Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Punx0r]

European coal plants to lose over 6 billion euros in 2019 as they are undercut by cheaper gas and renewables:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-23/coal-power-plants-face-7-3-billion-losses-in-europe-this-year

Note the comment about Poland being an exception due to generous government subsidies.

 

[Hillhater]

Not really due to the actual cost of generating power..
.. more political manipulation of the market.
....and certainly not a major boost for renewables,. Mostly a benefit to Gas generators !
And i bet it does nothing to reduce the cost of electricity.

.....EU carbon permits have surged fivefold since 2017. That has driven up the cost of burning coal. At the same time, benchmark gas contracts in the Netherlands are trading 27% below their 10-year seasonal average, encouraging utilities to use that fuel instead......

 

[jonescg]

https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-main-grid-reaches-50-per-cent-renewables-for-first-time-17935/

And the roasts still roasted, the sky did not fall in, and Whyalla is still on the map.

Great to see that Wivenhoe power station is finally being used for what it was made for, after 40 odd years. Pumping water 78 m uphill when solar is abundant and turning the taps on in the evening.

 

[Hillhater]

Ahh ! they are a inventive bunch over on RE...

Australia’s main grid reaches 50 per cent renewables for first time

......Tell ‘em they’r dreamin’
Unfortunately, the 24% of ROOF TOP Solar isnt part of grid supply... actually its not even 24 % come to that !
No body has actual data for RT Solar,..its all “estimated” based on panel sales and several adjustment factors.
With no allowance for disused, damaged, underperforming, installations.
( a complex , but highly inaccurate method) so their 24% is a “maximum Estimate”
And of course the vast majority of RT Solar is self consumed with minor quantities getting back to the supply line. ..i am reliably informed that none gets beyond the local Sub stn to enter the actual “grid”
So, in reality, its unlikely the wind/solar contribution to the grid exceeded 30% at any point
Actual grid demand (@11:50)..18.5 MW
Fossil sources.... 12.1 MW
RE Utilities.... 6.4 MW
RT Solar ........ 5.7 MW (estimated)

Just to add a little reality to their deamfest..
.. it is only a week or so since S Australia ( RE’s “chosen one/Golden balls” state for renewables ), had to turn on their banks (9) of diesel powered utility generators to prevent shortages when wind generatoin dropped to nothing after sunset, and their gas burners were already maxed out together with maximum imports from joining states !
.. yep, that almost stopped the roast !
Reliable stuff this RE power...cant wait to see how this pans out as less and less coal generation is available .

 

[Cephalotus]

Cost-efficient and Climate-friendly Transformation Strategies for the German Energy System up to 2050

"...According to the calculations by the Jülich scientists, the additional costs of transforming the energy system for the 80 % target in 2050 will be around 1.1 % of the expected GDP. For the ambitious target of a 95 % reduction, the share of the costs is 2.8 %. The additional annual costs are approximately equal to the current expenditure on energy imports, which was around 1.9 % of GDP in 2018. “The transformation of the German energy sector brings with it considerable investment costs. However, the cost of this transformation can be planned and managed, while the cost of adapting to climate change after the fact is uncertain and could be many times higher,” comments Robinius..."

https://www.fz-juelich.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/UK/EN/2019/2019-10-31-energy-study.html

Study (in German):
https://www.fz-juelich.de/iek/iek-3/EN/Aktuelles/TransformationStrategies2050/_node.html

 

[sendler2112]

Very interesting. Let us know if an English version of the full report becomes available.

 

[sendler2112]

China is building. They were dismayed to find that there economy was only growing at a 6% annual rate which was well short of the last few years. Only 6%/ year. That is a doubling of the economy every 12 years! Which is generally a doubling of material throughput every 12 years. And generally a doubling of energy consumption every 12 years.
.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-chinas-co2-emissions-grew-4-during-first-half-of-2019
.
Embodied energy in new construction.
.
"Power-sector emissions, which had driven the rebound in overall emissions since 2017, flattened off. However, there was a surge in real estate and infrastructure construction that saw emissions from steel and cement expand rapidly."
.
There are limits to growth on a finite planet.
.

 

[sendler2112]

"How do we keep the lights on, avoid revolution and turmoil, keep children in school and people in work, yet still manage to fundamentally transform the human presence on planet Earth before ‘business as usual’ leads to run-away climate change, a drastically impoverished biosphere, and the early demise of our species?
Metaphorically speaking we are challenged to redesign the plane we are on in mid-flight. How do we keep the basic needs met while we are preparing and experimenting with the kind of transformational change that will make ‘business as usual’ obsolete and offer a qualitatively different alternative?"
.
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/why-choose-transformative-over-sustaining-innovation-b59a2dc5bac1
.

 

[billvon]

Metaphorically speaking we are challenged to redesign the plane we are on in mid-flight.

Agreed that that's a hard problem - but also keep in mind that we've been doing that since industrialization began 150 years ago.

I mean, change from horses to trains? Think of all the stablehands, tack manufacturers, farmers, breeders, sanitation workers, farriers, blacksmiths, grooms, trainers and veterinarians who would be put out of work! It would be a catastrophe. (And it WAS a catastrophe for some people.) But we managed.

Likewise, the transition from trains to cars and trucks. And the transition from ships to airplanes. And from pony express to telegraph to telephone to internet. None of them were easy, and the transition to low-carbon energy will be even harder. But the _process_ of disruptive change is something we've been engaged in for the past 150 years.

 

[sendler2112]

We are rapidly approaching not only energy constraints due to the saturation of available sinks for the waste. But also physical resource supply constraints of all types. Which will very shortly begin to place hard limits on growth. Which will prevent even just the interest on the massive world debt from being repaid. Which will start cascading defaults (already happening. Greece, Spain, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia, most of Africa). We will need a whole new way when this high flying plane starts to come back down. And be proactive now to try to create a softer landing.
.
The action needed goes well beyond the New Deal/ WWII build up/ Marshal plan scale of commitment and has been likened to the paradigm shift of social norms that was required to abolish slavery.

 

[billvon]

The action needed goes well beyond the New Deal/ WWII build up/ Marshal plan scale of commitment and has been likened to the paradigm shift of social norms that was required to abolish slavery.

Good example. Yes, the change in social norms will have to be of that level. (And of course the change of an entire economy.) But again - we've done that before.

 

[Cephalotus]

Very interesting. Let us know if an English version of the full report becomes available.

spring 2020

 

[jimw1960]

Metaphorically speaking we are challenged to redesign the plane we are on in mid-flight.

It's worse than that even. It's like needing to redesign the plane in mid-flight while the pilot has the door to the cockpit locked, 40% of the passengers on the plane are hell bent on letting it crash just so they won't be inconvenienced, and another 40% of the passengers just want to be left to sleep. So the 20% who know what needs to be done and how to do it have to fight against all that obstruction and ambivalence before they can even get started.

 

[Hillhater]

.....o the 20% who know what needs to be done and how to do it......

.....you mean by shutting off the fuel supply and hoping to glide home on fake science and a prayer ?
Im pretty sure there are more brains locked inside that cockpit than the 20% of cult fanatics trying to bring everything crashing down hard !
..and that is not saying much about the flight crew !
Ironic !.. you think you know how to redesign and re-engineer the entire aircraft...but you Find a simple cabin door lock to be a problem.

 

[billvon]

.....you mean by shutting off the fuel supply and hoping to glide home on fake science and a prayer ?

Nope. By making the plane more efficient, switching fuel sources and taking advantage of the jet stream. Even if you deny the jet stream exists.

Im pretty sure there are more brains locked inside that cockpit than the 20% of cult fanatics trying to bring everything crashing down hard !

Certainly way more brains than your typical climate change denier.

 

[Ianhill]

What goes up must come down, controlled or uncontrolled infinite flight is impossible.

 

[billvon]

What goes up must come down, controlled or uncontrolled infinite flight is impossible.

With fossil fuels it's impossible.

=====================
Solar-power plane could fly forever

THE TIMES
1:00AM APRIL 24, 2019

Scientists have developed a solar-powered aircraft that uses an innovative propulsion system to stay in the skies indefinitely.

The pilotless Phoenix aircraft stays aloft using helium and pumps compressed air out of a rear-facing vent to generate thrust. A prototype completed test flights in Portsmouth, southern England, and could be commercially viable within years.

The aircraft is designed to eventually fly at 70,000ft and could be used to release micro-satellites or take part in surveillance. Its backers said it would be far cheaper to build and operate than conventional drones.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/solarpower-plane-could-fly-forever/news-story/248b4c009324274324da79afba60d13e
===================
Ordnance survey's DRONE mapping project: Pilotless planes that fly at 67,000 feet, run on solar power and stay aloft for months at a time will observe anywhere in the world in a single flight

By JOE PINKSTONE FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 07:26 EST, 12 February 2019 | UPDATED: 12:54 EST, 12 February 2019

Ordnance survey has unveiled a solar-powered drone that is capable of flying for 90 days in one stretch and will take higher quality images of Earth.

It will circle at approximately 67,000 ft (20,400m) above the ground and snap images to sell to organisations and businesses.

First tests of the Astigan unmanned aerial vehicle are scheduled to take place before the end of 2019.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6695051/Ordnance-Survey-launch-solar-powered-drone-fly-90-days-time.html
=====================

 

[Hillhater]

What goes up must come down, controlled or uncontrolled infinite flight is impossible.

Err ?.. Voyager 1 and 2 are proving otherwise !

Scientists have developed a solar-powered aircraft that uses an innovative propulsion system to stay in the skies indefinitely.

The pilotless Phoenix aircraft stays aloft using helium and pumps compressed air out of a rear-facing vent to generate thrust,..

. i think that means a “BALOON”..or derrigable as the “scientists” like to call them.,..probably with a low powered ducted fan to push it along ?
So a couple of questions..
Speed ?
Load capacity ?

 

[sendler2112]

What goes up must come down, controlled or uncontrolled infinite flight is impossible.

With fossil fuels it's impossible.

Some people are starting (1972 Meadows et al, Georgescu-Roegen) to realize that our challenges are not just fossil carbon and energy. Infinite Growth economies also require infinite materials resources.
.
And the burst financial bubble from 2008 was re-inflated World wide to an even larger level with massive long term debt. Still increasing at 3 times GDP. We have robbed the children of their future so that a few already billionaires who refuse to share can add a few more zeros to the end of their digital accounts.

 

[Cephalotus]

Tesla plans to build gigafactory 4 in Brandenburg / Germany.
Minister says that an elecricity mix with a significant amount of electricity from wind and solar might have been one factor for this decission.

CATL who plans to build an up to 100GWh battery factory in Thüringen / Germany said something similar, that it was one reason to chose Germany vs. Eastern neighbour countries.

Volkswagen plans to build a 16GWh battery factory in Salzgitter together with Swedish Nortvolt and they also calim that they will buy 100% electricity from RE.

Nobody wants to build batteries for electric cars with electricity from coal power plants.

 

[sendler2112]

I also read that Tesla has signed on with CATL for China. And that German plant?

 

[billvon]

Some people are starting (1972 Meadows et al, Georgescu-Roegen) to realize that our challenges are not just fossil carbon and energy. Infinite Growth economies also require infinite materials resources.

And the way things are going right now - infinite debt.

And the burst financial bubble from 2008 was re-inflated World wide to an even larger level with massive long term debt. Still increasing at 3 times GDP. We have robbed the children of their future so that a few already billionaires who refuse to share can add a few more zeros to the end of their digital accounts.

Interesting study from Bruce Boghosian, a mathematician from Tufts. He did a thought experiment - let's say that a person in a casino starts with $100 and can make bets on a perfectly random flip of a coin. If he wins he gets 20% ($20 initially) - but if he loses he loses 17% ($17 initially.) Should he gamble?

Easy answer is yes, because his winnings from each round is (.5*$20)-(.5*$17) = 10-8.5 = $1.50 expected winnings per round. A more nuanced approach says "what if I win 5 and lose 5 in 10 rounds?" Do the math there, and you are actually down money at the end. Non-intuitive (but valid) result.

Now he applied that to a simple economic model. He assumed that everyone bought and sold X (gold, pet rocks, doesn't matter) and started with the same wealth. In a perfectly fair economy no wealth changes hands; you exchange a $10 pet rock for a $10 bill and your wealth stays the same. But in a real economy, people get "deals" and sometimes they lose money. He further assumed that people would be willing to lose a portion of each transaction proportional to their total wealth. (i.e. a person might spend 20% of their total wealth on a purchase they thought was a REALLY good deal, but not 100%.) He then applied the same criteria as above - people had an even chance of gaining 20% or losing 17% per transaction.

In this case since it's a closed population, and everyone starts with the same money, and the odds are exactly 50%, you'd expect personal wealth to wander around a bit but stay close to the starting value for each person. But after running such simulations long enough, you end up with a strange result - one person ends up with all the wealth and everyone else ends up with almost none. Which is exactly opposite what you'd expect. It also points out that market economies have a tendency to concentrate wealth and, over time, increase wealth inequality.

Here in the US that is getting worse very rapidly, both because of inherent forces (the example above) and because billionaires are using their financial power to work the system to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. This "trickle-up" trend is accelerating with the recent tax cuts for the wealthy, and the increased burdens on the poor from the trade wars. There are two simple ways it can end - with a permanent two-class society, with an impenetrable barrier between the two enforced by law, or by revolution. I'd like to think there is a third option, but right now all the solutions to that (increased income taxes on the wealthy, a wealth tax) are political suicide.

 

[Ianhill]

What goes up must come down, controlled or uncontrolled infinite flight is impossible.

Err ?.. Voyager 1 and 2 are proving otherwise !

Scientists have developed a solar-powered aircraft that uses an innovative propulsion system to stay in the skies indefinitely.

The pilotless Phoenix aircraft stays aloft using helium and pumps compressed air out of a rear-facing vent to generate thrust,..

. i think that means a “BALOON”..or derrigable as the “scientists” like to call them.,..probably with a low powered ducted fan to push it along ?
So a couple of questions..
Speed ?
Load capacity ?

Oi moron, voyager 1 and 2 will find an orbit and crash land eventually just not from the same point they launched, what goes up really must come down.

 

[sendler2112]

In this case since it's a closed population, and everyone starts with the same money, and the odds are exactly 50%, you'd expect personal wealth to wander around a bit but stay close to the starting value for each person. But after running such simulations long enough, you end up with a strange result - one person ends up with all the wealth and everyone else ends up with almost none. Which is exactly opposite what you'd expect. It also points out that market economies have a tendency to concentrate wealth and, over time, increase wealth inequality.

Here in the US that is getting worse very rapidly, both because of inherent forces (the example above) and because billionaires are using their financial power to work the system to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. This "trickle-up" trend is accelerating with the recent tax cuts for the wealthy, and the increased burdens on the poor from the trade wars. There are two simple ways it can end - with a permanent two-class society, with an impenetrable barrier between the two enforced by law, or by revolution. I'd like to think there is a third option, but right now all the solutions to that (increased income taxes on the wealthy, a wealth tax) are political suicide.

Very interesting. A purely statistical explanation for the concentration of wealth. There is also a more basic characteristic of the free market that is causing it. Which is the over supply of Labor which now cannot demand a higher wage due to over population, globalization, and automation. The owners of production have all the leverage to keep a higher percentage of the profits. Walled countries, and then walled cities of privilege, with starving peasants fighting from the outside to get in will be an endless civil war which eventually ends in Bastille Day. An active pro-social democracy can reduce this while maintaining a market system via progressive taxation enforced minimum and maximum household incomes. A 100:1 ratio should maintain incentive to work hard and be smart and creative. We also need a wealth tax for a while to fix the previous mistakes in economic management that have proliferated over the last 40 years of failed supply side tax breaks and trickle down economics.

 

[Hillhater]

Oi moron, voyager 1 and 2 will find an orbit and crash land eventually ......

Ooowwh !.. Touchy are we ?
..but you are speculating,.. Wake me up when you can confirm that has happened !
And 50 years of continuous flight is not bad for 1970s technology.....
.... think what could be (is?) possible with todays tech, AI, etc !