Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[cricketo]

We are stuck using all of the above. The fastest possible pace of solar and wind build out can't replace what we need to maintain the economy. And fossil fuel energy will eventually start to slip away. Leaving us short and broke.

Not really. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but US could relatively easily transition to 100% renewable relatively quickly given the will and buy off. Just think of what it would cost, then think how much US is spending on warfare directly and indirectly.

 

[Hillhater]

Sorry, but that Greencarreports instantly lost any credibility when it declared..

Green Car Reports respectfully reminds its readers that the scientific validity of climate change is not a topic for debate in our comments. We ask that any comments by climate-change denialists be flagged for moderation. ....?........

So they only accept comments/discussion that agrees with their views !
Hardly an unbiased source !

 

[Hillhater]

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but US could relatively easily transition to 100% renewable relatively quickly given the will and buy off...
. Just think of what it would cost, ......

Yes, you really should do that .
Let us know what you think the answer is.

 

[sendler2112]

Not really. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but US could relatively easily transition to 100% renewable relatively quickly given the will and buy off. Just think of what it would cost, then think how much US is spending on warfare directly and indirectly.

I would completely disagree. The USA uses 3.1 TW continuous average primary energy currently. The true scale of our consumption is quite unbeknownst to most people. To even make it to 1.5 TW average it has been calculated to require 160,000 square miles of land use for wind and solar. 100% of energy from intermittents would also require 30 TWh of storage at least. If we could cut use by an 100% efficiency gain from electrifying everything. And tens of thousands of miles of new high voltage interconnects. And scrapping or conversion of all of the trillions of $ of built out fossil powered machines and industry and heat infrastructure.

 

[cricketo]

To even make it to 1.5 TW average it has been calculated to require 160,000 square miles of land use for wind and solar.

Has it been calculated how many square miles of unused roof space there is in US ?

 

[sendler2112]

To even make it to 1.5 TW average it has been calculated to require 160,000 square miles of land use for wind and solar.

Has it been calculated how many square miles of unused roof space there is in US ?

The issue is manufacturing all of this stuff. Scale.

 

[cricketo]

The issue is manufacturing all of this stuff. Scale.

Sure, and that's where the $$ element is important too. Right now there is not enough demand for PVs to incentivize more production. I happen to live real close to SolarWorld manufacturing facility (I run 6kW of their panels too), they are struggling to survive due to low demand and high competition from Chinese manufacturers.

 

[billvon]

Not really. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but US could relatively easily transition to 100% renewable relatively quickly given the will and buy off.

I disagree. Getting to 50%? Even 60%? Definitely doable, and important - because that extends the remaining life of fossil fuel by more than a factor of 2. But getting to 100% would be several orders of magnitude harder.

Examples -for electric power, we could get to 60% renewables fairly easily, and make up the rest with gas peakers (for load matching) and nuclear (for baseline load.) And you could do that with minimal storage, sufficient to load shift 10-20% of the peak. Getting to 100% would require about 250x the storage and 5x the wind and solar.

Transportation - we could go to pluggable hybrid cars, trucks, trains and aircraft pretty easily. That would let us cut 50% of our energy use on short haul flights, and a lower percentage on longer flights. You could easily get to 60-70% reduction of road fuel usage that way because the ICE is still there to get you to Auntie Brown on Thanksgiving Night, 300 miles into the mountains. But most of the time you just run off that small (cheap) battery.

Industrial uses of energy, like cement manufacture, could likewise run on concentrated solar during the day and gas at night. A 30% reduction without storage.

 

[liveforphysics]

All non-sustainable systems conclude.

The available options have always been 100% sustainable or inherent auto-extinction.

Whatever perception of hardship may be involved in getting there is a pleasantry to experience over continuing the inevitable destination of non-sustainable energy choices.

 

[sendler2112]

Has it been calculated how many square miles of unused roof space there is in US ?

The USA is consuming 27,000 TWh primary energy per year. The total estimated output of every viable residential roof top is 1,000 TWh.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/04/29/the-solar-power-potential-of-rooftops-in-the-u-s/#416392ec5109
.

 

[jonescg]

Has it been calculated how many square miles of unused roof space there is in US ?

The USA is consuming 27,000 TWh primary energy per year. The total estimated output of every viable residential roof top is 1,000 TWh.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/04/29/the-solar-power-potential-of-rooftops-in-the-u-s/#416392ec5109
.

Primary energy includes liquid transport fuels and natural gas for heating I assume?

 

[cricketo]

The USA is consuming 27,000 TWh primary energy per year. The total estimated output of every viable residential roof top is 1,000 TWh.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/04/29/the-solar-power-potential-of-rooftops-in-the-u-s/#416392ec5109
.

Good reference. Now a few things to point out - they specifically focused on residential rooftop, and specifically on currently viable configurations. We can significantly expand this by including commercial and industrial rooftops, as well as locations such as open parking lots.

In addition, viability of residential rooftop can be further advanced by providing incentives for new construction to be done with consideration for PVs, as well as oversizing the PV arrays. For example, my utility doesn't allow for the array to be sized more than 70% of one's annual energy consumption. I would install a larger system, but I couldn't because there was a legal barrier when doing a grid-tied system.

 

[Hillhater]

In addition, viability of residential rooftop can be further advanced by providing incentives for new construction to be done with consideration for PVs, as well as oversizing the PV arrays. For example, my utility doesn't allow for the array to be sized more than 70% of one's annual energy consumption. I would install a larger system, but I couldn't because there was a legal barrier when doing a grid-tied system.

you do realize there are practical and technical limitations as to how much solar ( or wind) power can be fed into existing grid infrastructure. ??
that "Legal Barrier" is there to protect the grid systems from being put at risk by excessive intermittent ( unpredictable/uncontrollable) power variations, and frequency control, that can cause equipment damage to both consumer devices and grid generation and distribution systems.
Major rework and upgrades to those systems will be needed to enable significant % of wind and solar to be introduced. ( imagine a complete redesign and reconstruction of the distribution network)

 

[cricketo]

that "Legal Barrier" is there to protect the grid systems from being put at risk by excessive intermittent

You're funny. That 70% is on annual basis. Basically in the Summer time my system is putting out some 5-7 times more energy into the grid than my consumption is. I get credited for that generation, and don't get billed in the Winter when my generation is next to nothing. In other words, that limit is there to protect financial interests of the utility.

 

[Hanssing]

In other news: Denmark just held a public bid for private renewable projects. It turned out to be 5 times cheaper than previous in terms of feedin-tarrifs. Technology was independent for bidding.

Feedin ended up at basic sport-price (heavily linked to European Continent) + 0.028 dkr/kWh = spot + 0.004€/kWh! Thats for no CO2, Particulates, or Radiation. And owners compete in the free eletricity sportmarket. Feedin is so low it's nearly not worth mentioning, and winning bids are both solar as well as wind.

Sorry its Danish:
https://ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/U...fgoerelse_af_teknologineutralt_udbud_2018.pdf

 

[Punx0r]

Meanwhile, a study has found that a carbon price of just $20/ton would prevent deforestation by making it more profitable to preserve forest for carbon sequestration than for clearing for beef, soya, palmoil etc production.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh, yes a "carbon price""
But meanwhile ,..At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to " change the economic model"..

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

That "economic model" that has been operating for the last 150 years is Capitalism.!
So i wonder what economic model the UN is intending to replace it with ??
How comfortable are you with that UN objective ?

 

[billvon]

So i wonder what economic model the UN is intending to replace it with ??

A model based on continuous growth and increasing consumption will be replaced by a model that works for steady state, sustainable economic activity. This can happen intentionally (i.e. via a new model) or via scarcity/starvation/mass death. Our choice.

 

[Hillhater]

Wind turbines not holding up quite as well as expected...

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.
The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.....

The report concludes that a wind turbine will typically generate more than twice as much electricity in its first year than when it is 15 years old.
The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.
The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years.

 

[Hillhater]

So i wonder what economic model the UN is intending to replace it with ??

A model based on continuous growth and increasing consumption will be replaced by a model that works for steady state, sustainable economic activity. ...

Mmmm :thumb: ...nice rosy idealistic senario bill. ( but sounds a little like Communism ?)
You better pray that those UN megalamaniacs in Brussels , have the same thing in mind ! :?

 

[billvon]

Mmmm nice rosy idealistic senario bill. ( but sounds a little like Communism ?)

"Nice rosy idealistic scenario?" You mean the mass starvation and whatnot?

We WILL run out of resources. What our economy looks like after that is up to us. Sticking your head in the sand is always an option, but perhaps not the best option in the long run.

 

[sendler2112]

The USA is consuming 27,000 TWh primary energy per year. The total estimated output of every viable residential roof top is 1,000 TWh.
.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/04/29/the-solar-power-potential-of-rooftops-in-the-u-s/#416392ec5109
.

Good reference. Now a few things to point out - they specifically focused on residential rooftop, and specifically on currently viable configurations. We can significantly expand this by including commercial and industrial rooftops, as well as locations such as open parking lots.

In addition, viability of residential rooftop can be further advanced by providing incentives for new construction to be done with consideration for PVs, as well as oversizing the PV arrays. For example, my utility doesn't allow for the array to be sized more than 70% of one's annual energy consumption. I would install a larger system, but I couldn't because there was a legal barrier when doing a grid-tied system.

The report said nothing about intentional legal limits per house. It just said that is the maximum possible from all residential roof tops. So we could implement all of your optimizations and include comercial roofs and say that would triple the number the study came up with. To replace 1/9 of the energy we are now using.
.
The numbers do not add up the way the media has been telling us they do. It would take 160,000 square miles of land and near shore use. Just for the USA. The area equivilent of the entire state of California.
.
Every available roof top in the country covered. Plus one million 2MW wind turbines. Plus two thousand 500 MW Solar Star and Topaz sized grid scale solar farms. Plus three hundred thousand BigF'nBatteries 100 MWh each. Plus wires. Plus replacing all of the trillions of $ of built out fossil powered machinery and industry and heat to electricity. Just for the USA. All in 30 years before liquid fuel slips away. Times 10 for the world. And then rebuild everything we just built every 30 years ad infinitum.
.
Please try to start to understand the scale of our consumption. Things will be much smaller and simpler in the coming decades after oil.

 

[sendler2112]

Mmmm :thumb: ...nice rosy idealistic senario bill. ( but sounds a little like Communism ?)
You better pray that those UN megalamaniacs in Brussels , have the same thing in mind ! :?

We will have to find a whole new way. After fossil fuel there will no longer be enough societal surplus to just let the market sort labor into winners and losers. There would be 99% losers that don't have enough to eat. We have to figure it out. How to share more and compete less. Or face a near future of the privileged hiding in walled cities facing off against the Humongous horde fighting from the outside to get in with pointy sticks and dirty bombs.
.
.

.
.

 

[Punx0r]

The report said nothing about intentional legal limits per house. It just said that is the maximum possible from all residential roof tops. So we could implement all of your optimizations and include comercial roofs and say that would triple the number the study came up with. To replace 1/9 of the energy we are now using.

That's good info. It's a shame that, on average, a building doesn't have enough roofspace to support it's own energy needs. Clearly it's going to require a lot of utility generation and also energy use reduction as well.

The U.S. does have a lot of desert area that could be use to mass-generate electricity and export to many of the other states (anywhere within 2-3000 miles?). It would be awesome if places like Nevada became mass exporters of power.

BTW, my google puts U.S. total primary energy consumption as approx. 1/5th of the global total?

 

[sendler2112]

BTW, my google puts U.S. total primary energy consumption as approx. 1/5th of the global total?

Yeah. 1/7th. But all of the emerging markets are expanding rapidly. So the world will need to build 10X what the US would need as mentioned above:
.
10x of... one million 2MW wind turbines. Plus two thousand 500 MW Solar Star and Topaz sized grid scale solar farms. Plus three hundred thousand BigF'nBatteries 100 MWh each.