Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[jonescg]

It would take impossibly huge amounts of ...

Like refined oil for automobiles? Cement for our cities? Bitumen for our motorways? Wireless internet telephones? Food for our population?

We never seem to think a technology will take off when it seems far so off. Until we do.

 

[sendler2112]

Replacing half of the energy we use right now requires 2,000 5 MW turbines to be commissioned each week, every week, for 20 years. In order to get them all built in time to start continually rebuilding them all. This gives us 1/4 of current energy. So we also need 40 500 MW solar PV farms to be commissioned every week for 20 years so that they are done in time to start being rebuilt. Plus 100's of TWh of storage. Plus 100's of $trillions to electrify everything by replacement or retrofit. Not to mention lifting up the left behind exploited people of the world. 500 million of whom have never had so much as a light bulb. And 1 billion people that still poop outside in the bushes or the river. And 3 billion people that still use wood and dung for their only source of cooking and heating.
.
Scale
.
We are going to come way short.

 

[JackFlorey]

Replacing half of the energy we use right now requires 2,000 5 MW turbines to be commissioned each week, every week, for 20 years. In order to get them all built in time to start continually rebuilding them all. This gives us 1/4 of current energy. So we also need 40 500 MW solar PV farms to be commissioned every week for 20 years so that they are done in time to start being rebuilt. Plus 100's of TWh of storage. Plus 100's of $trillions to electrify everything by replacement or retrofit.

Yep. Plus nuclear. Plus biogas to fuel the gas turbines (and the fertilizer plants, and the chemical synthesis.) Plus thermal solar for cement manufacture. Plus biofuels to run the few remaining sources that require liquid fuels (like aircraft.)

It won't be just one thing.

 

[sendler2112]

It won't be just one thing.

Sorry. Not even close. We are going to need a whole new way of living and dividing up whatever social surplus can result more equitably.
.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[JackFlorey]

It won't be just one thing.

Sorry. Not even close.

You think it WILL be just one thing?

 

[Dauntless]

It won't be just one thing.

Sorry. Not even close.

You think it WILL be just one thing?

No, he's saying it won't be even close to just one thing. They already have alcohol mixed in gas and electric cars, but there's still a lot of petroleum fuel, etc.

 

[sendler2112]

Support CAMFED
.
https://www.ted.com/talks/angie_murimirwa_how_repaying_loans_with_social_service_transforms_communities?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare

 

[sendler2112]

You think it WILL be just one thing?

Sorry for not being more clear. What I meant to say was that the sum of all of your solutions will not add up to even half of the the 18TeraWatt average we are blowing through right now.
.
Scale.
.
Let alone allow for lifting up the 3 billion poor people of the world. Nor allowing for the interest bearing growth requirement of our current world economic system to keep all of this from collapsing.

It won't be just one thing.

Sorry. Not even close. We are going to need a whole new way of living and dividing up whatever social surplus can result more equitably.
.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[JackFlorey]

Sorry for not being more clear. What I meant to say was that the sum of all of your solutions will not add up to even half of the the 18TeraWatt average we are blowing through right now.

Yep. Fortunately we don't need it all; we are still wasting most of the energy we harvest because it's so cheap.

Let's say for argument's sake we can get to 45% of our current energy usage, as you hint at above. Changing from fossil fuels in internal combustion engines (30-35% efficient, pump to wheels) to EV's (88-90% efficient, charger to wheels) gets us the same mileage with 84% of the energy usage. Changing from incandescent to LED gets us the same light with 25% of the energy usage.

This means much higher costs for energy, of course. But it also means that the higher costs of energy don't mean that we see an equivalent rise in the energy we actually USE (i.e. transport, light.)

 

[sendler2112]

Yep. Fortunately we don't need it all; we are still wasting most of the energy we harvest because it's so cheap.

Yes that is why I am using 8TW as the goal for right now. Every year it goes higher. And still leaving the poor people behind. Which is how much we would need after the $100's trillion conversion to electrify all processes. Which is the 2,000 turbines per week and 40 grid scale PV farms per week I quoted. Less however much land use you want to transition from food production and forest for bio fuel production.
.
Scale
.
The world is currently still at barely 3% solar + wind energy. Double that if you wish to approximate the value after the $100's trillion full electrification of everything reduces waste heat.
.

.
.

 

[JackFlorey]

The world is currently still at barely 3% solar + wind energy.

Yep. And if we grow that by only 10% a year, we are over 50% by 2050.

 

[sendler2112]

The world is currently still at barely 3% solar + wind energy.

Yep. And if we grow that by only 10% a year, we are over 50% by 2050.

Hasn't ever happened yet. Historical build out of wind + solar has never even kept up energy/ GDP growth. Let alone displaced anything. There has never been a year when wind plus solar added production greater than new Carbon fuel production.
.
Things will be much smaller and simpler in the future as we reduce Carbon fuel (and fertilizer) either by decision or depletion.
.

.

 

[Hillhater]

It would take impossibly huge amounts of ...

Like refined oil for automobiles? Cement for our cities? Bitumen for our motorways? Wireless internet telephones? Food for our population?

We never seem to think a technology will take off when it seems far so off. Until we do.

How long has it taken to develop the current capacities for refined fuel, build our cities, road networks, communications systems, or food supply ??
....a bit more than the 30 yr proposed time scale to completely change it !
But the specific point was “Storage” requirements for an RE dependent electricity grid by 2050
There is no current technology that can provide that ..physically or financially..
There will have to be a fresh attitude to nuclear if a low emissions grid is to work at all

 

[ZeroEm]

really are you sure?

 

[JackFlorey]

How long has it taken to develop the current capacities for refined fuel, build our cities, road networks, communications systems, or food supply ??

Let's take them one at a time.

Refined fuel? Gasoline was first used as a motor fuel in 1880. Let's compare that to electric vehicles. First electric vehicles were built in 1895.

Cities? Before recorded history. No one is proposing to replace them, so it doesn't really matter.

Road networks? EV's and gas powered cars use the same roads - so no changes there.

Communications networks? We started using Morse code in 1844. First voice call 1876. First digital voice call (T1 line) 1962. First VoIP call 1995.

Wouldn't you feel a bit silly if, in 1990, you had said "there is NO WAY VoIP will be common in 30 years! It would take a hundred years or so to switch over!"

But the specific point was “Storage” requirements for an RE dependent electricity grid by 2050

Since we have that RIGHT NOW in California, I will just smile and nod, and let you start your next rant.

 

[Hillhater]

Let's take them one at a time.....

If you had thought for a moment to understand the context of those points,.. you might have realised they were examples of how much time and energy resource was required to establish a functional system.
The implication being , that the amount of resource and energy needed to create sufficient storage for an RE based Grid would be of similar proportions.....
.....but in a fraction of the time.!

But the specific point was “Storage” requirements for an RE dependent electricity grid by 2050

Since we have that RIGHT NOW in California, I will just smile and nod, and let you start your next rant.

And,.. NO ...you do not have any significant storage at all in Ca. :wink:

PS jack, have you thought through that 10% per year increase in RE ?...and exactly what capacity increase it means for each year ??

 

[JackFlorey]

If you had thought for a moment to understand the context of those points,.. you might have realised they were examples of how much time and energy resource was required to establish a functional system.

Xactly.

The implication being , that the amount of resource and energy needed to create sufficient storage for an RE based Grid would be of similar proportions.....

Agreed.

.....but in a fraction of the time.!

Let's give it twice as long as VoIP - 50 years. TWICE the time.

And,.. NO ...you do not have any significant storage at all in Ca.

4.2GW as of October. And a summer day sees a peak of ~40GW. So more than 10% already, and growing rapidly.

Sucks to be wrong so often, eh?

PS jack, have you thought through that 10% per year increase in RE ?...and exactly what capacity increase it means for each year ??

Means a huge amount of work. Fortunately we have started it.

 

[Hillhater]

4.2GW as of October. And a summer day sees a peak of ~40GW. So more than 10% already, and growing rapidly.

Storage is measured in Wh.
I have no idea what your 4.2GWh refers to, ..Ca presumeably ? All storage including private behind the meter batteries , utility scale batteries, pumped hydro, etc etc ?
But even if it is all the above.....
You realise that means there is enough storage to support 10% of a peak demand , for 1 hour !
Or,.. it is 0.6% of Ca’s average daily electricity consumption
In the real world,..that is INSIGNIFICANT !

 

[Hillhater]

PS jack, have you thought through that 10% per year increase in RE ?...and exactly what capacity increase it means for each year ??

Means a huge amount of work. Fortunately we have started it.

HUGE !
Again Jack,that doesnt even begin to cover it !
Take an easy/small example. Just the USA, and only electricity.
Its easy because the US already generates 10% (375 TWh) of it total electricity (4000TWh), from Wind and Solar.
( there is more from Hydro and Biomass etc, but they are much less and there is no way they can ever scale up by the multiples required )
From that 10% starting point, A 10% annual increase in W & S is not needed to meet the 50% target by 2050..
It only requires approx 0.6% annual increase, or 24 TWh more in the first year..which is possible.
But by 2050 it would requires a rate of increase of 120TWh each year !
However, these are all “supply” figures,..and in order to achieve them we have to factor in the “capacity Factor” of Wind and Solar......lets simplify that and being generous call it 20% .
So by 2050 the installation rate would be 600TWh “Nameplate” capacity, every year thats approx 70GW pa, or one GW every 5 days being commissioned !
Equivalent to 40, 5MW wind turbines every day continuously.
And again, that is only to get to 50% RE !

 

[JackFlorey]

From that 10% starting point, A 10% annual increase in W & S is not needed to meet the 50% target by 2050..
It only requires approx 0.6% annual increase, or 24 TWh more in the first year..which is possible.
But by 2050 it would requires a rate of increase of 120TWh each year !

Yep. We'd need to grow our capacity by, again, .6% a year. Doesn't seem impossible at all, given that a great many industries grow faster than that.

So by 2050 the installation rate would be 600TWh “Nameplate” capacity, every year thats approx 70GW pa, or one GW every 5 days being commissioned !

Yep. And we will have a huge new industry here in the US. That's a good thing.

All the people who claim "that's too hard; we can't do it!" have always been wrong in the past. They will be this time, too.

 

[JackFlorey]

Storage is measured in Wh.

And in total power out.

I have no idea what your 4.2GWh refers to, ..Ca presumeably ? All storage including private behind the meter batteries , utility scale batteries, pumped hydro, etc etc ?

Nope. Just utility scale in CA.

You realise that means there is enough storage to support 10% of a peak demand , for 1 hour !

Yep. And growing fast. Last year it grew 38% in the US. In 2020 it is forecast to grow 300%. Even if it "only" grows 100% due to COVID-19 - that is still 50% within 3 years.

In the real world,..that is INSIGNIFICANT !

Tell ya what. Pull 10% of your generation off-line during a hot summer day. The next day tell us all how insignificant it is.

 

[Hillhater]

I have no idea what your 4.2GWh refers to, ..Ca presumeably ? All storage including private behind the meter batteries , utility scale batteries, pumped hydro, etc etc ?

Nope. Just utility scale in CA.

Where are you getting the 4.2 GW ? And what is included ?
According to various sources it is less than 1.0GW...(262MW https://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-central- solutions-brief-battery-energy-storage )

You realise that means there is enough storage to support 10% of a peak demand , for 1 hour !

Yep. And growing fast. Last year it grew 38% in the US. In 2020 it is forecast to grow 300%. Even if it "only" grows 100% due to COVID-19 - that is still 50% within 3 years.

You do know that 300% of very little , is still very little !

In the real world,..that is INSIGNIFICANT !

Tell ya what. Pull 10% of your generation off-line during a hot summer day. The next day tell us all how insignificant it is.

[/quote]
Here is a better idea..
Shut down ALL those Gas peakers and Nuclear plants on that hot summers day. ..( the Ca intention ?)...
...then tell us how significant 10 % supply for 1 hour is ?!

 

[TheBeastie]

Yep. And here in California, renewables supply more than 50% of our power - and that is growing every year.

Looking at the CO2/Carbon Intensity of grams of CO2 per kWh it looks pretty crappy 325gCO2eq/kWh, if I look at France its 43gCO2eq/kWh.
So nuclear-based France is emitting almost 10 times LESS co2 than California.

If we were comparing these two emission technology stats as if they were cars, then the "California renewables car" would be seen as a complete joke emitting around 10 times more CO2, it wouldn't even be allowed on the roads if there were "car engine systems" that ended up emitting 10 times more CO2, but with renewable stats we accept them because people are dumb and believe mainstream media and just like the idea.

California
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=CA-ON
Nuclear based France
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=FR

Not much renewables action happening right now, but CA is importing 6,700MW of electricity from elsewhere, it's obviously been deemed a mix at 325gCO2/KWh, but it's the same old story with renewable states, they are always piggybacking off someone else's power and claiming they are renewable energy models.

I guess California is another good model of how crazy renewables are.
South Australia is the best mini-model of how bad wind/solar renewables is but only 1.6million people, because if you get good low "Carbon Intensity" score with all the land space and small population in South Australia, then it probably can't be an ideal model anywhere, unless you just want to ignore the amount of CO2 you really are ultimately emitting compared to just going Nuclear.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&remote=true&countryCode=AUS-SA

Hydro renewables is a no brainer, it's always built anywhere it can be, but most of the world can't use Hydro due to lack of water/geology, so there isn't any point discussing it.

 

[JackFlorey]

Looking at the CO2/Carbon Intensity of grams of CO2 per kWh it looks pretty crappy 325gCO2eq/kWh, if I look at France its 43gCO2eq/kWh.
So nuclear-based France is emitting almost 10 times LESS co2 than California.

Yep. Like I said, nuclear for baseline, solar/wind for peak and throttleable load, natural gas for peaking unthrottleable load.

If we were comparing these two emission technology stats as if they were cars, then the "California renewables car" would be seen as a complete joke emitting around 10 times more CO2

Mine generates zero. How about yours?

Not much renewables action happening right now, but CA is importing 6,700MW of electricity from elsewhere

Let's see. Right now California is using 20GW. 40% renewables, 30% natural gas, 10% nuclear. Importing 20%. So we expand nuclear to 30%; that takes care of imports. We expand renewables to 60%; that takes care of the natural gas. Last 10% comes from storage.

Definitely headed in the right direction.

 

[Hillhater]

Right now California is using 20GW. 40% renewables, 30% natural gas, 10% nuclear. Importing 20%. So we expand nuclear to 30%; that takes care of imports. We expand renewables to 60%; that takes care of the natural gas. Last 10% comes from storage.

Definitely headed in the right direction.

But, The reality is...
.... Ca is planning to shut all its remaining Nuclear plants....
...and you do not have 10% storage !

( and a guess your “Right now ....20GW...”,...is referring to an off peak minimum !!
So, what would you do at that 50GW peak ?? )