Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

How about the New York Times?
.
A close look at Bolivian election data suggests an initial analysis by the O.A.S. that raised questions of vote-rigging — and helped force out a president — was flawed.
.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/world/americas/bolivia-election-evo-morales.html#click=https://t.co/HGrEx2Yd1h
.
 
How about The Intercept?
.
"IT IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE to overstate the importance of the OAS accusations in driving Morales from his own country and, with no democratic mandate, shifting power in lithium-rich Bolivia to the white, Christian, U.S.-subservient right. While critics had also accused Morales of improperly seeking a fourth term despite constitutional term limits, Bolivia’s duly constituted court had invalidated those term limits (much the way that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg induced the City Council to overturn a term limit referendum so he could seek a third term), leaving anti-Morales outside agitators, such as the OAS and U.S. officials, to rely instead on claims of election fraud."
.
https://theintercept.com/2020/06/08/the-nyt-admits-key-falsehoods-that-drove-last-years-coup-in-bolivia-falsehoods-peddled-by-the-u-s-its-media-and-the-nyt/
 
Hillhater said:
... and how you deal with daily peaks when the weather is not co operating for renewables ?
..OR,.. you could just learn from current experience’s in Ca , Germany, S Australia etc .. :bigthumb:
Click to expand...

In my Opinion reducing CO2 in the energy sector with RE while phasing out nuclear works quite well in Germany so far...

ghg-emissions-sector-1990-2019-budgets2020-2030.png


This chart//link is showing percent of monthly electrity production during the last 10 years:

https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy/chart.htm?l=de&c=DE&source=all&stacking=stacked_percent&sum=0&partsum=0&interval=month&year=-1

RE is growing quickly, in 2020 overall RE share in electricity production has reached 53%.


Main problem so far is the transport sector. People buy more and more heavy cars.

But in 2020 electric vehicles sales finaly start to increase:

german-car-graph.jpg


With the CO2 price in the buildings and vehicle sector (BEHG) starting in 2021 we will see much quicker electrification of the vehicle and building sector.

Girlfried and myself bought a car just recently. We do not drive much by car (we both now communte by bike year around and sometimes we use the train for longer trips), so it's only around 8,000km a year, but most of it long distance.
So we passed on the electric cars but bought a used car that runs on compressed natural gas. (Skoda Octavia G-Tec)

2017-09-19-cng-ojete-vozy.jpg


In our town there is a natural gas filling station that delivers 100% biogas. This biogas is produced from straw and stillage.
It costs a bit over 1€ per kg, that's around 320 per year on fuel costs. That's peanuts.

Maybe the next one will be an used elctric car.
 
share of renewable gas in the European transport sector:

ngva-owpfc8fduwer2sbcpb1y.jpg


https://vision-mobility.de/libraries/juicebox/full.html
 
sendler2112 said:
Can you explain this chart? This shows values of "renewable gas" share of "transportation" as high as 94% for Sweden for example. How can this be?
Click to expand...

It's the amount of biogas vs. natural gas in the transports ector.

The share of natural gas is low in most countries.

In Germany there are more electric cars than cars that run on natural gas.

We have many people hyping hydrogen cars.

In Germany (and in most countries) almost all hydrogen has been made from natural gas.

The efficiency making hydrogen from natural gas is around 70%. You also loose 10-30% during transport and for compression/liquidification, so for 1kWh hydrogen you need something around 1,6kWh methane.

1kg hydrogen costs 9,50€ (the price is fixed and they make a loss at that price) and a car like the Toyota Mirai needs 1kg/100km which is 33kWh/100km or something around 50-55kWh/100km of methane.

The Scoda octavia needs 4kg of methane, some are able to drive it at 3kg/100km. At4kg/100km you need around 52kWh/100km methane.

The cost is around 4€/100km.

A 50l gasoline tank is included in our car, so the range with methane is something around 350-400km and after that there is another 800-900km runnng on gasoline, if you are not able or willing to find a CNG gas station.

50% of methane on gas stations in Germany is green methane and the rate is grwoing quickly.

I don't know the amount oof green hydrogen in Geramnys few hydrogen stations, but I gues it is below 1%.

For us it was the best option available. If you have a matching driving profile and ideally a plug to charge your vehicle at home I will agree that a BEV is the best choice, bt if a BEV is not an option or if you do not drive so much (as we do), methane is a very good alternative at the moment.

Hydrogen isn't. (And I very much dount it will ever be in our price class)
 
Cephalotus said:
It's the amount of biogas vs. natural gas in the transports ector.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The chart on it's own without explanation is very misleading, suggesting that of all transportation energy sources, the highest percentage is biogas.
 
For some reason, the transport ( car) industry seems to have turned its back on CNG as well as LPG as a main stream fuel for domestic vehicles.
LPG was a preferred fuel for Taxis here for many years ..recently displaced by toyota hybrids based on fuel cost.
CNG never made it beyond some public transport buses and limited industrial use (fork trucks) , and infact it is now a prohibited fuel source for domestic vehicles in Oz ???
This seems crazy as both LPG and CNG are much “cleaner” than petrol or Diesel ..(a popular domestic choice)..and are easy/cheap proven conversions for conventional ICE engines, and already have established production, distribution, and storage infrastructure in developed countries.
CNG also has the option of home based refueling using gas at domestic prices
These fuels could have made huge impacts on emissions for those countries that a committed to that objective
But the world leaders make some strange decisions at times, such as ignoring the GHG emissions from Biomass power generation which would in any scientific consideration be recognised as a significant GHG contributor, as well as a very poor environmental option.
It may/may not be “renewable”, but unlikely to be “sustainable”, and certainly not environmentally beneficial.
 
Pretty sure they produce more carbon monoxide than petrol or diesel cars, so I would say the cities will be better with electrified vehicles over LPG.

Main reason they fell out of favour with cabbies was cost - gas isn't cheap any more. Ever since Australia started exporting so much gas and the likes of Chevron and Woodside were getting paid handsomely for it, the cost of domestic gas went up to match the export prices.

Mind you, the cracks in the Chevron liquefication plant might yet bring it to a halt - they have already said they want out of the NW Shelf.
 
jonescg said:
Pretty sure they produce more carbon monoxide than petrol or diesel cars, so I would say the cities will be better with electrified vehicles over LPG.
Main reason they fell out of favour with cabbies was cost - gas isn't cheap any more.
Click to expand...
Obviously full electric for cabs and busses etc would be the ultimate for cities..
But full BEV for cabs will be slow take up until fast recharge is widely available.
..So as with power generation , Gas (LPG/LNG/CNG ) could be a “transition” fuel to take down emissions quickly at lower costs , while allowing existing ICE technology infrastructure to remain and support a mass conversion.
It works well for Au as a “dual Fuel” option for the longer trips also.
Modern LPG systems are very efficient (80+% mileage of gas ?), and much cleaner than Petrol (or diesel),..
By comparing emissions in the exhaust gasses of the same engine powered by LPG and petrol, pollutants in LPG mode are reduced for:
 CO by 30% in urban cycle and by 10% in extra urban cycle,
 HC by 30% in urban cycle and by 51% in extra urban cycle,
 NOx by 41% in urban cycle and by 77% in extra urban cycle and
 CO2 by 10% in urban cycle and by 11% in extra urban cycle.
Click to expand...
https://www.glpautogas.info/documentos/11GASOLINE%20AND%20LPG%20comparison.pdf

Cost wise Autogas LPG is steady at 70-80C/ltr compared to petrol at 110-160C/ltr and unpredictable
So the savings are still there.
I wonder if the cab companies realise they can have a “Tri Fuel” hybrid these days ?
fNedsW.jpg

?? Obviously only a comparison , since i know of several current cars that will equal those $6-7/100km costs , just running on straight petrol or Diesel.

EDIT... PS Jonescj , i suspect you were thinking of the Hydrogen fuel ICE issue with its high NOX ??
 
Before I bought my first Volt in 2016 I did my damnest to buy a Honda powered from NG that I could refill at home. Even though I live in a tree hugging part of CA I couldn't find a dealer within 100 miles that would sell one to me.

Maybe it's for the best as the Volts have been outstanding so far.
 
Hillhater said:
For some reason, the transport ( car) industry seems to have turned its back on CNG as well as LPG as a main stream fuel for domestic vehicles.
LPG was a preferred fuel for Taxis here for many years ..recently displaced by toyota hybrids based on fuel cost.
CNG never made it beyond some public transport buses and limited industrial use (fork trucks) , and infact it is now a prohibited fuel source for domestic vehicles in Oz ???
Click to expand...

LPG is just "another form" of gasoline. Buthane and propane burns cleaner than gasoline, but currently there is no sustainable path for it.
Methane is already made from biomass and mostly "wasted" for electricity generation. There is also some amount that can made from waste materials and in thery you can make it from hydrogen and CO2 via Sabatier. Biogas is around 60% methane and 40% ("green") CO2, so using Sabatier process on the CO2 content you can (in theory) increase methane production by factor 1,6.

The cars are avilable here, cheap and with the same enironmental backpack making them compared to gasoline cars. (if you use steel tanks, a bit higher if you use composite tanks)

It is quite difficult to find a graphic on emission comparisons between LNG, CNG, diesel and gasoline CARS.

It usually is one bias this way or that way.

The English-language publications focus on buses and trucks with significantly more efficient catalytic converters and far fewer cold starts. Furthermore, in the USA the ecological disadvantage of fracking natural gas must be taken into account in a WTW analysis.
CNG friendly sites mostly ignore the CO, diesel friendly sites mostly use completely unrealistic parameters for diesel exhaust gases.

This one is from Spain and includes CO:

es-emisiones-gnc-vs-diesel.jpg


You will find other pictures with other data.

Afaik the most significant air pollutions in (German) cities today far are NOx and PM.

CNG (and LNG) has a huge benefit on PM emissions and a saller one on NOx vs diesel and gasoline.
 
Worked in the US oil industry in the late 1970's and 1980's and we used CNG for transportation and Diesel for the heavy equipment.
What did they know then? CNG burns cleaner not talking about the air, you can get more use out of an engine with less maintenance on CNG. We ran larger engines that made up for the power loss of CNG. Why has the US not moved away from Gasoline, corporate greed!


Trend Projected for 2020
TrendAnalysis2020.png
Reportlinker
 
This is an old video , but it is a good round up of the applications and issues with the much talked about “hydrogen future” and the practical applications of fuel cells in industry.
The brewery section is very impressive..almost fully sustainable !
[youtube]76ujMtLr5Z8[/youtube]
https://youtu.be/76ujMtLr5Z8
But some folks and manufacturers still think H2 could be a fuel replacement for ICE’s
This guy sums up why it isnt !
[youtube]gu1v7d7-Wh0[/youtube]
 
The hydrogen future in my option was created to distract from the emergence of an EV future. The big companies want to control our fuel source to make money. Getting hydrogen is one issue but compressing it into a liquid state takes a lot of energy. You can make a motor that runs on any liquid without even burning it with thermal expansion.
 
Headwinds in Germany’s power plans..
EDIT.. maybe i should summarise this DW doco for those who dont want to watch !...
There is increasing public reaction to Wind farms in Germany, leading to increasing regulation and planning restrictions for nwe installations.
Some authorities are making new installations commercially unviable, and together with the windback of subsidies,.the wind power industry is in a stagnant ( declining ) period.
GDr Government are in turmoil over the huge costs of RE conversion and are considering “importing” much of their future power needs ,..in the form of Hydrogen ? !)...from cheap producers overseas (Saudi etc)
Net result is that its very likely in 2021 Germany will decommission more Wind turbines than new ones are installed.
Atlast, some reality enters the debate ..( well, until the Hydrogen solution entered the discussion :roll: )
The Video IS worth the time .!

[youtube]Qr5PEAK1t3U[/youtube]
 
Hillhater said:
wineboyrider said:
I'll just leave his here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/feat...y-advisers-aoc-conor-lamb-fight-for-influence
Click to expand...
And thats where it will have to stay.......behind a Paywall ! :evil:
Click to expand...

Ever run hurdles? Paywalls can be easy.

Pretty standard Democratic propaganda. Probably a cut and paste direct from the party. Or possibly orginially written Presidential nominee Bloomberg and a quick artificial rewrite turns it into Biden. But it's hype, which sounds like hypnosis for a reason. Read if you'd indoctrinated and follow the programming to SHARE THIS ARTICLE.

Who’s Whispering in Joe Biden’s Ear About Climate Policy?

His proposal to limit emissions is the most ambitious of any candidate ever, but if he’s elected, a bunch of would-be influencers will want their say.
undefined
By Leslie Kaufmann
October 7, 2020, 6:00 AM EDT
SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Joe Biden has put forth the most ambitious climate plan of any presidential candidate in history—promising, among other things, to get the country to 100% clean electricity generation by 2035 and to invest $400 billion in clean energy innovation and technology over 10 years. That said, for climate activists, it’s not quite a dream come true.

The plan was knitted together in consultation with representatives from various diverse corners of the economic, political, and climate advocacy worlds. While every part of this coalition is invested in the Democratic candidate’s vision, some want to see the country move more quickly toward renewables, while others think it’s more important to conserve and create jobs, and still others are more concerned with political feasibility than anything else.

Even if the former vice president wins the presidency, the plan will still require a dedicated team to execute. Here’s a guide to the people who’ll be jockeying for influence on climate policy come Jan. 2021, should things go Biden’s way:

The candidate’s union ties are well known—and present perhaps the biggest obstacle to those who want to see a quick transition away from fossil fuels. Keeping the unions on his side means continuing to support fracking, at least in the near term, which the more left-leaning candidates in the Democratic primaries vowed to ban.

Lonnie Stephenson, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, endorsed Biden way back in February. Not only does Stephenson sit on Biden’s Climate Engagement Advisory Council, a wing of the campaign designed to energize climate-concerned voters, he’s one of only two people from that group who’ve been named to the team that would manage the transition into the White House if Biden is elected. (The other is Cecilia Martinez, an environmental lawyer and co-founder of the Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy—we’ll get to her in a bit.)

At a recent Biden campaign in Wisconsin, Stephenson infuriated clean energy advocates by describing Biden as being pro- all kinds of energy—or in his words “all of the above”—while another official with the local IBEW praised utilities that have invested in technologies to lessen the impact of coal. So-called “clean coal” is less polluting than regular coal, but contrary to the description still emits carbon and particulate matter into the air, in addition to perpetuating the coal mining industry, which is polluting in its own right.

Besides Stephenson, Biden has aligned himself with Conor Lamb, a U.S. Representative from Western Pennsylvania who is both union- and fracking-friendly. Lamb was a member of the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force, assembled after the bruising primary season in an attempt to win over the more liberal wing of party. (More on that in a bit, too.) Although banning fracking had been a centerpiece of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’s platform on climate change, hydraulic fracturing didn’t come up once in the joint recommendation the group produced.

Aside from his cozy relationship with unions, the climate left is wary of Biden’s record from the last time he was in the White House. While the Obama administration talked a big game on clean energy, despite a few noteworthy successes (e.g. Tesla Inc.), its accomplishments were largely minor, short-lived, or both.

There are a few from the old gang who are trusted by climate activists and have taken up roles in the Biden campaign. John Kerry, for instance, who was secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s second term, co-chaired the unity task force with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Kerry Duggan, Biden’s deputy director for policy when he was vice president, and Gina McCarthy, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under Obama, were both also on the task force, while Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy during the early Obama years, sits on the engagement council.

But there are others still hovering around Biden who hold no specific position but nevertheless have caused consternation among climate hawks for their links to fossil fuel interests. One of these, Jason Bordoff, was the National Security Council’s senior director for energy and climate change and later founded an energy policy center at Columbia University that draws funding from oil companies. (It’s also funded in part by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael R. Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg LP.) Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is said to be in the running for the same job in the Biden administration despite sitting on the board of Southern Co., a utility that sued the Obama administration over its 2015 Clean Power Plan. Both Bordoff and Moniz declined requests to comment for this article.

The fracking issue aside, the unity task force did succeed in getting Biden to embrace a more aggressive timeline for decarbonizing the electrical grid, and to promise to direct more than 40% of his proposed $2 trillion in climate spending toward the communities most at risk from pollution and climate change—which tend to be low-income communities of color.

The task force released its final report in July, and none of the Sanders progressives has since taken a position with the campaign. But they have kept up the public pressure to make sure Biden stays on-message, even as he takes broadsides from the right.

After Biden refused to support the Green New Deal during last week’s debate with Trump, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Our differences are exactly why I joined Biden’s Climate Unity Task Force — so we could set aside our differences & figure out an aggressive climate plan to address the planetary crisis at our feet.” Another task force member, Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash, told Bloomberg Green in September that left-wing environmentalists “will have a lot of work to do even if he’s elected.”

Other progressive advocacy groups say they have frequent meetings with the campaign to advise on polling, and in particular on engaging with the youth vote. Julian Brave NoiseCat, the vice president of policy and strategy at the liberal research and polling non-profit Data for Progress, says his group has been in steady conversation with the Biden campaign since Super Tuesday. “We gave a presentation on policy and polling three weeks ago,” he said, which showed that Biden’s climate plan is popular in battleground states. He also briefed the campaign on other popular progressive policies, including the creation of a National Investment Authority to fund clean infrastructure projects and a Green Marshall Plan to help fund energy innovation and development around the world.

Once the unity task force completed its work, it was replaced by the engagement council, on which Stephenson sits. But that group boasts other members who’ve put up a more vigorous effort to bring clean energy front and center in the campaign, including Tom Steyer, the billionaire hedge fund manager who ran against Biden and Sanders in the primaries on a climate-first platform. Cecilia Martinez, meanwhile, of the Center for Earth, Energy and Democracy, has the support of many former unity task forcers, and her presence on the transition team has done much to build trust between the two sides.
The Clean Energy Barons

The progressives are getting backup in their pressure campaign from, of all people, big donors.

Biden signed a pledge back in June promising not to take donations from fossil fuel companies, so he’s relying on clean energy to come in and write the really fat checks. Kathleen Welch, a principal of Corridor Partners, a political advocacy and strategic investment advisors, co-chairs Climate Leaders for Biden, an informal grouping of donors that’s helped raise $15 million for the candidate—one climate activist referred to her fondly as the “mob boss” of climate money. Welch declined to comment for this article, but her spokesperson said that Biden’s aggressive climate policy has attracted donors to him without his having to put on the hard sell.

Other major backers are more skeptical of Biden’s commitment to climate. In September, several dozen of them wrote the campaign to implore the candidate to move “rapidly” on the energy transition and distance himself from leaders who believe in “all of the above” energy sources—a clear dig at Stephenson. The group was organized by Kathy Washienko, a climate activist donor from Seattle, and included Adelaide Park Gomer, the president of the Park Foundation philanthropic group, and Jabe Blumenthal, who designed the first version of Excel for Microsoft. “We wanted Vice President Biden and his campaign to realize it wasn't just the youth of the Sunrise Movement,” Washienko said. “There were many significant Democratic donors who care deeply about bold action on climate in line with the science.”
The Cone of Silence

Biden’s core staff have been around him for years, if not decades, and act as gatekeepers on every issue. They also rarely speak to the press—a big reason Biden trusts them.

One of those who’s been around longest and would almost certainly take up a place in the West Wing is Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff when he was vice president, who now acts as a senior advisor to the candidate. This should give the Biden skeptics hope. Reed’s father was an environmental lawyer, and one of Reed’s first jobs after he arrived in Washington was writing speeches for then-Senator Al Gore.

Another close Biden confidant who could be an ally for energy reformers is Stef Feldman, the Biden campaign’s policy director. According to the campaign, Feldman studied environmental policy at Duke and became interested in environmental justice during a summer spent in a small coal mining town in Letcher County, Kentucky. After college, she worked her way up in the Obama administration to become Biden's deputy policy director for climate and energy. Feldman was at Yale Law School with the idea of pursuing a career as an environmental lawyer when Biden called her up to join the campaign.

Environmental justice advocates consider the choice of Kamala Harris as Biden’s running mate to be a big win. Her record on the issue goes way back to her days as the San Francisco District Attorney, when she opened the office’s first environmental crimes division. Catherine Flowers, a member of the unity task force from the Sanders camp and a senior fellow in environmental justice at the Center for Earth Ethics, is optimistic that Biden will finally succeed after so many decades of Democratic underreach on climate. “I really feel like this time, they get it,” she said.
 
Hillhater said:
Some authorities are making new installations commercially unviable, and together with the windback of subsidies,.the wind power industry is in a stagnant ( declining ) period.
Click to expand...
Translation from the Hillhater-speak "declining" to reality -

The wind industry in Germany "only" added 1GW in 2019 and will "only" add 1.5GW in 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jimmyhackers
solar grid tie/meter electrical questions (UK)
Replies
11
Views
478
d8veh
D
IamIan
Combining Power Sources for Peak Vehicle Efficiency
Replies
2
Views
1,497
Logic11
L
H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
1,565
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
1,642
Hillhater
H
L
DIY ThermoAcoustic Stirling Generator: Looks like a bicycle frame doubling as a range extender to me!?
Replies
17
Views
1,359
Logic11
L
Back
Top