The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

Not so much "The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy", as "The Remarkable Progress of Government Subsidy for Renewable Energy".

Throwing money at renewables will make them more widely available, but it won't make them a more sensible way to generate electricity. That would require some astonishing new physics to enable diffuse and intermittent energy sources to be collected and stored on a massive scale without the use of massive amounts of environmentally damaging materials extraction.

As we already have a non-polluting technology to make electricity continuously without this massive level of materials use, it seems more than slightly perverse to pursue solar and wind power for what are entirely ideological and irrational reasons.

The appeal to nature fallacy would remain fallacious even if it didn't imply strip mining of vast areas of the planet, dumping of huge volumes of toxic wastes, and generally fucking up the environment, just so a bunch of aging boomers with a phobia of the "N" word stemming from their Cold War memories can indulge their neo-Luddism.

We could just stop being stupid, and replace coal, oil, and gas with nuclear power. But people (particularly the Gas companies) prefer gas power (supplemented with a greenwash of largely ineffective, and hugely unprofitable, wind and solar power). Because humans are remarkable for their ability not to think things through.

 

[bilby]

Can compressed air energy storage solve the long-duration dilemma?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines tells us the answer here.

 

[lpetrich]

Arizona utility breaks ground on state's largest battery storage project

Construction is expected to begin soon on a 250 MW/1000 MWh battery storage project in Tolleson, Arizona.

...
The other, a 90 MW/360 MWh project called Superstition Energy Storage, is expected to be built in Gilbert, Arizona.

...
SRP has a goal of surpassing 1,100 MW in battery storage by 2024.

Tolleson and Gilbert are both in the Phoenix area. Both battery facilities are designed for four hours of storage.

Arizona's electricity consumption: US Electricity Profile 2021 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) -- 9.3 GW

That state has nearly 7.4 million people, giving an average consumption of 1.26 kW per person. The Phoenix area has 4.8 million people, giving a consumption of 6.1 GW. Those two battery projects will supply about 1/18 of this average, and the 2024 goal is about 1/5.5.

 

[lpetrich]

Can compressed air energy storage solve the long-duration dilemma?

Betteridge's Law of Headlines tells us the answer here.

According to the article, the answer is *not* necessarily "no", as the law claims, but at least "maybe". After thirty years of lack of interest, the technology is being revived.

How suddenly things change. A study by Global Industry Analysts, “Compressed Air Energy Storage – Global Market Trajectory & Analytics”, predicts that the global CAES market will be worth $10.3 billion by 2026. While that number may be optimistic, there is substance behind it. China, for example, just brought online a 100 MW CAES system variant in the city of Zhangjiakou in northern China.

 

[lpetrich]

Wind & Solar Power Now The Clear Champions On Cost - CleanTechnica

The first finding in this year’s report is that the carbon intensity of global electricity generation fell to a record low of 436 grams of CO2/kWh in 2022, the cleanest electricity ever. This was due to record growth in wind and solar, which reached a 12% share of the global electricity mix, up from 10% in 2021. Together, all clean electricity sources (renewables and nuclear) reached 39% of global electricity, a new record high.

Solar generation rose by 24%, making it the fastest growing electricity source for 18 years in a row. Wind generation grew by 17%. The increase in global solar generation in 2022 could have met the annual electricity demand of South Africa, and the rise in wind generation could have powered almost all of the UK. Over sixty countries now generate more than 10% of their electricity from wind and solar. However, other sources of clean electricity dropped for the first time since 2011 due to a fall in nuclear output and fewer new nuclear and hydro power plants coming online.

The second major finding in this year’s report is that wind and solar are slowing the rise in power sector emissions. If all the electricity from wind and solar instead came from fossil generation, power sector emissions would have been 20% higher in 2022. The growth alone in wind and solar generation (+557 TWh) met 80% of global electricity demand growth in 2022 (+694 TWh).

Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023. This would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession.

Then discussing how renewable energy beats natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy in Levelized Cost of Electricity:

(initial cost) / (lifetime) + (continuing cost rate)

I looked at the numbers, and I don't find the article's claims of superiority very convincing -- in LCOE, wind and solar are roughly neck-and-neck with combined-cycle natural-gas generation, somewhat ahead of coal, and well ahead of natural-gas peakers and nuclear energy.

Comparing wind + solar LCOE with marginal costs (here, continuing costs), they are neck-and-neck with nuclear and coal, and a little bit ahead of combined cycle.

 

[lpetrich]

New Battery Center Launches In USA - CleanTechnica - "he center at SLAC aims to bridge the gaps between discovering, manufacturing, and deploying innovative energy storage solutions"
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Filling the enormous gap between what we have and what we need is one of the biggest challenges in energy research and development. It will require that experts in chemistry, materials science, engineering and a host of other fields join forces to make batteries safer, more efficient and less costly and manufacture them more sustainably from earth-abundant materials, all on a global scale.

Yes, alternatives to lithium-ion batteries.

“It’s not enough to make a game-changing battery material in small amounts,” said Jagjit Nanda, a SLAC distinguished scientist, Stanford adjunct professor and executive director of the new center, whose background includes decades of battery research at DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory. “We have to understand the manufacturing science needed to make it in larger quantities on a massive scale without compromising on performance.”

I agree. Demonstration on lab scales is not enough.

Major Graphite Research Project Aims To Reshape Domestic Electric Vehicle & Battery Market - CleanTechnica

A big endeavor is currently in progress to create a new “Made in America” graphite sector. Carbon technology business Ramaco Carbon is now working with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s largest science and energy labs, to create innovative, large-scale techniques for producing graphite from coal as a component of this endeavor.

Graphite is a sheet-crystal form of carbon, and one does not need coal as a source of that element.

 

[lpetrich]

A Woman, A Plan, A Canal -- Hydropower! - "Who gives a dam? Drop-in hydrokinetic turbines could bring hydropower to canals, rivers, and tidal waterways without damming up the flow of water."

Proposed 1,200 MW Floating Solar PV Plant In Zimbabwe Could Increase Generation By 44% - CleanTechnica


FUD Alert: Weight Of Electric Cars Will Cause Parking Garages To Fall Down - CleanTechnica - "For some people, electric cars are to be feared and so they make up the most outrageous lies about them to scare people away from them."

Points out that many present-day gasoline cars are heavier than Tesla electric cars. Something not mentioned is that the weight of the floor of each parking stall. How Large is a Parking Space? - Franklin Street - effectively 8 ft * 24 ft or 2.4 m * 7.2 m.

Considering typical construction materials, the density of concrete is about 2.4 g/cm^3 and that of steel (iron alloy) 7.85 g/cm^3. 1 metric ton per stall is thus about 2.4 cm of concrete or 0.7 cm of steel. So the parking-structure floors are likely to be heavier than the cars that are likely parked on them.

Also, many structures are deliberately overdesigned to have a margin of error, and structural collapse is usually preceded by evidence like cracks.

 

[bilby]

Wind & Solar Power Now The Clear Champions On Cost - CleanTechnica

The first finding in this year’s report is that the carbon intensity of global electricity generation fell to a record low of 436 grams of CO2/kWh in 2022, the cleanest electricity ever. This was due to record growth in wind and solar, which reached a 12% share of the global electricity mix, up from 10% in 2021. Together, all clean electricity sources (renewables and nuclear) reached 39% of global electricity, a new record high.

Solar generation rose by 24%, making it the fastest growing electricity source for 18 years in a row. Wind generation grew by 17%. The increase in global solar generation in 2022 could have met the annual electricity demand of South Africa, and the rise in wind generation could have powered almost all of the UK. Over sixty countries now generate more than 10% of their electricity from wind and solar. However, other sources of clean electricity dropped for the first time since 2011 due to a fall in nuclear output and fewer new nuclear and hydro power plants coming online.

The second major finding in this year’s report is that wind and solar are slowing the rise in power sector emissions. If all the electricity from wind and solar instead came from fossil generation, power sector emissions would have been 20% higher in 2022. The growth alone in wind and solar generation (+557 TWh) met 80% of global electricity demand growth in 2022 (+694 TWh).

Clean power growth is likely to exceed electricity demand growth in 2023. This would be the first year for this to happen outside of a recession.

Then discussing how renewable energy beats natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy in Levelized Cost of Electricity:

(initial cost) / (lifetime) + (continuing cost rate)

I looked at the numbers, and I don't find the article's claims of superiority very convincing -- in LCOE, wind and solar are roughly neck-and-neck with combined-cycle natural-gas generation, somewhat ahead of coal, and well ahead of natural-gas peakers and nuclear energy.

Comparing wind + solar LCOE with marginal costs (here, continuing costs), they are neck-and-neck with nuclear and coal, and a little bit ahead of combined cycle.

Nuclear power is expensive, for much the same reason that gasoline is expensive in Europe*. When you deliberately make a cheap source of energy more expensive to discourage its use, it's disingenuous to then point to how expensive it is as a reason why it shouldn't have been used in the first place.

The cost of nuclear power on a level regulatory playing field is FAR below what the LCOE figures suggest.

And of course, viability isn't just a matter of cost; Wind and solar energy isn't anywhere near as valuable as energy from other sources, as it's mostly generated at times when wholesale prices are low (and not infrequently when they are negative, making its value less than zero).

Buying something very cheaply isn't a great financial strategy, if you're going to have to sell it for even less than you paid for it.


*Gasoline was retailing at $6.47/gal in London as at 14 March 2023 (£1.47/litre), down from a record $8.48/gal (£1.92/l) in July 2022.

 

[Tigers!]

Germany turns off their last nuclear reactors. Is that an advancement or improvement for Germany and the EU's electrical supply?
https://eur01.safelinks.protection....77roHEvyS/IgEcrfnSqAMMuK1vIRF8yw8=&reserved=0

 

[bilby]

Germany turns off their last nuclear reactors.

The downside of this is increasing environmental destruction due to the burning of fossil fuels, increased reliance on gas, (despite the cessation of the supply of gas from Russia), and reduced reliability of the German electricity network.

The upside is that now Germany will be completely fine if struck by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 40m (130ft) high tsunami. So that's nice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Germany turns off their last nuclear reactors.

The downside of this is increasing environmental destruction due to the burning of fossil fuels, increased reliance on gas, (despite the cessation of the supply of gas from Russia), and reduced reliability of the German electricity network.

The upside is that now Germany will be completely fine if struck by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 40m (130ft) high tsunami. So that's nice.

Interesting thing I ran into: Fukushima would not have been a big deal if the politicians hadn't been in ignore-reality mode.

Not only was the whole evacuation nonsense (the expected death toll of staying put was zero), but the boom that caused the problem was entirely preventable. The operators knew they had to vent the reactor and were prohibited from doing so until 3km had been evacuated. Of course nuclear power gets blamed for the hundreds of deaths, not the prime minister that fucked everything up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

 

[bilby]

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

Fukushima was a problem because they were hit by the largest earthquake ever recorded, followed by a massive tsunami.

Literally nothing that happened to the power plant after that event was worth worrying about unless you were an employee of TEPCO based at Fukushima Daiichi; There were zero fatalities due to radiation exposure or the consequences of the meltdowns (one man was killed falling from a gantry during the quake), and the only injuries were two minor cases of beta burn caused by wading through radioactive water. Beta burn is basically indistinguishable from sunburn in both its immediate and long-term effects; It's uncomfortable, but not life-threatening.

Compare this to 19,759 confirmed dead, 2,553 missing, and 6,242 injured by the quake and its tsunami, and I am left boggling at the insanity that people think there was a nuclear power plant disaster, twelve years after they've basically forgotten about the actual disaster that really happened.

There was a media frenzy, and some nice photogenic hydrogen explosions. Like all situations that lead to the destruction of a complex and expensive facility which had multiple safeguards to protect it from damage, there was no single "cause"; Multiple separate things went wrong in the aftermath of the tsunami hitting the plant, any one of which could have prevented the explosions and/or meltdowns.

One such critical point of failure was politically motivated mismanagement. There were dozens of others.

It's worth noting that Fukushima Daiichi was one of several nuclear plants that were hit by the tsunami; Fukushima Daini, located right next door to Daiichi (Daiichi means "Number 1", and Daini "Number 2" in Japanese), was a 1970s "Generation II" design (Daiichi was a 1960s designed Generation I plant), and Fukushima Daini suffered only minor damage, despite being hit by the exact same natural disaster.

Onagawa Nuclear Power Station was the closest nuclear plant to the epicentre of the quake and was hit by a much larger tsunami than Fukushima; It was used as an evacuation centre by local residents, as it was by far the most robust and least damaged building complex in the area.

The Tōhoku Earthquake and Tsunami demonstrated unequivocally that even the oldest designs of nuclear power plants are safe to operate, even in places with the most extreme of geological instability. That the vast majority of people believe the exact opposite, is testament to the Cold War prejudice against anything "nuclear" or "radioactive", and to the utter uselessness of a news media whose motivation is entertainment, ahead of information. Explosions at nuclear power plants are a great way to sell advertising.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

Fukushima was a problem because they were hit by the largest earthquake ever recorded, followed by a massive tsunami.

Literally nothing that happened to the power plant after that event was worth worrying about unless you were an employee of TEPCO based at Fukushima Daiichi; There were zero fatalities due to radiation exposure or the consequences of the meltdowns (one man was killed falling from a gantry during the quake), and the only injuries were two minor cases of beta burn caused by wading through radioactive water. Beta burn is basically indistinguishable from sunburn in both its immediate and long-term effects; It's uncomfortable, but not life-threatening.

That's great. What does any of that have to do with the redundancy of emergency energy supply? In my field of work, I deal with an unhealthy number of unknowns. And most of it will be never knowns. We deal with this with factors of safety that increase based on the importance of something not failing. Emergency power at a nuke plant should be one of those things.

You are always trigger happy to defend nuclear. I ain't attacking nuclear, I'm saying the risk assessment was not adequately planned for, in order to deal with a natural event that had a much greater than zero chance of occurring.

The result of that failure wasn't nationally substantial, but it wasn't of no consequence either. And it didn't need to be.

 

[bilby]

That's great. What does any of that have to do with the redundancy of emergency energy supply?

It was a response to your post:

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

One of dozens of problems at Fukushima Daiichi was that each of the several backup power options failed.

The primary backup power was from the local grid, but that was destroyed. The secondary backup was generators installed for just that purpose, but they were sited below the flood level. The tertiary backup was to bring in portable generators, but the nearest supplier had also been wiped out, and the more distant suppliers couldn't get their generators to the site because the roads were destroyed.

Clearly they could have done better in hindsight; And given that a number of other sites, some even more seriously impacted than Fukushima Daiichi, actually did avoid this problem, maybe they could even have foreseen the issues.

So... what?

You thought:

Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

You're not wrong; But that's one of dozens of reasons. There is no one correct way to end the sentence "Fukushima was a problem because...", so why would you think there was?

Certainly the best candidate for a single "because" here is "...because there was a fucking HUGE earthquake". Any other candidate needs to jostle shoulders with dozens of equally valid 'causes'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's great. What does any of that have to do with the redundancy of emergency energy supply?

It was a response to your post:

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

One of dozens of problems at Fukushima Daiichi was that each of the several backup power options failed.

The primary backup power was from the local grid, but that was destroyed. The secondary backup was generators installed for just that purpose, but they were sited below the flood level.

Thanks. That is what I said.

 

[bilby]

We deal with this with factors of safety that increase based on the importance of something not failing. Emergency power at a nuke plant should be one of those things.

Why?

Nuclear power plants are expensive, and when one melts down, that represents the loss of a LOT of cash. But nobody gets hurt. So why should mitigation of that risk take precedence over mitigation of far more plausible and far more easily mitigated risks to human life?

 

[Elixir]

Coal mining, anyone?

Occupational Fatalities
Fatalities among coal operator employees accounted for 62.9% of all mining fatalities. The coal operator fatality rate was 45.9 [CI: 33.4, 61.7] fatalities per 100,000 FTE employees. The underground fatality rate was 84.4

Pretty stark as far as safety is concerned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought Fukashima was a problem because they put the emergency power inside the flood zone.

Yeah, but the real problem was from the explosion and it turns out the explosion could have been avoided.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Coal mining, anyone?

Occupational Fatalities
Fatalities among coal operator employees accounted for 62.9% of all mining fatalities. The coal operator fatality rate was 45.9 [CI: 33.4, 61.7] fatalities per 100,000 FTE employees. The underground fatality rate was 84.4

View attachment 42986

Pretty stark as far as safety is concerned.

And note that nuke has lower CO2 emissions than renewables.

In a dystopia where you try to go fully renewable the difference is even worse due to how much overcapacity you need with renewables to ensure the lights stay on.