The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[Loren Pechtel]

Electricity isn't a commodity. It's a service.

The wind and solar lobby are very keen on "facts" that turn out to be frauds, and "% of demand" figures are particularly weasely.

If a region generates 1,000MWh of wind power on Monday, and zero wind power on Tuesday; And it consumes 500MWh per day, then the amount of demand met by wind power in that region is 50%, not 100%; And on Monday, half their generation was sold at close to $0, while on Tuesday they had to buy dirty and expensive electricity from somewhere else.

This remains true even if simpletons like to pretend that it's not.

No electricity grid anywhere generates anywhere close to 65% of its power from wind and solar, over periods of many consecutive days. You are being comprehensively lied to by people you want to believe. It's a common problem; Around here it's usually referred to as a 'religion'.

Blasphemy!

How dare you note the King's attire?!

 

[Hermit]

This is true. There is even a word for that: 'average'. On average 60 or 65% of South Australia's electricity comes from renewables.

All that has to be done is how is that gap of 35-40% to be closed reliably?
And that is what Bilby is saying is the problem, for Sth Aust. and anywhere else.

Whatever remains of the gap can be closed with nuclear energy plants. There is a lot of work to be done to make it acceptable to the Australian public at large, though, not just the NIMBYs.

 

[Hermit]

I'd agree with you, were it not for the fact that about 65% of South Australia's electricity demand is met by wind and solar generators

Except that it isn't.

Electricity generated in SA but not used that instant in SA isn't contributing at all to supplying electricity to SA (other than the minuscule amount used to charge the tiny amount of battery storage everyone seems so impressed by).

Electricity isn't a commodity. It's a service.

Electricity is a commodity. It takes material resources to produce, distribute and sell. With the exception of Western Australia the entire country is connected. Some of the commodity is imported and exported to and from states as needed.

The difference between a commodity and a service is that a commodity can be stockpiled.

Electricity is a service.

bilby, there is more than one definition of 'commodity'. Among the list the Cambridge Dictionary provides is "anything that can be bought and sold".

Not that it matters. Electricity is produced and traded, supply and demand determine price. As far as commerce is concerned it is handled like any other commodity regardless of whether it can be stored or not.

The wind and solar lobby are very keen on "facts" that turn out to be frauds, and "% of demand" figures are particularly weasely.

If the claim that 60 or 65% of South Australia's electricity comes from renewables is fraudulent someone would have provided evidence of it by now. You most certainly have yet to do so.

When did it become my responsibility to provide evidence that the figure (which you have provided exactly zero evidence for) is nonsensical?

And what part of "electricity is not a commodity" fails to achieve that proof (which I have given anyway out of the goodness of my heart)?

That you can't grasp the proof doesn't imply that it doesn't exist.

You repeatedly described the 65% figure as fraudulent. Prove it.

If a region generates 1,000MWh of wind power on Monday, and zero wind power on Tuesday; And it consumes 500MWh per day, then the amount of demand met by wind power in that region is 50%, not 100%; And on Monday, half their generation was sold at close to $0, while on Tuesday they had to buy dirty and expensive electricity from somewhere else.

This remains true even if simpletons like to pretend that it's not.

This is true. There is even a word for that: 'average'. On average 60 or 65% of South Australia's electricity comes from renewables.

No electricity grid anywhere generates anywhere close to 65% of its power from wind and solar, over periods of many consecutive days. You are being comprehensively lied to by people you want to believe. It's a common problem; Around here it's usually referred to as a 'religion'.

Nobody claims that South Australia generates anywhere close to 65% of its power from wind and solar, over periods of many consecutive days. On some days power generated from wind and solar is way above average. On others it is way below. Often it is somewhere in between. Averaged out over the past year power from wind and solar met 60 or 65% of South Australia's demand. Your rants don't change a thing. If you have evidence that the stated figures are fraudulent, let's have them already.

Averages are meaningless for services. Your failure to understand isn't evidence that it's not true.

The fact that South Australia generates around 65% of its power from wind and solar is not meaningless. The consequences are real and material. Although it does not mean that 65% generated from renewable resources reduce CO2 emissions by 65%, the reduction is considerable. Also, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has noted that the South Australian wholesale prices are lower than they have been since the start of the national electricity market, and that the wind "tends to depress the South Australian regional prices". Maybe you should take a hatchet to Wikipedia's article on Energy in South Australia by inserting your evidence of how fraudulent all those claims are.

 

[Swammerdami]

I come to this thread to learn rather than to teach. But ...

Renewable but unreliable sources are a massive waste, and a crime against the environment.

Hyperbole noted. Thanks for the rant.

I also noted the hyperbole. Pro-tip for bilby: Sober objective arguments are more persuasive than obvious exaggerations.

Some questions I have:
(1) Some electricity usage (e.g. pumping, and battery charging) can be scheduled for periods when electricity is cheap. What portion is that? Would it help to install more time-dependent metering?
(2) How does electricity demand correlate with supply from wind and solar? If demand is highest on windless nights the intermittency problem increases, but it diminishes if demand is highest on windy days.
(3) How soon will non-intermittent renewables like tide-driven turbines or geothermal be in wide use?
(4) We read horror stories about the high impacts and carbon costs of wind and solar. EITHER those horror stories are ignorant babble OR the proponents of such "renewables" are committing billion-dollar frauds! Which is it?
(5) Opponents of wind and solar avoid discussing energy storage. (In this very thread we had dialog like: "Wind and solar require storage, e.g. batteries or hydrogen" followed by "batteries are an accounting trick! Is hydrogen 'renewable'"? )
(6) It's a popular meme that human overpopulation should not be blamed for the shortages and environment costs seen today. Yet we read that pumped water storage has peaked because the remaining useful sites are already being used by humans. Is it possible that IF population were 10% less, THEN electricity demand would reduce by 10%?

On the topic of energy storage:
Figures I get from the Internet show that average worldwide electricity production is about 3 Terawatts. Maximum throughput from existing pumped-water storage is almost 0.2 Terawatts. That seems not too shabby. Capacity is about 9 hours at that rate with round-trip efficiency of about 80%.

Hydroelectric power is effectively a method of energy storage (load leveling) as well as production. Hydroelectric power averages 0.5 Terawatts. so its utility for load-leveling should be more than that. (How much?) So water-based energy storage alone provides about 1 Terawatt of load-leveling throughput. Given this, the pretense that intermittent sources like wind and solar are "worthless" is unbecoming.

Other energy storage technologies are being explored. And, as I mentioned upthread, new pumped-water sites become feasible if construction cost is amortized over several decades.

I think that BOTH nuclear AND intermittent renewables may be part of a comprehensive energy policy. Does this make me non grata from BOTH polarized factions?

 

[Hermit]

I think that BOTH nuclear AND intermittent renewables may be part of a comprehensive energy policy. Does this make me non grata from BOTH polarized factions?

Supporters of solar, wind, hydro and other 'natural' sources of energy are not necessarily opposed to nuclear power plants. For example, I have expressed my support for all of those two posts above yours.

 

[bigfield]

Origin Energy announced today that it will be closing Australia's largest power plant (which is also Australia's largest coal-fired power plant) in mid-2025 instead of 2032. The power plant has a nameplate capacity of 2880 megawatts and produces nearly 20 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere every year.

From the Australian Financial Review:

Chief executive Frank Calabria said Origin’s proposed complete exit from coal-fired power generation “reflects the continuing, rapid transition of the NEM as we move to cleaner sources of energy”.

“Australia’s energy market today is very different to the one when Eraring was brought online in the early 1980s, and the reality is the economics of coal-fired power stations are being put under increasing, unsustainable pressure by cleaner and lower cost generation, including solar, wind and batteries,” Mr Calabria said.
[...]
The news on Eraring comes after the Australian Energy Market Operator has warned of the likely accelerated closure of baseload coal power plants, which are becoming increasingly uneconomic with the rise of cheap renewable power.

Origin’s rival AGL Energy last week also brought forward the dates for its two largest coal plants to close, although it still is assuming its Loy Yang A plant in Victoria will run until 2045.

The decision is clearly based on cold-nosed economic considerations. Despite massive fossil fuel subsidies, underpinned by our current Prime Minister's fervent and decades long support, coal-fired power plants keep losing commercial viability.

"...the economics of coal-fired power stations are being put under increasing, unsustainable pressure by cleaner and lower cost generation, including solar, wind and batteries,” Mr Calabria said.

But mostly including cheap gas from fracking, he very carefully, and extremely dishonestly, didn't say.

As I said, people love wind and solar and even batteries (despite their being three orders of magnitude too small to do any good; Hugely expensive; And rather dangerous and polluting).

Whenever anyone wants to greenwash their transition from coal to gas, from mining to fracking, and from cheap to expensive electricity, they trot out vague claims that the new system will "include" wind and solar.

It's hype. Marketing. A scam. A big lie, concealed in weasel words like "including".

The only important measure is carbon dioxide (and equivalent greenhouse gas) emissions from the entire system.

We need to dramatically lower that. But people don't even talk about it.

Taking away 20 million tonnes per year of carbon dioxide emissions is great - but nobody's owning up to the emissions they are replacing them with.

It's all hype and spin. It's great for giving the appearance of action. But it achieves very little - and nowhere near what could be achieved with a much smaller investment in nuclear power plants. Ask the French.

Everyone needs to be much more France, and much less Germany.

We've certainly locked ourselves into reliance on gas generation.

This is what the energy mix looks like for a week during summer in South Australia, Australia's trailblazer on renewable energy:

View attachment 37275

This is at the time of year when we get almost maximum sunlight. The purple imports are all coal and gas from Victoria. While we have moments where the supply is 100% renewable, this only happens when we get the ideal combination of daytime sun and high winds.

We can't possibly solve this problem with more solar and wind. We are stuck with gas until a replacement technology is invented that fills the same role as despatchable supply.

The big picture at the national level looks more promising. Coal is in decline and gas isn't growing:

View attachment 37276

Renewables includes hydroelectric, which is confined to a small number of generators where the geography actually makes it viable. Most of the growth in renewables is in solar and wind.

There are two problems here: Firstly, the rate is decline of fossil fuels is way too fucking slow. Secondly, the growth of renewables will inevitably slow down once we build enough solar to supply 100% of the energy every summer afternoon, and enough wind to supply 100% of energy every third day when it's actually windy.

Shit, my solar feed-in tariff was recently cut by almost 60% because daytime solar generation is so abundant. It's now about 10% of the feed-in tariff that was being paid ten years ago. That's not a lot of incentive for homeowners to keep buying panels.

I would have thought the incentive to buy panels was the prospect of saving the planet, not the ability to make money?

I would have thought that the 2013 federal election demonstrated beyond a doubt that many Australians will turn their backs on climate action if they believe that doing nothing is cheaper.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whatever remains of the gap can be closed with nuclear energy plants. There is a lot of work to be done to make it acceptable to the Australian public at large, though, not just the NIMBYs.

Nukes are horrible at closing the gap. Not only do you have the problem that it costs only a tiny bit more to run a nuke plant at 100% than at 10%, but throttling it up and down can cause substantial problems. When you throttle down poison accumulates in the reactor core. It's short lived and doesn't matter if you were turning the reactor off, but you can get the reactor in a state where it's not going to throttle up very well. (And when you combine that with an unsafe design and a damn-the-torpedoes approach to the problem you spell it Chernobyl.)

 

[Hermit]

Whatever remains of the gap can be closed with nuclear energy plants. There is a lot of work to be done to make it acceptable to the Australian public at large, though, not just the NIMBYs.

Nukes are horrible at closing the gap. Not only do you have the problem that it costs only a tiny bit more to run a nuke plant at 100% than at 10%, but throttling it up and down can cause substantial problems. When you throttle down poison accumulates in the reactor core. It's short lived and doesn't matter if you were turning the reactor off, but you can get the reactor in a state where it's not going to throttle up very well. (And when you combine that with an unsafe design and a damn-the-torpedoes approach to the problem you spell it Chernobyl.)

In terms of health, safety and environmental impact nuclear power plants have an immensely better record than coal mines, even today. I think the biggest problems are how to safely dispose the spent fuel rods for the next 64,000 years or whatever time it takes to render them reasonably harmless, and how to prevent the wrong hands from getting their grubby fingers on them in order to turn them into nuclear weapons.

Swings and roundabouts, I suppose

 

[bilby]

Whatever remains of the gap can be closed with nuclear energy plants. There is a lot of work to be done to make it acceptable to the Australian public at large, though, not just the NIMBYs.

Nukes are horrible at closing the gap. Not only do you have the problem that it costs only a tiny bit more to run a nuke plant at 100% than at 10%, but throttling it up and down can cause substantial problems. When you throttle down poison accumulates in the reactor core. It's short lived and doesn't matter if you were turning the reactor off, but you can get the reactor in a state where it's not going to throttle up very well. (And when you combine that with an unsafe design and a damn-the-torpedoes approach to the problem you spell it Chernobyl.)

In terms of health, safety and environmental impact nuclear power plants have an immensely better record than coal mines, even today. I think the biggest problems are how to safely dispose the spent fuel rods for the next 64,000 years or whatever time it takes to render them reasonably harmless, and how to prevent the wrong hands from getting their grubby fingers on them in order to turn them into nuclear weapons.

Swings and roundabouts, I suppose

Spent fuel can be used to fuel fast reactors.

But even if we decide to waste it, the safe storage solution is to just keep doing what we are doing now. It's completely safe and can be continued indefinitely.

As to proliferation of weapons, no nation that wants weapons has needed to develop nuclear power first - it's always been the other way around. The US started with weapons, and then moved to nuclear power; So did the USSR, UK, France, and Israel.

North Korea has no nuclear power plants at all, but had no problem developing nuclear weapons. South Africa was the same story, as was Pakistan.

India I think is the only country to have nuclear power before testing their first nuclear weapon, but there's no evidence that the power program provided any materials to the weapons program; The two were developed independently.

Blocking nuclear power to prevent weapons proliferation is completely pointless and futile.

 

[Hermit]

[snip]

Blocking nuclear power to prevent weapons proliferation is completely pointless and futile.

What are you telling me for? I favour nuclear power. It is much preferable to using coal and gas. Haven't I expressed my stance clearly enough for you yet?

 

[bilby]

[snip]

Blocking nuclear power to prevent weapons proliferation is completely pointless and futile.

What are you telling me for? I favour nuclear power. It is much preferable to using coal and gas. Haven't I expressed my stance clearly enough for you yet?

I was replying to the person who said:

I think the biggest problems are how to safely dispose the spent fuel rods for the next 64,000 years or whatever time it takes to render them reasonably harmless, and how to prevent the wrong hands from getting their grubby fingers on them in order to turn them into nuclear weapons

That person has identified as "the biggest problems" two things that are not problems at all; I felt comfortable that correcting their misconception was a reasonable response in the context of a discussion.

And that person was you.

 

[Hermit]

[snip]

Blocking nuclear power to prevent weapons proliferation is completely pointless and futile.

What are you telling me for? I favour nuclear power. It is much preferable to using coal and gas. Haven't I expressed my stance clearly enough for you yet?

I was replying to the person who said:

I think the biggest problems are how to safely dispose the spent fuel rods for the next 64,000 years or whatever time it takes to render them reasonably harmless, and how to prevent the wrong hands from getting their grubby fingers on them in order to turn them into nuclear weapons

That person has identified as "the biggest problems" two things that are not problems at all; I felt comfortable that correcting their misconception was a reasonable response in the context of a discussion.

And that person was you.

What exactly is wrong with objecting to your insinuation that I was in favour of

Blocking nuclear power to prevent weapons proliferation

coming after my earlier expression of support for nuclear energy, which you have quoted and replied to?

Pointing out what are regarded as problems with nuclear plants by many does not imply my opposition to them in the same way as pointing out problems with the Labor Party or the Greens means I'd vote for the Liberal/National Party coalition.

If one of us is out of order, it would be the person who imputes an opinion to someone else that are the exact opposite of the opinion that person explicitly holds, then gets all shouty when this is pointed out to him. That person is you.

 

[bilby]

Pointing out what are regarded as problems with nuclear plants by many does not imply my opposition to them

Sure. In the same way that saying "The biggest problem with vaccines is that they cause autism" doesn't imply opposition to vaccination.

It might just imply woeful ignorance of the facts, and a willingness to reiterate falsehoods widely used by opponents of the technology.

Let me be charitable and simply assume that you are ignorant - Oh, wait, that would still justify my correction of your factual errors.

 

[Hermit]

Pointing out what are regarded as problems with nuclear plants by many does not imply my opposition to them

Sure.

So we finally agree. Thanks.

 

[fromderinside]

I come from the Northwestern US where hydroelectric power supplies about 60% of our energy. This comes primarily from a system of Dams run by Bonneville. We've developed a pretty handsome electrical grid that runs from Canada to the Dakotas to California.

In the east there's TVA.

Couple all the areas where water flows and you have an nearly infinite amount of potential energy recoverable. Recovered from flow, gravity, tides, and the like requiring nothing more than a system with a generator taking advantage of the motion of the water.

I'm pretty sure we can accommodate farmers and fish systems with recovery and agricultural methods generating even more opportunities for life and other food.

I'm not a fan of putting gas recovery systems on herd animals.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Today 4% of Texas electricity needs are met by solar. Several big solar projects are underway and by early 2023 solar power will be increased X7 in Texas. Today, our gas bill was $120.00. It used to be about $30 winter time a few years ago. Nuclear is not going to save Texas soon, and gas is getting very expensive.

The biggest problem in Texas now is GOP politicians trying to hobble renewable energy expansion for whatever brain damaged reason or the other.

 

[bilby]

Today 4% of Texas electricity needs are met by solar. Several big solar projects are underway and by early 2023 solar power will be increased X7 in Texas. Today, our gas bill was $120.00. It used to be about $30 winter time a few years ago. Nuclear is not going to save Texas soon, and gas is getting very expensive.

The biggest problem in Texas now is GOP politicians trying to hobble renewable energy expansion for whatever brain damaged reason or the other.

Intermittent renewables cause gas consumption.

The European Commission President, Ursula Von der Leyen, wants to reduce EU dependence on Russian gas by "a massive investment in renewables".

Seriously, how can anyone look at the results of the massive investment in renewables made by Germany in the last two decades, and say "We need a massive investment in renewables to reduce dependence on Russian gas"? How the f*#< does she think Germany became so dependent on Russian gas to begin with??

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Texas is a big state. There will never be a time where the wind stops blowing over that whole state of Texas for any extended period of time. Nor is it probably that thee will be an extended period of time the sun does not shine for extended periods of time in Texas. We are now seeing a dramatic rise in gas prices in Texas. Gas not good to little Texas. By 2050 renewables will be king of the sources of energy in Texas. Coal and oil will be dead. Gas will be a has been. The only thing that stands in the way are stupid conservative politicians.

 

[bilby]

Texas is a big state. There will never be a time where the wind stops blowing over that whole state of Texas for any extended period of time.

Horseshit. It's not at all uncommon for anticyclonic weather to result in a week of light or non-existent wind over areas far larger than Texas (which is not a large state at all by my standards).

Nor is it probably that thee will be an extended period of time the sun does not shine for extended periods of time in Texas.

Really? I thought even Texas experienced night.

We are now seeing a dramatic rise in gas prices in Texas. Gas not good to little Texas. By 2050 renewables will be king of the sources of energy in Texas. Coal and oil will be dead. Gas will be a has been. The only thing that stands in the way are stupid conservative politicians.

And stupid physics.

Intermittent energy isn't a viable source of energy for a developed region.

You add intermittent capacity, and you are then forced to add backup capacity to cover against blackouts. Right now, that coverage is from gas.

A better option would be to cover the black spots with nuclear; But once you have enough nuclear to do that, you no longer need those wind turbines and solar panels; And as they cost money to install, maintain, and replace, it's a pointless waste to have them at all.

 

[Swammerdami]

Intermittent renewables cause gas consumption.

So, if Texas took its wind and solar off-line, gas consumption would go DOWN? Is that what your claim is?

If so, please explain.
If not, please formulate a more intelligible version of your claim.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

If you think Albert Einstein actually said this, let me sell you a bridge nuclear reactor in Brooklyn.