Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

We need ultralight four wheeled cars. All of the start ups such as Electra Meccanica and Archimoto are relegated to building three wheelers in order to circumvent nanny state crash testing. Mandating every car to obviate user responsibility via 500 kg's and $5,000 of safety structure and equipment is regressive. It prohibits development of ultralight 4 wheeled transportation which would be much more sustainable than the 2,000 kg monsters we are stuck making now. This mandate killed Aptera.
.
3 billion people cannot all have a 2,000 kg car that costs $40,000.
.
.

.
.

 

[billvon]

3 billion people cannot all have a 2,000 kg car that costs $40,000.

True. Nor should no one have a 2000 kg vehicle that costs $40,000. Use the right tool for the job.

 

[cricketo]

The problem with recycling is the amount of energy it needs.

It takes a lot less energy to melt steel than to make steel from iron oar.

Lithium batteries aren't really recycled these days, mostly put in giant piles for us to figure out what to do with later ( if ever ).

Most of the Lithium batteries we've dealt with to this point were from consumer electronics. Many of those aren't user removable, and disposed of together with the device. Indeed, they're difficult to recycle due to all kinds of extra stuff that came with them. Many of them simply end up in landfills, without even any attempt to recycle.

It is a completely different story with EV battery packs. Those are large, homogeneous packs that can be correctly handled through EV manufacturers and third party recyclers. We will figure that out... once we actually have any sizeable amount of those coming up for recycling. So far what I'm seeing, even the the very first Leafs are still alive and kicking.

A recycling process has to filter out all kinds of metals. I'm sure it's an expensive or chemically intensive ( thus dirty ) process.

Or we could just sort through it better Consumer electronics and appliances are likely the worst due to variance in metals in a small package.

Car bodies are a lot easier. A lot of the adhesives 'n stuff probably burns off in the metal slurry.

That is if you are to melt cars whole. Ideally most non-metallic stuff should be removed. Labor intensive ? Well, we collect a surcharge on lead-acid batteries. We should probably collect a surcharge on things like whole cars as well.

But i'm not referring really to the metal use. Moreso that a 4,800lbs car is pretty huge overkill for going to the grocery store and back, eh? it takes a lot of energy to form the car, and more energy to deconstruct it. A 4,800lbs car needs big brakes, big tires, big suspension components etc etc - as large as what you see on mondo sized trucks, and beats up the road as bad as a big truck.

Size doesn't matter when energy is free. I've just put a deposit on a Rivian. I know I can power it from PVs.

Heck even the smaller EVs like the Model 3 come in at a crazy 4000lbs figure fully loaded.

1000lb out of that is the battery. Difficult to build an extremely safe vehicle without using certain structural elements made out of traditional (heavy) alloys like steel.

The lighter the vehicle is, the less battery it needs.

True, but only to a point. Aerodynamic drag is the same for heavy and light vehicle of the same size and shape.

The less battery you need, the less mining you need to do.

That's an incorrect target objective. The correct objective would be a closed loop - once there is X amount of metal Y in circulation, no more is to be mined. Unless of course we're talking population (and thus consumer) growth, which is a separate issue.

You know what i'd love? an electric kei car that seats 2. But i'd be dead on the road, so.. it's an econobox and bicycle for me.

There is a company in Oregon that makes a vehicle they call FUV. They also publicly trade under the same ticker.

 

[Chalo]

Size doesn't matter when energy is free. I've just put a deposit on a Rivian. I know I can power it from PVs.

It matters when humans and other living things must share the road, and the world, with you. On top of the huge kinetic energy and accompanying hazard required to move a relatively small payload, there's the irrefutable fact that it takes a lot of filthy industrial process to produce every unnecessary pound of truck and every PV cell that powers it.

I want to live in a world where no personal vehicle is allowed to weigh more than its payload.

 

[Hillhater]

...... The correct objective would be a closed loop - once there is X amount of metal Y in circulation, no more is to be mined. ...

So no more additional new bridges, or buildings, railways, shipping, wind turbine towers, etc etc..
Guaranteed to generate a shortage of supply, and drive costs of steel and all associated products, through the roof !
.... Which of course would "roll out" and be reflected in the cost of everything else.

 

[sendler2112]

Another look at the scale of primary total energy consumption. The world still gets 30 times more energy from burning wood than from solar.
.
.

.
.

 

[cricketo]

It matters when humans and other living things must share the road, and the world, with you.

Don't you worry, most of my commuting is done on two wheels

On top of the huge kinetic energy and accompanying hazard required to move a relatively small payload, there's the irrefutable fact that it takes a lot of filthy industrial process to produce every unnecessary pound of truck and every PV cell that powers it.

Rule of optimization - start where it matters the most. Right now it's operation, not the production that is an issue.

I want to live in a world where no personal vehicle is allowed to weigh more than its payload.

Maybe on Mars ?

 

[cricketo]

So no more additional new bridges, or buildings, railways, shipping, wind turbine towers, etc etc..
Guaranteed to generate a shortage of supply, and drive costs of steel and all associated products, through the roof !
.... Which of course would "roll out" and be reflected in the cost of everything else.

Yes, no more bridges, buildings, railways and other things as long as we keep replacing them every 5 years like we do with vehicles

Nothing should be "cheap" or "affordable" at the cost of the environment. Like the other poster said, it's a dirty industrial process to produce that steel, so better hold on to it as long as possible.

 

[neptronix]

We need ultralight four wheeled cars. All of the start ups such as Electra Meccanica and Archimoto are relegated to building three wheelers in order to circumvent nanny state crash testing. Mandating every car to obviate user responsibility via 500 kg's and $5,000 of safety structure and equipment is regressive. It prohibits development of ultralight 4 wheeled transportation which would be much more sustainable than the 2,000 kg monsters we are stuck making now. This mandate killed Aptera.
.
3 billion people cannot all have a 2,000 kg car that costs $40,000.

Exactly.
And the larger the cars are on the road, the less feasible it is to drive something economically and environmentally sound.

I actually sold off my first generation Honda Insight hybrid because the SUV and truck drivers who dominate our roads kept trying to merge into our lane while we were driving it. Perhaps they could simply not see us. I replaced it with a small sedan and we have been okay since.

 

[cricketo]

I actually sold off my first generation Honda Insight hybrid because the SUV and truck drivers who dominate our roads kept trying to merge into our lane while we were driving it. Perhaps they could simply not see us.

They saw you alright. They were just "good" drivers, and used their superior driving skills to navigate congested American roads

 

[Hillhater]

Anyone who supports the concept of "biomass" being an acceptable alternative fuel source , might want to consider some of the basic facts..
This is Wiki data on the UKs "Drax" power station which is converting to biomas fuel on part of its plant.....

In September 2012 Drax Group announced the conversion to full firing with biomass of three of its six units. ..
.... Each unit will consume about 2.3 million tonnes of biomass yearly, requiring an estimated annual total of 7.5 million tonnes in 2017. This is equivalent to two-thirds of Europe's entire energy biomass consumption in 2010, and requires 1,200,000 ha (4,600 sq mi; 12,000 km2) of forest to supply on a continuous basis.[67][68] North America was expected to be the source of the vast majority of the biomass, although some would be domestically sourced willow and elephant grass.[69]
So to fuel half of one of their power stations, it requires 12,000km2 of forest , and shipping the 7.5 million tonnes of timber/pellets across the Atlantic !
Needless to say, this is only possible due to the funding raised via the UKs "ROC" renewable energy credit scheme.

 

[classicalgas]

" We (and our ancestors) have done so for every other mass extinction."

BZZZTTT! There have been no 90%+ mass extinctions in the history of the human race, the last one was 250 million years ago. The earliest humans (genus homo) existed no more than 3 million years ago.

Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) are probably causing the "sixth extinction" ...some scientists put the percentage of animals gone extinct in the last 10,000 years at 80%,others, quite a bit less....but we haven't survived that yet, it's still going on.

 

[Punx0r]

So to fuel half of one of their power stations, it requires 12,000km2 of forest , and shipping the 7.5 million tonnes of timber/pellets across the Atlantic !

The coal Drax currently burns is shipped from:

Australia, Colombia, Poland, Russia and South Africa.

It takes a lot of forest area to sustainably harvest wood. Fortunately, large areas of forest are a "good thing" in all sorts of ways.

The biomass Drax can burn includes all sorts of waste organic material besides wood, like straw, rape, peanut husks etc.

Burning stuff for power isn't great, especially as the carbon capture and storage part of the project was abandoned, but it's better than burning coal.

 

[Cephalotus]

Unless you really think we will EVER have fusion reactors running on seawater. Building 20 rockets per year is nothing compared to the material throughput it would take to build 1,000,000 2MW wind turbines. Which if land based will average 30% capacity.

2 MW wind turbines is quite old Technology. I recommend to use 5MW as a modern Standard solution. Offshore 10-20MW is possible in the near future.

So 400,000 wind turbines.

What is this against 1,000,000,000 cars?

Just 15 years ago, renewables made 9% of Germanies electricity production.

In 2018 it will be 40%:

https://energy-charts.de/ren_share.htm?source=ren-share&period=annual&year=all

So on average +2% RE each year.

It will take us maybe 10 years to go to 60% anual average just to continue what we are already doing.

On 2018/12/8 the daily average for renewables was 75,5% and the grid was able to handle that. But even nuclear power plants and Lignite power plants need to throttle production which rarely happens.

In 10 years I predict that there will be more electric vehicles sold in Germany than vehicles with ICE. Just look at the huge investments VW & Co are making now. They rebuild entire factories for their next electric car family. They plan to sell 10 million electric cars based on the MEB1 and this is just the 1st generation of mass production.
Germany just signed a deal that gives us access to Bolivian lithium. This is the first deal on foreign ressources that Germany signed for decades!

Transformation of the energy System will happen. It happens just now.

 

[sendler2112]

Unless you really think we will EVER have fusion reactors running on seawater. Building 20 rockets per year is nothing compared to the material throughput it would take to build 1,000,000 2MW wind turbines. Which if land based will average 30% capacity.

2 MW wind turbines is quite old Technology. I recommend to use 5MW as a modern Standard solution. Offshore 10-20MW is possible in the near future.

So 400,000 wind turbines.

What is this against 1,000,000,000 cars?

5MW turbines are generally relegated to offshore due to their transport size. How many cars are built per day? vs how many days to build and install each giant turbine? What is the difference in mass of material throughput for a turbine vs a car?
.
And .6 TW from 1,000,000 turbines is still just 1/6 of current USA consumption. 1/3 if you give a 2:1 efficiency advantage after all thermal processes possible are converted to electric.

 

[Cephalotus]

As for costs...
Lazard ECOE data puts Nuclear as being much cheaper than Solar ! (Rooftop solar , as that is still where the vast majority of solar power is produced.)

https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf

Interesting.

In the US rooftop solar costs 187$-310$/MWh, while in cloudy and rainy Germany the FIT for rooftop solar is 80-120€/MWh, which puts the production cost at around 60-100€/MWh.

Any idea how that could be?

On the other Hand utility solar is at a bit lower cost leven compared to Germany which sounds realistic because of higher irradiation in the US. Btw, your data shows, that utility PV incl. storage already is significantly cheaper than nuclear.
In my opinion you should compare nuclear with utility PV, because there is no residential nuclear power plant option.

 

[Hillhater]

As for costs...
Lazard ECOE data puts Nuclear as being much cheaper than Solar ! (Rooftop solar , as that is still where the vast majority of solar power is produced.)

https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf

Interesting.

In the US rooftop solar costs 187$-310$/MWh, while in cloudy and rainy Germany the FIT for rooftop solar is 80-120€/MWh, which puts the production cost at around 60-100€/MWh.

Any idea how that could be?

On the other Hand utility solar is at a bit lower cost leven compared to Germany which sounds realistic because of higher irradiation in the US. Btw, your data shows, that utility PV incl. storage already is significantly cheaper than nuclear.
In my opinion you should compare nuclear with utility PV, because there is no residential nuclear power plant option.

Its not "my" data !. Its Lazards.
There are many flaws in that data, but for some reason , it keeps being used as the reference source by many in this debate ?
Utility PV appears cheaper than Nuclear, because it only includes 10 hrs storage, and no allowance for back up.
That is not a effective substitute for Nuclear.
Rooftop PV is the defacto main source of Solar power in most countries, and effectively substitutes for utility supply by reducing demand whilst it is functioning. (No storage costs included either !.)
But still not a viable alternative replacement for Nuclear or Fossil generation.

On 2018/12/8 the daily average for renewables was 75,5% and the grid was able to handle that. But even nuclear power plants and Lignite power plants need to throttle production which rarely happens.

Yet..as i post this , (19:00 on 15/12 inGermany) , evening peak demand time in Germany, wind and solar are supplying just 10% (7.5GW) of the 75 GW demand.
Whilst fossils are supplying 53GW (69%) ..??
Those coal and Lignite plants ramp up and down massively every day to balance the load against the variations in the Wind and solar output.

Just 15 years ago, renewables made 9% of Germanies electricity production.

In 2018 it will be 40%:

Unfortunately, its never a continuous, reliable , 9% or 40% !
......so they will still need 100% fossil backup !

 

[Punx0r]

What is the difference in mass of material throughput for a turbine vs a car?

Average mass of a car is going to be circa 1500kg. So, 1.5GT total.

I don't know the mass of a 5GW wind turbine, but 1.5GT divided by 400,000 turbines would be an material "allowance" of 3,750 Tons per turbine :lol:

 

[billvon]

Those coal and Lignite plants ramp up and down massively every day to balance the load against the variations in the Wind and solar output.

And the more solar you have, the less they have to ramp up during the day - thus saving lives. A worthy goal.

 

[sendler2112]

What is the difference in mass of material throughput for a turbine vs a car?

Average mass of a car is going to be circa 1500kg. So, 1.5GT total.

I don't know the mass of a 5GW wind turbine, but 1.5GT divided by 400,000 turbines would be an material "allowance" of 3,750 Tons per turbine :lol:

Well almost. 1 billion cars in the world at 1.5GT.
.
8TW, half the worlds total primary energy, would take 16 million 2MW turbines at 30% CF.
.
1.5 MW weigh 170 tons each. 2MW probably the same.
.
We need 2.9 Gigatons of material for that many turbines.
.
Closer than I thought but still probably ought to pick one or the other to build next.

 

[sendler2112]

2:1 efficiency improvement leaves 8 TW average for the world to replace with solar or wind. 13 million 2MW turbines at 33% CF. 170 tons of materials each. 2.7 Gigatons.
.
1 billion cars in the world. 1.7 tons each. 1.7 Gigatons
.
We probably ought to decide which to really focus on next.
.

One construction crew can install and commision 50 2MW turbines per year. Capacity factor of 33% gives 33MW actual capacity per year per crew.
.
24 million crew years to install 8 TW of wind. If they last 24 years, we need 1 million crews working continously forever to power the world with wind. More or less. Towers last longer so the second and third time through would be easier.
.
20 hours of storage for the world would require 1.6 million BigF'nBatteries at 100 MWh each. 250 GigaFactories for 25 years and then forever to keep recycling them. If they could last 25 years.

 

[Hillhater]

Dont forget the 600+ cu mt (1500 tons) of concrete , and 100tons of reinforcing steel for each turbine foundation.

 

[Punx0r]

Presumably the foundation varies depending on location e.g. one site may have 50ft of peat underfoot while another might have exposed bedrock. I could be wrong (and can't find on google) but I doubt they'd excavate 600m^3 of solid granite to pour in concrete. Whatever form it takes, at least the foundation lasts almost indefinitely and can be reused multiple times.

Embodied energy in steel: 35 MJ/kg = 9.7 MWh/Ton x 100 Tons = 97 MWh

Embodied energy in concrete: 1 MJ/kg = 0.28 MWh/Ton x 1500 Tons = 417 MWh

Total = 514 MWh x 30% CF = 857 hrs = 35 days payback time.

That's a lot less than I would have thought. To the point I'm thinking I must have missed a decimal point somewhere...


Figures include "the energy consumed by the extraction of the raw materials, manufacture, transformation, associated transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal."

http://www.tectonica-online.com/topics/energy/embodied-energy-materials-enrique-azpilicueta/table/31/

 

[Hillhater]

, at least the foundation lasts almost indefinitely and can be reused multiple times.

Embodied energy in steel: 35 MJ/kg = 9.7 MWh/Ton x 100 Tons = 97 MWh

That's a lot less than I would have thought. To the point I'm thinking I must have missed a decimal point somewhere...

9.7 x100 = 970 MWh

And i wouldnt be too confident that an instalation contractor would risk mounting a new bigger, heavier, taller, multi million dollar turbine, on an unknown 20 yr old foundation ....even if the mounting system was , by some fluke, identical .

 

[sendler2112]

Dont forget the 600+ cu mt (1500 tons) of concrete , and 100tons of reinforcing steel for each turbine foundation.

Yes. Wow! 1,000 tons of concrete for each pad at Musselroe. Offshore monopiles are 650 tons for 6MW turbines. I just went with the low side of the first value that poped up to show the monumental scale of the task to replace fossil fuel ahead.
.
https://www.wind-watch.org/faq-size.php
.
So increase my total above by 5X to include the concrete and steel for pads. 15 GigaTons.
.
All installed with liquid fueled heavy equipment.
.
We would be wise to base all of the design decisions in such a way that we plan to reuse all of the foundations and towers for 100 years. Or as long as possible.
.
https://youtu.be/ZxeQeJ4jW-4
.
I couldn't find out how many man days were worked to install the 50 turbines at Musselroe but they stated 15 months. One million of these teams working constantly for 24 years to replace half our energy with wind. and then constanly forever to maintain it.