copper output would be insufficient to keep up with demand in just a few years.

Then fiber optics came out. It now serves as the backbone of our communications - and it's made of sand.

Then wireless communications took off. And now people are abandoning land-line phones in favor of wireless.

And still people needed copper (pipes and interior wiring) so the price went up. So utilities switched to aluminum wire for medium distance, high power transmission.

In all cases, free-market forces drove people to alternatives that were, in many cases, better than the original.

The idea that "we will always need massive amounts of oil and will never be able to live without it" makes the same kind of mistake.

More recently as we struggle keep all of the plates spinning as fossil fuel continues to become increasingly remote, debt has outpaced growth 3X. It cannot continue in the current free market system. There will be a major crash.

Click to expand...

There will be, just as there has been throughout history. We recover.

sendler2112 said:

Except raw materials are mined with giant machines burning liquid fuel for which there is no conceivable battery vehicle replacement. Do we have this much raw materials left?

Click to expand...

The energy required to mine and process the raw materials of a wind turbine are included in its energy balance. Do you realise how much energy and resources it takes to recover/refine/transport petroleum fuels? Do coal plants and gas turbines last forever once built?

With an EROEI exceeding that of oil, wind power is capable of building the infrastructure we currently have. The only disadvantages are the intermittency and the poor power density of cordless electrical machines. Both are arguably only problems because of the legacy of fossil/liquid fuels - we built our world to play to their strengths and minimise their weakness, which tend to opposite to those of wind & PV. Both are also temporary problems that there is a reasonable path to overcoming within a generation.

Note also that big machines (ships, trains, haul trucks) are driven by electric motors, not ICE, though the power may be supplied by an onboard generator. However, for really big machines (mining machines, tunnel-boring machines, long-distance, high speed trains), they are electric supplied by mains cable because it's more compact, simpler and they can operate indefinitely without stopping. I.e. the energy density of liquid fuels beats (current) batteries, but an electrical flex beats onboard liquid fuels. For vehicles that cannot operate on a cord (and cannot wait for battery tech to improve), hydrogen, methane or bio-fuels are a simple and obvious solution. Neither are efficient to produce from electricity but it can be done and is an obvious solution for "when the wind blows too much".

Here is a good article on EROEI and the societal implications. Shows the more commonly accepted value of 18:1 for wind. They have solar PV at 6:1-12:1.
.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856
.
They also show where we are headed in having less societal surplus as we finish up conventional oil plays and turn more and more to shale oil, tar sands, and shale gas.

sendler2112 said:

Here is a good article on EROEI and the societal implications.

Click to expand...

Good data, and EROEI is an important factor.

Note that right now, tight oil EROEI is between 2.6 and 7. And we are switching to tight oil as our primary supply of oil as light sweet crude dries up; here in the US, over 50% of our recovered oil is shale (tight) oil. Compare that to other sources:

Solar PV 6.7
Wind 18
Ethanol (sugarcane) 5
Natural gas 10
Nuclear 105