Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[JackFlorey]

But we didn't have to generate the energy in liquid fuel. Only to harvest it. Which until 2000 resulted ER/EI of 100 with a historical trend average prices of $20/ barrel.

Right. And now they are down around 50. And tight oil facilities are closer to an EROEI of 10-20, which means it's only going to go down from there. So at 20% efficiency we get an EROEI, well to wheels, of about 10 right now.

Compare to solar. Large solar installations have EROEI's of 50-150. Call it 100. The "well to wheels" for BEV's is around 70% so you see EROEI's of about 70. Assuming your 30% number is accurate, that means we have an EROEI for hydrogen vehicles of around 30 - still several times better than existing oil-based vehicles.

But the horizons of all natural resources are receding since we have used them according to the best, first. Which will begin to ripple through the world economy as higher financial and environmental costs to do big and complex things. The energy density and scale of fossil Carbon will not nearly be matched by rebuildables.

Energy density - agreed.

Scale - we decide the scale, so it's up to us to determine on what scale they will be utilized.

 

[sendler2112]

Scale - we decide the scale, so it's up to us to determine on what scale they will be utilized.

Our scale of built out solar and wind is up to our remaining liquid fuel and non-renewable resources and capital, based on the spare societal surplus that we can afford to put in to it that is not required just to maintain civilization. Which is decreasing every year. Even as we leave 4 billion people (and all other life on Earth) behind.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

The entire nuclear industry is about that. In the 1960s they promied energy to cheap to meter. They promised safe Technology and they promiessed Solutions for storage.
This was 60 yaers ago.

Bolded for emphasis- The 3 worst nuclear incidents from power generation in history (in worsening order) is the Three Mile Island incident, The Fukushima plant disaster, and the Chernobyl Core detonation. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were both caused by human error (None of the Soviets in Chernobyl knew how the plant even worked), and Fukushima was caused by freak natural disaster from one of the worst earthquakes seen. Even more to the point, each nuclear engine on the Nautilus subs us yanks use are all hand-controlled, and there's been no problems there since so many people analyze worldwide rad levels. So... I have no idea what you're saying, and even with those examples I think coal has STILL put more radiation in the atmo than nuke power plant accidents.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/confessions-of-a-u-s-navy-submarine-officer-1715113243

Sure they will have all this solved within just 4 years from some "startup" with a website, while a global industry sucking up a trillion of USD/€ couldn't do it in 60 years.

You believe in this?

Well we had one running in the 60s. UC Berkeley was powered by a Thorium breeder until funding was pulled.
https://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2

You're gonna have to proove "A trillion USD", because America finally just built a new nuke plant in Georgia after 3-mile island in 1979. Until then, Thorium tech has multiple countries building new concepts on a technology proven to work- the only question will be like above, will the mining (it comes up a lot in America by accident...), refining and shipping create LESS carbon that other forms?

 

[JackFlorey]

Our scale of built out solar and wind is up to our remaining liquid fuel and non-renewable resources and capital, based on the spare societal surplus that we can afford to put in to it that is not required just to maintain civilization.

I think your assumption that a fixed amount of raw energy (not useful energy, raw energy) is required to maintain a civilization is incorrect. We will certainly have a DIFFERENT civilization with a 75% reduction in available raw energy. That does not mean no civilization.

The future won't be Star Trek - but it won't be Mad Max either.

 

[JackFlorey]

The entire nuclear industry is about that. In the 1960s they promied energy to cheap to meter.

That was fusion, not fission.

They promised safe Technology and they promiessed Solutions for storage.
This was 60 yaers ago.

And today we have nuclear technology that is safer than any form of fossil fuel energy, and we have had zero deadly accidents with storing spent fuel from commercial plants. Sounds like they delivered.

Sure they will have all this solved within just 4 years from some "startup" with a website, while a global industry sucking up a trillion of USD/€ couldn't do it in 60 years.

You believe in this?

I recall exactly the same thing being said about Tesla Motors. "No one can build affordable EV's that people like driving. Ford couldn't do it. GM couldn't do it. Toyota couldn't do it. You really think a tech nerd can do it? Nonsense."

 

[sendler2112]

I think your assumption that a fixed amount of raw energy (not useful energy, raw energy) is required to maintain a civilization is incorrect. We will certainly have a DIFFERENT civilization with a 75% reduction in available raw energy. That does not mean no civilization.

The future won't be Star Trek - but it won't be Mad Max either.

Exactly. "Rebuildables can power A civilization. Just not THIS civilization". We are right now pretty close to living the Star Trek peak of high tech goodies.

It will take wide spread mass education and enlightenment to help most people see how this magic effect of burning millions of years of stored sunlight props up everything we have done since the industrial revolution. so we can develop all new organising and governance to make sure everyone has at least enough to be happy when we are soon without it. Without fighting over what is left of the world. There will be far more people in formerly rich countries doing work and less having "jobs". As it already is for the majority of people in the world that live in poor countries.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

And think about how LITTLE power our society needs now- my phone is magnitudes faster than the Windows machine I played mechwarrior 2 on 20 years ago and charges on 2.1 amps via USB-C. I could light my upstairs with LEDs on the same amount of power needed for one incandescent. Every year, more and more people install solar and go off grid for hours at a time without batting an eye. Civilization is ALWAYS changing.

 

[sendler2112]

And think about how LITTLE power our society needs now- my phone is magnitudes faster than the Windows machine I played mechwarrior 2 on 20 years ago and charges on 2.1 amps via USB-C. I could light my upstairs with LEDs on the same amount of power needed for one incandescent. Every year, more and more people install solar and go off grid for hours at a time without batting an eye. Civilization is ALWAYS changing.

This is a very common blindspot. Home electricity use is only 20-30% of a Northern country's ELECTRICITY use. And electricity is only 20-30% of total primary energy use. Just because your home electricity is self sufficient, you have only reduced your share of energy from the social total by 10%. Something like that. We were never taught how to see embodied energy as a culture. It is invisible to us as water is to a fish. Every building and road, every piece of clothing or food, every service we use, embodies vast amounts of energy. Still 85% from Fossil Carbon and not going down. Increased rebuildables are not even keeping up with growth.
.
Things will be much smaller and simpler again after fossil fuels.

 

[Hillhater]

But we didn't have to generate the energy in liquid fuel. Only to harvest it. Which until 2000 resulted ER/EI of 100 with a historical trend average prices of $20/ barrel.

Right. And now they are down around 50. And tight oil facilities are closer to an EROEI of 10-20, which means it's only going to go down from there. So at 20% efficiency we get an EROEI, well to wheels, of about 10 right now.

Compare to solar. Large solar installations have EROEI's of 50-150. Call it 100.

..Sources ?
I realise there is much disagreement on exact ERoEI data, but unless you can reference a reputable source for that 50-150 figure ,..i am calling BS !
Hall & Murphy (2014) , are the most extensively referenced source of independent data..
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png
.
.and Forbes are slightly more recent...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#7e0a09c2a027

 

[JackFlorey]

And think about how LITTLE power our society needs now

Right. That's actual useful energy, not total energy, which is an important distinction.

People used to use TV's that drew several hundred watts. Now many of them use a phone for the same purpose that draws less than a watt.

We've already covered EV's.

Lights take 80% less energy and provide the same light. Air conditioners/refrigerators use far less power. People don't care much - all they care is that their food stays cold, and actually like the lower energy consumption because it means it's cheaper for them. And while a lot of money went into the research that made that efficient compressor, that's work that is useful for decades to come.

Elevators and escalators are more efficient. So are trains, airplanes, buses etc etc.

 

[TheBeastie]

There are tons of propaganda on how cheap renewable energy is but the RE lovers don't want to look at the real-world data or even use basic horse sense.

The fact is just look at the power-bills in South Australia where it is more dependant on wind than just about any other state in the world, their power bills are officially the most expensive in the world.

Then we have China who always take the cheapest route for everything, they are always announcing they are building a bunch of new nuclear reactors
https://news.yahoo.com/china-build-6-8-nuclear-034614765.html
https://in.reuters.com/article/china-nuclearpower/china-to-build-6-8-nuclear-reactors-a-year-from-2020-2025-report-idINKBN24A0DL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checking out this popular RE energy site for Australia, SA is still on 2,142MW official registered wind energy online.
While Victoria has been bumped up to a remarkable 2,774MW windfarms online, obviously some of the new projects are done and online.
https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy

At just under 3000MW of wind farms installed in Victoria, ideally about half of this chart should be solid green since we peak between 4000MW to 6000MW between the days.
But the wind isn't blowing nearly enough.


Also, Electricitymap still claims that Victoria only has 1,270MW of installed wind-farm capacity when in fact its more than double that, I have contacted EM several times about this, but they don't want to update it, I think they like the idea of folks looking at Victorian wind energy stats and seeing a fake 100% wind generation when the wind is really blowing strong when it is, in fact, more like 50%.
https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/AUS-VIC?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-SA&remote=true

South Australia is a similar situation, ideally, if the wind was blowing well the entire chart should be solid green.


All up the OpenNem website is also tweaked and twisted to make wind/solar energy look better than it really is like Electricitymap but the reality of how crappy it is still overflows through to the truth.
https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/

 

[Cephalotus]

This is a very common blindspot. Home electricity use is only 20-30% of a Northern country's ELECTRICITY use. And electricity is only 20-30% of total primary energy use. Just because your home electricity is self sufficient, you have only reduced your share of energy from the social total by 10%. Something like that. We were never taught how to see embodied energy as a culture. It is invisible to us as water is to a fish. Every building and road, every piece of clothing or food, every service we use, embodies vast amounts of energy. Still 85% from Fossil Carbon and not going down. Increased rebuildables are not even keeping up with growth.

A typical car today uses 80kWh of fuel for driving 100km.
An electric car will use 20kWh for the same distance.
An electric bike will use 1kWh for the same distance.

A typical (not new) house today needs 20.000kWh for heating.
A new efficient house needs 2.000kWh for heating.

 

[sendler2112]

A typical car today uses 80kWh of fuel for driving 100km.
An electric car will use 20kWh for the same distance.
An electric bike will use 1kWh for the same distance.

A typical (not new) house today needs 20.000kWh for heating.
A new efficient house needs 2.000kWh for heating.

So in addition to replacing all energy with electricity and adding 200 TWh of storage, and installing two way smart meters with complete internetofthings load control throughout, we also have to replace all infrastructure. It is obvious to me, on a world scale, when considering the environmental destruction and depletion we have already produced, that we will continue to rake the Earth for resources in a vain attempt to hang on to our current Star Trek living standards to end up with a Mordor like depleted environmental and biological state, only to still come up way short when fossil Carbon leaves us. Leaving those future human and all other life forms nothing in the way of low entropy resources and healthy biosystems.
.
By the way: My Honda fit gets 38 mpg in the Winter even though we run 10% ethanol and my 2014 Nissan Leaf premier with heat pump gets 96 mpge. Heat turned down to barely keep the glass clear and using the efficiency of the heated seat and steering wheel and an electric blanket on my lap to maintain some semblance of comfort. Same exact commute minus the comparative lack of comfort. As measured by the car. Which doesn't include preconditioning from the wall or charge losses from the wall.
.
Which leaves us with a more realistic slightly better than 2:1 efficiency increase for the EV. Real world experience, not theory.

 

[Cephalotus]

.and Forbes are slightly more recent...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/#7e0a09c2a027

This is the source from your graph:

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

Outdated data from German nuclear Promoters, but #1 if you do some google search for eroei solar pictures. Excellent lobby work! Sadly didn't help their cause to promote nuclear in Germany, but will help ist bit to destroy ecosystems on our planet.

Solar EROEI:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032116306906?via%3Dihub

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/03/solar-power-can-pay-easily/

 

[Cephalotus]

And today we have nuclear technology that is safer than any form of fossil fuel energy, and we have had zero deadly accidents with storing spent fuel from commercial plants. Sounds like they delivered.

Kyschtym.

Sure they will have all this solved within just 4 years from some "startup" with a website, while a global industry sucking up a trillion of USD/€ couldn't do it in 60 years.

You believe in this?

I recall exactly the same thing being said about Tesla Motors. "No one can build affordable EV's that people like driving. Ford couldn't do it. GM couldn't do it. Toyota couldn't do it. You really think a tech nerd can do it? Nonsense."
[/quote]

We will see. If I'm wrong it can only be better. If you are wrong it will be a desaster.

The only problem with those fairy tales is, that people use them to promote burning coal and oil. (which is what you do if you are against more solar and wind and tell people to wait for those "magic nukes")

 

[sendler2112]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032116306906?via%3Dihub

So the most modern solar PV had ER/EI of 11.
.
"An input correction with recent technological improvements for all studies resulted for mono- and polysilicon solar-PV in an adjusted mean harmonized EPT of 3.5 and 2.4 years and NER of 9.7 and 11.4 times, respectively."
.
But the studies didn't include all of the associated hardware and infrastructure nor maintenance and decommissioning.
.
"Few studies in their system boundaries considered energy costs for embodied material, maintenance, decommissioning, and auxiliary services."

 

[sendler2112]

Nate Hagens: "We need to get working on an ad hoc "break glass in case of emergency" response to the impending financial collapses that will be coming due to the pre-existing fragile state of the world economy and the new extreme pressures of the Corona virus."
https://youtu.be/DBQZhEy9CoE

 

[JackFlorey]

The only problem with those fairy tales is, that people use them to promote burning coal and oil. (which is what you do if you are against more solar and wind and tell people to wait for those "magic nukes")

I am sure some people do that.

Personally I think the best possible power mix for the near future (that's out about 20 years) is:

Nuclear for baseload (that load which never goes away - which is what nuclear excels at)
Solar/wind to supply daily and evening peaks (solar peaks midday, wind peaks near the end of the day)
Fast startup CCS gas plants for planned non-synchronous peak loads
Battery storage for grid stabilization/unplanned peaks

As time goes on and solar gets built out, and we end up with more and more unused capacity, we make hydrogen with it - and then run peaker plants with hydrogen. (At first combustion because we can do that right now, later fuel cells.) And if we ever get high temperature gas reactors, we use them to generate hydrogen through thermal dissociation of water.

 

[nicobie]

That makes sense to me.

An as time goes on and money gets freed up and becomes available, increase solar/wind and battery then decrease nuclear. While I'm not too hot on hydrogen but I do admit that it is useful for large mobile applications like planes, trains, boats and spaceships :wink: .

 

[Hillhater]

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Sadly didn't help their cause to promote nuclear in Germany, ....

Its well known you cannot fight Political dogma and idealism , with facts !

And the first link i quoted (Hall etal), also calculated Solar PV ERoEI at 8-12..
But none of them allow for any storage or back up to compensate for the unreliable, intermittent nature of the supply .!...That rather pulls it down again !

I recall exactly the same thing being said about Tesla Motors. "No one can build affordable EV's that people like driving. Ford couldn't do it. GM couldn't do it. Toyota couldn't do it. You really think a tech nerd can do it? Nonsense."

No !... He has not cracked that nut yet either,..unless you consider $50,000 affordable ( relative to equivalent cars)

 

[Hillhater]

...... While I'm not too hot on hydrogen but I do admit that it is useful for large mobile applications like planes, trains, boats and spaceships :wink: .

Well maybe, but you can take any practical , commercial , airplane off that list since there are a few too many big technical and financial hurdles to find solutions to, before that can happen.
Once the folly of AGW is finally revealed, we can forget wasting time and resources on solutions to non existent problems, then we can concentrate on issues that will really benefit mankind :wink:

 

[Dauntless]

https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/building-a-fusion-reactor-in-the-backyard

 

[sendler2112]

Wow! Sharp repartee. Seemingly effortless brilliance.
Nate Hagens
.
https://www.sismique.fr/post/where-are-we-going-nate-hagens?fbclid=IwAR3loRwLHWKwqXu7yRaTKtNuPILQwIhAMOeGo-WrgBYSvwPX7lTj6CT7Nzg

 

[TheBeastie]

Looks like there is a lot of movement in the Nikola Motor hydrogen fuel-cell electric trucks, looks like they are ready for mass production.
[youtube]rphYdZNP_ko[/youtube]

Here is a video of the electric truck doing 0-60mph in 5seconds, apparently they are going to upload a professionally made video of it via gopro angles etc to YouTube soon.
https://twitter.com/nikolatrevor/status/1283425947199221761?s=20
He seems to let trolls on Twitter get to him a fair bit. I actually think a fuel-cell electric truck will be more successful than pure battery trucks, I think Elon Musks excessive bullishness on what you can do with lithium-ion batteries alone has gone pass the practical limit when it comes to semi-trucks, IMO.

These are recent videos from their channel showing the truck off over the last 2 weeks.
Nikola Motor - BTS with Trevor Milton Showing the Nikola Two FCEV Doing a Ride & Drive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LSrvRMgIqw
Nikola Motor - Nikola Badger: Everything You Need to Know About the All-Electric Pickup Truck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pHpUETheHM

This is a pretty detailed walk around in and out of their fuel-cell electric truck, he talks a fair amount of details
[youtube]7C2LDmkEmP0[/youtube]


In other news, the most used Mirai fleet in the world: the environmentally friendly CleverShuttle service has covered over five million kilometers with the Toyota fuel cell vehicle within two and a half years. Shows fuel-cell is reliable.
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/throwback-thursday-spotlight-clevershuttle-runs-5000000-kilometers-with-the-worlds-most-used-toyota-mirai-fleet/

 

[JackFlorey]

Kyschtym.

That was an accident at a USSR military plant that made weapons grade material for weapons 63 years go. Not really commercial power production.

We will see. If I'm wrong it can only be better. If you are wrong it will be a desaster.

Coal currently kills 13,000 people a year in the US. If we switch those to nuclear, and we have one disaster in 50 years that kills 10,000 people - that will be 65 times better.

The only problem with those fairy tales is, that people use them to promote burning coal and oil. (which is what you do if you are against more solar and wind and tell people to wait for those "magic nukes"

I am all for solar, wind - and nukes. Anything to shut down coal. (We don't burn oil for power here in the continental US.)