The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[steve_bank]

Looks like things are moving in the right direction. Hopefully Trump is a mump in the road for us as to fossil fuels.

 

[lpetrich]

Looks like things are moving in the right direction. Hopefully Trump is a mump in the road for us as to fossil fuels.

Mump? As in mumps? I guess it's a typo for bump.

But you are right. Use of renewable sources is growing, and it looks like it will do well enough to economically preempt fossil-fuel sources -- something like what fossil fuels themselves had done for a long time to renewable sources.

Wind & Solar Cost Decline. 1980-2015 — SaskWind

Wind: from 55.7 to 5.1 US cents / kWh for 1980 - 2012 -- factor of 11
Photovoltaic: from 76.67 to 0.36 USD / watt for 1980 - 2012 -- factor of 210

Though wind turbines and PV cells are far from new, their drops in prices are typical of rapidly developing technologies with increasing markets, as if they were new.

 

[steve_bank]

Looks like things are moving in the right direction. Hopefully Trump is a mump in the road for us as to fossil fuels.

Mump? As in mumps? I guess it's a typo for bump.

But you are right. Use of renewable sources is growing, and it looks like it will do well enough to economically preempt fossil-fuel sources -- something like what fossil fuels themselves had done for a long time to renewable sources.

Wind & Solar Cost Decline. 1980-2015 — SaskWind

Wind: from 55.7 to 5.1 US cents / kWh for 1980 - 2012 -- factor of 11
Photovoltaic: from 76.67 to 0.36 USD / watt for 1980 - 2012 -- factor of 210

Though wind turbines and PV cells are far from new, their drops in prices are typical of rapidly developing technologies with increasing markets, as if they were new.

I have severe retinopathy. Even witj the spell checker it is hard to proof a post.

 

[lpetrich]

Sodium Sulfur Battery In Abu Dhabi Is World's Largest Storage Device | CleanTechnica -- 108 MW / 648 MWh, giving a time of 6 hours.

It is 5 times larger than Tesla's lithium battery in Hornsdale, Australia.

Being sodium-sulfur, it needs to run at 300 C, but sodium and sulfur are much more abundant than lithium, and and much cheaper. Its needing high temperatures means that it will mainly be good for utility-scale applications.

Energy Storage: Next Game Changer | CleanTechnica

According to BNEF’s Yayoi Sekine, “Costs have come down faster than we expected. … Batteries are going to permeate our lives.”

The implications of cheaper batteries are far-reaching, upending multiple industries and helping spur technologies necessary to help fight climate change. Batteries will power the EVs while also boosting the value of solar and wind power, both inherently variable resources.

 

[bilby]

Six hours? That's frankly pathetic.

We need batteries that provide a hundred times the power for a hundred times as long, before a 100% wind and solar grid could possibly be viable.

And these things, that are a ten thousandth of what is needed, cost as much as a proper power plant. And use vast amounts of extremely environmentally unfriendly materials.

 

[bigfield]

Sodium Sulfur Battery In Abu Dhabi Is World's Largest Storage Device | CleanTechnica -- 108 MW / 648 MWh, giving a time of 6 hours.

It is 5 times larger than Tesla's lithium battery in Hornsdale, Australia.

Being sodium-sulfur, it needs to run at 300 C, but sodium and sulfur are much more abundant than lithium, and and much cheaper. Its needing high temperatures means that it will mainly be good for utility-scale applications.

Energy Storage: Next Game Changer | CleanTechnica

According to BNEF’s Yayoi Sekine, “Costs have come down faster than we expected. … Batteries are going to permeate our lives.”

The implications of cheaper batteries are far-reaching, upending multiple industries and helping spur technologies necessary to help fight climate change. Batteries will power the EVs while also boosting the value of solar and wind power, both inherently variable resources.

Take a look at the electricity supply in South Australia, the blue part of the graph is the electricity supplied by the Hornsdale battery, while the shades of orange are gas generators.



https://opennem.org.au/#/regions/sa

You couldn't see any blue? That's because the Hornsdale Power Reserve provides a mere 0.3% of the state's electricity in a year. A battery that size is useful for frequency control, but that's about it.

South Australia would have to build hundreds of these reserves to keep the state supplied with juice. And SA's demand is tiny compared to the east coast, which in turn is tiny compared to the demand in Europe, North America and Asia.

Something has to replace those gas generators, but it isn't going to be lithium-ion batteries.

 

[lpetrich]

How Does Your State Make Electricity? - The New York Times -- US state, of course

America isn’t making electricity the way it did two decades ago: Natural gas has edged out coal as the country’s leading generation source …

… and renewables like wind and solar have made small yet speedy gains. But, each state has its own story.

Wind power has grown dramatically in some Midwestern states, even if not as much elsewhere. In Iowa, wind turbines generate about 37% of the state's electricity. California has 6% wind and 16% solar, more than Hawaii with 11% solar.

World's Largest Offshore Wind Farm Hornsea One Generates First Power | CleanTechnica -- the first of its 174 7-megawatt turbines. Total planned capacity: 1.2 gigawatts.

Vineyard Wind Proposes 1,200 Megawatt "Liberty Wind" Offshore Project For New York | CleanTechnica

California Leads In Net-Zero Homes As Costs Drop | CleanTechnica -- solar panels are a common part of such homes.

Sprague Energy Installs Flexible Thin Film Solar Panels On Its Oil Storage Tanks | CleanTechnica "The thin film panels weigh significantly less than conventional solar panels and do not require the complexity of a traditional racking system to install."

Say It Again: State Level Renewable Energy Policies Trump Trump Every Time | CleanTechnica

Say It Again: State Level Renewable Energy Policies Trump Trump Every Time | CleanTechnica

The extent to which Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell will poison every man, woman, and child in the United States in order to please their friends in the fossil fuel industries was made abundantly clear this week when both men castigated the Tennessee Valley Authority for its move to close two coal-fired generating stations — Paradise Unit 3 and Bull Run.

pResident Trump:

Coal is an important part of our electricity generation mix and @TVAnews should give serious consideration to all factors before voting to close viable power plants, like Paradise #3 in Kentucky!

Mitch McConnell:

Crooked Mitch McConnell weighed in a few minutes later with a tweet of his own. The man who gave ordinary Americans a big tax increase while coddling his corporate friends and rewarding the wealthy had his own praise for the virtues of coal. “I agree Mr. President. #Coal is an affordable & reliable source of energy we can find right here in #Kentucky. It powers the lights in our homes & employs thousands of hardworking Kentuckians. Coal has helped fuel our country’s greatness & it needs to be part of our energy future.”

 

[lpetrich]

Fossil Fuel To Electricity Conversion Field Suddenly Blows Up (#CleanTechnica Exclusive Interview) | CleanTechnica -- that's changing from natural gas and fuel oil for heating and cooling and cooking.

Renewables for African Mines Become Low-Cost Option for Power - Renewable Energy World

In the last few years, more and more mining companies have adopted wind and solar systems to reduce their energy costs at remote off-grid mines. In this first phase, the initial focus was on the integration capabilities as miners were afraid that adding intermittent renewables such as solar and wind could affect the reliability of power supply and even lead to production losses.

In various microgrid applications, renewables combined with diesel, HFO, or gas have proven to provide reliable power supply to remote mines.

So even if they still have to run their diesel generators at night, they can save a lot in fuel bills.

World's biggest battery to boost solar in Texas - Renewable Energy World

The project underscores how Big Oil’s demand for power in the fossil fuels-rich Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico is, in a twist, boosting the case for renewable energy. Texas’s power grid operator has stressed the need for more electricity resources in the region to power oil and gas drilling operations.

Looks like that will be the endgame for fossil fuels -- their extraction supported by renewable-energy production. This is the reverse of how renewable-energy facilities have started out, produced with the help of fossil fuels.

 

[lpetrich]

6 key trends in sustainable and renewable energy - Renewable Energy World for the US

1. Gas and renewables are pushing out coal.
2. Wind and solar dominate renewable growth.
3. Transportation sector emissions are now greater than power sector emissions and overall carbon emissions rose in 2018.
4. EV sales are rising quickly.
5. Clean energy (including natural gas) and energy efficiency support over 3 million American jobs.
6. Corporates continue to drive the growth of renewable energy.

That last one may seem like virtue signaling, but there is something else that I suspect is involved: a more stable market. Being large consumers, big businesses are more exposed to fluctuations in production prices than small ones, who are at least partially insulated by utility companies.

Wind Farms Now More Affordable than Coal Plants - Renewable Energy World
From the article:

• Coal - Between $27 and $45
• Solar - Between $31 and $44
• Wind - Between $29 and $56

Multilateral banks pile onto Mexico solar – Energy Transition - "The Mexican solar business continues to attract international investors – in December 2018 they spent $87 million dollars."

German solar hits its 2018 targets – Energy Transition

Road Transport: the “problem child” of European decarbonization – Energy Transition -- that's a big problem, since electricity is most conveniently delivered to stationary customers. The most successful electric vehicles for a long time were electric trains, since they can get their electricity off of extra rails or overhead cables.

 

[bilby]

Clean energy does NOT include natural gas.

No matter how desperately the gas companies and their wind and solar power patsies might want to believe it does.

The shift from coal to gas via the propaganda technique of promoting wind and solar is causing high power prices, poor grid stability, and massive profits for fossil fuel companies, while simultaneously failing to significantly reduce carbon emissions.

Germany has spent an insane amount on this nonsense, and is still nowhere near to having low emissions.

How long does this foolishness need to go on for before we accept the observation that the German plan fails, and that the only way to succeed in lowering emissions at a reasonable price is to be like France, Sweden and Ontario?

https://www.electricitymap.org/

 

[steve_bank]

Something I learned as an engineer. If an idea is good it gets funded. If you think you have a good idea and wonder why no one does it it is likely there is no money in it.

Wind and solar are growing. If investors and banks making loans did not see a financial opportunity it would not be growing.

In the 50s we lived in a house with coal heat. A coals truck would dump a load through a coal Shute built into the foundation.

 

[lpetrich]

Something I learned as an engineer. If an idea is good it gets funded. If you think you have a good idea and wonder why no one does it it is likely there is no money in it.

Or else because it's not being championed by someone very good at bullshitting.

Consider "solar roadways", solar cells in roads. That is a horrible bullshit idea for several reasons, but one that has gotten some visibility and financial support. Reasons like:

• Obstruction by dirt and snow and the like.
• Low elevation means being shaded a lot.
• Having to be strong enough not to be crunched by vehicles passing over it.
• Being able to survive wear by vehicles passing over it.

Solar canopies are a MUCH better idea, and they have much less of these drawbacks. Most of them have been built over parking lots and parking spaces, as far as I can tell, but some have been built over railroad lines and canals.

Wind and solar are growing. If investors and banks making loans did not see a financial opportunity it would not be growing.

Nowadays, at least, even if not 10 or 20 years ago.

 

[bilby]

The ifea that energy funding is in any way a level playing field, where investors simply pick the best options to make a good return, is a sick joke.

Different energy sources have different and complex sets of incentives, subsidies, and barriers applied to them by various organisations (including, but not limited to governments, and subject to all kinds of lobbying) each of which has an agenda that involves skewing the matket to either make more money, or to achieve some non-financial objective(s).

Power generation technologies are supported (or opposed) for a wide range of reasons, including:

• Financial returns (short, medium or long term)
• Job creation (or protection)
• Public health and safety (with some technologies given a far greater latitude on deaths and injuries than others)
• Pollution control (including but not limited to carbon emissions control)
• Public opinion (as formed by lobbying, propaganda, and public education or its absence)

Wind and solar facilities are currently very attractive to investors, not least because in many places, the power they generate attracts a minimum wholesale price, and/or must be purchased in its entirety before power is purchased from other sources. This makes a wind farm profitable, even if it generates most of its power when wholesale prices are low (or even negative). The reason for this deliberate market distortion is that governments know that the public like to see more of these technologies - because the public belief is that these are good for the environment.

That this belief is mistaken can easily be seen by comparison between French and German carbon emissions, and between the prices paid for electricity in those two nations.

The gas companies are very wealthy and very powerful. They LOVE intermittent renewables, because they require massive gas powered backups. Large parts of the anti-nuclear lobby consist of 'environmental' groups such as Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, whose anti-nuclear and pro-Wind/Solar campaigns are bankrolled by gas companies.

The idea that the fundamental engineering practicalities or costs are a major driver of the choice of which power sources to deploy is monumentally naive.

 

[bilby]

If saving the environment requires making energy expensive, why is French electricity so cheap?

 

[bilby]

This is not a new phenomenon. Here's an article from four years ago, discussing the fact that Gas companies are behind the Wind power industry in the UK.

It's not from some right-wing, anti-renewables/pro-coal source either; This is from the Grauniad, bastion of left-wing opinion.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/fossil-fuel-firms-accused-renewable-lobby-takeover-push-gas

Gas companies LOVE wind power. Wind power leads to high demand for gas, which leads to carbon emissions, fracking, and all kinds of environmental harm (methane emissions from leaks are also a significant source of greenhouse gas).

 

[steve_bank]

As one of many engineers I was part of and witness to the development of technology. There is always bullshit.

It evolved and there were many dead ends. The transfer to solar and wind will evolve.

Just watched a natural gas commercial. It shows a windmill not turning. The narrative says 'natural gas, a good compliment to alternative energy when the wind is not blowing', paraphrasing.

I believe back in the 90s BP began selling solar systems. Solar powered roadside signs appeared way back in the 90s. If you pay attention when ypu drive you may see solar infrastruce.

Solar trains are appearing in China and elsewhere. It is easier in places like China and India to mandate solar.

After the 70s Arab Oil Embargo we had tax incentives for solar. Eventually they were allowed to run out as oil price dropped and big auto built bigger and bigger cars with more and more electronics. Japan went small and efficient.

Here in the USA lacking any coherent energy strategy and policy energy will evolve as a mix of natural gas and solar-wind.

If you live in the Southwest building a new house that does not incorporate passive heat and cooling along with solar electricity makes no sense.

From my solar text there was a growing passive solar industry for heat and hot water, killed by cheap natural gas. There is a picture of a large Sterling Cycle engine out in a desert a technology not mentioned here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_cycle

Compression is driven by heat.

Starling Cyle coolers have been around since at least the 70s for cooling electronics. When I worked on IR sensors we used one to cool the sensor cryogenically in a video system.

 

[steve_bank]

Something I learned as an engineer. If an idea is good it gets funded. If you think you have a good idea and wonder why no one does it it is likely there is no money in it.

Or else because it's not being championed by someone very good at bullshitting.

Consider "solar roadways", solar cells in roads. That is a horrible bullshit idea for several reasons, but one that has gotten some visibility and financial support. Reasons like:

• Obstruction by dirt and snow and the like.
• Low elevation means being shaded a lot.
• Having to be strong enough not to be crunched by vehicles passing over it.
• Being able to survive wear by vehicles passing over it.

Solar canopies are a MUCH better idea, and they have much less of these drawbacks. Most of them have been built over parking lots and parking spaces, as far as I can tell, but some have been built over railroad lines and canals.

Wind and solar are growing. If investors and banks making loans did not see a financial opportunity it would not be growing.

Nowadays, at least, even if not 10 or 20 years ago.

Search on china solar transportation rail cars. Looks like China is going solar in a big way.

 

[bilby]

The Only Green New Deals That Have Ever Worked Were Done With Nuclear, Not Renewables

Germany spent $580 billion on renewables and its emissions have been flat for a decade. And all of that unreliable solar and wind has made Germany’s electricity the second most expensive in Europe.

Emissions in California rose after it closed one nuclear plant and will rise again if closes another. To the extent its emissions declined it was from the replacement of electricity from coal with electricity from cheaper and cleaner natural gas.

Bottom line? Had California and Germany spent on nuclear what they instead spent on renewables, both places would already have 100% clean power.

 

[fromderinside]

Bilby, adding strongly felt opinions will not change man's nature to do the least costly near term thing to get girls. From the mind of one, like  Jerry Brown and my recently departed neighbor David Pesonen whose claim to fame is leading the movement to remove a reactor from a coastal fault in CA, who both dated  Linda Ronstadt who precedes the flower child.

At least your reference isn't all caps. Thanks for appearing somewhat moderate.

Really my argument isn't against nuclear power. I owe my education and good fortune to it, water power, state and national public service, MDC, Grumman, Northrup and Boeing.

I'm opposed to stupidity in all for-profit endeavor. Nothing like ruining Nuclear power by putting reactors using bad technology on cheap land above faults, near faults, accessible to activity at faults, or generating electric power damning rivers essential to agriculture, fisheries, and navigation without doing necessary research, or building planes to get us from here to there cheaply that aren't really safe 'cause that increases cost a bit. As for nukes and war, wasn't the breeder reactor a great idea generate power and more effective fuel at the same time Huh, huh, huh, huh? WHOOPS. prototype Plants in using nuclear energy in a medium that expands when temperature rises is cute. Who'd a thunk, and at a lot less cost as well..

You want to advocate something? Work in the industry that needs fixing. Our family did for all the above. Now that's service.

Like the Comics say "Git 'er done."

 

[bilby]

Bilby, adding strongly felt opinions will not change man's nature to do the least costly near term thing to get girls. From the mind of one, like  Jerry Brown and my recently departed neighbor David Pesonen whose claim to fame is leading the movement to remove a reactor from a coastal fault in CA, who both dated  Linda Ronstadt who precedes the flower child.

At least your reference isn't all caps. Thanks for appearing somewhat moderate.

Really my argument isn't against nuclear power. I owe my education and good fortune to it, water power, state and national public service, MDC, Grumman, Northrup and Boeing.

I'm opposed to stupidity in all for-profit endeavor. Nothing like ruining Nuclear power by putting reactors using bad technology on cheap land above faults, near faults, accessible to activity at faults, or generating electric power damning rivers essential to agriculture, fisheries, and navigation without doing necessary research, or building planes to get us from here to there cheaply that aren't really safe 'cause that increases cost a bit. As for nukes and war, wasn't the breeder reactor a great idea generate power and more effective fuel at the same time Huh, huh, huh, huh? WHOOPS. prototype Plants in using nuclear energy in a medium that expands when temperature rises is cute. Who'd a thunk, and at a lot less cost as well..

You want to advocate something? Work in the industry that needs fixing. Our family did for all the above. Now that's service.

Like the Comics say "Git 'er done."

I would dearly love to work in the industry. But the industry in question is banned in Australia, by s140A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; So my only option is lobbying (and in particular lobbying for the repeal of that stupid law).

As for your passive-aggressive amateur commentary on my personality and psychology, you can stick it right back up your arse. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me what I think, or how I should approach this issue? You haven't even taken the time to determine the scope of the problems I face, and have started with the totally false and unjustified assumption that the entire world is just like your backyard.

None of this is about me (or you, or any of the dead hippies whose names you drop). Stop trying to make it personal - it's unprofessional, unwanted, condescending, and downright fucking rude. Or should I be grateful that your response wasn't in all caps?