Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[speedmd]

How much ele. is wasted today with incandescent bulb heaters and poorly insulated homes never mind inefficient appliances, manufacturing methods and the like? How much does leakage and other losses on the grid waste? It may blow your mind!

 

[billvon]

Storage to cover intermittents for the 75 Terra Watt hours of electricity we are currently using every day is completely unfathomable.

The idea that cars (that you have to build, that take expensive gasoline, and only the rich can afford) could replace horses (that reproduce all by themselves and require only grass for operation) was completely unfathomable at one point as well.

The idea that we'd one day use deadly AC power to power our homes, instead of reliable candles and oil lamps, was unfathomable as well. Just think of the thousands that would be killed from electrocution. And all that copper! Back when electrification was first attempted, there wasn't enough copper wire in the whole world to provide everyone in the US with power. It was impossible.

For even one off day of bad weather. Regardless of how much sunlight falls on the earth. We would have to go to a 6 hour a day sunshine economy.

And to switch from cars to horses we'd have to blacktop tens of thousands of square miles of the USA! Impossible.

 

[sendler2112]

These example are not even close to the same magnitude by many factors of ten of the resources required to make even 12 hours of battery storage for 35 GWh. This would be the entire annual output of batteries from 10 Tesla Gigafactories for 100 years. For 12 hours of storage. For only the current electrical. Which is 1/3 of total energy consumed. Which is forecast to double again by 2050.

 

[speedmd]

My tablet runs on a factor of ten (less wattage), than my old desk top work station and monitor for roughly the same computing power. My lighting is less than 20% of what it was just a few years ago with more lumens output. What exactly needs to be on while we are not generating needs to be looked at again to make sense of where we need to and can go. Just like ICE cars running while stopped at traffic lights. Just a few years back, we would have never thought of tuning them off. How many chargers- transformers are plugged in full time even when not in use. How many folks just leave the lights on or never adjust the thermostat when leaving home. Waste everywhere you look. Just adding generation is not the answer. Not anylonger.

 

[sendler2112]

Home use is a small percentage of electrical consumption. 33% in the USA. 15% in China and Russia. Infrastructure and manufacturing is the majority.
.
Jevon's Paradox shows us that improvements in technology and efficiency tend to lead to more consumption. Not less.
.
I am stating the same things over and over again with links and examples. Hopefully I can start reaching everY new poster in this thread one by one.
.
Watch Nate Hagens
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.

 

[billvon]

These example are not even close to the same magnitude by many factors of ten of the resources required to make even 12 hours of battery storage for 35 GWh. This would be the entire annual output of batteries from 10 Tesla Gigafactories for 100 years.

Agreed.

In 1900, 4192 cars were produced in the US. That was our demonstrated ability to build cars. (http://www.carhistory4u.com/the-last-100-years/car-production)

In 2016, 17.6 million cars were sold in the US. (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/news/companies/car-sales-2016/index.html)

We'll assume that that 2016 production rate is enough to provide everyone with a car, since at the current production rates _almost_ everyone has a car in the US; 253 million cars on the road for 323 million people. Remove people under 16 and that's approximately one car per person in the US. (http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-ihs-automotive-average-age-car-20140609-story.html)

That means that even if we took all those factories in the US building cars, multiplied them by 10 it would still take 419 YEARS to build enough cars for everyone. And it's only been 117 years since 1900.

So for a person asking "will cars ever be the primary means of personal transportation in the US?" in 1900, the answer would be "very unlikely" going by your standards. It would be (to them) impossible to ramp up production by that much. And where would all the roads come from? And what about the fuel for all those millions of cars? And who will fix them? And can people even manage driving over 30mph without a huge death toll? It's simply impossible.

But we have a way of managing such tasks.

 

[nutnspecial]

I haven't read too in depth, but it appears you totally dodged the question Bill.
And while the point is true that 'we can produce alot more over time as tech increases' (which is kinda an obvious trait of CIVILIZATION), why are you mincing facts to say it?
Oh yeah, cuz you dodged the question. Yes batteries COULD become as sustainable as oil has been (and continues to be. . . ), but that is not a given. If I'm catching the drift of this, there's no reason why not to use EV where it suits, but honestly Science can promise nothing other than it's always BEEN WRONG. I agree that optimism is key in where it will go, but what you are optimistic about depends on your predispositions/ 'programming'. I guess I have no idea what the heck the argument is over.
If it's over EV replacing ICE, just because it could, IN NO WAY means it will or possibly even should. We have WAY too far to go

 

[sendler2112]

Try to grasp the scale of our dilemma in trying to get solar and wind plus storage to replace this.
.
.

.
.

 

[speedmd]

Home use is a small percentage of electrical consumption. 33% in the USA. 15% in China and Russia. Infrastructure and manufacturing is the majority.

We can differ on calling a third of the load a small percentage. It is however the most decentralized part of it. Both infrastructure and manufacturing are opportunities to introduce generation on demand on or near the location it is needed. Cities run inefficient street lighting and many other archaic systems all over the place. Easy to do when someone else is paying the bill. 4way stops are a favorite in our town. Schools and offices kept so warm they need to open windows in the winter.

Amazing to see when traveling through the night for many miles in total darkness and then coming into a city zone and the highway is lit up like a ball field. Not what could be classified as a power requirement! Our local sewage treatment system, burns off tons of the gas they produce because they can not keep the generators that are in place to use it running for what ever reason. Easier just to buy power. They also gave up generating power from the head reduction turbines on the water system reservoir feed lines. They just add the added energy costs to the tax bills.

 

[billvon]

And while the point is true that 'we can produce alot more over time as tech increases' (which is kinda an obvious trait of CIVILIZATION), why are you mincing facts to say it?

I'm not. We can do it; we have done it; we will do it again. Is that clear enough?

Oh yeah, cuz you dodged the question. Yes batteries COULD become as sustainable as oil has been (and continues to be. . . ), but that is not a given.

It is a given that we could do it. We've done harder things. A much better question is - SHOULD we do it?

If I'm catching the drift of this, there's no reason why not to use EV where it suits, but honestly Science can promise nothing other than it's always BEEN WRONG.

There are a bunch of Apollo astronauts who would probably disagree.

If it's over EV replacing ICE, just because it could, IN NO WAY means it will or possibly even should.

Exactly! That's the right question to ask.

We have WAY too far to go

Eh, we've had farther to go in the past - and done it.

 

[billvon]

Try to grasp the scale of our dilemma in trying to get solar and wind plus storage to replace this.

Good graph!

Let's take a look at 1930. In 1930, oil (i.e. gasoline, diesel etc) made up a tiny amount of our overall energy stream - about the amount that renewables do now. "Oil will NEVER replace coal! Do you know how it costs to drill and pump oil? And then you have to refine it, which is a dangerous, costly and complex process. You can use coal right out of the ground."

But by 1970 it had become our largest source of energy. Within 40 years a tiny, almost insignificant source of energy had come to dominate US energy consumption.

 

[sendler2112]

But by 1970 it had become our largest source of energy.

Nice spin. But basing our analysis on "we did it before" isn't based on facts. Just hope. Please be pragmatic and run the numbers as I have been posting. Fossil fuel is very dense, very special stuff. A one time gift. Which allowed our growth to explode. Well beyond any sustainable level without it. But we can use what is left to cushion the transformation. Think 100 years and beyond. It takes that long to even begin to change. What will they need? What will they want?
.
They want the pony we got for our birthday. But they can't have that. Let's at least try to give them a new pair of shoes.
.
http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
.
Read every page Tom Murphy wrote.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
There is a huge difference in energy density between solar and crude oil. And solar PV in the best location only averages 33% of the stated capacity nameplate. In NY, USA it averages 13%. Which means it is at 0% much of the time. Wind is predicated at 30% of nameplate in the best location here. Storage (And footprint density. And cost) is the big hangup for intermittents. The BYD gridscale container batteries will indeed help us. But keep in perspective. One container battery is rated at 1 MWh of storage. A container of diesel fuel would be 684 MWh. What is the EROI of a container battery? Do you really think we can mine and refine these elements and produce finished products at a 35 TWh every 20 years rate without liquid fuels and immense industrial scale grids? Which is jut enough to cover 12 hours of storage of electricity at current levels and then replace what gets weak from cycle life. Current electrical only. Not the other 70% of energy use. Nor any growth. 50 Gigafactories entire output continuously, FOREVER, just to keep up with 12 hours storage at the current level.
.
Hydro will go hand in hand with with intermittents and non-intermttents must stay at more than 50% of their contribution for balancing. This is the most obvious thing any solar advocate must get behind and push with both hands. All environmental concerns from the inundation ignored. In every area that has the slightest feasibility. Before our immense fossil energy gift that it takes to build such big projects drifts away.
.
Sunny but arid locations will be better served by solar thermal than PV.
.
Batteries will be good for personal transportaion and every vehicle needs to be utilized in vehicle to grid when not charging or moving. But autonomous vehicles will generally keep moving at all times whenever they are not charging. Solar and wind can only go as high as 15% of the baseload without storage. And can only go higher as to the matching amount of non-intermittents from hydro in special areas, geothermal in special areas, and nuclear. If fossil fuels are to be replaced.

 

[liveforphysics]

Try to grasp the scale of our dilemma in trying to get solar and wind plus storage to replace this.
.
.

.
.

It's like a man drinking a bottle of poison, who says he is so thirsty, the only option is to chug poison until self-extinction.

 

[sendler2112]

It's like a man drinking a bottle of poison, who says he is so thirsty, the only option is to chug poison until self-extinction.

Our entire world economic system only functions with continual growth of GDP. And GDP is tied to energy consumption 1:1.
.
2% growth is the minimum. 1% growth is a recession. -2% is a great depression.
.
How do we find a new system that embraces negative growth???

 

[liveforphysics]

It's like a man drinking a bottle of poison, who says he is so thirsty, the only option is to chug poison until self-extinction.

Our entire world economic system only functions with continual growth of GDP. And GDP is tied to energy consumption 1:1.
.
2% growth is the minimum. 1% growth is a recession. -2% is a great depression.
.
How do we find a new system that embraces negative growth???

No need for concern, anything with continuous growth is a passing fad at best and already has a single ensured conclusion.

Atom perfect recycling technology, like a forest floor, and solar panels being built by solar power, and large scale algae bioreactor tanks may have a shot at a path forward for humanity as we know it.

Nature has perfect fixes to rebalance all non-sustinable practices.

 

[jonescg]

Cotter dam looks like a good candidate for pumped hydro in the ACT:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/35%C2%B026'39.1%22S+148%C2%B051'05.3%22E/@-35.4456895,148.8267384,11z/data=!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x6b17b76c44194b5f:0xc7482c48c1462c8!2sCotter+Dam,+Australian+Capital+Territory!3b1!8m2!3d-35.3202853!4d148.939818!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d-35.4441987!4d148.8514797!5m1!1e4
Zoom out to see the three reservoirs. Top one is at 1000 m, middle one at 800 m, and the main dam at 600 m.

Surely you could use the top two reservoirs for pumped hydro?

 

[sendler2112]

Any Hydro plant could be easily retrofitted to add pumped storage. But it is more efficient to just let nature do the pumping. Tie intermittent power generation grids to hydro grids which can ramp up and down at a minutes notice. Rather than pumping the water back up into an unnatural reservoir, you are just storing the original water that nature put there to use later.
.
Dammed hydro is the key thing to get done with our fossil fuel wealth. We are trying to save the planet via technology for as many species as possible but the good of the many must outway the needs of the few since our options are limited. Reservoir inundations must be accepted as a necessary consequence in the long game.

 

[sendler2112]

No need for concern, anything with continuous growth is a passing fad at best and already has a single ensured conclusion.

I'm not willing to stand by and let nature take it's course on humanity unimpeded. Wise decisions based on science and a system view implemented with the brute force of our current fossil energy wealth before it runs out can cushion the fall from this one time stroboscopic carbon pulse.
.
The ES forum is already a gathering place for forward thinkers that see the merit of light EV's.
Things we can each do now:
Focus. No more banal sitcoms or football games. Use your free time to study.
Learn. Energy, economics, ecology. Put them into a system view and look forward into deep time. The planet will be in the habitable zone for another 250 Million years.
Talk. Share what you learn. Encourage others that it is possible for them to put aside their consensus trance to seek a deeper view. Eventually forward thinking can reach saturation and enter the consensus.
Become a designated driver.

 

[liveforphysics]

No need for concern, anything with continuous growth is a passing fad at best and already has a single ensured conclusion.

I'm not willing to stand by and let nature take it's course on humanity unimpeded.

Fantastic you're not willing to stand by. Live the change you see having a path forward.

Far bigger than transportation choices, diet choices of humans is an even greater accelerator of auto-extinction. Enjoy a vegan diet sourced locally from sustainable farming practices, enjoy never again purchasing a drop of gasoline, enjoy buying used when possible and gifting whatever youre not using towards any constructive application that can avoid the resources being consumed to make another.

The light bulb didn't happen through incremental improvements made on the candle, and the LED wasn't a result of incremental increases made to a light bulb filiment.

 

[spinningmagnets]

Disruptive advances often result on reactions that span from fear of change, to hopeful optimism about the new opportunities.

Henry Ford is claimed to have stated that "if I had asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said...make a faster horse"

 

[sendler2112]

Fantastic you're not willing to stand by. Live the change you see having a path forward.

Just changing yourself isn't enough. We cognoscente need to be educated ambassadors and speak out to raise awareness.

 

[Hillhater]

Cotter dam looks like a good candidate for pumped hydro in the ACT:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/35%C2%B026'39.1%22S+148%C2%B051'05.3%22E/@-35.4456895,148.8267384,11z/data=!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x6b17b76c44194b5f:0xc7482c48c1462c8!2sCotter+Dam,+Australian+Capital+Territory!3b1!8m2!3d-35.3202853!4d148.939818!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d-35.4441987!4d148.8514797!5m1!1e4
Zoom out to see the three reservoirs. Top one is at 1000 m, middle one at 800 m, and the main dam at 600 m.

Surely you could use the top two reservoirs for pumped hydro?

You probably could, but when you look at the capacity of the top dam (11.5 GL) you find its only good for approx 100MW for a day before its drained empty...which you wouldnt want to do, so say 12-18 hrs overnight use at 100MW.
Thats less tha 0.5% of the proposed Snowy 2 project .
but at what cost ?..several miles of tunnels/huge pipes,... pumping/generation plant,.. HV power interconnect lines to the grid,..all = a cost totally out of proportion to the capacity.
And of course there is the little matter of the Cotter being the main water supply for the ACT.....
...they may not like the idea !
Face it, Australia is not a good candidate for Hydro, or Pumped hydro storage even using sea water sources,
The geography and logistics simply make it a financial impossibility.
Just for a feel of the order of magnitude for the financials....
Each GW of PH and its associated 4+ GW of supporting solar,.. is going to cost approx Au$10bn, and we need approx 20 GW minimum to keep the lights on and factories working over night.
So that $200bn just for a bare one nights cover, and assumes full sunlight every day, so we need to increase that by a factor of 3-5 at least ($1000 bn ?) to give some cover for bad weather etc.
But , that still is not a SECURE power supply

 

[sendler2112]

There was one seawater pumped hydro plant in Okinawa but it dismantled in 2016.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okinawa_Yanbaru_Seawater_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station
.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/pump-up-that-seawater-a-remix-to-pumped-storage-hydro/
.

 

[liveforphysics]

Fantastic you're not willing to stand by. Live the change you see having a path forward.

Just changing yourself isn't enough. We cognoscente need to be educated ambassadors and speak out to raise awareness.

I disagree, as each being is singularly given control of itself, issue is only resolved by each person individually choosing to live the change they wish to see.

Nature laughs at human policy and humans pretending they have authority over anything but their own actions, and natures hand deals extinction perfectly to all non-suatainable practices with utter disregard for human titles like ambassador or environmentalist alike.

Each person not already changed to live the change they wish to see in the world only have the right to bitch to themselves about themselves.

 

[atarijedi]

Try to grasp the scale of our dilemma in trying to get solar and wind plus storage to replace this.
.
.

.
.

It's like a man drinking a bottle of poison, who says he is so thirsty, the only option is to chug poison until self-extinction.

Drinking rubbing alcohol saved that one guy in the Andromeda Strain