Summed in in one graph that says it all.
Roger Andrews writes:
If decarbonization is to be achieved by expanding renewables the expansion will have to come in wind, solar and biomass. So let’s take hydro out and see how far growth in wind, solar and biomass has carried us along the decarbonization path so far:
Clearly they still have a long way to go.
Source: http://euanmearns.com/renewable-energy-growth-in-perspective/
@GregM, If you are a homeowner, there may be some advantages to installing solar units, but the initial outlay of money is fairly prohibitive and there are upkeep costs to consider as well. The payback is not reasonable from what I’ve seen. For renters, however, it is not even possible. In NY, renters are 50 per cent of occupants. In LA, they are 42 per cent. Across the US, they are about 35 per cent. They need to rely on utilities that can supply relatively cheap electricity.
Stephen Rasey:
Correct, I have a couple of posts this last week that chronicle the history and use of energy by Man. There may be some graphics in there of interest. “Back to the past”. Hydro is removed from the series of charts since it is a very worth while renewable energy store – if you can set aside the displacement of folks by flooding valleys. All too often these days renewables advocates who are really talking wind and solar puff up their numbers with hydro.
Energy and Mankind part 1
Energy and Mankind part 2
And this chart that I have not yet posted (coming Monday) summarises global energy consumption from 1830:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/world_energy_population.png
Jake J
In Europe it is the policy makers who have spent too much time in cafes in Amsterdam. In Scotland (where I happen to stay) the renewables target is 100% of electricity equivalent by 2020. Denmark 100% of all energy by 2050. Germany, don’t know what the target is but renewable are killing the companies and grid that built Germany.
I think there may well be a large place for Solar in sunny climates in future since production does follow diurnal load, but not annual load. In Scotland, the Sun hardly ever shines and we reckon the load on solar PV is close to 8%. At that level the panels never pay back the energy used to make them. But the CO2 emitted to make them is out there today causing the planet to boil 😉
Reblogged this on Maley's Energy Blog and commented:
I would need to check the numbers to make sure they properly accounted for the use of cow dung in Africa, but this is consistent with what I’ve been saying for the last 10 years. We have yet to address whether these technologies are truly cost-effective, and whether we really want to deal with the impact of scaling them up to handle a meaningful %-age of our energy demand.
This will work because Al Gore wants everyone in the developed world to go back to living in grass huts in a hunter/gatherer lifestylle. Gore, of course, will continue to live in his mansion in Tennessee.
Jake J says:
July 19, 2014 at 1:11 am
I think the real issue is coal, which has been demonized. Forget the batteries, we have the coal.
Once the artificial restraints on coal are removed, there is no need for wind power.
Wind turbines are expensive, complicated, high maintenance, short-lifetime, real estate gobbling, bird-chopping eyesores, whose racing shadows and low-frequency vibrations disturb neighbors and wildlife alike, and whose cost far exceeds their value.
The whirligigs are good only for underwriting scammers, destabilizing the grid, and wrecking economies.
It’s actually worse than we thought.
But the cost of maintenance, and of the supporting infrastructure (towers, transmission lines, etc.) and land, isn’t. I’ve read that those costs are two-thirds or more of the total cost of those renewables.
==================================================================
Hydro never was in favor with the greenies. It upsets the breeding habits of the freshwater seaunicorns. Since TVA built all those dams in the southern US you hardly see them anymore.
(Of course, if you do see one you have other problems that need to be addressed.)
PS: And installation.
Gee, that’s not a bad result for the trillions spent. Talk about cost benefit analysis at a glance.
If you are a homeowner, there may be some advantages to installing solar units, but the initial outlay of money is fairly prohibitive and there are upkeep costs to consider as well. The payback is not reasonable from what I’ve seen.
The subsidies are very heavy in Seattle — 8 times the retail electricity rate — and even then the payback is 8 to 10 years and the yield is pretty low. The yield is at least 2-1/2 times as high in the southwest, and that’s not counting the interference from trees, rain, and occasional snow up here.
In Europe it is the policy makers who have spent too much time in cafes in Amsterdam. In Scotland (where I happen to stay) the renewables target is 100% of electricity equivalent by 2020. Denmark 100% of all energy by 2050. Germany, don’t know what the target is but renewable are killing the companies and grid that built Germany.
I think there may well be a large place for Solar in sunny climates in future since production does follow diurnal load, but not annual load. In Scotland, the Sun hardly ever shines and we reckon the load on solar PV is close to 8%. At that level the panels never pay back the energy used to make them.
I completely agree with you. Some of the stuff being done in Europe is just nuts.
Wind turbines are expensive, complicated, high maintenance, short-lifetime, real estate gobbling, bird-chopping eyesores, whose racing shadows and low-frequency vibrations disturb neighbors and wildlife alike, and whose cost far exceeds their value.
I agree with the eyesore part, anyway. It’s my biggest objection to windmills, even if the storage issue were to be solved. But to be fair, there are lots of eyesores out there.
But the cost of maintenance, and of the supporting infrastructure (towers, transmission lines, etc.) and land, isn’t. I’ve read that those costs are two-thirds or more of the total cost of those renewables.
Right. And coal plants don’t need maintenance? Nuclear waste doesn’t need disposal? We can go on and on. I maintain that storage is the main issue remaining. Crack that nut, and renewables are going to gallop out of the gate regardless of what anyone here might think.
As I believe was pointed out on this forum (can’t remember if I learned it here or not) in the late 1800’s people were worried that main streets in cities like London and NY would be 5-6 feet deep in horse manure and unlivable by some time in, IIRC, the late1930’s or 40s. Gee, what happened?.
Also, in that time frame, people began to worry that all the whales would be killed for their oil. Well, something better was found – which is now being demonized – see the pattern?
In each case, what took the place of people power (horses) and then horses (cars) and whale oil (oil) was much better/economical then what it replaced.
And in each case, the new vastly-improved successor (horses and other animals for people., cars for horses, ground oil for whale oil) was 1) a vast improvement that was not adopted through government coercion, scientific fraud and propaganda, , but through the normal course of things, and popular demand of the public, and, then, subsequently 2) considered a major eco-hazard by the white wine drinkers of society. Even when the eco-hazard was in some part legitimate, the genius of mankind not only solved the issue, but made things better in every sense – more efficient, more economical, batter overall for mankind.
Maybe wind and solar will become an overall better solution than carbon – many DECADES from now. I tend to doubt it, and suspect something like thorium will replace carbon as #1, with wind/solar lagging – but I certainly could be wrong. But they sure aren’t the best/most economical/most efficient solution on any widespread, global scale at present. If people want to use it to power their houses or private businesses, great. If corporations want to put them in and fund them with their own seed corn, fine. But it’s NOT fine for this technology to be forced upon a public that is being lied to and scared half to death solely for political reasons. In the developed west, it’ s increased costs that people don’t have the money to afford right now. In places like Africa, it’s literally life and death. This fraud should make anyone angry – any Aussie, any South Korean, any African, any Eriadoran, any Murican, any Englishman, any Scandahoovian, any Irishman, any – well, o.k,, maybe not the French.
Bruce Cobb says:
July 18, 2014 at 12:09 pm
The trouble with the “carbon neutral” concept (aside from its inherent idiocy) of biomass is that it never is, unless they conveniently ““forget” to add all the “carbon” resulting from the manufacturing process”
The manufacturing process that creates biomass does so by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. They call it photosynthesis.
I posted:
Jake J. posted:
The costs of coal and nuclear plants are mostly in the front end. Compared to them, ongoing maintenance costs are low, relative to the ongoing maintenance costs of wind and solar. (Solar panels need to be wiped clean of dust regularly for best performance, I’ve read, and weeds in solar farms need to be cut back.) So it’s not accurate to suggest that renewables are on all-fours with coal and nuclear in this regard.
My main point was that increases in efficiency in solar and wind don’t reduce their overall cost that much. It’s not only maintenance that’s expensive–the front end costs are significant too: land (for wind) and installation (for both). Also, wind and solar have half (or less) the lifetimes of coal and nuclear. And their efficiencies degrade over time, unlike coal and nuclear.
That surely would make a great difference. Research into advanced battery technology should be a priority. But even a twice-as-good battery wouldn’t be enough, except for autos (four times better would be more like it). It would have to be ten times as good for electrical generation, per my SWAG. And if it were, there’d be a danger of it shorting out, with catastrophic effects.
Not all kWhs are equal. Prices fluctuate and unreliable wind and solar kWhs might be the cheapest kWhs. Generators burning gas are cheaper than storage batteries.
Saturn’s moon Titan has methane. Is it fossil fuel?
An article in this morning’s paper about the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, mentioned in my earlier comment:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/business/20140719/edison-crews-stringing-power-lines-along-the-605-freeway
Aside from economics, the workers who have to build this eyesore are clearly engaged in hazardous labor.
One thing I should perhaps mention before interest dies is that Figure 6 of my post, which plots the percentage contributions of wind, solar and biomass to world energy consumption, doesn’t allow for the fact that wind and solar are intermittent and non-dispatchable and in many cases hinder rather than help efficient grid operation. When we plot only dispatchable renewables (i.e. biomass) there’s nothing left. Well, almost nothing
http://oi60.tinypic.com/21b39km.jpg
Ah, the mistake every one makes with this is the presumption that the green-power ‘economy’ (if we can call it that) and global development and civilization levels will replicate and also redevelop the current economy and capacity.
Sorry, this has never been the intended end-point. The intended endpoint is where the current economy fails and collapses from an incapacity to fund any more unaffordable and economically impairing and crippling pet greenish alleged ‘power plants’.
I suppose there are many here who watched the recent ABC 4-Corners report on greenish power generation? Well, I’ve never been so disappointed in the ABC, nor in 4-Corners (though I’ve been disappointed in 4C a lot lately) and in particular I genuinely had no idea at all that Stephen Long is a dishonest one-eyed idiot. I’d honestly assessed and thought that he was one of the very few at the ABC who actually had a clue and jealously guarded their integrity and honesty.
Stephen Long, hang your head in shame mate, you’re nothing but an ideological hack, who stunningly took every opportunity to ignore and avoid the thoroughly impossible and ruinous ECONOMICS of the green power economy and its power ‘industry’, and its uber-con lobby industry.
Stephen Long is an alleged professional ABC ECONOMICS ‘journalist’ and commentator. You’re report was an amateurish shameless fraud Stephen.
rogerknights says:
July 19, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Research into advanced battery technology should be a priority.
====================
Nobody has been working on it. Wait . . . what?
Batteries can’t help wind power. It will still be intermittent.
The costs of coal and nuclear plants are mostly in the front end. Compared to them, ongoing maintenance costs are low, relative to the ongoing maintenance costs of wind and solar. (Solar panels need to be wiped clean of dust regularly for best performance, I’ve read, and weeds in solar farms need to be cut back.) So it’s not accurate to suggest that renewables are on all-fours with coal and nuclear in this regard.
True enough that wind turbines need more maintenance, but not a whole lot more than nukes. That said, the fuel for wind turbines is free, just as with solar and hydro. Combine the fuel cost with maitenance, and wind turbines do well. See page 10.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
That much said, I’m not an evangelist about it. Until we have grid-scale storage, the non-dispatchable technologies can only be a supplement. And each of them have their negatives.
But even a twice-as-good battery wouldn’t be enough, except for autos (four times better would be more like it). It would have to be ten times as good for electrical generation, per my SWAG. And if it were, there’d be a danger of it shorting out, with catastrophic effects.
I don’t know enough about the details of grid-scale batteries, or even household-sized ones, to do anything more than offer a vague hope that someone else will crack the code. I simply believe it’s self-evident to a reasonable intelligent and inquisitive person that storage is the key.
As it concerns EVs, though, I know quite a bit more. And I regularly piss off other EV owners by pointing out that, as novel as our cars are, they are not as world-saving or as efficient as the various evangelists claim, nor are they ready for mass adoption at this point.
Now, I don’t care about CO2 emissions, but just for the hell of it I did track down the number. Per mile driven, at the U.S. mix of electricity generation sources, an EV emits 60% of the CO2 that a gas car does. Then there is the efficiency issue, which is a matter of the conversion of the heat energy in fuel to vehicle motion. To make an accurate comparison, the efficiency of the electricity production processes have to be included. Do that, and EV is about 1.65 times as efficient as a gas car of equivalent weight and about 1.5 times as efficient as an equivalent diesel car.
As for the batteries, the best way to look at it is to imagine the battery as a “gas tank.” A typical EV gets a bit more than triple the “gas mileage” of a gas car, so to have the same average range, an electric “tank” could hold one-third the equivalent fuel. A car that would go 350 miles before prudent refueling at the 20% full level, getting 25 miles per gallon, would need a 17.5-gallon tank (and please — don’t spout higher European fuel economy at me, because it doesn’t matter for purposes of this exercise).
To get 350 miles of range on average throughout the year, on 80% of the “fuel,” an EV would need a 145 kWh battery. (This “80% range” would actually be closer to 460 miles in a coastal California summer without air conditoning, and 285 miles in a mild-ish winter.) At today’s battery costs, that “gas tank” would cost about $50,000. Within the next decade, manufacturing scale economies will bring this down to $30,000.
You can see that an electric car with the same range as a gas car is not going to be cost-feasible any time soon. Jerry-rigged solutions such as so-called “fast chargers” are mainly publicity stunts. Where EVs will make much more sense, much sooner, will in the city commuter car market, where short ranges — 75 or 80 miles, not 350 miles — can reduce battery costs.
“Within the next decade, manufacturing scale economies will bring this down to $30,000.”
You completely made this up. You do not know the future.
“Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” – George Orwell.
Jake, you give us pure wind. All of your posts are gross speculation.
This is a bit of calumny, methinks. I don’t detect much of any politics in Jake’s posts, and while admittedly speculation, to me it’s intelligent, rational speculation based on reasonable observations. None of us knows the future of technological innovation, but we can certainly look at the present and make reasonable estimations of possible future directions.
That progress in so-called ‘renewable’ energy depends on what may be fairly called a revolution in storage is not unreasonable. Which is not to say that some development might turn everything around. An inexpensive way to get back and forth from space, for instance, might suddenly make solar-power satellites in geosynchronous orbit entirely feasible. And actually, there is a possibility: mag-lev rocket launchers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram
/Mr Lynn
So I looked at Janice Moore’s video by Ozzie Zehner. I watched for 5 minutes. By that time, nobody had actually said anything. For TV stations that sell their time, I give them 5 seconds, to actually start to say or do something; then I’m at the next channel.
Problem with solar energy, is the sun. Astronomical amounts of energy available. But the power level is miniscule. 100 W/m^2, and if you are lucky, Solar City, might get you 15% of that, in middle USA at equinoctial noon.
So the energy is free; gathering it is not. Let the biosphere do it, and convert it to stored chemical energy, and ultimately fossil fuel.
I would love to have my own solar energy plant.
Why don’t I build YOU one for free; PV or wind, so you don’t have to worry about the cost. I just told you it’s FREE !
Then I want the first duplicate of that plant, that you are able to make, using your FREE energy from YOUR plant.
Well of course in addition to your FREE energy, you will need materials to build the plant.
Don’t worry about that. The universe is full of materials. That’s where I got the materials to make your FREE plant. So go get them; well using your FREE energy of course.