I am talking about the US as a whole. Drastically increasing renewables, and a more reliable grid than ever. Surely Australia can figure it out too.Hillhater said:
California has one of the highest power costs of any state !
Luckily the CA grid is connected to neighbouring states such that it can import the 20+% of power that it fails to generate internally !
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
Do you believe all internet sources ?....Punx0r said:
Cost effectively ?
SA is widely accepted as having the highest electricity price in the world currently !
Other Au states are not far behind because it is a combined market with the costs for rebates and RET added to all consumers bills.
The existing Torrens island plant is not old by thermal plant standards and will remain in service for many years yet.
The new Diesel plant give the operator access to the high priced "fast response" market that is now resulted from the RE introduction.
If it were just age etc , why dont they replace the entire plant with one of similar capacity ?
The Owners , AGL, are also prematurely closing several fossil fueled plants in order to get more market share from higher paying RE generation due to the Rebate schemes in play.
80% "installed capacity". Certainly....Get ready for 80% RE by 2022!
.....but they will never reach 80% RE supply !
Hillhater
100 TW
The US as a whole ??... Has only 11% wind and solar combined. !billvon said:
Lets discuss it seriously when it gets to 50+% !
sendler2112
100 kW
USA electrical production for 2016 was wind 6% and solar 1%. Hydro 7%, Gas 34%, coal 30%, nuclear 20%.
.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
.
.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
.
Hillhater
100 TW
So, in 10 yrs, you think the US will have ~50% wind + solar ?billvon said:
Im willing to speculate the US never gets to that level.
sendler2112
100 kW
Wind and solar in China for example is predicted to barely keep up with growth for the next 30 years. The USA will be similar. India will be using considerable more fossil fuel in 30 years than now. And then we will all start to run low without having made enough changes to the way we live.
Probably not. We will likely get to about 50% _renewables_ - not 50% wind and solar - in ~12 years (i.e. including hydro)Hillhater said:
If you want to speculate on just wind and solar we'll get to about 35-40% in 12 years and then growth will slow down; at that point it will be limited by available storage and dispatchable load. Utilities will start to pair each new utility-scale solar/wind array with a specific new load, either a BESS/pumped storage facility or a dispatchable load (like a desalinator or thermal storage system.) That will both raise costs and increase installation times.
Political considerations (like administrations that try to stop renewables) can also slow that down, of course.
Another "spoiler" could be some form of cheap nuclear power - but if history is any record that's out at least 10 years, probably closer to 20.
Hillhater
100 TW
I cannot see Hydro increasing significantly,
...all the "easy" developments have been done so any future hydro will be limited and have a tough economic case.
Further, it the climate alarmists are to be believed, there may not be a much river flows to feed existing hydro....many of which are already supply limited by water availability.
Pumped hydro storage is both expensive, and has limited site availability as well as being a net power consumer rather than generator.
New Tech Nuclear will be intoduced eventually, most likely much sooner in Asia, India, China, Russia, etc,..than in the West due to out political and social barriers.
The balance of power, will litteraly shift to the East !
...all the "easy" developments have been done so any future hydro will be limited and have a tough economic case.
Further, it the climate alarmists are to be believed, there may not be a much river flows to feed existing hydro....many of which are already supply limited by water availability.
Pumped hydro storage is both expensive, and has limited site availability as well as being a net power consumer rather than generator.
New Tech Nuclear will be intoduced eventually, most likely much sooner in Asia, India, China, Russia, etc,..than in the West due to out political and social barriers.
The balance of power, will litteraly shift to the East !
Water availability for hydro is improved with intermittent renewables. Hydro can be throttled rapidly and completely, so as long as the lake stores a significant amount of water (i.e. more than a few days) then every megawatt-hour of generation during the day is a megawatt-hour of water that doesn't have to be used. I've seen a few proposals for adding generation to existing dams, so that they can generate more power for shorter amounts of time (i.e. when intermittents cut out.)Hillhater said:
Probably true. But then that technology becomes available to us as well. Still, it has to be cheaper than natural gas to make any headway here no matter how technologically cool it is.
Hillhater
100 TW
Sure, more generation (of any sort) can help to conserve water supply for hydro.
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
..But that is not adding to the overall hydro capacity available.
sendler2112
100 kW
It is intersting to see the degree of flexibility that California has with control of their hydro from near zero during the solar peak, to filling in the pre and post sun portions of the daytime demand, and then back to a maintenance level of whatever is left for the night, with some saved for the next day's pre sun surge.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=US-CA
.
Too bad we can't see the North West USA grid info which has a large percentage of wind and hydro.
.
It was sunny in Germany today but even with that they weren't able to get below 480gm/ kWh and are running at 530gm tonight.
.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=US-CA
.
Too bad we can't see the North West USA grid info which has a large percentage of wind and hydro.
.
It was sunny in Germany today but even with that they weren't able to get below 480gm/ kWh and are running at 530gm tonight.
.
TheBeastie
1 MW
Yeah the thing I have noticed is when there is some good wind in SA and Victoria and I can see it on electricitymap, I actually notice it in Melbourne with tree branches falling down and general destruction from storm like conditions and you can see it in the news as wellsendler2112 said:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/showers-sprinkle-city-ahead-of-sunshine-and-gusty-winds/news-story/24272a9d9830b245dbf60ecca97a98c5
So it seems like you need destructive level winds to get a good day of wind energy generation.
Yes Germany data is back, and like I have pointed out, it went out and returned while the wind is dubiously low, I screenshotted this yesterday, right now they are at 10%
But I think screenshotting this stuff is important because generally folks like to imagine wind-farms always generating energy at their full promised capacity, you just can't try and drill through that enough IMO.
In South Australia a new political party has released its first advert, Nick Xenophon used to be an independent for a SA seat in the Federal government but he has quit Federal politics as an independent to become a State political party leader with a new political party called "SA Best"
http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/sa-election-2018-sa-best-release-first-political-campaign-tv-advertisement-and-its-really-something/news-story/b508cc1d03950cf69532f4da34b3e48e
The advert is incredibly cheesy.
https://youtu.be/BggQfcbjpZ8
[youtube]BggQfcbjpZ8[/youtube]
It's a frequently pointed out claim that a lot of people especially young people are leaving South Australia due to no jobs and unaffordable energy as the video portrays with a couple with the luggage stroller about to leave..
Also seeing this video reminds me of the time around 7 years ago when I was bombarded on Facebook with friends sharing Facebook wind-farm memes, saying "500 of these could power all of Australia" or something ridiculous like that, its all just so dumb but very powerful stuff.
Nick Xenophon is expected to be very successful in this SA state election which shows you how bad the state of politics is in SA.
To me it looks like the politicians only work hard enough to a level where they can be expected to just slide into power, and when so many people worship political parties like their favorite football team, that means you don't have to work very hard or do a very good job at all. It's the incredible tribalism that exists in the human mind of taking sides in politics causes so many problems. I think a decent percentage of folks in SA would even only be supporters of renewables because it's their favorite political parties policy, as the bias overrides logic as the tribalistic part of the brain takes over.
Reminds me of this guys speech on why democracy is working https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcKck8EZrg
[youtube]3GcKck8EZrg[/youtube]
Overall I see it as a more healthy sign that a different political party like Nick Xenophons SA-best party becomes popular because it smashes that football team mentality as it brute forces the voter to think for themselves and who they are voting for instead of voting the same way their parents did.
One thing I wanted to do was go over all of Germany's renewable generation that I started in this post with their wind https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=1550#p1358107
Germany wind capacity 49.6GW (49,600MW)
Generated 2017: 103.65TWh
There are 1,000,000MWh in 1TWh.
103.65TWh = (103,650,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 11,824MW average power generation (11.8GW)
So ( 11,824MW / 49,600MW ) x 100 = 23.8% capacity factor
Solar
Germany Solar capacity: 40.7GW (40,700MW)
Generated 2017: 38.39TWh
(38,390,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 4,379MW average power generation (4.37GW)
So ( 4,379MW / 40,700MW ) x 100 = 10.7% capacity factor for solar.
If you went into a restaurant and asked for a steak dinner that was 10% of its advertised size, you wouldn't buy it.
Biomass
Germany Biomass generation capacity: 9.5GW (9,500MW)
Generated 2017: 47.61TWh
47.61TWh = (47,610,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 5,431MW average power generation (5.4GW)
So ( 5,431MW / 9,500MW ) x 100 = 57.1% capacity factor
Much better number, kind of like a McDonalds burger being a bit smaller than you expected but close.
This is the twisted reality of renewables in Germany and that is burning trees/plants for Biomass thermal generation kicks the wind and solars arse. And the really valuable thing about biomass is that you can get power when you want it instead of hoping for favorable weather which tends to run with murphys law.
https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm?year=2017
The thing I wondered about in Germany is there must of been some energy experts who assessed solar in Germany and probably told Angela Merkel that what the end result will be is 10% of the general claimed capacity, and they obviously thought stuff it, lets build it anyway, maybe because thats what the voters wanted/voted for or something along those lines. But it's still pretty crazy.
When trying to actually look at deployed solar in Germany via googlemaps the official list of solar farms in Germany on Wikipedia is tiny but almost all of them have been placed on where forests once sat.
Lookin at houses/apartment roofs, very little of them have solar panels on them. The one place where I did find a lot of solar panel deployment was on very large roofs, these are typically large box stores/shopping centers or industrial roofs. I think this makes sense as you can deploy a lot more solar in one go and reduce installation time and inverter costs/management by bunching up the deployments instead of the Australian style of forcing tiny deployments on every single house roof.
When looking for these solar panels this is typical of what I see for the official solar farms where its just been cut down forest for the solar deployment to 'help the environment'.
https://goo.gl/maps/aibvQFczrcL2
I found a biomass power-plant in Germany from a company called VMM Umwelt, these are hard to find, none of them are listed on Wikipedia. This one is both a biomass and waste treatment plant.
https://goo.gl/maps/YugZNaXPvF82
Someone uploaded a photo of the main biomass bit to the googlemaps photos section
https://goo.gl/maps/gw5EvXzysm52
Hillhater
100 TW
How many of these "Biomass". generation plants simply garbage incinerators with thermal generators attached ?
There is a big debate here currently with one of the big garbage companies proposing to build just that in western Sydney...a garbage incinerator with thermal power plant incorporated .
sendler2112
100 kW
We have a garbage burning generation plant that I drive past every day. I should see if they offer tours. Is this really any worse than burning coal. At least all of this stuff is already riding around in a truck with not much better place to go. Don't have to dig it up first. People just need to sort their recyclable light bulbs and batteries, ect, out of their trash so they don't go up the chimney.
.
https://ocrra.org/services/dispose/waste-to-energy/
.
.
https://ocrra.org/services/dispose/waste-to-energy/
.
Addy
100 W
sendler2112 said:
I've been on a tour at a local garbage burning generation plant. Inside the plant, crane operators load garbage from piles dumped by trucks and they have to watch out for the occasional propane tank or other items that are best kept out of the incinerator. They also have to worry about the piles of trash going up in flames, so the garbage loading area has a very good fire suppression system.
The plant has a very extensive filter system which is used to clean the incinerator exhaust.
Hillhater
100 TW
Personally i have no problem with garbage incineration, i believe its better than landfil garbage and hopeing it doesnt cause a contamination or gas problem in the future,( plus it is not sustainable.)
Also it would seem sensible to recover at least some of the energy that went into much of the garbage, and im sure there are tight emmission controls imposed for some of the unknown substances likely incinerated.
However,..i think claiming it as "Biomass" RE, is very different to burning woodchips or lanfil/methane gas. (Both of which have dubious RE credibility !)
Now,..if we could just harness (and prevent) these bushfires, we would solve the energy issue in one go ! :wink:
Also it would seem sensible to recover at least some of the energy that went into much of the garbage, and im sure there are tight emmission controls imposed for some of the unknown substances likely incinerated.
However,..i think claiming it as "Biomass" RE, is very different to burning woodchips or lanfil/methane gas. (Both of which have dubious RE credibility !)
Now,..if we could just harness (and prevent) these bushfires, we would solve the energy issue in one go ! :wink:
Hillhater
100 TW
Unless you have a suplus of water that you currently run through spillways, more generation will not increase total capacity (GWhs).billvon said:
Hillhater
100 TW
This is an interesting graphic of Australias electricity prices (indexed) over time 1955 to date with some key events noted.
Also the timing of the introduction of wind & solar in quantity starting 2005.
But be aware , even the 18 TWh of RE shown is small compared to the 230+ TWh of total annual power consumed .
Also the timing of the introduction of wind & solar in quantity starting 2005.
But be aware , even the 18 TWh of RE shown is small compared to the 230+ TWh of total annual power consumed .
Hillhater
100 TW
Big difference between "surplus" ..and "conserve"..billvon said:
And...some light reading for you..
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2018/02/green-ideologys-failed-energy-experiment/
.
sendler2112
100 kW
"In 1970, a two-day seminar of opinion leaders at the Aspen Institute concluded that modern technology, greedy men and complacent governments were threatening the future of a decent and civilised world. ‘All insist that the human family is approaching an historic crisis which will require fundamental revisions in the organisation of society,"
.
This will be true. We just haven't reached the diminishing point of a 100 year steady increase in access to oil yet. 30? years left to work out a new plan and get it done. Transportable, high quality energy underpins everything.
.
This will be true. We just haven't reached the diminishing point of a 100 year steady increase in access to oil yet. 30? years left to work out a new plan and get it done. Transportable, high quality energy underpins everything.
Yes, there is. If you conserve enough water, you see surpluses.Hillhater said:
Most dams have some amount of storage (i.e. they are not run-of-river.) If you need power 24 hours a day, you draw that storage down. If you need it for only 12 hours a day, you have doubled your storage time. And if you need full power for only 3 hours a day (i.e. 6 to 9 pm, the "hump" of the duck curve) then you extend it further still. You turn a hydro plant limited by water supply into a hydro plant limited by available generation.
At that point, you either re-power or add generators. Now your 1GW dam is a 2GW dam, but its AVERAGE power is lower than before, because you are getting energy from other (intermittent) sources of generation. And since hydro plants are among the fastest startup plants out there, your ramp time problem is greatly diminished.
In places like Socal where water is in short supply this is a win-win. Since energy equals water you use less water, but get more peak power.
Hillhater
100 TW
Hmmm ?
.....Also, unforseen issues with German wind turbines
https://stopthesethings.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/windfarm-peformance-uk-hughes-19-12-12.pdf
.....Also, unforseen issues with German wind turbines
