The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Loren Pechtel]

Project Sunroof Enter one's home address and it will do a Google Maps display of your home, complete with its roof being colored to indicate how much sunlight it gets: black to brown to orange to yellow. It will also make an estimate on how much you are likely to save with solar panels on your roof.

I checked it out for places where I currently live, recently lived, and lived in the past. Central and southeastern Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and northern California are good places for rooftop solar panels, but western Oregon isn't.

It doesn't understand how horribly fragmented our roof is and thus way overestimates the useable south exposure.

 

[bilby]

Roadmap to Nowhere - The Myth of Powering the Nation with Renewable Energy

... if it can’t be used at once, the energy must either be wasted or stored, if we can afford an adequate means of storage. But just one grid-day of storage for the bare-bones Roadmap raises the price to nearly $23 trillion.

It gets worse: Before the 35-year buildout is complete, we’ll also have to refurbish the 350,000 onshore wind turbines at least once, and the 150,000 offshore turbines three times or more.

And even when it is complete, it’ll never end: Solar panels only last about forty years. To maintain 18 billion square meters of panel, our renewable-industrial complex will have to fabricate, install, and recycle 1.23 million m2 every single day, without a break – forever.

...

Existing battery technology is completely inadequate to back up the grid. All the lithium mined on earth in 2016 would give us a whopping eighteen minutes of all-grid battery storage. If all the vanadium mined in 2015 were devoted to flow batteries, it would provide one minute of storage.

Pumped hydro is the only existing storage technology that can adequately scale up. The problem is, we would need 156 billion cubic meters of water to generate one grid-day of power. That’s our national fresh water consumption (tap water, irrigation, the works) for more than four months.

And of course, one grid day is inadequate to ensure supply - to keep the lights on, we would require around ten times that; More if the weather at the chosen sites for these generators isn't as favourable as expected (for example, due to changes in climate).

 

[skepticalbip]

Project Sunroof Enter one's home address and it will do a Google Maps display of your home, complete with its roof being colored to indicate how much sunlight it gets: black to brown to orange to yellow. It will also make an estimate on how much you are likely to save with solar panels on your roof.

I checked it out for places where I currently live, recently lived, and lived in the past. Central and southeastern Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and northern California are good places for rooftop solar panels, but western Oregon isn't.

That is a rather odd site. It looks like it was designed only for selling solar cells, not for meeting the power needs of the house. Apparently they recommend enough solar cells to fill the roof on the sunny side of the house because the first question anyone should ask who is thinking of going solar is how much power is consumed in the home and this site apparently didn't even consider that important because they didn't ask.

I have decided to go with a ball of plutonium in a jar. A ball of plutonium massive enough to continually glow a nice bright red should provide a comforting light to see by and could also heat the house. It would probably also cook a roast if placed in a well insulated oven along with the slab of meat.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.In the southwest passive soar heating and cooling is easy. Watched a show on it. Phoenix used to be know for its climate. Massive air-condition and the waste heat has radically changed the local environment.

Average stunner temperatures have gone up due to the was6e heat. Humidity has gone up.

 

[bilby]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.In the southwest passive soar heating and cooling is easy. Watched a show on it. Phoenix used to be know for its climate. Massive air-condition and the waste heat has radically changed the local environment.

Average stunner temperatures have gone up due to the was6e heat. Humidity has gone up.

Gosh, you watched a show on it?? I had no idea we were in the presence of such expertise. I am amazed the IPCC haven't head-hunted you yet.

 

[lpetrich]

Roadmap to Nowhere - The Myth of Powering the Nation with Renewable Energy

... if it can’t be used at once, the energy must either be wasted or stored, if we can afford an adequate means of storage. But just one grid-day of storage for the bare-bones Roadmap raises the price to nearly $23 trillion.

It gets worse: Before the 35-year buildout is complete, we’ll also have to refurbish the 350,000 onshore wind turbines at least once, and the 150,000 offshore turbines three times or more.

And even when it is complete, it’ll never end: Solar panels only last about forty years. To maintain 18 billion square meters of panel, our renewable-industrial complex will have to fabricate, install, and recycle 1.23 million m2 every single day, without a break – forever.

Yawn.

How is that any different from refurbishing or replacing any other sort of industrial machinery?

Including nuclear reactors.

 

[bilby]

Roadmap to Nowhere - The Myth of Powering the Nation with Renewable Energy

... if it can’t be used at once, the energy must either be wasted or stored, if we can afford an adequate means of storage. But just one grid-day of storage for the bare-bones Roadmap raises the price to nearly $23 trillion.

It gets worse: Before the 35-year buildout is complete, we’ll also have to refurbish the 350,000 onshore wind turbines at least once, and the 150,000 offshore turbines three times or more.

And even when it is complete, it’ll never end: Solar panels only last about forty years. To maintain 18 billion square meters of panel, our renewable-industrial complex will have to fabricate, install, and recycle 1.23 million m2 every single day, without a break – forever.

Yawn.

How is that any different from refurbishing or replacing any other sort of industrial machinery?

Including nuclear reactors.

Scale.

You are talking about refurbishing VAST amounts of machinery - because wind and solar are so diffuse.

Serious energy supply for serious energy using nations needs to be dense. The denser the better.

Nuclear reactors are very small, very few in number, and very long-lived, compared to other generation technologies, for the same amount of delivered power.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have decided to go with a ball of plutonium in a jar. A ball of plutonium massive enough to continually glow a nice bright red should provide a comforting light to see by and could also heat the house. It would probably also cook a roast if placed in a well insulated oven along with the slab of meat.

Huh? Pu-238 only glows with low-red heat, it would stink as a light source.

And it would sell for far more than the power it would ever produce as it's the required power source for probes heading to the outer solar system and desirable for landers closer in.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.In the southwest passive soar heating and cooling is easy. Watched a show on it. Phoenix used to be know for its climate. Massive air-condition and the waste heat has radically changed the local environment.

Average stunner temperatures have gone up due to the was6e heat. Humidity has gone up.

Gosh, you watched a show on it?? I had no idea we were in the presence of such expertise. I am amazed the IPCC haven't head-hunted you yet.

Gosh, heck no...I was neck deep in energy issues for 30 years and designed power conversion systems including DC-AC.

Having worked on many systems, distributed energy systems are far better then our centralized system of large capacity plants. A system that uses local renewables where possible couples d with backup is a the most sensible going forward.

Nukes solve the environment issue, but does not solve the overall infrastructure issue going forward.

Solar voltaics for the homeland business have been turnkey for a long time. If you connect to the grid over here you will need a licensed electrician for the hookup.

My engineering solution would be dual DC AC powered appliances and electronics. 100 vdc from solar panels is close enough to the rectified DC mains voltage. Swathing power supplies common today have wide input voltage tolerance.

Simply diode OR the mains rectified voltage and the panel voltage. Seamless and transparent to the user. No energy storage needed and reduces grid demand growth, and adds local supply when grid gors down.

Simply going all nuclear and maintaining the current paradigm gets us nowhere.

 

[skepticalbip]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.

Cost, reliability, and convenience.

If power from the grid is much cheaper and more reliable than going off grid then I don't see why any reasonable person would choose to do so. Currently, in my case, installing alternative energy sources would be a hell of a lot more expensive and a hell of a lot more trouble than being connected to the power company. Well, on the other hand there are the preppers that keep preparing for the collapse of western civilization.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.

Cost, reliability, and convenience.

If power from the grid is much cheaper and more reliable than going off grid then I don't see why any reasonable person would choose to do so. Currently, in my case, installing alternative energy sources would be a hell of a lot more expensive and a hell of a lot more trouble than being connected to the power company. Well, on the other hand there are the preppers that keep preparing for the collapse of western civilization.

Cost in a new house incrementally is not an issue, and it adds resale value.
Reliability is not an issue. Redundancy is simple.
Inconvenient is power outages depending on where you live.

The grid as it is now is not reliable and prone to malicious interference. It is a patchwork that was cobbled together over time with no coherent strategy.

 

[skepticalbip]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.

Cost, reliability, and convenience.

If power from the grid is much cheaper and more reliable than going off grid then I don't see why any reasonable person would choose to do so. Currently, in my case, installing alternative energy sources would be a hell of a lot more expensive and a hell of a lot more trouble than being connected to the power company. Well, on the other hand there are the preppers that keep preparing for the collapse of western civilization.

Cost in a new house incrementally is not an issue, and it adds resale value.

Cost wouldn't be in issue if cost was of no concern. However, most people are concerned with cost.

Reliability is not an issue. Redundancy is simple.

Surely you are not claiming that there is zero failure rate for off grid power systems. Redundancy is simple but more expensive especially if you are advocating installing two completely separate and independent power and control systems.

Inconvenient is power outages depending on where you live.

Again, back to your implied assertion of zero failure rate for off grid power systems? And then there is the inconvenience and expense of periodic maintenance and repairs that those on the grid never worry about.

The grid as it is now is not reliable and prone to malicious interference. It is a patchwork that was cobbled together over time with no coherent strategy.

Aha. If you are a prepper then the collapse of western civilization is a concern that living off grid could help ease.

 

[steve_bank]

Cost in a new house incrementally is not an issue, and it adds resale value.

Cost wouldn't be in issue if cost was of no concern. However, most people are concerned with cost.

Reliability is not an issue. Redundancy is simple.

Surely you are not claiming that there is zero failure rate for off grid power systems. Redundancy is simple but more expensive especially if you are advocating installing two completely separate and independent power and control systems.

Inconvenient is power outages depending on where you live.

Again, back to your implied assertion of zero failure rate for off grid power systems? And then there is the inconvenience and expense of periodic maintenance and repairs that those on the grid never worry about.

The grid as it is now is not reliable and prone to malicious interference. It is a patchwork that was cobbled together over time with no coherent strategy.

Aha. If you are a prepper then the collapse of western civilization is a concern that living off grid could help ease.

You misread. Tat our grid is in serious trouble is a common issue, not breaking news.

Given all our welth we do not [lan for emergencies.

I posted limks to blackouts and social breakdown in NYC on natural scince.

On the contry people seem to think tomoorow, next month, and next year will be there with food, water, and electricity as a kind of ignorant faith.

We are in the middle of a great experiment in western civilization and at this point it is failing. We are unable to work collectively on a national energy strategy. The way we are going there will be a decrease in availability. Same with rods and bridges.

The main reason I use laptops is the power droputs in the NW and losiong work.


The media consensus is growing we are headed for global recession, or worse.

But not to worry. Escape into your VR glasses and video games. headphones. and pizza. All will be well. Right?

Without electricity your life grinds to a halt and within a few weeks your local food supply runs out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do not see how any intelligent person would resist alternative energy where feasible.In the southwest passive soar heating and cooling is easy. Watched a show on it. Phoenix used to be know for its climate. Massive air-condition and the waste heat has radically changed the local environment.

Average stunner temperatures have gone up due to the was6e heat. Humidity has gone up.

Gosh, you watched a show on it?? I had no idea we were in the presence of such expertise. I am amazed the IPCC haven't head-hunted you yet.

Gosh, heck no...I was neck deep in energy issues for 30 years and designed power conversion systems including DC-AC.

Having worked on many systems, distributed energy systems are far better then our centralized system of large capacity plants. A system that uses local renewables where possible couples d with backup is a the most sensible going forward.

Nukes solve the environment issue, but does not solve the overall infrastructure issue going forward.

Solar voltaics for the homeland business have been turnkey for a long time. If you connect to the grid over here you will need a licensed electrician for the hookup.

My engineering solution would be dual DC AC powered appliances and electronics. 100 vdc from solar panels is close enough to the rectified DC mains voltage. Swathing power supplies common today have wide input voltage tolerance.

Simply diode OR the mains rectified voltage and the panel voltage. Seamless and transparent to the user. No energy storage needed and reduces grid demand growth, and adds local supply when grid gors down.

Simply going all nuclear and maintaining the current paradigm gets us nowhere.

30 years of designing energy systems and you think this works?!

1) I do agree that electronic devices could easily enough be manufactured to accept AC or DC. However, look at the typical house, where is the heavy power usage? Heating devices (which could easily be made happy with DC) and motors (many of which will not like DC one bit.) It's not just tweaking the power supplies a bit to make those motors happy with DC.

2) Look at what happens when the panels aren't producing your total demand: while you actually can mix AC and DC on a wire this would mean the neutral wire wasn't neutral. Bad idea. Those DC-hating motors would also not like this. On the flip side, you have no way of sending excess power back onto the grid.

3) This does absolutely nothing about the big problem with solar--it's intermittent nature.

Meanwhile, all you have gained is removing the inverter--but at the same time you have mandated a big-ass transformer at the junction to keep that local DC from leaking back onto the grid. (Normal solar installations use a phase lock in the inverter so the output exactly matches the incoming power, thus removing the need for isolation between the local solar and the grid power. No grid power, the phase lock fails and the inverter shuts down so you're not energizing the grid and trying to kill the repairmen out to fix whatever took out the power.)

 

[steve_bank]

You can actualy run DC directly into the mains input on systems. The only issue could be the power factor correction circuit that ty[icaly will function at DC in.

In a typical switching power supply the mains voltage is run through a bridge rectifier . The PFS is a boost converter thatv goes from rectified voltage to around 200 to 300vdc. The PFC circuit adjusts such that the AC current reflected back to the mains is close to a good sine wave in phase with voltage. A high power factor compensating for the low power factor of the capacitive filter.

A DC voltage can be diode ORd with the rectified mains voltge, or a higher panel voltage could be diode ORd with the PFC dc boost voltage. It is done on systems for battery backup.

No transformer required. The point of switching power supplies is they work from around 100vac to 250vac without transformers.

For a context there is enough of a market for DC LED lighting that there are standards for the power supply. Conducted MIm dc current ripple, and such.

Efficiencies multiply. At say 90% efficiency the DC-AC inviter running into another switcher will result in about a 10% loss of solar power.

My point is the grid, power generation, and technology grew without any plan or strategy. There are a number of ways to mix solar, wind, and fossil based grid power.

Our politics will not allow for national strategy and the conservative response would be let the market decide as the grid deteriorates.

The grid was not designed to take low power factor coactive filters in power supplies. As computers began filling offices in the 80s the switching power spies only drew current at the peaks of AC voltage. The surges all combine and are reflected back to the generator requiring more capacity and bigger wires. The combined surges began tripping breakers. Then came power factor correction requirements for switchers. Point being no strategic long term planning, we fumble along.

 

[bilby]

The fundamental problem for renewables is energy density.

Low density means environmental damage.

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Density.pdf

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/07/with-ethanol-and-biomass-no-longer-viewed-as-green-will-other-renewables-soon-follow/#33cfd9b07fb9

 

[James Brown]

It's that density problem that spurs some people to advocate for coal.

 

[bilby]

It's that density problem that spurs some people to advocate for coal.

Indeed. And if coal were not demonstrably the cause of a huge and intractable pollution problem, they would be right to do so.

It's no coincidence that coal powered the industrial revolution, and still dominates electrical power generation, despite wind power and biomass both pre-dating it by centuries (in the case of biomass, millennia).

Density is a prerequisite for energy to supply a modern hi-tech society with a population in the billions.

It's necessary, but not sufficient - we also need to avoid fucking up the climate, and poisoning the environment and those who live in it.

Fortunately, we have a new technology that is far denser, far safer, and far cleaner than coal.

Unfortunately, we have a bunch of morons calling the shots, led by people who are so keen on short-term profits that they are prepared to hand-wave away any problems that they can't personally avoid by simply spending money; Only poor people have no choice but to live in polluted areas that are slowly killing them. Rich people can just buy a nice estate far from the factories and power plants, and can pay officials not to build new pollution sources in their backyards.

They can take the Sir Humphrey Appleby approach to any problem: First, deny that a problem exists; Then accept that a problem exists, but say there's nothing that can be done about it; then accept that there's a problem, but sady the solution is too expensive or unpopular to be implemented; and finally accept that there's a problem, but it's now too late to do anything about it.

Add to this a healthy dose of fear, uncertainty and doubt, to make the solution seem terrifying and possibly worse than the problem; Highlighting any flaws or setbacks (no system is perfect) and isolating those flaws and setbacks as though the alternative were a perfect and flawless absence of the solution; And demanding unnecessary and expensive proof that these flaws don't pose a threat, to be repeated evey single time a new facility is proposed, regardless of the fact that you already did it for the last hundred similar facilities - and then use the cost of this wheel reinventing process to claim that the solution is uneconomic; And you too can cripple any attempt to implement a solution to your problem.

 

[steve_bank]

Take away all the taxes and gasoline is cheap. It has a high energy density and is relatively sage to transport and use. Hard to replace.

Electric cars are on the rise and mamy probably think that is green. They ignore that the energy has to came from somewhere.

Back in the 80s the Hydrogen Economy was seen as a ay to reduce pollution. But again the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. It takes energy to make.

It is an easy calculation. Calculate how many liters per year of gasoline are used in the USA and the total energy consent.. Then add more for efficiency loss of electrical energy production..

 

[steve_bank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_contegasoline

Gasoline contains about 46.7 MJ/kg (127 MJ/US gal; 35.3 kWh/US gal; 13.0 kWh/kg; 120,405 BTU/US gal), quoting the lower heating value

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10

In 2018, about 142.86 billion gallons (or about 3.40 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, a daily average of about 391.40 million gallons (or about 9.32 million barrels per day

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3

The amount of electricity that a power plant generates during a period of time depends on the amount of time it operates at a specific capacity. For example, if the R. E. Ginna reactor operates at 582 MW capacity for 24 hours, it will generate 13,968 megawatthours (MWh). If the reactor generated that amount of electricity every day of the year, it would generate 5,098,320 MWh. However, most power plants do not operate a full capacity every hour of every day of the year. In 2017, the R. E. Ginna nuclear power plant actually generated 4,697,675 MWh..