The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[lpetrich]

An Unexpected Current That's Remaking American Politics - POLITICO Magazine

At the annual National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in Washington this month, President Donald Trump made news with some curious remarks about wind power. What went viral was his untrue suggestion that the noise from wind turbines causes cancer, but his warning that home values instantly plunge 75 percent when a windmill is built nearby was equally false. He also claimed wind power is inordinately expensive, when in fact in much of America it is now the cheapest source of electricity. The president then play-acted a scene of a woman complaining to her husband about wind power’s supposed unreliability: “I can’t watch television, darling. Darling, please tell the wind to blow!”

The pResident's burlesques aside, it must be conceded that intermittency is a big problem with wind and solar energy. But help is on the way in the form of batteries.

Wind and solar generation has almost quintupled in the past decade, providing 9 percent of U.S. electricity last year without emitting any greenhouse gases. ... But lithium-ion batteries were too expensive to use to capture power on the grid before yet another technology transformation—the growth of electric vehicles, from zero a decade ago to more than 1 million on American roads today—drove down their costs through mass production.

Now grid storage is poised to grow at a faster pace than the electric cars that made it cost-effective, and even faster than the renewables it will help to accommodate on the grid. Last year, Florida Power & Light completed a 10-megawatt grid battery hailed as the largest of its kind in the world; last month, FPL announced a battery project more than 40 times larger. Republican regulators in Arizona recently approved more than twice as much power storage in their state as the entire country installed last year; Hawaii is building more than three times as much, and California nearly five times as much. Tom Buttgenbach, the CEO of 8minutenergy Renewables, says his firm alone has signed contracts to build nearly a gigawatt of grid storage in the U.S., more than two thirds of the current nationwide total, in just the past four months.

Talk about vigorous development. Like what wind turbines and photovoltaic cells have had over the last 40-odd years. I am particularly surprised by the success of PV -- I'd expected solar-thermal generation to be what made it.

Also, renewable-energy development has done what nuclear-energy development has failed to do, even though electricity-storage technologies are also good for nuclear energy, with most reactors being run on constant throttle.

 

[lpetrich]

Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO of the Energy Storage Association that represents the industry, worked for Sun Edison at the dawn of the solar boom, and she’s feeling déjà vu. She remembers that one week she would hear about the largest solar project in the country, only to hear about a new largest project the next week. The idea of converting sunshine into power was starting to capture imaginations then; now the idea of holding onto that power so it can be dispatched where it’s needed is generating the same kind of excitement among energy wonks.

“It’s funny, people have always talked about how it would be awesome if storage happened someday,” Speakes-Backman says. “It’s happening now.”

"Behind-the-meter" storage for homes and businesses is likely to get big, with utilities installing storage at wind farms as well as solar farms.

Grid operators used to worry about reliability when non-hydro renewables became 25% of their total, but some places can now handle over 50% without service problems.

So far, the lithium-ion battery projects coming online are providing only a few hours of short-term storage that can shift power to times of high demand or plug brief gaps from cloud cover, calm winds or other generation glitches. Advanced battery technologies using vanadium and other chemistries could someday store power for days or even months but are not yet cost-effective. For now, wind and solar farms with batteries are not yet the equivalent of “baseload” coal, gas or nuclear plants that can generate power 24 hours a day.

That would be vanadium flow batteries. Such batteries would have the nice property of not needing anything as rare as lithium.

 

[lpetrich]

I noted that Politico article because it shows that energy storage is an up-and-coming companion to renewable energy.

US Energy Sec'y Throws Coal Under Energy Storage Bus

I believe we can avert this danger by adding to renewables at least one other energy source that not only is emissions free…but maintains rock-solid… 24/7 reliability.

That source is nuclear energy.

…And just as we invest in CCUS to make coal as clean as renewables… so should we continue to fund breakthroughs in energy storage that could one day make renewables as reliable as coal and nuclear!

Renewables Including Hydro Expected To Surpass Coal In US This Spring | CleanTechnica

Why You Don't Always See Megawatt-Hours (MWh) In Reporting | CleanTechnica -- "More than half of the GWh during this period came online in 2018 alone, beckoning an inflection in storage demand."

After Successful Pilot, Burger King Rolls Out The Impossible Whopper Nationwide | CleanTechnica noting Burger King – Impossible Foods -- "What's in the patty? Mostly soy protein, potato protein, coconut oil, sunflower oil, and heme." The heme is produced by genetically engineered yeast plants, to make fake myoglobin, a hemoglobin-like protein in muscle.

 

[steve_bank]

Flywheels and very high temperature water. I believe the ISS uses flyeheel storage/. There are commercial flywheel UPS systems.

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

The Prtincton Tokomak fusion reactor used a flywheel for the high power spikes to imitate a reaction.

 

[lpetrich]

Solar, wind, plus other renewables beat coal for first time in US — Quartz

In April, renewables eclipsed coal generation in the US for the first time. The Energy Information Administration estimates renewables outperformed coal by 16% in April and will generate 1.4% more in May.

The seasonal nature of the business means electricity generation from coal will again exceed that of hydro, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal sources later this year. But the trend is clear. In 2020, annual coal and renewable generation will approach parity.

From that graph, renewables should beat coal year-round by 2025 or so. The twilight of the fossils? Looks like that is on the way.

U.K. has been using coal-free energy since May 1 - Renewable Energy World - datelined May 9

Coal has dropped from 40% six years ago to 5% today, and it has used no coal for about 1/3 of the time over this year. After 2025, the UK will stop burning coal altogether, except perhaps as a backup. The UK will continue to use a fossil fuel, natural gas, but it releases less carbon per unit energy than coal. Nevertheless, last year, renewables were 33%, with wind as much as 22%.

Washington becomes fifth state in the US to aim for 100 percent clean energy - Renewable Energy World - no more coal by 2025, 80% renewable by 2030, and 100% renewable by 2045. WA thus joins CA, HI, NV, and NM.

LA is next city to announce 100 percent renewable energy goals - Renewable Energy World

With four million residents, L.A. is now the largest city in the nation and the 121st overall to set a goal of 100 percent renewable-sourced electricity. Chicago announced its goal earlier this month, while other cities such as San Diego, Orlando, Atlanta and St. Louis have made similar promises in the recent past.

...
LADWP plans to supply 55 percent of its electricity with renewables by 2025, 80 percent nine years later and reach 100 percent by 2045, according to reports. The city plan also calls for a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings by 2025 and 100 percent by 2050.

As of 2018, the city of Los Angeles boasted close to 350 MW of installed local solar power, according to reports. Its solar capacity increased some 44 percent year over year.

In September 2018, then California Gov. Jerry Grown signed the legislation setting in motion the state’s plan to convert to 100 percent renewables by 2045. California already gets close to 40 percent of its in-state power generation mix from hydro, wind, biomass and solar, but it also imports a sizable amount of electricity generated by coal, natural gas and hydropower from other states.

Renewables produced 77% of Germany’s electricity on Easter Monday – Energy Transition

German renewables consistently provide half of German power

But the Easter renewables surge was not an isolated incident. Germany has had large amounts of renewables in its electricity mix before: the previous record renewables shares were reached on 8 December 2018 (75 per cent) and 24 December 2017 (74 per cent).

Throughout March 2019, Germany also set other records as more than half of its electricity was regularly renewably generated. According to earlier figures published by Dr. Burger’s Energy Charts, renewables accounted for 54.45% of net electricity generation that month.

The previous record was set in May 2018 when renewables accounted for 48.6% of total net electricity generation. Much of the clean energy was attributable to wind power, accounting for some 34.2% of net electricty generation. And despite Germany’s usually cloudy weather, solar PV systems accounted for an average of 7.3% during this time, with a peak on March 30 of 17.9% of net generation.

Also, "Planned coal plants cancelled"

 

[steve_bank]

Watched a show on the history of energy in the USA.

There are three levels of staions, primary, secondary, and peak.

Large coal and nuclear plants run 24/7. Secondary plants are usyaly smaller coal plants that are distributed around. Peak plants are typicaly gas turbine run for short periods, like peak summer air conditioning hours.

What was interesting was that when the Tennessee Valley Authority ran out of new hydro power for electrification they preferred nuclear. It was the Three Mile Island incident that put the kibosh on new nukes.\\There are currently around 199 nukes in the USA generating about 20% of total capacity.

That 20% will have to replaced along with fossil fuel plants by renewables. Plus the rising electric car load.

I am starting to think climate change can not be addressed without nukes.

 

[lpetrich]

How Will Life Change If We Transition Away From Fossil Fuels? | CleanTechnica has a nice energy-flow diagram for the United States, with these numbers.

Estimated US Energy Consumption in 2017: 97.7 quads. 1 quad = 1 quadrillion or 10^15 BTU = 1.055 * 10^18 joules

• Solar 0.775 -> Electricity Generation 0.48 - Residential 0.19 - Commercial 0.08 - Industrial 0.02
• Nuclear 8.42 -> Electricity Generation
• Hydro 2.77 -> Electricity Generation 2.75 - Industrial 0.01
• Wind 2.35 -> Electricity Generation
• Geothermal 0.211 -> Electricity Generation 0.15 - Residential 0.04 - Commercial 0.02
• Natural Gas 28.0 -> Electricity Generation 9.54 - Residential 4.58 - Commercial 3.29 - Industrial 9.84 - Transportation 0.76
• Coal 14.0 -> Electricity Generation 12.7 - Commercial 0.02 - Industrial 1.24
• Biomass 4.91 -> Electricity Generation 0.52 - Residential 0.33 - Commercial 0.16 - Industrial 2.48 - Transportation 1.43
• Petroleum 36.2 -> Electricity Generation 0.21 - Residential 0.88 - Commercial 0.83 - Industrial 8.38 - Transportation 25.9
• -
• Electricity Generation 37.2 -> Electricity Transmission 12.8 - Rejected Energy 24.7
• Net Electricity Imports 0.06 -> Electricity Transmission
• Electricity Transmission 37.3 -> Residential 4.7 - Commercial 4.6 - Industrial 3.23 - Transportation 0.03
• -
• Residential 10.7 -> Rejected Energy 3.75 - Energy Services 6.97
• Commercial 8.99 -> Rejected Energy 3.15 - Energy Services 5.84
• Industrial 25.2 -> Rejected Energy 12.9 - Energy Services 12.4
• Transportation 28.1 -> Rejected Energy 22.2 - Energy Services 5.91
• -
• Rejected Energy 66.7
• Energy Services 31.1

Notice that there is about twice as much rejected energy as energy-services energy. This is because most of the energy extraction is done with various sorts of heat engines, and heat engines' efficiencies are rather limited. Here are some typical numbers for commonly-used heat engine:

• Natural-gas, coal, oil, biomass, nuclear steam engine: 37%
• Natural-gas combustion-turbine engine: 36%
• Natural-gas combined cycle: 58%
• Gasoline engine: 38%
• Diesel engine: 45%

Combined cycle is a combustion turbine followed by a steam engine.

I suspect that for non-heat-engine electricity generation, internal inefficiencies are ignored: solar, wind, hydro. So the rejected energy is only for heat engines and building/process heating.

 

[steve_bank]

There are always loses that show up as teat. It is those pesky Laws Of Thermodynamics.

An electrical rotating generator will have friction losses, resistive losses, and magnetics related losses.

I'd have to look up specifics, there are resistive losses in solar cells. Plus conversion losses that show up as heat I expect. Boosting solar panel voltages to AC or industrial voltages requires switching power supplies. Efficiencies range from 80 to 95% depending on operating conditions and design.

 

[lpetrich]

Jay Inslee Unveils $9 Trillion Climate Jobs Plan To Cut Emissions And Bolster Unions | HuffPost

he proposal lays out a five-pronged strategy to launch an unprecedented deployment of renewable energy, fortify the nation’s infrastructure to cope with climate change, spur a clean-tech manufacturing boom, increase federal research funding fivefold and level income inequality by repealing anti-union laws and enacting new rules to close the racial and gender pay gaps. By spending $300 billion per year, the plan projects another $600 billion in annual economic activity generated by its mandates.

“The thing that can really cost is the path of inaction, the path of letting Paradise, California, keep burning down, the path of letting Davenport, Iowa, keep flooding, the path of letting Miami be inundated,” Inslee told HuffPost by phone on Wednesday. “It’s too expensive, besides being too deadly.”

The breadth is stunning, with few problems left untouched. The plan includes specifics on everything from national parks to drinking water, “ultra-high-speed” rail to electric scooters, climate literacy education to a new Climate Conservation Corps.

Although it does not go as far as the Green New Deal, it does cover much of the GND's territory: Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An Evergreen Economy for America | Inslee for America

Eighty-six years ago this month, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out the details of the New Deal in a radio address. President Roosevelt called for sweeping changes to invest in job creation, rebuild infrastructure, and strengthen workers’ rights, saying: “We are working toward a definite goal, which is to prevent the return of conditions which came very close to destroying what we call modern civilization.”

Today, America faces a new threat to our modern civilization: climate change. This challenge also presents an unprecedented economic opportunity, to lead the world in building a clean energy future. Just as it did in the 20th century, America must rise to this 21st century challenge with a bold plan to: create jobs; protect workers’ rights; repower the economy; rebuild our infrastructure; and reinvest in innovation.

I assembled this outline:

1. Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy
   • “ReBuild America” — National Building Energy Upgrade Initiative
   • Clean Energy Deployment Authority (CEDA or “Green Bank”)
   • Next-Generation Rural Electrification
   • Energy Democracy & Community-Led Energy Transformation
   • Increased Private Financial Incentives for Clean Energy Deployment
   • 100% Clean Energy in Federal Agencies
2. Building Sustainable & Climate-Smart Infrastructure
   • Twenty-First Century Transportation
   • Transmission & Smart Grid Modernization
   • Clean Water for All
   • Smart Growth, Affordable Housing, Public Schools & Community Development
   • Green Infrastructure & America’s Public Lands
3. Leading the World in Clean Manufacturing
   • American Advanced Manufacturing Leadership
   • Federal “Buy Clean” Program
   • Cracking Down on Super-Pollutants
   • “Top Runner” Industrial Efficiency & Carbon Intensity Standards
   • Clean Energy Exports & Green Global Development
4. Investing in Innovation & Scientific Research
   • Clean Energy Research & Development
   • “ARPA-Ag” & Agricultural Innovations to Tackle Climate Change
   • Next-Generation Transportation Technologies
   • Advanced Industrial Climate Solutions
   • Understanding Climate Science & the Impacts & Dangers
   • Climate & STEM Education
5. Ensuring Good Jobs with Family Supporting Wages & Benefits
   • A “G.I. Bill” for Impacted Workers & Coal Community Reinvestment
   • Right to Organize & Collectively Bargain
   • Community Benefits & Project Labor Agreements
   • Career Ladders through Apprenticeships & Skills Training
   • Family-Supporting Wages & Benefits
   • Pay Equity, Employer Enforcement & Transparency

Remarkably thorough. I especially like this part:

Providing major new federal investment in electrifying passenger and freight rail throughout the country, and offering federal investment to states and regional partnerships to expand ultra-high-speed rail. This will create jobs and connect population hubs with more convenient, less-polluting inter-regional transportation.

 

[Tigers!]

Don't know how biased (or un) this site may be but I have often wondering what is the rue costs of energy supplies overall with hidden not hidden subsidies, perks, tax breaks etc.

https://www.thegwpf.com/is-the-long-renewables-honeymoon-over/?utm_source=Media&utm_campaign=c982bf35ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_03_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-c982bf35ab-36401237

 

[bilby]

Don't know how biased (or un) this site may be but I have often wondering what is the rue costs of energy supplies overall with hidden not hidden subsidies, perks, tax breaks etc.

https://www.thegwpf.com/is-the-long-renewables-honeymoon-over/?utm_source=Media&utm_campaign=c982bf35ab-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_05_13_03_55_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-c982bf35ab-36401237

I do know how biased that site is; The GWPF is Nigel Lawson's climate change denial lobby group of (mostly Conservative Party) British politicians who are funded by the coal mining and oil industries.

On it's foundation in 2009, David Aaronovitch, writing in The Times newspaper wrote:

Lord Lawson’s acceptance of the science turns out, on close scrutiny, to be considerably less than half-hearted. Thus he speaks of 'the (present) majority scientific view', hinting rather slyly at the near possibility of a future, entirely different scientific view. ... 'Sceptic' ... is simply a misnomer. People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true.

Of course, their being biased doesn't necessarily imply that this particular article is factually wrong; But it would be unwise to assume that it's correct in all respects without careful fact checking.

It does seem to be broadly correct in its main point, that subsidy-free wind power may never be viable economically, but it would be slightly surprising, and a departure from history, if they haven't overstated their case here.

(Nigel Lawson was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher's government, and is the father of TV cook Nigella).

 

[lpetrich]

World's Fifth-Largest Bank Drops Stink Bomb On US Coal Industry | CleanTechnica
Offshore Drilling Has Become A Liability For Republicans | CleanTechnica

This has created a schism between Republicans in states like Florida and Georgia, whose constituents depend on beach tourism and fishing, and the White House, which wants to open virtually all U.S. waters to offshore drilling. President Trump must weigh the demands of anti-drilling Republicans in key coastal states against the wishes of some of the party’s biggest donors. He got a reprieve last month when a federal judge revived an Obama-era ban on Arctic drilling, forcing the administration to put its larger offshore drilling plan on ice while it appeals the decision. But make no mistake, the schism isn’t going away. Trump will have to reckon with voter outrage over offshore drilling in 2020 — or pay the price at the polls. Some say the choice is clear.

AOC! AOC! Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Lays It On The Line For Green New Deal | CleanTechnica - has some video of one of her speeches about that subject.

African Solar PV Market Could See 29 Gigawatts Installed Annually In 2030 | CleanTechnica

Specifically, according to the Solarize Africa scenario, BSW-Solar and the Becquerel Institute believe that — with most barriers rapidly lifted, allowing solar PV to “develop according to its potential and needs” — annual capacity additions could reach as much as 4 GW to 6 GW in the next few years, increasing to 10 GW a year from 2024, and hitting 29 GW a year in 2030.

GE Renewable Energy Already Secures 2 Gigawatts Of North American Onshore Wind In 2019 | CleanTechnica

How India Is Solving Its Cooling Challenge | CleanTechnica
Australia's climate wars set to heat up after coal champion wins - Renewable Energy World
Northeast planned offshore wind farms already bringing economic growth to the region - Renewable Energy World
Community solar delivers big benefits to Minnesota - Renewable Energy World
Xcel Energy sets course for coal-free, renewable-heavy future - Renewable Energy World
Duke Energy gets approval for solar + battery microgrid and standalone battery system - Renewable Energy World

 

[bilby]

Renewables industrialise the landscape to harvest energy. How does this affect the health of our forests and streams?

We can “get” energy from sun, wind, and water? No, we can “take” that energy. We can build dams where rivers flowed free. We can make sure that the waterfalls don’t waste all that power — spending it by sending some foam up into the air and aerating the water for fish. We can build dams to “take” that power. We can “take” wind power by building wind turbines on the highest ridges. We don’t have to keep those ridges for trees and views and hikers and animals. We can “take” this energy from the environment, just as we “take” food from a farm.

Renewables have low energy density. So we need to destroy a lot of wilderness in order to take that energy for our own use.

If we care about preserving as much wilderness as possible (and I for one do), then we need to use the densest energy sources possible.

 

[lpetrich]

Yes, but uranium is a very rare element, and that rarity cancels out the greater energy density.

Jay Inslee's Climate Plan Is Every Wonk's Dream | Greentech Media

Then there’s the governor of Washington state, Jay Inslee. He just released his second climate plan — it’s more of a manifesto — called the Evergreen Economy. It’s a culmination of a decade and a half of his thinking, writing and policymaking on climate.

The document is so good, we decided to devote a whole episode to talking about it.

An Evergreen Economy for America | Inslee for America and Green New Deal: Jay Inslee is showing how to make it into policy - Vox

More than a campaign document, it’s an instruction manual.

...
Inslee’s campaign is systematically translating the GND’s lofty goals — to decarbonize the economy sector by sector, in a way that creates high-quality jobs and protects frontline communities — into policy proposals, focused on an immediate 10-year mobilization. This isn’t just a campaign play, it’s a document the next Democratic president is going to want in-hand when the time comes to get to work. (And if that president needs some kind of climate czar ...)

...
An investment plan that would marshal $9 trillion over 10 years

The headline of the plan is investment: roughly $300 billion in public investment per year, which would leverage an additional $600 billion in private investment, adding up to a total of $9 trillion over 10 years. Inslee’s campaign claims the plan would create 8 million good jobs over the same time frame, by repealing anti-union right-to-work laws and linking federal tax incentives to job quality standards.

1. “Igniting America’s clean energy economy”
2. “Building sustainable & climate-smart infrastructure”
- sustainable transportation
- transmission and grid modernization
- clean water
- smart growth, affordable housing, public schools, and community development
- public lands and green spaces
3. “Leading the world in clean manufacturing”
4. “Investing in innovation and scientific research”
5. “Ensuring good union jobs with family-supporting wages and benefits​”

This is what a Green New Deal looks like
Believe it or not, that was the short summary.

...
I am a policy glutton, and even I am daunted by this buffet.

100% Clean Energy for America | Inslee for America and Climate change: Jay Inslee raises the bar for policy - Vox

The Democratic candidate for president is getting into the nuts and bolts of decarbonization.

The Climate Mission agenda will target economy-wide net-zero carbon emissions “as fast as possible, and by no later than 2045.” (The Sunrise Movement activists behind the GND feel strongly that the US should target net-zero by 2030.)

...
Step one of Climate Mission: electricity, new cars, and new buildings

• 100 percent carbon-neutral electricity;
• 100 percent zero-emissions in new light- and medium-duty vehicles and all buses;
• 100 percent zero-carbon pollution in all new commercial and residential buildings.

 

[bilby]

Yes, but uranium is a very rare element, and that rarity cancels out the greater energy density.

No, it isn't.

And even if it were: No, it doesn't.

There's no reasonable prospect of humanity running low on readily accessible uranium in the foreseeable future.

There are thousands of years worth of uranium just in our existing stored spent fuel, that can be used to fuel fast reactors.

And due to the insane policies of the Australian Commonwealth Government, the total uranium reserves just in Australia itself are likely several orders of magnitude less than the total Australian uranium resource. Because there's been no incentive to prospect for uranium ore in Australia since the 1950s.

So it's probably millions of years.

And then there's uranium from seawater...

There's more prospect of running out of rare earths needed for solar and wind power than there is of running out of uranium. And those aren't serious constraints on solar and wind.

And we haven't even considered thorium...

 

[bilby]

When the overall system costs are included (increases in transmission costs, cost of storage, cost of efficiency losses in storage, etc), wind power costs about six times, and solar about ten times, what an equivalent nuclear powered grid would cost.

The actual wind turbines and/or solar panels are such a small fraction of the extra systemwide cost of intermittent 'fatal' (as opposed to 'controllable') power sources, that even if their costs fell to zero, nuclear power would still be cheaper.

It's also safer, and has approximately the same CO₂ emissions as wind, and rather less than solar.

A detailed analysis showing this, using France as its model, can be found here.

Wind turbines may be cheap. But electricity is a service, not a commodity. And the cost of supplying that service using wind and/or solar is far higher than most pro-renewables activists realise, or want to accept.

 

[lpetrich]

This is worth a laugh.
Natural gas gets a Trump-friendly rebrand as ‘freedom gas’ | Grist
US Department of Energy is now referring to fossil fuels as “freedom gas” | Ars Technica
Natural Gas Is Now Being Referred to as 'Freedom Gas' by The US Department of Energy
From Grist:

The Trump administration has rebranded natural gas with a new, patriotic-sounding name: “freedom gas.” In a Department of Energy press release on Tuesday, Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes talked about exporting U.S. natural gas as “spreading freedom gas throughout the world.”

Keep reading the release, and you’ll find another official calling natural gas “molecules of U.S. freedom.” No, you’re not reading The Onion. All this in a Department of Energy announcement that it’s approving exports from a new liquefied natural gas plant south of Houston.

Sort of like "freedom fries" for French fries during the Iraq War and "liberty cabbage" for sauerkraut during World War I.

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.

These figures are global averages and it is worth noting that the cost of individual projects can vary hugely – the cost of producing electricity from a biomass energy plant, for example, can range from as low as $0.05/kWh to a high of almost $0.25/kWh.

However, all these fuel types are now able to compete with the cost of developing new power plants based on fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which typically range from $0.05/kWh to over $0.15/kWh.

Good that it is economically competitive. So we do not have an awkward choice between the economy and the environment.

 

[bilby]

This is worth a laugh.
Natural gas gets a Trump-friendly rebrand as ‘freedom gas’ | Grist
US Department of Energy is now referring to fossil fuels as “freedom gas” | Ars Technica
Natural Gas Is Now Being Referred to as 'Freedom Gas' by The US Department of Energy
From Grist:

The Trump administration has rebranded natural gas with a new, patriotic-sounding name: “freedom gas.” In a Department of Energy press release on Tuesday, Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes talked about exporting U.S. natural gas as “spreading freedom gas throughout the world.”

Keep reading the release, and you’ll find another official calling natural gas “molecules of U.S. freedom.” No, you’re not reading The Onion. All this in a Department of Energy announcement that it’s approving exports from a new liquefied natural gas plant south of Houston.

Sort of like "freedom fries" for French fries during the Iraq War and "liberty cabbage" for sauerkraut during World War I.

Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.

These figures are global averages and it is worth noting that the cost of individual projects can vary hugely – the cost of producing electricity from a biomass energy plant, for example, can range from as low as $0.05/kWh to a high of almost $0.25/kWh.

However, all these fuel types are now able to compete with the cost of developing new power plants based on fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which typically range from $0.05/kWh to over $0.15/kWh.

Good that it is economically competitive. So we do not have an awkward choice between the economy and the environment.

Electricity is not a commodity, it's a service.

If wind power was free, it would still be uncompetitive once you price in storage and/or dispatchable backup power.

A service that's delivered at random instead of on demand is practically valueless.

 

[lpetrich]

Harvesting the sun is the new cash crop - Renewable Energy World

First, solar works well when co-located on a farm, and can be built in ways that minimizes impact. Solar is quiet, uses almost no water, doesn’t pollute, and once a facility is decommissioned, the land can go back to its previous use. This makes solar a great option for farmers looking to improve soil health by fallowing land. As an added benefit, a quarter century later the land will remain undeveloped by home or commercial construction, roads, and the other pressures open land in agricultural areas face.

Second, solar facilities on farmlands can be raised to allow for grazing livestock and the planting of shade tolerant crops under or near solar panels like beans, kale, melon, squash, lettuce, peppers and broccoli.

Third, solar facilities allow farmers to create pollinator habitats which can help manage wild bee populations, significantly benefit soil and water quality, and proliferate the presence of ground-running animals like pheasants and turkeys.

This low impact is shared with wind turbines, since each turbine's land footprint is its tower's footprint, something that cannot be very much. This is because the turbines must be spaced by at least twice the lengths of their blades.

The Renewable Energy Revolution Is Over (Now It's A Mop-Up Operation) - rather overoptimistic title, since renewable energy has a long way to go before completely replacing fossil fuels.

If you blinked, you missed it. An obscure energy company based in Denver has just figured out how to provide rural electricity ratepayers with what they desire: renewable energy at low prices that beat the stuffing out of ancient coal power plants. If all goes according to plan, the maneuver could lay the groundwork for retiring both coal and gas power plants at a more rapid clip.

Britain Nears 12 Days Without Coal | CleanTechnica
Florida Power & Light Announces 10 New Solar Projects Worth 745 Megawatts | CleanTechnica

 

[bilby]

Harvesting the sun is the new cash crop - Renewable Energy World

First, solar works well when co-located on a farm, and can be built in ways that minimizes impact. Solar is quiet, uses almost no water, doesn’t pollute, and once a facility is decommissioned, the land can go back to its previous use. This makes solar a great option for farmers looking to improve soil health by fallowing land. As an added benefit, a quarter century later the land will remain undeveloped by home or commercial construction, roads, and the other pressures open land in agricultural areas face.

Second, solar facilities on farmlands can be raised to allow for grazing livestock and the planting of shade tolerant crops under or near solar panels like beans, kale, melon, squash, lettuce, peppers and broccoli.

Third, solar facilities allow farmers to create pollinator habitats which can help manage wild bee populations, significantly benefit soil and water quality, and proliferate the presence of ground-running animals like pheasants and turkeys.

This low impact is shared with wind turbines, since each turbine's land footprint is its tower's footprint, something that cannot be very much. This is because the turbines must be spaced by at least twice the lengths of their blades.

The Renewable Energy Revolution Is Over (Now It's A Mop-Up Operation) - rather overoptimistic title, since renewable energy has a long way to go before completely replacing fossil fuels.

If you blinked, you missed it. An obscure energy company based in Denver has just figured out how to provide rural electricity ratepayers with what they desire: renewable energy at low prices that beat the stuffing out of ancient coal power plants. If all goes according to plan, the maneuver could lay the groundwork for retiring both coal and gas power plants at a more rapid clip.

Britain Nears 12 Days Without Coal | CleanTechnica
Florida Power & Light Announces 10 New Solar Projects Worth 745 Megawatts | CleanTechnica

Those 12 days without coal?

Mostly gas, with nuclear in second place, followed by 'biomass' (mostly wood pellets imported from the USA on oil fired bulk carriers), then 'imports' - almost entirely nuclear power from France.

So where the fuck are the renewables?

I'm seeing a LOT of spin - but bugger all actual wind power. And even less solar.

As to solar having a low footprint, the sunlight that hits the collectors doesn't get to the plants. It's horrible for the environment in which it's placed (particularly in sensitive desert environments). It's also useless for fallowing fields - fallow fields need to grow nitrogen fixing clover (ideally), or at least ground cover that stops the topsoil drying out and blowing away. That won't grow in the shadow of a solar array.

Wind is less awful, as long as you don't mind killing lots of birds, bats, and insects.

But anyone who believes that renewables are either good for the environment, or a sizeable fraction of energy generation in any nation on earth right now, is delusional.

Even places like Denmark and Germany rely on imports of nuclear and hydro power from France and Sweden to support their wind power. And Germany is still burning lots of coal, despite investing so much in renewables that electricity prices have more than trebled.

There's so much hot air from the renewables lobby it's amazing that they can't harness that for electricity generation.

CleanTechnica are a bunch of lying cunts. Blink, and they will spin a yarn about increasing wind power from your eyelashes. They are as reliable and honest as Young Earth Creationists - and just as comitted to rigorous scientific analysis.