Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

So confident in PV. So naive. And no one will even watch 1 video. I'm very sorry.

What energy tech would you wish to be sealed into a small closed system with?

We must choose wisely from everything that works before we end up completely mired in the energy trap. Solar PV even with massive storage alone cannot do it all. It will have a big place in the near future. And maybe can do it all in a a few hundred years as the population drifts down from planned parenthood. But until then it will need to play a supporting role to something else.
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
.

 

[liveforphysics]

So confident in PV. So naive. And no one will even watch 1 video. I'm very sorry.

What energy tech would you wish to be sealed into a small closed system with?

... . But until then it will need to play a supporting role to something else.
.
.

If the "supporting role" today kills millions yearly, and if continued kills ALL, what value was this supporting role offering?

If youve jumped off a cliff and someone is trying to offer you a parachute, you are free to explain to them how currently your body is being supported by the air you're falling through fine and that's been working out great so far, it's too late to ask for the parachute after the ground becomes clearly in view.

 

[sendler2112]

If the "supporting role" today kills millions yearly, and if continued kills ALL, what value was this supporting role offering?

Exactly. That's why we need to chose something other than fossil fuel to do the heavy lifting of baseload in addition to solar PV handling the peaks.

 

[liveforphysics]

If the "supporting role" today kills millions yearly, and if continued kills ALL, what value was this supporting role offering?

Exactly. That's why we need to chose something other than fossil fuel to do the heavy lifting of baseload in addition to solar PV handling the peaks.

Respectfully sir, we are free to disagree that PV+ battery requires any other systems to function.

Already today cells exist specifically for grid storage, designed in a way that trades energy density and power density to instead have incredible calandar life, cycling, and to be as cheap as possible $/Wh (no Cobalt used).

In some cities you can still find rides on horse drawn buggies as a novelty transportation, but not so many folks today preaching the numerous and wise-to-them arguments about how the "motorcar" will never be capable of replacing the existing infrastructure backbone serving 99% of all transportation and agriculture power (horses and mules and oxen).

No doubt some folks some places will still keep some "buring things" tech (like current era dragsters or an F1 car or the last natural gas power plant) operational to demonstrate occasionally for the nostalgic.

 

[sendler2112]

 

[billvon]

Good graph. I bet no one in 1930 could have predicted that oil would become the fuel of choice in just 40 years. And renewables already provide more energy than oil did back in 1930.

 

[billvon]

So confident in PV. So naive. And no one will even watch 1 video. I'm very sorry.

Most of us get more of our information from textbooks, NREL reports, DOE reports, Nature etc than Youtube or TV. Not as much fun, but ultimately more illuminating.

 

[sendler2112]

Nate is compiling his university course into two books. I wonder what the excuse will be then.

 

[Hillhater]

Now when you look at the LCOE numbers from the OpenEL database (studies from 2010 to 2014, published 2014 to 2015, which is the latest they've got) you get:
Cheapest solar-PV: 6 cents/kwhr (which is in line with the above)
Cheapest nuclear: 9 cents/kwhr
(https://openei.org/apps/TCDB/)

These, in turn, come close to a recent study by Lazard, which used more current numbers:
Cheapest solar-PV: 4.9 cents/kwhr
Cheapest nuclear: 9.7 cents/kwhr
(https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf).

.....interesting that you selectively pick the "cheapest" figures, not the average or similar !
But again, its not "apples to apples". comparason is it ?.
You are pitching the cost of an intermittent 4-6 hr solar unpredictable supply, against a 24/7 90+% CF supply !
....but there is a figure there that helps....
Did you notice the $92/MW "diamond". Indicating the solar + 10 hr battery , costing ?
If yes, then realise even that still only covers 14-16 hrs , so effectively you have to upscale that system and costs by 70% to get continuous supply......approx $0.16/kWh...
.....and its still not reliable !!
.....and its only got a 20 yr working life expectation ! :wink:

(d) Illustrative “PV Plus Storage” unit. PV and battery system (and related mono-directional inverter, power control electronics, etc.) sized to compare with solar thermal with 10 hour storage on capacity factor basis (52%). Assumes storage nameplate “usable energy” capacity of ~400 MWhdc, storage power rating of 110 MWac and ~200 MWac PV system. Implied output degradation of ~0.40%/year (assumes PV degradation of 0.5%/year and battery energy degradation of 1.5%/year, which includes calendar and cycling degradation). Battery round trip DC efficiency of 90% (including auxiliary losses). Storage opex of ~$10/kWh-year and PV O&M expense of ~$9.2/kW DC-year, with 20% discount applied to total opex as a result of synergies (e.g., fewer truck rolls, single team, etc.). Total capital costs of ~$3,900/kW include PV plus battery energy storage system and selected other development costs. Assumes 20 year useful life, although in practice the unit may perform longer. Illustrative system located in U.S. Southwest.

 

[Hillhater]

Good graph. I bet no one in 1930 could have predicted that oil would become the fuel of choice in just 40 years. And renewables already provide more energy than oil did back in 1930.

Not quite the same senario.
Oil filled a new role, transport, and was superior in many ways in other existing markets such as heating. It was market driven, filling a ever increasing demand.
Solar/Wind etc are trying to replace an existing comodity that is established, currently cheaper and proven. It is having to find ways of justifying itself,..emmissions, subsidies, etc...the demand is not there and is having to be created artificially.

 

[sendler2112]

Most of us get more of our information from textbooks, NREL reports, DOE reports, Nature etc than Youtube or TV. Not as much fun, but ultimately more illuminating.

Tom Murphy's information is essential also and is archived online for those that have trouble following a lecture format and prefer print.
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.

 

[billvon]

Oil filled a new role, transport, and was superior in many ways in other existing markets such as heating.

Exactly. And solar/storage is superior in many ways as well. You can generate it yourself, easily. It can provide commercial power, residential power and transportation power. It does not generate NOx, CO, CO2 or HC pollution. It can be supplemented from existing generation.

It was market driven, filling a ever increasing demand.

Again, sounds familar.

Solar/Wind etc are trying to replace an existing comodity that is established, currently cheaper and proven.

And coal was far cheaper than refined fuels when people started using it for transportation. It remained more expensive until modern economies of scale kicked in, and people started using the entire barrel of oil for uses from asphalt to jet fuel to gasoline to naptha.

It is having to find ways of justifying itself,..emmissions, subsidies, etc...the demand is not there and is having to be created artificially.

And yet even in countries with no subsidies, solar is growing at record rates.

Solar is never going to entirely replace oil, just as oil never entirely replaced coal. But it (along with other renewables) will play a significant, and rapidly increasing, role in overall energy mix.

 

[liveforphysics]

Discussing the "cost" of whatever it takes to implement sustainable energy is discussing the cost of just letting the air rushing passed you slow your fall vs the expense of buying and inconvenience of wearing and using a parachute.

Either way your all non-sustainable practices conclude soon enough.

 

[Punx0r]

Solar is never going to entirely replace oil, just as oil never entirely replaced coal. But it (along with other renewables) will play a significant, and rapidly increasing, role in overall energy mix.

Well put. The "well solar won't ever work for everything or be cheaper so we might as well forget about it and carry on burning coal" approach is only guaranteed to lock society into a technological dead end. I applaud the efforts of those building prototype PV, solar thermal, wind, hydrothermal, hydro (even they were new once!), clean nuclear plants. They are pushing the boundaries of technology and at least some of them are likely to pay off significantly in the future.

 

[Hillhater]

Contrary to what you may believe i think, i am fully infavor of renewables, and more than a little irritated that my own property does not lend itself to a solar install.
However , there are those in government in Australia who are openly forcing a 100% renewable policy, to the extent of prematurely shutting down fossil fueled generators , and heavily subsidising renewable projects ( Teslas BFB, Thermal Solar project etc,).
This is all funded by our "RET" ( renewable energy target) system, which basicly just adds the costs directly back onto the consumers...all consumers.
This has resulted in some of the highest power prices in the world, with record levels of disconnections due to failure to pay. And a highly unstable grid due to the high % of renewables (mostly solar) and insufficient base load generation.
A consequence of this is huge spikes in peak demand that is being exploited by the generator companies to cream massive profits from consumers
So, my issue is, we have no sensible balance , only a blind ambition by some authorities to be a leader in renewables with a belief that thermal solar and big batteries will save the day. I am trying to explain to anyone who will care, that 100% renewable is not a good objective for many reasons, dispite its advantages.

 

[TheBeastie]

Discussing the "cost" of whatever it takes to implement sustainable energy is discussing the cost of just letting the air rushing passed you slow your fall vs the expense of buying and inconvenience of wearing and using a parachute.

Either way your all non-sustainable practices conclude soon enough.

Every time I see/think about those huge solar farms I think about all the ultra-toxic metals in them that will eventually have to be disposed of, and this will take a lot of energy to do and a false non-sustainable source of energy to process toxic solar panels is to try and use more toxic solar panels which is what you claim is ideal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride_photovoltaics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_poisoning

Even the USA solar farms that were meant to be idle examples of how great renewable technology is have killed masses of rare wildlife like desert tortoise
https://youtu.be/A--1eRAcQd0?t=3m37s
Only to provide a tiny fraction of the power of conventional sources but by taking up huge amounts of land wiping out the nature parks we have left.
Or all the birds that windfarms kill every minute of the day https://youtu.be/8NAAzBArYdw?t=10s or solar vapourization of birds. https://youtu.be/ICLXQN_lURk
The reason why you can't find youtube videos of piles of dead birds/wildlife around coal/nuclear plants is because it doesn't exist but I can't help but see renewable energy mass killing in youtubes "next video" and I am not even looking for it.
In your ideal view of solar it will have to take 1000s of times more land loaded with toxic heavy metal panels that will eventually leak and need to be properly processed.
Not to mention all the African children required to dig up the crucial lithium battery storage ingredients like cobalt to make it all "sustainable" https://youtu.be/7x4ASxHIrEA the bias that sits in the pro lithium battery storage camp is as lost as antifa bashing people who dont share the same view.
And sure I understand why such videos have a tiny about of hits/views, because people don't care to even take a 2second peak to register a "view" as there is no money to be made by looking at this kind of reality.

Whether its a coal power-station thats co2 will just cause plants to grow https://youtu.be/1T4WKtVgnI8 or a Bill Gates nuclear reactor that uses nuclear waste as its fuel, some form of real energy will be needed to clean the up the toxic disasters of Solar and Wind farms.
I think it will probably come from the Tokamaks in 10 years time http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a27961/mit-nuclear-fusion-experiment-increases-efficiency/

The amazing thing is when you look solar and wind "renewable energy" long enough you realize its the most unsustainable form of energy out there and its only going to be a short amount of time that conventional energy just gets even cleaner and even more sustainable and used to clean up the mess of solar and wind energy sources. The only people who don't see this are the ones who have money invested interests and are hopelessly bias or those who just haven't looked at the math etc https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c?t=3m19s
Or have a tribalistic connection to a political party/point of view etc.

As with solar its the same with the unsustainable windfarms all the windturbines that are half decent performance and reliability use huge amounts of neodymium magnets and the amount of radioactive waste created for these windturbines by far exceeds the radioactive waste of even old-school nuclear power-plants. As discussed by this BBC article where they visited a 10km2 radioactive lake dedicated to magnet production for windturbines.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_9Q_6fuGNI
[youtube]S_9Q_6fuGNI[/youtube]
This is the BBC provided googlemaps URL where you can use the googlemaps distance measure tool and see this radioactive tailings sludge lake is 10km2, but this is one sludge hole of many for "clean energy" but the ironic thing is you can see it from space.
https://goo.gl/maps/M4XT8

A follow-up article on the BBC article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

And its easy to do the math to see wind farms create far more radioactive waste than they give back compared to conventional nuclear energy http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/big-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals/

The result of relying on solar and wind as your core energy means there's never enough energy to actually be clean. There are a lot of stories like this in Australia now where all the glass people place in their recycling bins every week just get picked up and dumped as trash because the scarcity of energy has made it to expensive to process the waste anymore which is caused by renewable energy, the whole thing is a false economy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/recycling-companies-forced-to-stockpile-glass-industry-crisis/8778088
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/australias-organised-waste-trade-queensland-premier/8783820
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/dirty-tricks-lifting-lid-on-glass-recyclings-dirty-secret/news-story/d3e41082b245521a10dc4add6934f635

The whole thing about solar and wind being the solution is just a giant Chewbacca defence routine, and sure those who haven't to experience it have no clue but those of us who have started to see it for what it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE
https://endless-sphere.com/forums/download/file.php?id=219935&mode=view

There are just tons of stories of any kind of recycling or clean solution failing and either its just left to poison the world or the government has been forced to step in at extreme unsustainable costs to clean up recycle plant sites because they were supposedly supposed to rely on renewable energy as the solution http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/town-of-numurkah-tires-of-decadeold-tyre-dump-20170826-gy4rnq.html
http://www.energyresourceinformationcentre.org.au/conversation/recycling-plant-closes-south-australias-power-prices-top-world/

Recycling firm to shut, as SA government ignores plea for help over soaring renewable energy power bills
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/jobs/recycling-firm-to-shut-35-jobs-lost-as-sa-government-ignores-plea-for-help-over-soaring-power-bills/news-story/d24d29ce9ba072d5adbc4d47ab06f4b9
Stephen Scherer is to close his business, PGS Recycling due to the raising price of electricity.

 

[billvon]

Every time I see/think about those huge solar farms I think about all the ultra-toxic metals in them that will eventually have to be disposed of, and this will take a lot of energy to do and a false non-sustainable source of energy to process toxic solar panels is to try and use more toxic solar panels which is what you claim is ideal.

When the alternative is to burn coal and release tons of ultra-toxic metals into the air every DAY, instead of tons every twenty years - sounds like an excellent tradeoff.

 

[sendler2112]

Tesla's Kauai solar plus storage farm is online. Too bad we can't find out what it really cost. The only number that is really stated is the $0.139/kWh contracted selling price of the electricity and the 30% Federal refund and an assumption of 6.5% profit margin for Tesla. A couple interesting numbers are the estimated 77MWh ac/day average based on 21% capacity factor which was further derated to 50MWh/ day yearly average to include bad weather.There is a stated loss of 10% in the inverters. So it is really a 2.1 MW ac facility. Not 17MW. 12.4% of nameplate. I wonder what NY, USA would produce with all of our sub 0C and snow? The annual operating and maintenance cost are 10-$25/kWh.
.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1112800_teslas-solar-and-battery-project-in-hawaii-we-do-the-math
.

 

[billvon]

I wonder what NY, USA would produce with all of our sub 0C and snow?

Low temperatures improve solar performance, as does snow (provided it doesn't cover the panels.) Tracking panels generally prevent the problems with snow, and 1-axis trackers are common in large installations.

NREL shows 4 equivalent sun-hours per day for most of New York, so you'd have 1000 watts/sq m for 1/6 of the day. The lower temperatures and snow will improve that number.

 

[Hillhater]

You dont get snow without cloud. :wink:
And in winter NY has cloud cover 48% of the time ..with a very low Sun altitude angle.!
http://www.new-york.climatemps.com/sunlight.php

 

[Ianhill]

One things for sure as we debate the pros and cons of each system the earth's total energy consumption is rising at an ever increasing rate so the answer ultimately lies with many clean systems running with a redundancy overlap to allow for fairly still cloudy days without having all the radioactive 2aste to bury or the environmentally hazardous bi products through the machines production and use.
This is clearly many years away and solar could never really achieve ultimate clean status as it contains rare elements so this ultimately clean none earth changing energy is near imposible to achieve because even a fusion reactor would have a small amount of hazardous waste with a much small life that fission and the reactors contain rare earth metals that can not be 100% recycled.
We have to face it we are going to leave an impact on earth no matter what we do so all I think we can do for the future is to box clever and minamize the impact rather than pressing the throttle on a bfg rocket towards it.
I see many a project that is wasting money down the drain when what we need is to advance material science and get closer to a cleaner earth before worrying about Mars, the production of all this cap is going to rape this rock dry by the end of the century it's going to be a lot differing if money keeps getting it's way no one can calculate what the next 39 years really hold I believe technology itself will be our next step of evolution we develop to slow to keep up as son as it's aware of itself it will go through many evolutions at the same rate humans have generation's so it's clear that we seeded a technology virus of microscopic ai that will infect the universe in time and maybe even beyond into the multiverse.
That will be our legacy i believe we will leave a little easter egg of our dna locked in code hidden away in some OS.

 

[liveforphysics]

For grid it's not using rare elements, just vehicles pushing for energy density, but every new generation cathode is using less and less cobalt (up to no cobalt in grid specific cells).

It's also possible to recover and reuse all the metas in the cathode and anode with high reclaim efficiency today. In 25-35years when it's recycled, I bet it's >99.9% useful element reclaimation requiring nothing more than solar power to input. At some point the entire battery matters could be common beach sand, and atmospheric CO2 and seawater and plenty of solar input current.

 

[sendler2112]

I see many a project that is wasting money down the drain when what we need is to advance material science and get closer to a cleaner earth before worrying about Mars.

Agree. Unfortunately one of our most visionary contemporary's started his ascension 20 years ago with the goal of inhabiting Mars. It is a complete waste of energy to focus on this. But as Musk says "I can't just solve problems all of the time." Humans need some fun and fulfillment to keep them going. His hedonic ratchet has gone quite high in this desire. Which has bred wasteful competition from others.
.
If we really had that much surplus to play around with, which we don't, I would prefer an effort at the South Pole of the Moon. There is a mountain top that is always in the Sun, and a crater right next to it that has never seen Sun. If the Moon has primordial water ice in the crater there, Mars doesn't have that much more going for it than the Moon and it is too far away.

 

[Hillhater]

Musk may not realise how "dangerous" some of his ideas are.
..Not physically neccessarily, but he has huge influence, so when he says something people respond and some blindly follow.
..such as the Solar+Storage battery total solution to utility power !
The whole Mars thing seems like a folly, or ego trip of little value, but thousands of people are now involved.
However, there may be some usful "spin offs" , such as the intercontinental transport via low orbit, and cheap satelite launchs.

 

[sendler2112]

there may be some usful "spin offs" , such as the intercontinental transport via low orbit

Just another Jevon's Paradox high tech solution that causes more energy consumption. Not less.