The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

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

No, my claim is that replacing coal and oil with wind, solar and gas has massively increased gas use.

Gas tends to displace base load generation (coal or nuclear) when intermittent sources exceed five or ten percent of the generation mix.

If Texas took its wind and solar offline, gas consumption would go down in a market driven by cost; Because coal and nuclear are more profitable than gas, in an environment without large variability in supply of electricity.

Of course, even Texas doesn't let its electricity market be driven only by cost, so what would actually happen depends more on politics than profitability.

The existence of large wind and/or solar capacity encourages a switch to gas. The removal of that capacity would encourage a switch away from gas, ceteris paribus; How paribus the ceteris actually would be depends on what policies are driving the change.

Sorry if my position is too complex for you to easily dismiss with one or two sentences expressing your incredulity at a straw model of my position with all nuance stripped away. Sadly, reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for you to instantly comprehend.

 

[Swammerdami]

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

No, my claim is that replacing coal and oil with wind, solar and gas has massively increased gas use.

. . .
Sorry if my position is too complex for you to easily dismiss with one or two sentences expressing your incredulity at a straw model of my position with all nuance stripped away. Sadly, reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for you to instantly comprehend.

So reduction of coal-based power has increased gas-based power? Numbers? Which of the two produces more CO₂ per Joule?

 

[Hermit]

"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.

 

[bilby]

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

No, my claim is that replacing coal and oil with wind, solar and gas has massively increased gas use.

. . .
Sorry if my position is too complex for you to easily dismiss with one or two sentences expressing your incredulity at a straw model of my position with all nuance stripped away. Sadly, reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for you to instantly comprehend.

So reduction of coal-based power has increased gas-based power?

Yes, significantly and obviously. Gas use has risen sharply as wind and solar capacity has increased.

Numbers?

I don't have then to hand as I am posting from my phone.

Electricitymap shows the generation mix in real time for dozens of countries, if you are interested, that's a good place to start.

Which of the two produces more CO₂ per Joule?

Gas is rather better with respect to CO₂, but there's evidence that 'fugitive emissions' - gas leaks - from the supply chain might completely eliminate this benefit, and some studies suggest gas might actually be worse in terms of total greenhouse gases emitted. CH₄ is far more potent than CO₂, so it doesn't take a lot of leaks to completely offset any benefit.

Neither is good; Being better than coal is faint praise indeed.

 

[Swammerdami]

No, my claim is that replacing coal and oil with wind, solar and gas has massively increased gas use.

. . .
Sorry if my position is too complex for you to easily dismiss with one or two sentences expressing your incredulity at a straw model of my position with all nuance stripped away. Sadly, reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for you to instantly comprehend.

So reduction of coal-based power has increased gas-based power?

Yes, significantly and obviously. Gas use has risen sharply as wind and solar capacity has increased.

Which of the two produces more CO₂ per Joule?

Gas is rather better with respect to CO₂, but there's evidence that 'fugitive emissions' - gas leaks - from the supply chain might completely eliminate this benefit, and some studies suggest gas might actually be worse in terms of total greenhouse gases emitted. CH₄ is far more potent than CO₂, so it doesn't take a lot of leaks to completely offset any benefit.

Neither is good; Being better than coal is faint praise indeed.

I've already read once or twice about methane leakage ... but had forgotten it once or twice. Thanks for reminding us! I see "At least 25% of today’s warming is driven by methane from human actions. One of the largest methane sources is the oil and gas industry." (Despite my advancing age, I do not blame senile dementia for my need to have this lesson repeated. My brain has been an ... intermittent resource all my life.)

Unlike modern-day "libertarians", I believe that market-based solutions are often best. Optimality requires that "external" costs (e.g. CH4 or CO2 emissions) be afforded, e.g. via taxes or fines.

I do understand that discussions like this require nuance. In fact, lack of nuance is why I'm dissatisfied with some of the over-simplifications in this thread.

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.

Upthread I posted a longish optimistic message about energy storage and non-intermittent renewables. Hydroelectric dams, where available, provide a huge amount of implicit energy storage. And someone else pointed out that nuclear has the OPPOSITE problem of intermittency! — It isn't economical to modulate the output. These are nuances that can't be glossed over.

As I say, market forces are often most to the point, even if external costs are not properly accounted for. Electricity grids should be, and usually are, operated as a business. Buy for a nickel and sell for a dime. If energy sources like wind truly are as uneconomic as bilby implies, then businessmen (or taxpayers — what portion of wind farms are government-operated?) are being bilked out of billions of dollars.

 

[bilby]

Hydroelectric dams, where available, provide a huge amount of implicit energy storage.

Well, that depends on what you call 'huge'. It's by far the largest capacity storage option; But the idea of 100% intermittent renewables requires vastly more storage than pumped hydro could ever deliver.

And someone else pointed out that nuclear has the OPPOSITE problem of intermittency! — It isn't economical to modulate the output.

That was certainly true in the 1970s.

But not today. France load follows perfectly well with her modern nuclear reactors.

Fuel is a trivial cost for nuclear reactors; Most of the costs are fixed costs, so accountants don't like to see them run at less than 100%, but that's a matter of profit maximisation, not absolute profitability.

 

[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.

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.

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage. Which is indeed part of the long term solar energy system.

Do you really think those stupid old engineers don't know about night? Really!?

Texas, long term is moving on from old fashioned coal, oil, and yes, gas. Gas has other problems. Gas wells have a limited life span and we need new ones constantly. Fracking is not cheap and also has undesirable features, such as cleaning up after them. Nothing is without problems. Eventually, over time, we will find a way to become sophisticated renewable oriented producers. This is underway now.

Now if we could only render down our right wing politicians to use their fat to lube out wind turbines. That would help a lot.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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

No, my claim is that replacing coal and oil with wind, solar and gas has massively increased gas use.

. . .
Sorry if my position is too complex for you to easily dismiss with one or two sentences expressing your incredulity at a straw model of my position with all nuance stripped away. Sadly, reality is under no obligation to be sufficiently simple for you to instantly comprehend.

So reduction of coal-based power has increased gas-based power? Numbers? Which of the two produces more CO₂ per Joule?

I am down here in Houston, Texas. For decades a major source of electrical power here was created by burning lignite, brown coal in massive amounts. Liginite in recent decades has been phasing out as it is nasty and expensive.

Gas naturally with fracking has become available in large amounts. a much prefered source of energy for creating electricity. Coal in Texas is dying. It is not economically feasible. Solar and wind just makes coal and oil for electricity an even worse economic proposition. Gas in Texas is doing well simply because it is relatively cheap and available though it is getting more expensive and is not inexhaustible.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage. Which is indeed part of the long term solar energy system.

Batteries are not green, not remotely. It is a very ungreen solution to a solar/wind problem.

Texas, long term is moving on from old fashioned coal, oil, and yes, gas. Gas has other problems. Gas wells have a limited life span and we need new ones constantly. Fracking is not cheap and also has undesirable features, such as cleaning up after them. Nothing is without problems. Eventually, over time, we will find a way to become sophisticated renewable oriented producers. This is underway now.

Wind and solar are renewable, however, they are also quite finite and permanently intermittent which means they need backup... and battery storage is never getting us there.

Nuclear isn't renewable, but it is much more scalable and provides 24/7 energy with a tiny greenhouse footprint. Everything else is trying to use duct tape to make a permanent fix on fossil fuels. I'm late to the nuclear bus, but it seems the only viable option. We've kind of been misled on the other options and the scale of power they could provide.

 

[bilby]

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage.

If you seriously think there's enough battery capacity to store all, or even most, of the electricity used in Texas overnight, then you're laughably unqualified to have an opinion on this topic.

The 'big battery' grid-scale storage systems so far installed around the world have capacities measured in minutes or seconds of demand, not hours or days.

They are typically used to provide grid stability services, closing the short gap between the drop
in supply from renewables, and the start of supply from gas.

Gas is an inseparable partner of wind and solar at grid scale. And likely will be forever. Certainly it will be for long enough that the climate catastrophe cannot be averted by renewables.

A bunch of well meaning arts graduates say renewables are the answer; Physicists, chemists and engineers say they cannot be.

I know which side to bet on.

 

[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.

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.

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage. Which is indeed part of the long term solar energy system.

Batteries are not green, not remotely. It is a very ungreen solution to a solar/wind problem.

Texas, long term is moving on from old fashioned coal, oil, and yes, gas. Gas has other problems. Gas wells have a limited life span and we need new ones constantly. Fracking is not cheap and also has undesirable features, such as cleaning up after them. Nothing is without problems. Eventually, over time, we will find a way to become sophisticated renewable oriented producers. This is underway now.

Wind and solar are renewable, however, they are also quite finite and permanently intermittent which means they need backup... and battery storage is never getting us there.

Nuclear isn't renewable, but it is much more scalable and provides 24/7 energy with a tiny greenhouse footprint. Everything else is trying to use duct tape to make a permanent fix on fossil fuels. I'm late to the nuclear bus, but it seems the only viable option. We've kind of been misled on the other options and the scale of power they could provide.

There is a lot of work being done now on large scale storage batteries. Some do not use lithium or exotic and expensive materials. Work is already underway to create viable, cheap, safe systems. Flow batteries will play a big part in renewable energy strategies eventually. Don't worry, the boffins are on top of this. Big money will be made by those companies that eventually make these batteries possible. And those energy companies that use them.

 

[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.

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage. Which is indeed part of the long term solar energy system.

Batteries are not green, not remotely. It is a very ungreen solution to a solar/wind problem.

Texas, long term is moving on from old fashioned coal, oil, and yes, gas. Gas has other problems. Gas wells have a limited life span and we need new ones constantly. Fracking is not cheap and also has undesirable features, such as cleaning up after them. Nothing is without problems. Eventually, over time, we will find a way to become sophisticated renewable oriented producers. This is underway now.

Wind and solar are renewable, however, they are also quite finite and permanently intermittent which means they need backup... and battery storage is never getting us there.

Nuclear isn't renewable, but it is much more scalable and provides 24/7 energy with a tiny greenhouse footprint. Everything else is trying to use duct tape to make a permanent fix on fossil fuels. I'm late to the nuclear bus, but it seems the only viable option. We've kind of been misled on the other options and the scale of power they could provide.

There is a lot of work being done now on large scale storage batteries. Some do not use lithium or exotic and expensive materials. Work is already underway to create viable, cheap, safe systems. Flow batteries will play a big part in renewable energy strategies eventually. Don't worry, the boffins are on top of this. Big money will be made by those companies that eventually make these batteries possible. And those energy companies that use them.

Sure. They will be along any minute. Along with fusion power.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind

Novel batteries promise cheap, safe, and stable backup power

www.science.org

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind​

...Last week, researchers reported overcoming many of these drawbacks with a potentially cheap, long-lived, and safe flow battery. The work is part of a wave of advances generating optimism that a new generation of flow batteries will soon serve as a backstop for the deployment of wind and solar power on a grand scale. "There is lots of progress in this field right now," says Ulrich Schubert, a chemist at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany.
...
So Liu and his colleagues replaced the salts with a nitrogen-based compound called ammonium that allows at least twice as much ferrocyanide to dissolve, doubling the battery's capacity. The resulting battery is not as energy-dense as a vanadium flow battery. But in last week's issue of Joule, Liu and his colleagues reported that their iron-based organic flow battery shows no signs of degradation after 1000 charge-discharge cycles, equivalent to about 3 years of operation. And because the electrolytes are neutral pH and water-based, a leak likely wouldn't produce environmental damage.


"Overall, that's an excellent piece of work," says Qing Wang, a materials scientist at the National University of Singapore. Still, he and others caution that the battery is sluggish to charge and discharge. Liu says he and his colleagues plan to test other electrolyte additives, among other fixes, to boost conductivity.
...

Eventually somebody will come up up with a viable and cost effective battery and a lot of people are working on this.

 

[bigfield]

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.

Of course Texas experiences night times. But that is dealt with by battery storage. Which is indeed part of the long term solar energy system.

Do you really think those stupid old engineers don't know about night? Really!?

Texas, long term is moving on from old fashioned coal, oil, and yes, gas. Gas has other problems. Gas wells have a limited life span and we need new ones constantly. Fracking is not cheap and also has undesirable features, such as cleaning up after them. Nothing is without problems. Eventually, over time, we will find a way to become sophisticated renewable oriented producers. This is underway now.

Now if we could only render down our right wing politicians to use their fat to lube out wind turbines. That would help a lot.

Batteries can't deal with shit. The world's biggest battery installations are only useful for frequency regulation.

It's one thing to have a battery that can supply 1000GW for one hour. I'm pretty sure that hasn't even been done yet. It's quite another to have a battery that can supply 1000GW for twelve hours.

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind

Novel batteries promise cheap, safe, and stable backup power

www.science.org

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind​

...Last week, researchers reported overcoming many of these drawbacks with a potentially cheap, long-lived, and safe flow battery. The work is part of a wave of advances generating optimism that a new generation of flow batteries will soon serve as a backstop for the deployment of wind and solar power on a grand scale. "There is lots of progress in this field right now," says Ulrich Schubert, a chemist at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany.
...
So Liu and his colleagues replaced the salts with a nitrogen-based compound called ammonium that allows at least twice as much ferrocyanide to dissolve, doubling the battery's capacity. The resulting battery is not as energy-dense as a vanadium flow battery. But in last week's issue of Joule, Liu and his colleagues reported that their iron-based organic flow battery shows no signs of degradation after 1000 charge-discharge cycles, equivalent to about 3 years of operation. And because the electrolytes are neutral pH and water-based, a leak likely wouldn't produce environmental damage.


"Overall, that's an excellent piece of work," says Qing Wang, a materials scientist at the National University of Singapore. Still, he and others caution that the battery is sluggish to charge and discharge. Liu says he and his colleagues plan to test other electrolyte additives, among other fixes, to boost conductivity.
...

Eventually somebody will come up up with a viable and cost effective battery and a lot of people are working on this.

Eventually.

Climate change isn't waiting for "eventually".

 

[bilby]

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind

Novel batteries promise cheap, safe, and stable backup power

www.science.org

New generation of ‘flow batteries' could eventually sustain a grid powered by the sun and wind​

...Last week, researchers reported overcoming many of these drawbacks with a potentially cheap, long-lived, and safe flow battery. The work is part of a wave of advances generating optimism that a new generation of flow batteries will soon serve as a backstop for the deployment of wind and solar power on a grand scale. "There is lots of progress in this field right now," says Ulrich Schubert, a chemist at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany.
...
So Liu and his colleagues replaced the salts with a nitrogen-based compound called ammonium that allows at least twice as much ferrocyanide to dissolve, doubling the battery's capacity. The resulting battery is not as energy-dense as a vanadium flow battery. But in last week's issue of Joule, Liu and his colleagues reported that their iron-based organic flow battery shows no signs of degradation after 1000 charge-discharge cycles, equivalent to about 3 years of operation. And because the electrolytes are neutral pH and water-based, a leak likely wouldn't produce environmental damage.


"Overall, that's an excellent piece of work," says Qing Wang, a materials scientist at the National University of Singapore. Still, he and others caution that the battery is sluggish to charge and discharge. Liu says he and his colleagues plan to test other electrolyte additives, among other fixes, to boost conductivity.
...

Eventually somebody will come up up with a viable and cost effective battery and a lot of people are working on this.

Eventually somebody will come up with a fusion reactor, and a lot of people have been working on this for seventy years.

We don't have time for vague promises of future technologies, particularly when the most promising candidates still imply massive resource use for very little actual benefit, while we have a tried and tested technology that could start being implemented today - and indeed that has been implemented decades ago in some places.

 

[bigfield]

It's one thing to have a battery that can supply 1000GW for one hour. I'm pretty sure that hasn't even been done yet. It's quite another to have a battery that can supply 1000GW for twelve hours.

Oops I meant MW, not GW.

In 2021, Texas installed a battery capable of supplying 300MW/1200MWh.

At 300MW / 1,200MWh, the world’s largest battery storage system so far is up and running

The world’s largest battery energy storage system (BESS) so far has gone into operation in Monterey County, California, US retail electricity and power generation company Vistra said yesterday.

www.energy-storage.news

In 2020, The US consumed 3,800TWh (3,800,000,000MWh) of electricity.

U.S. electricity consumption 2023 | Statista

How much electricity does the United States use in a year? The annual electricity consumption in the U.S. grew steadily over the past few years.

www.statista.com

That's roughly 10TWh (10,000,000MWh) a day, on average.

Suppose you needed to supply the entire US with electricity from batteries for a single hour. How many of the USA's biggest battery would you need in order to accomplish this?

10,000,000MW / 300MW = 33,334 fully-charged batteries.

Actually this would be enough batteries for four hours of electricity, since each battery could supply 1200MWh.

Suppose you needed to supply half of the US with electricity from batteries for twelve hours. How many of the USA's biggest battery would you need in order to accomplish this?

60,000,000MWh / 1200MWh = 50,000 fully-charged batteries. Just to get though one night when the sun's down and there's only enough wind to supply 50% of the country.

This technology doesn't scale. "Eventually" it will, but that's not a solution when climate action is already decades overdue.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Texas does not have to save all it's electricity overnight in batteries. Wind again is going to play a major role. Already people are installing solar panels and Elon Musk's Power Wall batteries for night time. Over the next 25 years all of this is going to be worked out. Bilby can sneer and rant all he wants. But eventually Texas will get there, renewables will provide the largest part of Texas electrical needs. Batteries will be developed that will play their part in all of this. Nuclear is not going to pop up soon and save everybody. Texas at least is solar and wind rich. So that is where Texas is going.

 

[Elixir]

Just got a propane bill for home heat and hot water. Over $900.00
If I was planning another ten years here I’d definitely go with a solar array.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Just got a propane bill for home heat and hot water. Over $900.00
If I was planning another ten years here I’d definitely go with a solar array.

$900?! How long is this for a month, three months?

 

[ZiprHead]

Just got a propane bill for home heat and hot water. Over $900.00
If I was planning another ten years here I’d definitely go with a solar array.

Is that to fill your pig?