The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[skepticalbip]

Who said anything about 0%

Reality said that on a windless night, renewables generate 0% of your energy requirements.

If you don’t like that, take it up with reality.

Did I not point out one can buy hydrogen plants now to solve that problem? Did i not point out there are many projects being pursued to solve that issue. Did I not point out that the Biden Adminstration started a 10 year plan to cut costs of hydrogenstorage 80%? $100 Million to prime that pump.

Long term, this is an issue that is solvable and will be solved. Stop trolling!

I haven't see anyone claim that it isn't solvable. The question is why the hell anyone would want to reject something that already works in favor of something that has a hell of a lot of problems yet to be resolved and will be more expensive. I can understand the lobbies and politicians because there is a lot of money to be made (the latest $100 million for example) but I can't understand a thinking person to agree.

 

[James Brown]

We can hammer nails with a screwdriver, but not very well.

The solution is not to pour money into R&D on how to build a better screwdriver.

 

[skepticalbip]

We can hammer nails with a screwdriver, but not very well.

The solution is not to pour money into R&D on how to build a better screwdriver.

But I would be happy to tackle the problem if only some politician in power would give me a $100 million dollar grant for my effort. I could even donate ten million of it to their campaign fund.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The issue is, nobody in Texas is building nuclear plants. And that is that. We can wish all we want, it is not happening. For now, renewables are cheap, reliable income, with low problems for developers compared to nuclear. Turn around from construction to income is short compared to nuclear. That alone guarantees renewables are going to dominate energy projects for years to come. Nuclear projects that won't see a penny of profit for 20 years from day one is unattractive to investers and developers.

It is capitalism in action. Consider these facts until you see the issue.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

We can hammer nails with a screwdriver, but not very well.

The solution is not to pour money into R&D on how to build a better screwdriver.

Like the new fad of mini-nuclear plants? Some nuclear plant operators are already having problems competing with wind and solar in their area on basis of cost.

 

[skepticalbip]

The issue is, nobody in Texas is building nuclear plants. And that is that. We can wish all we want, it is not happening. For now, renewables are cheap, reliable income, with low problems for developers compared to nuclear. Turn around from construction to income is short compared to nuclear. That alone guarantees renewables are going to dominate energy projects for years to come. Nuclear projects that won't see a penny of profit for 20 years from day one is unattractive to investers and developers.

It isn't science that stopped the building of nuclear plants but political pressure from politicians.

It is capitalism in action. Consider these facts until you see the issue.

It's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the solar and wind industries competing for their share of the power industry against nuclear and fossil fuels without government financial and propaganda support for one side and restrictive regulation on the other. When government puts their thumbs on the scales then capitalistic competition vanishes.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://world-nuclear.org/informati...20 report, Capital Cost,/kWe (overnight cost)

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of other electricity generation, except where there is access to low-cost fossil fuels.

Texas has cheap natural gas. Another reason no nuclear plants are being built in Texas.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

According to world-nuclear org,
Economic Of Nuclear Power
Updated September 2021

Nuclear power is cost effective with other forms of electricy generation, except when there is access to low-cost fossil fuels.

Such as in Texas with cheap natural gas. And now, cheap renewables. Another reason nobody is building nuclear plants.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The issue is, nobody in Texas is building nuclear plants. And that is that. We can wish all we want, it is not happening. For now, renewables are cheap, reliable income, with low problems for developers compared to nuclear. Turn around from construction to income is short compared to nuclear. That alone guarantees renewables are going to dominate energy projects for years to come. Nuclear projects that won't see a penny of profit for 20 years from day one is unattractive to investers and developers.

It isn't science that stopped the building of nuclear plants but political pressure from politicians.

It is capitalism in action. Consider these facts until you see the issue.

It's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the solar and wind industries competing for their share of the power industry against nuclear and fossil fuels without government financial and propaganda support for one side and restrictive regulation on the other. When government puts their thumbs on the scales then capitalistic competition vanishes.

As I pointed out, it is a better way to make money to invest in renewable. From project start to reliable profit is short compared to nuclear. A nuclear plant is from $6 to $9 bilions for which investers will not see any profits for well over a decade and then will have to pay off that cost from profits for years to come. Not very inviting is it? Don't blame that bad ol' gubmint for the basic problems of economics.

The invisible hand of quick and sure profits has spoken.

 

[skepticalbip]

The issue is, nobody in Texas is building nuclear plants. And that is that. We can wish all we want, it is not happening. For now, renewables are cheap, reliable income, with low problems for developers compared to nuclear. Turn around from construction to income is short compared to nuclear. That alone guarantees renewables are going to dominate energy projects for years to come. Nuclear projects that won't see a penny of profit for 20 years from day one is unattractive to investers and developers.

It isn't science that stopped the building of nuclear plants but political pressure from politicians.

It is capitalism in action. Consider these facts until you see the issue.

It's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the solar and wind industries competing for their share of the power industry against nuclear and fossil fuels without government financial and propaganda support for one side and restrictive regulation on the other. When government puts their thumbs on the scales then capitalistic competition vanishes.

As I pointed out, it is a better way to make money to invest in renewable. From project start to reliable profit is short compared to nuclear.

Only because politicians in power are pumping hundreds of millions of tax payers' dollars into wind and solar (while accepting millions in campaign contributions from them) and restricting nuclear. If it was true capitalistic competition then wind and solar would be "the red headed child" of the power industry selling to a small niche market.

 

[Tigers!]

...

Interestingly, the Voyager and Pioneer probes have used reliable uninterrupted power for over 45 years now. The problem of providing reliable clean power was solved before the 1970s.

Admittedly the probes had very constant power requirements. Our society has a far more varying demand cycle but something based upon those units with appropriate scaling can provide a goodly portion of our electricity needs.

 

[Tigers!]

Who said anything about 0%

Reality said that on a windless night, renewables generate 0% of your energy requirements.

If you don’t like that, take it up with reality.

Did I not point out one can buy hydrogen plants now to solve that problem? Did i not point out there are many projects being pursued to solve that issue. Did I not point out that the Biden Adminstration started a 10 year plan to cut costs of hydrogenstorage 80%? $100 Million to prime that pump.

$100Millon now for that pump priming. That hydrogen pump will need a lot of priming and it will cost far more than $100M.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The issue is, nobody in Texas is building nuclear plants. And that is that. We can wish all we want, it is not happening. For now, renewables are cheap, reliable income, with low problems for developers compared to nuclear. Turn around from construction to income is short compared to nuclear. That alone guarantees renewables are going to dominate energy projects for years to come. Nuclear projects that won't see a penny of profit for 20 years from day one is unattractive to investers and developers.

It isn't science that stopped the building of nuclear plants but political pressure from politicians.

It is capitalism in action. Consider these facts until you see the issue.

It's not capitalism. Capitalism would be the solar and wind industries competing for their share of the power industry against nuclear and fossil fuels without government financial and propaganda support for one side and restrictive regulation on the other. When government puts their thumbs on the scales then capitalistic competition vanishes.

As I pointed out, it is a better way to make money to invest in renewable. From project start to reliable profit is short compared to nuclear.

Only because politicians in power are pumping hundreds of millions of tax payers' dollars into wind and solar (while accepting millions in campaign contributions from them) and restricting nuclear. If it was true capitalistic competition then wind and solar would be "the red headed child" of the power industry selling to a small niche market.

70% of present day subsidies for energy go to the oil industry. They have better lobbyists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Storage issues for solar are reduced to the point of elimination as the global transmission system expands. This system will likely make use of ultra-high voltage transmission for efficient long-distance transmission (1000s of km).

That looks damned risky. We have two events that should make you very leery of such a plan. We have the Carrington event of 1859 that took out the only widely distributed electrical system at that time, telegraphs. Then there was the solar event that took out the eastern Canadian grid in 1989. What you are proposing (linking all power grids on Earth) could take out the electrical system for the entire world... a return to the early 1800s.

I expect a Carrington event would be a civilization-ender and it very well might be the answer to the Fermi paradox.

I don't follow. Humanity survived the Carrington event without even noticing that it happened except for the damage to the telegraph system and the "pretty sky displays". Though certainly a massive enough coronal mass ejection could have been disasterous.

Carrington then, basically a nothing. Carrington now--we might lose so much that too many people die before we can rebuild and if too many of the important (as in knowledge, not as in politics) people die we can't rebuild.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Transcontinental and global power grids--European Commission

I note multiple posts of pie in the sky but nothing addressing my points about what it would take to move power to the night side.

 

[No Robots]

Transcontinental and global power grids--European Commission

I note multiple posts of pie in the sky but nothing addressing my points about what it would take to move power to the night side.

Your numbers are wrong, Pechtel. I'd ignore you, but you seem to have some kind of immunity.

 

[bigfield]

Such as in Texas with cheap natural gas. And now, cheap renewables.

^ Why Texas will still be burning gas in 2050.

 

[No Robots]

Submarine power cable between Europe and North America: A techno-economic analysis

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Transcontinental and global power grids--European Commission

I note multiple posts of pie in the sky but nothing addressing my points about what it would take to move power to the night side.

Your numbers are wrong, Pechtel. I'd ignore you, but you seem to have some kind of immunity.

If they're wrong got some better ones?

I simply took the world's power consumption and the capacity of existing transmission lines to figure out what it would take. In practice you run into the same sort of problem you get whenever you have to haul your supplies--capacity limits become brutally enforced. It is commonly called the tyranny of the rocket equation because that's the human endeavour most prone to coming up against such limits.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

Transcontinental and global power grids--European Commission

I note multiple posts of pie in the sky but nothing addressing my points about what it would take to move power to the night side.

Your numbers are wrong, Pechtel. I'd ignore you, but you seem to have some kind of immunity.

If they're wrong got some better ones?

I simply took the world's power consumption and the capacity of existing transmission lines to figure out what it would take. In practice you run into the same sort of problem you get whenever you have to haul your supplies--capacity limits become brutally enforced. It is commonly called the tyranny of the rocket equation because that's the human endeavour most prone to coming up against such limits.

You are asking for the real math. The links No Robots has offered are fantasy extrapolations... but, apparently, he sees them as serious engineering facts. They remind me a bit of the "nuclear-powered flying hotel that can stay airborne for years with 5,000 passengers" described on a site that calls itself "Interesting Engineering". I still am wondering if that site is satire.

Watch the nuclear-powered flying hotel that can stay airborne for years with 5,000 passengers

Can technology really take us to a level where a 5,000-passenger ship can remain afloat for years without landing or refuelling?

interestingengineering.com