The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Loren Pechtel]

Says who? When LA turned off lights at night for some occasion the temperature dropped.

The total power liberated by mankind is a drop in the bucket compared to what we our planet catches from the sun.

FTFY.

Unfortunately, it's a very big planet, and solar energy is therefore very diffuse even in the tropics. So while the planet gets a lot of energy, we don't.

The planet also has a nasty tendency to rotate, and to place clouds between the sun and the surface.

So while the total planetary insolation is vastly more than human energy use, it's sadly impractical to use it to power a hi-tech society. For that we need much greater energy densities than are available in sunshine.

You didn't really fix it as that was the meaning I intended from the start--"we" in the inclusive sense, the whole planet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the vacuum we are in over time even with a relatively small increase in energy as heat, temperature will rise and continue to rise.

Put a sealed box in space filled with nitrogen. Dissipate 1 mill watt in the gas with say a simple resistor. If heat internal > radiated heat by the box temperature will rise towards infinity, until the resistor and power source melts.

Radiation goes up at the 4th power of temperature--as the box gets warmer the radiation increases until it's balanced.

In the case of the Earth that balance point should be about 0C--pretty chilly. The greenhouse effect raises that to something much more reasonable.

 

[bilby]

FTFY.

Unfortunately, it's a very big planet, and solar energy is therefore very diffuse even in the tropics. So while the planet gets a lot of energy, we don't.

The planet also has a nasty tendency to rotate, and to place clouds between the sun and the surface.

So while the total planetary insolation is vastly more than human energy use, it's sadly impractical to use it to power a hi-tech society. For that we need much greater energy densities than are available in sunshine.

You didn't really fix it as that was the meaning I intended from the start--"we" in the inclusive sense, the whole planet.

Given that many people are living with the deluion that humans could power a technological society using only wind and solar power, you left far too much room for misunderstanding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Says who? When LA turned off lights at night for some occasion the temperature dropped.

The total power liberated by mankind is a drop in the bucket compared to what we catch from the sun.

Well I'll have to take a look at that.

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

1367 W/m^2

 

[steve_bank]

Well I'll have to take a look at that.

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

1367 W/m^2

Look at the total global yearly electrical power generated in Gwh. covert w/m^2 to a global Gwh.

It is an approximation because absorption in moisture in air and by materials is wavelength dependent. Some is reflected back. You would have to break it down into (w/m^2) per wavelength bands. Some is reelected back into space.

It is not a simple problem. Calculating the rise in temperature of the air mass of the atmosphere given a yerly global het load from energy consumption would serve to bound the problem.

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

Earth's average surface temperature due to its albedo and the greenhouse effect is currently about 15 °C. If Earth were frozen entirely (and hence be more reflective), the average temperature of the planet would drop below −40 °C.[14] If only the continental land masses became covered by glaciers, the mean temperature of the planet would drop to about 0 °C.[15] In contrast, if the entire Earth was covered by water — a so-called ocean planet — the average temperature on the planet would rise to almost 27 °C.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window
https://www.gemini.edu/sciops/teles...condition-constraints/ir-transmission-spectra

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...nite.pdf/RK=2/RS=yF67YYDuHWGe.W5sHs5RctFCAV0-

There are IR spectral windows and absorption bands in the atmosphere.

 

[bilby]

Well I'll have to take a look at that.

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

1367 W/m^2

Look at the total global yearly electrical power generated in Gwh. covert w/m^2 to a global Gwh.

It is an approximation because absorption in moisture in air and by materials is wavelength dependent. Some is reflected back. You would have to break it down into (w/m^2) per wavelength bands. Some is reelected back into space.

It is not a simple problem. Calculating the rise in temperature of the air mass of the atmosphere given a yerly global het load from energy consumption would serve to bound the problem.

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

Earth's average surface temperature due to its albedo and the greenhouse effect is currently about 15 °C. If Earth were frozen entirely (and hence be more reflective), the average temperature of the planet would drop below −40 °C.[14] If only the continental land masses became covered by glaciers, the mean temperature of the planet would drop to about 0 °C.[15] In contrast, if the entire Earth was covered by water — a so-called ocean planet — the average temperature on the planet would rise to almost 27 °C.[16]

You are over complicating things. And you are confusing power and energy - which are not the same thing.

All you need to look at is the global power due to each source, and their ratios.

The global power received from the sun is 1,367W.m^-2 x 3.142 x (6,371,000m)² which is approximately 1.7x10¹⁷W.

The energy is irrelevant; Because we are interested in energy per unit time - ie power.

It doesn't matter how that incoming power bounces around in the atmosphere, oceans, or rocks - all we need to care about is total incoming power from each source (solar, primordial, radiological and anthropogenic) vs total outgoing power due to radiative loss to space.

Greenhouse emissions reduce the losses, pretty much regardless of the source, so all sources are important. Anthropogenic power increases the input side of the equation - but other inputs massively outweigh them, so they don't contribute much to the equilibrium point.

Of course this is a simplification - but it's close enough to assess the relative importance of greenhouse emissions vs anthropogenic power generation.

 

[lpetrich]

Given that many people are living with the deluion that humans could power a technological society using only wind and solar power, you left far too much room for misunderstanding.

I don't see how that is supposed to be a delusion. In fact, it seems to be more and more feasible as time goes on. I've seen wind-energy and solar-energy pricing as a function of time -- though neither technology is very new, they are currently acting much like new technologies, with approximately exponentially declining pricing.

Your Renewable Energy Technology Is Growing Old — What's Next? | CleanTechnica -- research on improving recycling of old photovolatic cells and lithium-ion batteries.

Holy Floating Solar Panels, Batman (Now With Tracking)! -- "The idea of strewing solar panels about bodies of water like so many rose petals has finally caught on, and here in the US it’s getting a major push from the US Department of Energy. No, really!"

Lower Prices For Renewables Mean Fewer Coal-Powered Generating Stations In China | CleanTechnica

Adventures In Pseudoscience: A Case Study Of The Rhetorical Tricks Of A Fake Disease Anti-Wind Advocate | CleanTechnica

 

[bilby]

Given that many people are living with the deluion that humans could power a technological society using only wind and solar power, you left far too much room for misunderstanding.

I don't see how that is supposed to be a delusion. In fact, it seems to be more and more feasible as time goes on. I've seen wind-energy and solar-energy pricing as a function of time -- though neither technology is very new, they are currently acting much like new technologies, with approximately exponentially declining pricing.

Your Renewable Energy Technology Is Growing Old — What's Next? | CleanTechnica -- research on improving recycling of old photovolatic cells and lithium-ion batteries.

Holy Floating Solar Panels, Batman (Now With Tracking)! -- "The idea of strewing solar panels about bodies of water like so many rose petals has finally caught on, and here in the US it’s getting a major push from the US Department of Energy. No, really!"

Lower Prices For Renewables Mean Fewer Coal-Powered Generating Stations In China | CleanTechnica

Adventures In Pseudoscience: A Case Study Of The Rhetorical Tricks Of A Fake Disease Anti-Wind Advocate | CleanTechnica

Sure, if all we want is cheap power at whatever time the supplier has it to offer, these are great technologies.

But we don't.

What matters is the system cost of power over the long term. Wind power at less than a cent per kWh is great - when the wind blows. But the solutions to the intermittency problem so far proposed consist either of building a bunch of dams and their associated hydro power plants that renewables advocates don't factor into their price projections, and which they just handwave into existence despite the severe shortage of suitable sites, and the MASSIVE environmental damage that the use of all those sites that are suitable would entail; Or of handwaving into existence batteries that cost a millionth of the current cost of battery storage; Or of simply pretending that the problem of intermittency doesn't exist at all.

When wind and solar advocates discuss the cost of their preferred technology, they never consider the real cost of filling actual demand - so their 'declining pricing' is utter fantasy.

Today, almost all wind and solar power is backed by gas. In fact, so much of the power in renewables heavy grids is supplied by gas, it would be far more reasonable to describe them as gas powered grids with a supplementary renewables input.

I understand why people really want these technologies to be viable. But the fact remains that they are not, and the pretense that they are is harming grid stability; distorting the market in ways that disfavour better solutions (eg nuclear); damaging the environment; and pushing up prices - while having only as much impact on carbon emissions as a simpler and cheaper switch from coal to gas alone would have had.

Cleantechnica is a bunch of wishful thinking dressed up as information. The people writing these articles are either ignorant or dishonest. Electricity cannot be stored to any significant degree; What little storage is available is woefully inadequate and wildly expensive. It may well impress the masses when they say that there's now eight times as much battery storage as there was a few years ago - but when we need millions of times as much, that's frankly pathetic.

 

[lpetrich]

... Or of handwaving into existence batteries that cost a millionth of the current cost of battery storage; ...

One millionth? Given the rapid pace of renewable-energy technology development, I feel more confidence in the development of improved batteries than in the development of throttleable nuclear reactors.

Today, almost all wind and solar power is backed by gas. ...

But every joule generated by a wind turbine or a solar panel is a joule not generated by fossil-fuel burning.

Ammonia Energy – The global information portal for ammonia as an energy vector -- that's how far ammonia engineering has gotten.

The Potential Of Ammonia As Carbon-Free Fuel — Major New Research Project At The University Of Aarhus | CleanTechnica - couldn't tell whether it was making ammonia directly with electrolysis or else indirectly with the Haber-Bosch process applied to hydrogen from electrolysis.

In the U of Aarhus's engineering research there is Power to Chemicals -- researching energy-efficient ways to make ammonia and methanol and the like.

MAN Energy Solutions: an ammonia engine for the maritime sector – Ammonia Energy -- ship engines that burn ammonia, based on existing designs that burn liquid petroleum gas.

Researchers Develop Method Of Producing Ammonia From Sunlight | CleanTechnica -- something like electrolysis directly by sunlight, something that has also been demonstrated.

How Low Cost Wind & Solar Push The Market For Renewable Hydrogen | CleanTechnica - by making electricity cheap enough to be easily affordable.
#PruittFail: Indiana Nixes Coal And Natural Gas, Too
Renewable Hydrogen To The Rescue: Steel Trap Snaps Shut On Coal, Eventually | CleanTechnica -- about producing steel with hydrogen instead of with coal.

Great Britain Goes 90 Hours Without Coal Generation Over Easter Weekend | CleanTechnica -- nearly 4 days.

 

[bilby]

... Or of handwaving into existence batteries that cost a millionth of the current cost of battery storage; ...

One millionth? Given the rapid pace of renewable-energy technology development, I feel more confidence in the development of improved batteries than in the development of throttleable nuclear reactors.

Today, almost all wind and solar power is backed by gas. ...

But every joule generated by a wind turbine or a solar panel is a joule not generated by fossil-fuel burning.

Ammonia Energy – The global information portal for ammonia as an energy vector -- that's how far ammonia engineering has gotten.

The Potential Of Ammonia As Carbon-Free Fuel — Major New Research Project At The University Of Aarhus | CleanTechnica - couldn't tell whether it was making ammonia directly with electrolysis or else indirectly with the Haber-Bosch process applied to hydrogen from electrolysis.

In the U of Aarhus's engineering research there is Power to Chemicals -- researching energy-efficient ways to make ammonia and methanol and the like.

MAN Energy Solutions: an ammonia engine for the maritime sector – Ammonia Energy -- ship engines that burn ammonia, based on existing designs that burn liquid petroleum gas.

Researchers Develop Method Of Producing Ammonia From Sunlight | CleanTechnica -- something like electrolysis directly by sunlight, something that has also been demonstrated.

How Low Cost Wind & Solar Push The Market For Renewable Hydrogen | CleanTechnica - by making electricity cheap enough to be easily affordable.
#PruittFail: Indiana Nixes Coal And Natural Gas, Too
Renewable Hydrogen To The Rescue: Steel Trap Snaps Shut On Coal, Eventually | CleanTechnica -- about producing steel with hydrogen instead of with coal.

Great Britain Goes 90 Hours Without Coal Generation Over Easter Weekend | CleanTechnica -- nearly 4 days.

France already throttles nuclear reactors for load following.

And it's not true that every joule generated by wind or solar offsets a joule of fossil fuel power - in the big adopters, like California and Germany, it often offsets a carbon free nuclear joule - and even where it doesn't, it entails idling coal and gas plant ready to start in seconds if the wind drops or clouds appear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... Or of handwaving into existence batteries that cost a millionth of the current cost of battery storage; ...

One millionth? Given the rapid pace of renewable-energy technology development, I feel more confidence in the development of improved batteries than in the development of throttleable nuclear reactors.

Today, almost all wind and solar power is backed by gas. ...

But every joule generated by a wind turbine or a solar panel is a joule not generated by fossil-fuel burning.

Except when the push towards green replaces nukes with fossil fuels. We have actually seen CO2 increase because of this.

 

[steve_bank]

A Joule is a Joule is a Joule regardless of where it comes from.

With solar voltaic cells. the cells have a min rated capacity at a given irradiance. As with a battery solar cells have a Thiamin internal resistance as a voltage source. Put a resistive load on a solar array and as resistance decreases voltage across the array decreases with load at a given irradiance. The no load condition is not an issue for solar cells, as with a battery.

Same with DC to AC conversion form a solar cell array. The invert is a voltage power supply that seeks to maintain constant amplitude and frequency. The inverter frequency and output voltage are not load dependent other than the losses in the Therein internal impedance.

The output of an inverter can range from no load to full load without any trouble. AC frequency is independent of load.

Variable pitch for wind speed and load is used in wind turbines. Similar to varible pitch control on propellor aircraft.

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...7143.pdf/RK=2/RS=3xe4OsB5ZT7GS5sNFJrF5KuQrtM-

 

[Angra Mainyu]

One millionth? Given the rapid pace of renewable-energy technology development, I feel more confidence in the development of improved batteries than in the development of throttleable nuclear reactors.

But every joule generated by a wind turbine or a solar panel is a joule not generated by fossil-fuel burning.

Except when the push towards green replaces nukes with fossil fuels. We have actually seen CO2 increase because of this.

Indeed. If you replace a nuke with solar panels for electricity during the day, you still need to replace the nuclear reactor with something for electricity at night. That something will likely be natural gas. The result is more CO2.

 

[steve_bank]

The sensible thing to do is alternative first and nukes last. Unfortunately in the USA there s little political sensibility.

If we are going forward with the same economic system heavy industry like aluminum and steel need a lot of electricity. I do not see alternatives completely replacing fossils. Aid to that the increased electrical demand of electric cars. Every new electronic gadget that hits the market increases demand.

The increasing electronics load in cars has fastered a move from 12v to 24v to reduce current. Every new electronics in a car is reflected in gas consumption. It all adds up.

As battery chargers for devises increased when they were left plugged in, all the cumulative idle currents started to add up. This led to standers requiring a low power mode when not charging.

There is going to be a breaking point.


Also Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are in the minds of people, along with the WWII use of nuclear weapons. Nobody wants nuclear waste in their state and in their neighborhood. The ultra naturalists have won the argument.

If some had their way humans would be done away with altogether.

 

[bilby]

The sensible thing to do is alternative first and nukes last. Unfortunately in the USA there s little political sensibility.

That's complete horseshit.

The sensible thing to do is nuclear to replace coal as fast as possible, with wind and solar in niche applications where they don't disrupt grid stability - remote locations without grid connections, and specific domestic circumstances in warmer climates where solar irradiance is roughly correlated to air conditioning and refrigeration demand.

If we are going forward with the same economic system heavy industry like aluminum and steel need a lot of electricity. I do not see alternatives completely replacing fossils. Aid to that the increased electrical demand of electric cars. Every new electronic gadget that hits the market increases demand.

The increasing electronics load in cars has fastered a move from 12v to 24v to reduce current. Every new electronics in a car is reflected in gas consumption. It all adds up.

As battery chargers for devises increased when they were left plugged in, all the cumulative idle currents started to add up. This led to standers requiring a low power mode when not charging.

There is going to be a breaking point.


Also Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are in the minds of people, along with the WWII use of nuclear weapons. Nobody wants nuclear waste in their state and in their neighborhood. The ultra naturalists have won the argument.

If some had their way humans would be done away with altogether.

So you are saying that if a really stupid idea is sufficiently popular, we should stop trying to persuade people that it's stupid, and just put up with having idiots dictate what we can or can't do?

The fact that you can name all three of the most serious accidents in the worldwide history of an industry should indicate to you just how mind bogglingly safe that industry is. That only one of those 'serious' accidents involved fatalities should further colour your thinking.

The belief that nuclear power is dangerous is as accurate and as helpful as the belief that the Earth is a flat disk that was made in a week, six thousand years ago, by a magic man talking to himself.

I completely reject your proposal that we should allow this counterfactual idea to dominate simply because it is widespread. That's a recipe for disaster. And I seriously doubt (and seriously hope) that you wouldn't take the same approach to any other situation where irrational fears were preventing vital progress.

But perhaps you would - there are plenty of popular but stupid and dangerous beliefs out there. People think that their kids shouldn't be vaccinated because they might become autistic. They think that nobody should be allowed to drink on a Sunday because it might upset their gods. And they think that nuclear power is dangerous - despite the fact that it has saved millions of lives, while having a safety record better than any other industry in history.

I think that the opinions of ignorant cowards shouldn't form the basis of policy making. Fear of harmless things is not something we should wallow in.

 

[lpetrich]

Found this when looking for "ammonia":
Australian Renewable Hydrogen Power Plant One Step Closer To Completion - Renewable Energy World

Partially funded by $4.7M in grants and $7.5M in loans from the South Australian Government’s Renewable Technology Fund, the project will integrate new hydrogen technologies, including a 15-MW electrolyzer plant, a distributed ammonia production facility, and a 10-MW hydrogen *fired gas turbine and 5-MW hydrogen fuel cell, which will both supply power to the grid.

Off-Grid Solar In Kenya | CleanTechnica -- solar panels scale down very nicely.

Chevron's Fig Leaf Part 6: Carbon Engineering's Air-To-Fuel Plan Is Even Worse | CleanTechnica

But a couple of commenters along the way kept asking the same question:

Why was I talking about use cases that weren’t the one Carbon Engineering had been claiming recently: an air-to-fuel scheme which would combine the barely carbon positive CO2 from the system they’ve been designing for years, and hydrogen from water using a bunch of technology that they were going to bolt on but had zero papers published on?

Air-to-fuel being even less sensible than making hydrogen from electricity at industrial scales,

That's very dumb and dismissive. Air-to-Fuels Development, Feasibility, and pre-FEED Study for First Commercial-Scale Demonstration Plant | Natural Resources Canada

Carbon Engineering (CE) has developed a technology to scrub carbon dioxide directly from atmospheric air, and to use this carbon dioxide, as well as water and renewable electricity, to directly synthesize liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel, or jet. This overall approach is called “Air to Fuels”. CE has now demonstrated its direct air capture system with an end-to-end pilot in Squamish, B.C. and is in the process of integrating the balance of equipment required for full air to fuels.

I think that synthetic fuels are a valuable technology. They get around the energy-density problem of batteries very nicely, by getting the high energy density of combustible fuels in a carbon-neutral, sustainable fashion. That is why I cannot agree with that author's dismissal of this carbon-capture effort.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The ultra naturalists have won the argument.

They have of course lost the argument if one assesses their points rationally.
On the other hand, in most of the West and several other democracies - perhaps, most democracies at this point -, they have won in the sense of persuading enough people that they are correct.
However, that does not mean they won in all places. They haven't won in South Korea, for example. And they have not won in countries where they're not allowed to argue (much) in the first place, such as China. Or in a hybrid regime: Russia.
As a result, South Korea, Russia, China (and some other countries), and companies willing to transfer technology to China (at least for a while) will continue to upgrade current reactor designs and come up with new ones, and build current, upgraded, and eventually new and better models (though most of the current ones are pretty good already).

It is very improbable that the fanatics will win worldwide, even in the sense of getting what they want. Even if they manage to stop reason in South Korea or what's left in France and other democracies, they will not likely stop China or Russia, or the authoritarian countries that buy reactors from them.

It is, however, sad to see that on this matter, dictatorships might end up doing better.

 

[lpetrich]

Did Bill De Blasio Just Ban Steel & Glass Buildings In New York City? Not Really. | CleanTechnica

The city council of New York and Mayor Bill De Blasio are moving aggressively to lower the city’s carbon emissions, the majority of which come from heating and cooling the iconic skyscrapers that define the city’s skyline. Earlier this month, the council enacted new regulations requiring all buildings in the city larger than 25,000 square feet to reduce their carbon emissions by 40% over the next decade or face the prospect of significant fines.

...
In a recent survey, the city found that buildings with glass curtain wall exteriors require the most energy to heat and cool. Glass is very attractive but nowhere near as energy efficient as a 12″ thick wall filled with modern insulation. Then again, buildings without windows are about as attractive as a Soviet era apartment complex.

A  Khrushchyovka

Behind the scenes, city officials have been quietly walking back the mayor’s statements and suggesting the word “ban” might have been a bit of hyperbole. “There was a little bit of qualification,” one industry official tells the New York Times. “Perhaps the mayor was overenthusiastic.” The source spoke anonymously so as not to damage his relationship with city hall.

Caffeine Wakes Up Perovskite Solar Cells | CleanTechnica

Floating Offshore Wind Turbine Free-For-All Hits California Coast

Solar Power Doubled In Most American Cities In Last 6 Years | CleanTechnica

 

[lpetrich]

Hydrogen Cars Have 4× Annual Fuel Cost & 2–70× The Carbon Debt As Electric Vehicles | CleanTechnica -- only if their hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. But hydrogen has value as a renewable-produced synfuel or a synfuel raw material. With captured carbon dioxide, we can have hydrocarbon synfuels.

Dubai Planning Large-Scale Solar Powered Hydrogen Production | CleanTechnica

Coal Under The Bus, State Of The Union Edition | CleanTechnica

The Intertubes have been buzzing over the total omission of the US coal industry from President* Trump’s State of the Union address earlier this week. Adding insult to injury, the Commander-in-Chief took the opportunity to wax enthusiastic over productivity in the US oil and gas industries. It’s almost like he wanted all those miners to feel the burn, amirite?

The blackout is interesting, considering that bringing back coal jobs was the centerpiece of Trump’s 2016 campaign message. Interesting, but not surprising. The state of the US coal industry is anything but rosy, and just this week another piece of bad news came hurtling down the pipeline.

The article also mentioned renewable alternatives to coal for steel production.

 

[steve_bank]

China was hell bent on industrializing starting with Mao and succeeded. A lot of coal. On the other hand they are the biggest consumers of solar panels.

I read about a solar power urban transportation system they are working on.

If you mean environmentalists lost because rejection of nukes may ensure climate catastrophe I agree. They are as unable to compromise as conservatives. Few in this country seem to be able to think critically and objectively, at least those in power. Short term greed and profit and self interest dominates.

The glaring case in point, Trump.