The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

An interesting discussion about renewables vs nuclear in Australia:

http://4thgeneration.energy/response-to-brown/

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Westinghouse tried to set up a pre-fabricated plant design where nuclear plants could be manufactured on a standardized design and the pieces transported to the construction site and erected. The idea was to get away from designed per site, erected on site system which was expensive. It turned into a fiasco. This helped Westinghouse go bankrupt. A good idea, poorly executed. Sub-assemblies with bad dimensions that did not fit together as designed etc.

I've been looking into that, and the costly project was the AP1000. It had serious problems, but it's not over for the AP1000. The first AP1000 is already built and getting ready to be connected to the grid later this year. China is buying reactors from Russia and France, and canceled some of the AP1000 due to delays, but the first two will be operational very probably before 2020, and more are coming (http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_po...1000-fuel-loading-begins-at-sanmen-npp-042501).

There is a more powerful reactor based on it, the CAP 1400 (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-CAP1400-reactor-vessel-passes-pressure-tests-2203174.html). In the end, China might decide that some of the other reactor designs is better (they're making a number of different ones), or they might go ahead and make several CAP 1400, or a combination of both, but at this point, the AP1000 (and its successors) is not a dead end.

On that note:

http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_po...men-unit-1-reaches-initial-criticality-062102
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_po...-ap1000-in-china-begins-receiving-fuel-062101

 

[bilby]

One of the problems with the AP1000, and with nuclear reactor projects in the US generally, is that each unit has historically tended to be significantly different from the ones built before; and/or the people constructing new reactors have been a different team from the people who built the last.

Outside the US, standardization of both design and project teams has made new plants both faster and cheaper to build. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/21/if-innovation-makes-everything-cheaper-why-does-it-make-nuclear-power-more-expensive/

 

[lpetrich]

Hybrit Fossil Fuel-Free Steel Demonstration Plant Starts Construction | CleanTechnica From its designers:

The solution that we have opted for is to have a completely fossil fuel free value chain for steel production. The aim is to replace imported coke and coal coming from oversees and instead use hydrogen produced from fossil-free electricity. Hydrogen will then be used as the main reductant to reduce iron ore and produce metallic iron. And this process will only emit water vapor instead of carbon dioxide.

Electrolysis: H2O + electricity -> H2 + (1/2)*O2
Reduction of Iron Ore: FeO(x) + (2x)H2 -> Fe + (x)H2O

Looks like one won't be needing coal to refine iron.

Fraunhofer Experiments In Chile And Vietnam Prove Value Of Agrophotovoltaic Farming | CleanTechnica -- putting solar panels on stilts above farmland. Those panels are not nearly as deleterious as one might imagine, and some plants grow well when they are shaded.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hybrit Fossil Fuel-Free Steel Demonstration Plant Starts Construction | CleanTechnica
...
Reduction of Iron Ore: FeO(x) + (2x)H2 -> Fe + (x)H2O

Looks like one won't be needing coal to refine iron.

Isn't there another ingredient in steel in addition to iron?

 

[lpetrich]

Carbon is the most common one, but a variety of other elements have also been used, mostly metals.

 

[lpetrich]

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vessels Leap From Prototype Sub To Full-Scale Catamaran Ferry | CleanTechnica

Renewable hydrogen fans and catamaran fans both have a little something to cheer about this week. The US is going to get its first commercial-scale hydrogen fuel cell vessel in the form of a spanking new 70-foot aluminum catamaran from the company Incat Crowther. The catamaran specialist is known for its snazzy ferry boats and need-for-speed vessels designed to chase down illegal fishing boats, do search and rescue, and support research missions. Sweet!

This is a big deal because, as longtime readers of CleanTechnica may recall, the last time we checked in on floating fuel cells it was back in 2016 and the topic was this dinky little prototype unmanned fuel cell submarine that the the US Navy was messing around with in partnership with GM (so yes, that’s the little sub in the photo above, not a 70-foot catamaran. Check out Incat Crowther for that).

Water-Go-Round -- showing an artist's conception of a new ferry with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. It will use hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries. Its hydrogen will be stored in fuel tanks aboard the boat, and it will be made by electrolysis. The first of these ferries will run in 2019 as a small cruise ship in the San Francisco Bay: Red and White Fleet | See the Bay in a Whole New Way...

Shipping emissions get concentrated in port areas and there’s a global impact, too. Here’s GGZEM chief Joseph Pratt on that topic:

If the shipping industry were a country, it would be ranked between Germany and Japan as the sixth-largest contributor to global CO2 emissions. Helping the maritime industry as a whole implement zero emissions drive technology will not only add operational benefits to the myriad of business owners but also have a profound impact on the reduction of global pollution and CO2 emissions.

GGZEM = Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine -- under "Projects" is

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
H2 tank array 264 kg, 250 bar compressed gas, up to 2 full days operation
2x 300 kW (400 hp) shaft motors (1 in each demi-hull)
100 kWh batteries in hulls provide boost power to achieve 22 knots
70' Overall Length, Aluminum hull, 84 passengers with high visibility window arrangement

for the Water-Go-Round ferry.

A catamaran is a boat with its body above a pair of hulls, one on the left/port, and the other on the right/starboard. Though more complicated to build, a catamaran will go through water more easily.

Checking on GGZEM's "Solutions", the company advertises hydrogen fuel cells for, Fishing Vessels, Yachts, Cruise Ships, Research Vessels, Car Ferries, Tugs, Excursion Vessels, Container Ships

As far as I can tell, steam propulsion is a thing of the past -- everything larger than a motorboat is powered by diesel engines -- sometimes giant ones. The larger vessels usually use bunker fuel, a bottom-of-the-barrel fuel in a very literal sense: what's left over from crude oil after all the lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away.

 

[lpetrich]

US Renewables Nearly Tied With Nuclear At 20%, Coal Falls To 27% | CleanTechnica -- that's over the first third of 2018.

• Natural gas: 31%
• Coal: 27%
• Nuclear: 20%
• Renewable: 20%
  • Wind: 8%
  • Hydroelectric: 8%
  • Solar: 2%

Solar Power Employs Twice As Many As Coal In US | CleanTechnica

According to a report produced by the National Association of State Energy Officials and the Energy Futures Initiative, there are more than twice as many solar power jobs in the US as coal industry jobs. “Solar energy firms employed, in whole or in part, 350,000 individuals in 2017, with more than 250,000 of those employees spending the majority of their time on solar. Coal-fired generation employment held steady at 92,000 jobs.”

So President Trump is barking up the wrong tree.

Coal Power Plants Retiring Quickly During Trump Administration | CleanTechnica

The US Energy Information Administration summarized the true coal power trends very concisely in two statements on its website:

“At least 25 GW of coal-fired capacity will retire within the next three years (2018–2020), according to planned retirements reported to EIA. In the AEO2018 Reference Case, coal-fired electricity generation capacity is projected to decline by 65 gigawatts (GW) from 2018 through 2030…”

“Electricity generation from coal is now second to natural gas, which surpassed coal as the leading source of U.S. electricity generation in 2016. In the AEO2018 Reference case, despite relatively few retirements and higher utilization, coal’s share of total U.S. electricity generation declines from 31% in 2017 to 22% in 2050 as natural gas and renewable generation sources increase their generation shares.”

You might say that natural gas delivered a nasty uppercut to coal, and renewables are pummeling its midsection.

Not quite some Kohlendämmerung, but the beginning of the end, I'm sure.

 

[lpetrich]

UK Renewable Electricity Generation Tops 30%, Scotland Increases By 11% | CleanTechnica

World's Largest Wind Turbine Passes Final Hurdle | CleanTechnica

Offshore wind turbine manufacturer and developer MHI Vestas announced on Wednesday that its flagship V164 9.5 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine, the world’s most powerful wind turbine, has been awarded an S class type certificate, paving the way for installations to begin in late 2019.

...
The company will continue to out-do itself in the short-term, announcing this week that its 9.5 MW flagship V164 wind turbine has passed final certification and will now move towards installation at sites in late 2019. The certification was awarded a year after the company announced its 9.5 MW turbines which are larger than the mammoth London Eye Ferris wheel.

How big can wind turbines be? Their size does not seem to be leveling off.

 

[bilby]

US Renewables Nearly Tied With Nuclear At 20%, Coal Falls To 27% | CleanTechnica -- that's over the first third of 2018.

• Natural gas: 31%
• Coal: 27%
• Nuclear: 20%
• Renewable: 20%
  • Wind: 8%
  • Hydroelectric: 8%
  • Solar: 2%

Solar Power Employs Twice As Many As Coal In US | CleanTechnica

According to a report produced by the National Association of State Energy Officials and the Energy Futures Initiative, there are more than twice as many solar power jobs in the US as coal industry jobs. “Solar energy firms employed, in whole or in part, 350,000 individuals in 2017, with more than 250,000 of those employees spending the majority of their time on solar. Coal-fired generation employment held steady at 92,000 jobs.”

So President Trump is barking up the wrong tree.

Coal Power Plants Retiring Quickly During Trump Administration | CleanTechnica

The US Energy Information Administration summarized the true coal power trends very concisely in two statements on its website:

“At least 25 GW of coal-fired capacity will retire within the next three years (2018–2020), according to planned retirements reported to EIA. In the AEO2018 Reference Case, coal-fired electricity generation capacity is projected to decline by 65 gigawatts (GW) from 2018 through 2030…”

“Electricity generation from coal is now second to natural gas, which surpassed coal as the leading source of U.S. electricity generation in 2016. In the AEO2018 Reference case, despite relatively few retirements and higher utilization, coal’s share of total U.S. electricity generation declines from 31% in 2017 to 22% in 2050 as natural gas and renewable generation sources increase their generation shares.”

You might say that natural gas delivered a nasty uppercut to coal, and renewables are pummeling its midsection.

Not quite some Kohlendämmerung, but the beginning of the end, I'm sure.

Employing twice as many people to get less than 10% of the power can be spun as 'more jobs - yay'; But in the real world it's called 'being incredibly inefficient and expensive', and is not something to cheer about.

 

[bilby]

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vessels Leap From Prototype Sub To Full-Scale Catamaran Ferry | CleanTechnica

Water-Go-Round -- showing an artist's conception of a new ferry with the Golden Gate Bridge in the background. It will use hydrogen fuel cells instead of batteries. Its hydrogen will be stored in fuel tanks aboard the boat, and it will be made by electrolysis. The first of these ferries will run in 2019 as a small cruise ship in the San Francisco Bay: Red and White Fleet | See the Bay in a Whole New Way...


GGZEM = Golden Gate Zero Emission Marine -- under "Projects" is

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
H2 tank array 264 kg, 250 bar compressed gas, up to 2 full days operation
2x 300 kW (400 hp) shaft motors (1 in each demi-hull)
100 kWh batteries in hulls provide boost power to achieve 22 knots
70' Overall Length, Aluminum hull, 84 passengers with high visibility window arrangement

for the Water-Go-Round ferry.

A catamaran is a boat with its body above a pair of hulls, one on the left/port, and the other on the right/starboard. Though more complicated to build, a catamaran will go through water more easily.

Checking on GGZEM's "Solutions", the company advertises hydrogen fuel cells for, Fishing Vessels, Yachts, Cruise Ships, Research Vessels, Car Ferries, Tugs, Excursion Vessels, Container Ships

As far as I can tell, steam propulsion is a thing of the past -- everything larger than a motorboat is powered by diesel engines -- sometimes giant ones. The larger vessels usually use bunker fuel, a bottom-of-the-barrel fuel in a very literal sense: what's left over from crude oil after all the lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away.

Hydrogen power is all very well; But according to your very next post, this vessel is powered 31% by Natural Gas, and 27% by Coal, so that's not exactly 'clean'.

 

[bilby]

UK Renewable Electricity Generation Tops 30%, Scotland Increases By 11% | CleanTechnica

World's Largest Wind Turbine Passes Final Hurdle | CleanTechnica

Offshore wind turbine manufacturer and developer MHI Vestas announced on Wednesday that its flagship V164 9.5 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine, the world’s most powerful wind turbine, has been awarded an S class type certificate, paving the way for installations to begin in late 2019.

...
The company will continue to out-do itself in the short-term, announcing this week that its 9.5 MW flagship V164 wind turbine has passed final certification and will now move towards installation at sites in late 2019. The certification was awarded a year after the company announced its 9.5 MW turbines which are larger than the mammoth London Eye Ferris wheel.

How big can wind turbines be? Their size does not seem to be leveling off.

The UK recently had a nine day period when wind power generation was less than 1% of installed capacity.

The gas industry LOVE these big windmills. Anyone who cares about actually doing something useful about Climate Change, not so much.

 

[bilby]

Here's why coal producers love solar power:

http://www.sightline.org/2018/06/25/small-town-silicon-smelter-plan-tees-up-big-questions/

Of course, you could use nuclear power to smelt the silicon to make the solar panels in an environmentally friendly way; But then, you could just skip the silicon altogether, and use nuclear power to make all the clean electricity you need instead.

 

[lpetrich]

Here's why coal producers love solar power:

http://www.sightline.org/2018/06/25/small-town-silicon-smelter-plan-tees-up-big-questions/

Titled link: Small Town Silicon Smelter Plan Tees up Big Questions | Sightline Institute

But it's some special "blue gem" "metallurgical coal" that the smelter proposers want, not ordinary "thermal coal". Coal with relatively little ash and sulfur that can burn at high temperatures.

Of course, you could use nuclear power to smelt the silicon to make the solar panels in an environmentally friendly way; But then, you could just skip the silicon altogether, and use nuclear power to make all the clean electricity you need instead.

Nuclear reactors are *not* good for industrial process heat.

This silicon smelter will run at 3000 F / 1600 C, a little higher than the melting point of silicon: 1414 C. That's much higher than the internal temperatures of many nuclear reactors. Nuclear Reactors claims that it is typically 300 C, though the interiors of fuel rods may be much hotter. Meaning that nuclear reactors are not very good for process heat.

From that article, that smelter will be partially powered by electricity from a hydroelectric dam. If it can be powered by electricity, then it can also be powered by wind turbines and solar panels. This suggests that silicon-smelter makers ought to consider eating their own dogfood and running their smelters off of solar panels.

 

[bilby]

Here's why coal producers love solar power:

http://www.sightline.org/2018/06/25/small-town-silicon-smelter-plan-tees-up-big-questions/

Titled link: Small Town Silicon Smelter Plan Tees up Big Questions | Sightline Institute

But it's some special "blue gem" "metallurgical coal" that the smelter proposers want, not ordinary "thermal coal". Coal with relatively little ash and sulfur that can burn at high temperatures.

Of course, you could use nuclear power to smelt the silicon to make the solar panels in an environmentally friendly way; But then, you could just skip the silicon altogether, and use nuclear power to make all the clean electricity you need instead.

Nuclear reactors are *not* good for industrial process heat.

This silicon smelter will run at 3000 F / 1600 C, a little higher than the melting point of silicon: 1414 C. That's much higher than the internal temperatures of many nuclear reactors. Nuclear Reactors claims that it is typically 300 C, though the interiors of fuel rods may be much hotter. Meaning that nuclear reactors are not very good for process heat.

From that article, that smelter will be partially powered by electricity from a hydroelectric dam. If it can be powered by electricity, then it can also be powered by wind turbines and solar panels. This suggests that silicon-smelter makers ought to consider eating their own dogfood and running their smelters off of solar panels.

And letting the furnaces go cold overnight, and heating them up again every morning? Perhaps they might find it's better to use nuclear power for the electricity, so they can run 24x7, rather than work for a couple of hours each afternoon (if it's not cloudy)?

And no, they cannot use hydro for that, as the article points out - they need more electricity than the dam can generate.

Why is it that when anyone argues for nuclear power, they must cross every t and dot every i, and still get huge skepticism; But mention solar power and wind, and suddenly all problems just get hand-waved away?

They don't plan to run the factory using solar power because it's completely impractical, and would entail massive problems that require unaffordably expensive solutions.

They should be made to eat their own dog food.

That they steer well clear of doing so, and don't even mention the possibility, speaks volumes.

 

[lpetrich]

That ought to be joined by running nuclear-reactor fuel supply off of nuclear energy with energy to spare. That's mining uranium ore, refining it to get its uranium, and partially extracting its uranium-235.


Utility-scale battery storage has emerged surprisingly quickly. This means that a big barrier to the adoption of renewable energy is starting to fall.

Utility-scale batteries challenge peakers - Evaluation Engineering

“Known as peakers, the natural-gas-fired plants are expensive to run, and typically are called into service only when demand rises and regular supplies are insufficient,” writes Russell Gold. “That makes them vulnerable to inroads from lithium-ion batteries, which have fallen in price in recent years, and are emerging as a competitive alternative for providing extra jolts of electricity.”

Tesla’s giant battery in Australia made around $1 million in just a few days | Electrek

Tesla’s 100MW/ 129MWh Powerpack project in South Australia, the largest in the world for now, has been demonstrating its capacity over the last few weeks since going into operation last month.

But now the system is showing its potential to be highly profitable by making an estimated $1 million AUD (~$800,000 USD) in just a few days.

Lithium ion batteries replace gas fired electric peakers

“The federal government estimates that a new gas-fired peaking plant could generate electricity for about $87 for a megawatt hour, including the cost of building the plant and buying fuel,” the Journal reported. “By comparison, Xcel Energy’s Colorado subsidiary recently ran an open solicitation and received 87 bids for solar-plus-storage projects at a median price of $36 per megawatt hour, one of the lowest such bids to date.”

Have We Reached Peak Peaker? 'I Can't See Why We Should Build a Gas Peaker After 2025' | Greentech Media
How Big Is the Peak Capacity Market for Batteries? | Greentech Media
Just How Much Business Can Batteries Take From Gas Peakers? | Greentech Media

 

[lpetrich]

How Vistra and FlexGen Made the Largest Battery in Texas Pencil Out | Greentech Media

Power producer and retailer Vistra Energy this week chose FlexGen to build its 10-megawatt/42-megawatt-hour storage system at the 180-megawatt Upton 2 solar plant in West Texas.

...
Vistra said in an analyst briefing that, at peak solar times, the plant generates nearly 20 megawatts more than it can export under its interconnection arrangement. The AC-coupled battery will allow it to capture some of that energy that would otherwise be wasted.

Siemens Tests Ammonia as a Form of Energy Storage for Renewables | Greentech Media
Ammonia would be made by electrolyzing water and then combining the resulting hydrogen with nitrogen in the Haber-Bosch process. That process has been used for over a century, though the hydrogen for it is usually produced with steam reforming, combining water and methane at high temperatures to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The nitrogen for it is extracted from the air, like liquefiying it and boiling off the nitrogen.

Ammonia is much easier to store than hydrogen, having a boiling point of -33 C instead of 20 K (-253 C), and leaks of it much easier to detect, because of its strong smell. Ammonia can be burned, but for fuel cells, it needs to be decomposed, and that requires heating it. So ammonia could be a good alternative to Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbons.

 

[lpetrich]

Fossil Fuels Are Likely To Go Bust Regardless Of Climate Action | CleanTechnica

Ten years ago Blockbuster CEO Jim Keyes said he wasn’t worried about digital streaming. “I’ve been frankly confused by this fascination that everybody has with Netflix,” he said. Blockbuster’s head of digital strategy echoed this sentiment, asserting the company was “strategically better positioned than almost anybody out there.” Not long after, Blockbuster went the way of the butter churn, while Netflix became a household fixture. Today, the movie streaming service is worth almost as much as Disney.

To most people, that’s a funny story about the hubris of a technological dinosaur. Imagine, however, if Blockbuster had been a cornerstone of the U.S. economy, that millions of people had been employed in the manufacture and sales of Jurassic Park DVDs, that there were hundreds of cities dotting the South and Midwest where brick-and-mortar video rental was the only job in town. Then, the collapse of Blockbuster wouldn’t be so funny. It would be a catastrophe.

This, experts warn, could be the future of fossil fuels.

As a result of increased use of renewable energy sources.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...wer-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables

[h=1]Scientists assessed the options for growing nuclear power. They are grim.
That’s profoundly concerning for climate change.[/h]

Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change?
Probably not.
That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”:

 

[bilby]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...wer-energy-climate-decarbonization-renewables

[h=1]Scientists assessed the options for growing nuclear power. They are grim.
That’s profoundly concerning for climate change.[/h]

Is nuclear power going to help the United States decarbonize its energy supply and fight climate change?
Probably not.
That is the conclusion of a remarkable new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in early July — remarkable because it is not written by opponents of nuclear power, as one might expect given the conclusion. The authors are in fact extremely supportive of nuclear and view its loss as a matter of “profound concern”:

They are right to do so.

The anti-science loons are going to fuck our entire ecosystem for purely ideological stupidity.