Don Bogard, © 2015 (published here with permission)
The tale below is fictional, but every one of its elements and issues has been or will be experienced somewhere in the process of switching electrical power production from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar. Hopefully this tale will illustrate in a non-technical way some of these complications and potential issues that can and often will arise. My reference to “city” and “government” and “city fathers” are generic and could apply to different entities and scales.
Visualize a medium-size city with two very functional electrical power plants, each producing 500 Mega-watts of electricity, with one fueled by coal and one by natural gas. (About 2/3 of U.S. power is produced from these two sources.) The government decrees that this city must reduce its CO2 emissions. The city fathers decide to retire their coal-fired plant because it generates more CO2 and replace it with 350, General Electric (G.E.) 1.5 Mega-watt wind towers (total rated capacity 525 M-watt). The entire city celebrates over their good fortune in moving into a modern era of green energy. The mood is jovial.
The city planning begins. Each of these G.E. wind towers consists of 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet, and the blades sweep an area just under an acre. Each tower weighs 164 tons and is mounted on 1,000 tons of concrete and steel rebar and must be outfitted with flashing red lights.
City Problem #1. These 350 wind towers are expensive, about $2 million each. Luckily the government will subsidize most of the cost (paid by taxpayers elsewhere).
City Problem #2. Whereas the coal plant occupies fewer than 20 acres, each GE 1.5-megawatt turbine requires a minimum of 32 acres and needs 82 unobstructed acres in order to optimally utilize wind from any direction. This is a total of 28,700 acres, or about 45 square miles of land. That much space is way too expensive to purchase, so the city fathers convince the county and state to fund subsidizes to surrounding farms to host such towers, or decree eminent domain to force their location on unwilling farmers.
City problem #3. The coal plant was located close to town. To service these new wind towers new expensive access roads and power transmission lines must be funded and constructed.
Some grumbling begins, mainly among those whose farms were forced to accept the towers, among coal plant workers who are soon to be fired, and among those long range planners of future city budgets.
The wind towers are finally constructed and tied into the city power grid.
City Problem #4. Before the coal plant is retired, which operated 24/7/365, the city planners realize that the wind does not always blow. Further, even when it does blow, it often does not blow enough, and at these times the wind towers generate less than their rated electrical output. Often some towers will be out for maintenance.
The city fathers decide to keep the coal power plant in operation (after all, it was paid for) and only use it as back-up power for when the wind does not blow.
City Problem #5. It is discovered that when the coal plant must be fired up to replace wind power that has suddenly diminished, it cannot come to power quickly enough to prevent brown-outs (voltage drops), even an occasional black-out (no power). Further, these times of rapid cooling and heating of the boilers are degrading them much faster than when they operated continuously.
Citizen grumbling increases over the power issues they individually are experiencing.
The city fathers decide to build another gas-fired plant to replace the coal plant.
Grumbling increases among city dwellers over the increased taxes and electricity costs required to pay for the second gas plant. For the first time in many years, serious challengers arise in the upcoming city council election.
The second gas plant is constructed. One gas plant operates continuously, and the second plant operates in a near idle mode (but still burning some gas and producing CO2) so that it can be rapidly fired up when the wind dies. Keeping both gas plants operating, even at lower level for one, is more expensive than expected, but now they offer adequate back-up for when the wind-towers generate too little power.
Some city citizens forget that they are now paying sizably higher electricity bills and are happy that their CO2 production is now somewhat lower than originally. But many other citizens grumble and discuss recall elections.
Time passes. The city grows and needs more power. Further, the government gives a new decree to lower CO2 emissions even more. The city fathers decide to construct more wind towers. The reasoning is threefold: a) adequate power would still be available when the wind blew only lightly; b) extra power generated by wind could be sold to the surrounding cities; and c) the city’s gas plants would not have to operate as often, thus lowering CO2 generation. The plan sounded reasonable to city council.
City Problem #6. Large citizen protests erupt. The city mayor and two city council members are recalled. Yet under demands from the government, the new city government barely convinces the annoyed citizens to proceed. Active animosity develops between those who support this rapid move to renewable energy and those who do not.
City Problem #7. With the prospect of large flows of energy among various cities, extra and expensive long-distance transmission lines must be constructed.
The city goes even much more heavily into debt and several hundred extra wind towers are constructed. Counting total power capability from two gas plants and many hundreds of wind towers, the total potential power production is much more than twice what the original power capability was, although the city has only grown by 20%.
City Problem #8. The city is now sharply divided over this issue. The “green” citizens emphasize the good that wind power is doing in reducing CO2 emission and think that good justifies the many extra costs. Financially practical citizens complain that city electricity costs are now much higher than before, that much more open land is being compromised, and that the wind towers are noisy and unsightly, whereas CO2 emissions have only modestly been reduced.
The city fathers argue than the extra wind power produced by the new turbines can be sold to ally some of their costs.
City Problem #9. However, when the wind blows hard and extra wind power is produced, the city fathers discover that surrounding cities, which by now also have converted heavily to wind power, often also have too much wind power and are not in the market for any more. The city cannot sell its unused power, and having no way to store the extra power, must simply “dump” it unused. City fathers also realize that sometimes the wind quits blowing not just over a local region, but over a very widespread one. In these cases most or all of the local cities produce too little total power, and regional brown-outs develop.
The city fathers have a new idea — develop solar energy. Often the Sun shines when the wind does not blow and the wind often blows at night. But the city citizens would never permit a huge central solar power facility, and there is no suitable place to locate such a facility. But, the city fathers learn that the government heavily subsidizes PV-solar equipment for individual homes and businesses. The city fathers again decide to utilize government subsidizes paid for by others elsewhere. The city fathers appeal to the “green” citizens to use some of their funds along with the government subsidies to install PV-solar systems on their roofs. To give further enticements, the city fathers decree that the city electrical power company must purchase at full retail prices all excess solar power than these “green” citizens may produce. Many “green” citizens comply and a few hundred extra M-watts of solar power becomes available.
City Problem #10. However, the city fathers soon discover that when the Sun is brightly shinning, these PV-solar panels feed so much solar power into the grid that sometimes either the gas-fired plants or some wind towers must be curtailed in their power production. This produces further complications in keeping power fed into the local grid precisely in balance with the local and total power demand, as it must be if equipment damages are to be avoided. The city power company strongly complains about the new problems it has been handed.
City Problem #11. Further, the city power company discovers that on sunny days, it is buying so much solar power at retail prices, that it must raise power rates to those customers who do not have PV-solar grids.
Citizen complaints about power costs increase. Some prospective new industries with sizeable power demands decide to locate elsewhere.
Surrounding cities, which have also encouraged rooftop PV systems, find themselves with similar problems.
The city finds itself in a catch-22 situation. Both producing too much power and too little power, both at significantly increased prices, have negative and unintended consequences.
MORAL OF THE TALE. Conversion of electrical power generation from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar is a process that can readily be both quite expensive and filled with unexpected negative consequences. For governments to rush into such a transfer too quickly or without a fully thought out a plan may be a recipe for higher electricity costs, customer dissatisfaction, social disruption, and ultimate political consequences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There is an interesting and somewhat sceptic look at the energy costs and energy payback time for Si based PV units at Science of Doom:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2015/08/03/renewables-ii-solar-and-free-lunches/
It attempts a quantitative analysis of the costs , in energy terms , of the manufacture and siting of solar units , compared to the return. Some of the figures are surprising , eg the cost of Si single crystal manufacture and slicing , for those not involved in semiconductor manufacturing . The figures are based on a 5 year old academic report so may have been overtaken by improvements.
Needless to say the payback times (without the energy credits back to the grid), of 5- 20years depending on location are vigorously debated in the comments that followed.
It seems that the approaching summit is focusing attention on not just the climate science , but also the financial and general economic penalties that are almost certain to impact the taxpayers of US, UK , Eu , Canada and Australia.
Here in New England, states like Connecticut and Massachusetts are willing to pay so much for RECs (Renewable Energy Credits) but so unwilling to build wind projects that that contract with developers in New Hampshire and Maine to build wind projects and sell them the electricity.
Meanwhile, local towns get talked into accepting “PILOT” programs (Payment In Lieu Of Taxes) based on something like half the cost of the turbines because that’s still a financial windfall. However, the state’s valuation is a full value, and that sets the county tax rate and homeowners tax rates go up anyway.
I suspect one or more of the irate farmers, forced to lease their land or otherwise lose it to eminent domain, due to these wind monsters, discover newly unearthed tar pits. Meanwhile, those same farmers, and ripped off electrical consumers, and squeezed dry taxpayers, all get together and begin to pluck feathers from all the sliced and diced bird carcasses at the bases of those wind monsters. The city fathers, hoping that the citizens they allegedly served would accept living in the 1800s discover that they themselves would also have to accept an unappealing aspect of the 1800s – being tarred and feathered.
It might even start a new fad? Instead of “cow tipping”, it would be “wind mill tipping”…..:-)
Not fiction. Not fiction at at all.
http://i57.tinypic.com/e04zd2.png
Sadly, it extends far beyond GE. Billionaire crony-capitalist Elon Musk’s ventures for sure are in on the action. As well as the green hedge funds, run or invested in by the of Tom Steyer and his ilk. Meanwhile they they host $32,000/plate fund raising dinners for the Worst Presiden ever, so the he can fly AF1 out to California for a few million into his OFA SuperPAC. Then they complain about Koch private money in superPACs, while the green crony capitalists money comes from soaking taxpayers.
Go figure.
I love the way the put up World Wide profits of $14 billion, as if GE was supposed to pay US taxes on profits earned in say, Europe. Also no mention of taxes paid elsewhere.
Was the writer thinking of Austin when they wrote this? Maybe. Maybe not. Austin still gets a good deal of power from the south Texas nuclear project. Re wind power, Texas has a lot (10Gw?). BTW, We have G Bush, R Perry, and Ken Lay to ‘thank’ for our wind ( see master resource blog). Lots of people show their greenness with solar rooftops. I try not to get discouraged by all this…
I’m not a AGW supporter, but you left out an important option.
Instead of building a second Natural Gas plant, the city fathers decide to buy batteries capable of holding 6 hours of coal plant production. The batteries cost the same as a new Natural Gas plant, but it allows the Coal plant to run for extended periods once it is turned on thus reducing the wear and tear somewhat.
Also, when the wind blows too hard, they first use the excess to fully charge the battery, then they shutdown the coal plant. If after shutting down the coal plant they still have too much power, they shutdown the natural gas plant. When the battery gets low enough they fire the natural gas plant back up until the battery is fully charged.
The end result is:
– no wasted electricity being dumped
– all available wind power is leveraged
– the coal and natural gas plants run at optimum loads during the times they are running
fyi: MWh batteries are on the market now. New generation ones from Tesla and EOS will likely be in the market a year from now. 6MWh of the EOS batteries are being pre-sold now at $1M for 6MWh. Thus a 6 hour capable battery is the same price as a natural gas turbine.
Obviously the city still spent the same capitol cost as in your story, but they are much more efficiently using that wind power to reduce fuel usage (and CO2 generation).
So that works out about 17 cents per KWh,not cheap.
Have you been following what’s happening to TESLA? A year from now, TESLA may will be a distant and extremely painful memory.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-09/tesla-loses-more-4000-every-car-sold
Dunno, but seeing the video on insane mode acceleration makes me think these things are an accident waiting to happen. In a normal car you know when acceleration is likely to happen (engine running and above idling speed) and treat it accordingly. Means you have to treat these cars as a potential collision risk even when silent and stationary. Not to mention that it creates a problem for passengers and loaders to know when it is safe to open doors.
What the city fathers should do Mothball the coal and gas power plants, and rent or buy a pair of Russian nuclear subs. (if they have a river drive them up that, otherwise truck them by road) Then plug them in to the grid, voila problem (sort of) solved.
I’m not sure if this is Sarc.
michael
GFM, see my post on Intermittent Grid Storage over at Climate Etc (Dr. Judith Curry). Or read essay California Dreaming in my ebook. The most charitable perspective is that you are sadly uninformed on these matters.
What happens when they have to replace those batteries in 5 years?
.
Batteries also require regular maintenance.
.
But they are only a chemical means of energy storage – And that only by an ineeficient series of multiple, also-needing-maintenance-and-replacement, short-lifetime ADDITIONAL processes. Thus, you generate electricity. Once.
Then you lose energy transmitting that high-volt electrical energy to the battery site. 98 – 96% efficient.
Transferring it to high-energy-dc-voltages and very-high dc currents. 85-90% efficient.
then to low energy chemical reactions. 70-85% efficient.
It stays as low energy chemicals for a while.
You convert it back to low-voltage dc, high-amperage dc currents from chemicals. 70-80% efficient.
You convert it back to high energy ac currents and very high voltages. 90-95% efficient perhaps.
You transmit that high energy ac back into the same high energy ac energy that you started with back at the same location!
With a LOT more low lifetime chemical residue and contamination STILL being added to the world’s waste streams.
Wasted HV and low volt cabling and transmission fabrication, purchase, and installation. Wasted copper, steel, concrete and manpower that could be building roads, dams, sewer pipes and refrigerators and lightbulbs and useful materials.
greg, you have miscalculated badly. You are going to have to buy enough batteries to replace the output of the windmills for a week or so, and then use the output of the coal plant to charge them up.
Of course you’re going to lose between 5 to 15 percent of your available power charging and discharging those batteries, so your already bad economics gets worse.
I believe that a newspaper would paint such a pretty picture, but never an engineer. You can’t turn coal and gas plants on and off. A coal plant will suffer millions in damage. They can be throttled back a bit, but not much. Natural gas is a bit more flexible, though not a great idea. Nuclear is best at load balancing. Nothing to date can instantly load balance. The batteries you speak of take a little over 8 hours to fully charge. They will run about 6 hours. You just lost 25% of your load. So if batteries cost the same as a natural gas turbine, how many sets of batteries will be needed to last as long as one gas turbine? As I recall, Austin has become quite progressive. My son is a petroleum engineer living in Midland. He designs the fracking process for quite a few wells out that way. I hope no state money went into this genius idea. He pays enough taxes.
“Instead of building a second Natural Gas plant, the city fathers decide to buy batteries capable of holding 6 hours of coal plant production.”
Engineers who design systems with tomorrows products usually end up unemployed.
Jus’ sayin’
Batteries are a net consumer of electricity. It doesn’t scale.
This sound very credible to me. Not based on the specifics but knowing how “city fathers” act. Here in Sarasota Florida, they have been unable to build a traditional sewer lift station for that was started four years ago, the project was supposed to take six months, they still can decide on a new design after they learned the old design wouldn’t work.
This is why Elon Musk is working on storage. A good chunk of these problems are solvable with relatively cheap storage.
I didn’t say he would succeed in making the price reasonable. I only say that he’s working on the correct problem. I’d strongly prefer if he did it without my tax dollars.
Peter
Musk is NOT working on storage fundamentals. He is hyping his heavily subsidized ‘gigafactory’. Guest post Intermittent Grid Storage at Climate Etc. covers Powerwall plus all the other technical bases.
The big question is, will a revolution in energy density occur before a revolution in cheap energy?
Don’t I recall that Hitler was also working on that problem?
If you didn’t experience it 32 volt light had its points – and its down sides
“A good chunk of these problems are solvable with relatively cheap storage.”
Preposterous. There is nothing to store.
“For governments to rush into such a transfer too quickly or without a fully thought out a plan may be a recipe for higher electricity costs, customer dissatisfaction, social disruption …”.
=========================
……. and deaths due to fuel poverty, it’s already happening and it’s a scandal:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478114/Fuel-poverty-Britain-24k-die-winter-rising-energy-prices.html
“social disruption”
Isn’t “social disruption” another problem alarmists claim will be caused by climate change, along with “climate disruption”? It may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Climate change won’t cause it, but the switch to renewables driven by alarmist fear mongering very well could.
Renewables account for 14.8% or 171 000 MW of the US total electrical capacity of 1,151,812 MW in 2013 . So if the renewables are to go to 28 % of the total capacity by 2030, there will have to be a doubling of the renewable capacity or additional renewable power of at least 171,000 MW for a total of about 340,000 MW by 2030 . During the 5 years 2008-2013, the last period for which data exists, about 51,424 MW of renewables capacity was added. So in the next 15 years , they should be capable to add another 171,000 mw based on the most recent experience . I understand that about 25,246 MW of coal generated power will be phased out due to new regulations and obsolete plants . Germany’s renewables capacity is about 29.4 % of their total capacity , but their overall capacity is only about 177,000 MW in 2012 and wind and solar renewables account for a about 72,000MW , much smaller than that for US . Europe is 30 % in 2012 for renewables with an overall capacity of about 1,075 000 MW So it is much more easier for Germany to purchase back up power from a grid that is 6 times bigger than they are. Germany is already having problems with their smaller grid with almost 3000 grid adjustments / In North America , US is 85 % of the grid so the ability to purchase out side is more limited . Canada’s total capacity is only 135 000 MW their outside sales capacity is relatively small. For example in Ontario , Canada’s biggest province ,. the forecasted capability at winter peak load is 28,000 MW, the total installed capacity is 33771 MW ., thus limited surplus capacity.
So it is much … easier for Germany to purchase back up power from a grid that is 6 times bigger than they are.
This is what Germans might call their energy “Liebensraum”.
Is that “nameplate” capacity or actual produced power? Assuming for the moment that it’s all wind, and based on Great Britain’s experience, we can expect that the best you’ll get out of that is about 24,000 MW of effective capacity.
Jeepers Herk, I read these numbers in your comment and I realise just how gigantic the US economy is. Well done America I say, that is truly awesome.
There is an excellent article in Forbes titled “The Clean Power Plan Will Collide With The Incredibly Weird Physics of the Power Grid” by Mark Mills. It captures in one read that the Clean Power Plan is a goal that cannot be reached even if you wish to fall on the sword of loss of efficiency for solar and wind. Not just more expensive…unobtainable. As far as this fictional write up I think there is a little too much confidence expressed in the dissatisfaction of the voters to set things right. If the alternative is between the devil and the deep blue sea the voters will pick wrong every time!
City problem #12
Guy and his friends start investigating the energy properties of finely ground charcoal, sulfur and an alkali metal nitrate possibly with the addition of finely ground aluminium. They also investigate tunneling under the local Palace of Wishfulthinkers as an ideal place to conduct their experiments.
Roll on the 5th
p.s. irony alert for the slow.
City Problem #12: ” the inability to obtain additional natural gas as the only pipeline into the area is already fully subscribed due to the other cities building extra combined cycle or combustion turbine plants to cover the wind and solar derates.”
HT to a commenter to my linking to this WUWT over at the Navy Nuke Facebook Page. He wrote “As a generation planning analyst, this article hits the nail squarely on the head. The only part that is missing is the inability to obtain additional natural gas as the only pipeline into the area is already fully subscribed due to the other cities building extra combined cycle or combustion turbine plants to cover the wind and solar derates.”
For sure, we need some new technology.
We can get an idea of what may be in the offing by looking at the fringes, in this case places beyond the grid. Alaska is seriously looking at ammonia as an energy currency. link
The pilot project was started in 2013 so we should soon see results. In fact it’s a bit worrying that we haven’t heard the project’s success trumpeted by now.
No one would want to add to Problems, but there are a few more Honorable Mentions:
The city gets an education in Constraint Payments to worthless windturbine owners. These are ostensibly payments for turning off turbine supply, payable at several times the going electricity rates.
The city gets an education in futiility, when it adds fleets of electric cars, totally arbitrarily increasing demands, as supplies become intermittent and prices become volatile.
The children get an education. Common Core Occupational Education trains unsuspecting youth that some of them must become Turbine Cowboys, who work at dizzying heights to repair worthless wind turbines.
When shortages, rising costs, and disruptions occur, the gullible hipsters who are used to economic and social stability realize this is not what they were told by the sly grey progressive foxes (b1942-1960) about renewables. They complain that the poor are being hit worst, including many of them. So the sly grey progressive foxes say, “My my, how right you are. We will put everyone on an energy-use tier system and ration use and cost so its FAIR FAIR FAIR!”
The hipsters break their arms patting themselves on the back and a caste system is created in the USA.
Nice one Zeke. Those hippies will be the death of most of us yet.
I am pretty confident the idiots are in charge of things. Depressing, I know, but in charge. You should probably plan on buying a good backup generator just for the power interruptions and brownouts.
One more Honorable Mention:
The plants in the city would be unable to process ores and perform other high temp/intensive energy tasks under this regime.
If you cannot smelt ores to create a wind turbine using all wind power, then it is not renewable. And it is not sustainable, in the true sense of the word.
Here’s what’s happened in Ontario:
1. Actual and predicted electricity cost increases have made it easier for manufacturers to source from China.
2. Goods which used to be produced in Ontario with clean nuclear and hydro power are now made with coal generated energy.
3. These goods are shipped back to Ontario half way around the world on diesel powered ships.
4. Global emissions have increased significantly.
5. Ontario has lost jobs and taxes.
6. Ontario government proudly celebrates reduced local emissions.
Insane.
Political Junkie
I think there are a couple of clarifications needed:
The ships burn bunker fuel which has higher CO2 emissions than diesel.
I don’t think Ontario reduced CO2 emissions. Someone is fibbing if they are relating it to ‘energy policy’.
They have definitely invested pointless billions in PV and wind boondoggles, but those boondoggles did not reduce CO2, overall. Those technologies have to be built, transported, installed, maintained, connected and decommissioned . The CO2 involved is greater than any ‘offset’.
From a systems point of view, I can’t see how they produce power, on a net basis. They cannot function on the grid without building a power station to go with them (like the cancelled Oakville plant now being build again in Napanee). That CO2 and energy has to be included in the system analysis. There is no reduction I can find. Any reduction in Ontario is because of the general downturn in business.
The PV system proposed for Napanee:
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/solar-flares-how-renewable-energy-is-raising-hackles-in-rural-ontario-and-across-canada
will provide electricity (some, at least) for $0.275 per kilowatt hour, or 10 times the price of power from Darlington.
interesting that no one to this point has addressed the issue that the impact on global temperature is less than 0.02C, i.e. not measurable.
Of course, Marty, we have to calculate the billions of dollars needed to support elimination of 0.01C!!! And Sea-Level rise is the major cause of fear. Of course, in the Gulf of Maine (tectonically inert, BTW), Sea-Level is identical today with that directly (Tide Gauge) measured in 1947. Ups and downs over the years, but Identical, the same, no change, congruent, etc., etc., “ad nauseum.”
Worry not, folks! As long as EPA insists that you do NOT need to see the data which their proposed regulations are based upon, you can stay in the dark. And when their proposals achieve their end results, you will BE in the dark, ’cause the grid will be down for the count!!!
Hats off to Don B. for enlightening the world, while we still have lights that go on when we throw the switch!
We all know that wind and solar do not reduce CO2 emissions to any measurable extent because of the need for back up and this includes (or should include) politicians and the green lobby group and salesman..
Wind on average may produce about 25% of its nameplate capacity suggesting that it can supply the grid with 25% of its needs thereby reducing CO2 emissions by 25%, but that is not so. Often when it can produce the power it is not needed, and because of the need for back up, the back up is either running continuously ie., capable of supplying 100% of grid capacity thereby producing 100% of its normal operating CO2 emissions, or it is being used in ramp up/ramp down mode which is very inefficient such that it consumes as much fossil fuel in this mode of operation as if it had instead been running continuously at normal full power operating mode. Once again, in the ramp up/ramp down mode of operation, the back up is producing as much CO2 as had the back up been used to supply 100% grid capacity.
By the time one takes account of the CO2 consumed in manufacture of the wind turbines, in transporting to site, in erecting (large concrete foundations are required and concrete produces a lot of CO2 in manufacture), site preparation and constructing service roads, coupling to the grid etc there is no significant CO2 reduction at all.
This is the problem with renewables; they do not result in the significant reduction of CO2. This is an obvious and patent fact that any school child of around 14 ought to readily appreciate.
So if one were concerned about CO2 emissions (which I am not but which some people are), constructing windfarms achieves nothing of substance, and only produces unreliable and expensive energy. Solar in one or two places may have a role particularly in sunny low latitude climes where peak demand for electricity coincides with mid afternoon sun, but in most places it too does not achieve its primary goal of reducing CO2 because of the need for conventionally powered back up to cover the situation when the sun does not shine or clouds and weather patterns interrupt the incoming solar.
The only form of energy production that produces near zero CO2 emissions is nuclear. Switching from coal to gas is a short term halfway house, but going nuclear is the only option if the goal is to reduce significantly CO2 emissions in the production of energy/electricity/power.
However, planet Earth is a water world on which all life is carbon based and the plant variety (upon which all land based life relies) requires CO2 for its very existence. burning fossil fuels produces water and CO2, and given the nature of the world in which we inhabit there is nothing to dislike about that. Burning fossil fuels provides the 2 ,of the important ingredients for life on planet Earth What’s there not to like about that.
And if by some lucky chance it produces some warming then that is a real bonus since planet Earth is too cold. Life likes warmth and wet conditions and abhors cold arid conditions and that is why most bio diversity can be found in warm wet conditions such as tropical rain forests and least bio diversity in cold arid conditions such as the Antarctic plains.
We are not wearing clothes because of modesty. The reason why we wear clothes and not just a loin cloth is because most of planet Earth is far too cold for the human species to survive and it is only our ability to adapt ourselves (by putting on clothes) or to adapt our environment by building homes/shelter and fires (central heating) that we are able to inhabit the majority of the planet. But for that unique skill humans would be restricted to very few places on planet Earth.
It is noteworthy that there are no major metropolis in cold climes, and that is because we as a species (just like nearly all other species) do not like the cold.
Planet Earth would be much better for all if it was several degrees warmer. So however, one looks at it, the clean (scrubbing) burning of fossil fuels is a good thing, and if by some lucky chance it was to lead to some warming (and presently there is no hard evidence that it does) that would be an added bonus.
Richard , i agree .
When people ask me what i think of global warming , my standard reply : I like warm and i am as near the equator my money would take me , how bout you ?
We know renewables don’t reduce CO2 because oil, gas, and coal production have not fallen. If governments were the tiniest bit serious about reducing CO2 they’d all agree to put a cap on fossil fuel production. It is really that simple. Those bureaucrats are not interested in losing tax revenue secondarily to losing their jobs, so they’re keeping the taxable fossil fuels around to keep going what industry is still alive while they pander to the green votes to keep their jobs. Greens, if you’ve noticed, are bad at math and don’t understand they’re being used.
We know with certainty the Obama government isn’t interested in energy roll-backs because he’s turned the US into an open borders nation. Those new voters need homes, hand-outs, a leg up, and all the generosity a government can shed on a new voter demographic. That takes energy and renewables can’t keep up. It’s a con.
Keep this in mind – all energy storage systems are net consumers of power. That is a form of tax and a waste of energy. Why are we doing this? The madness is driving down the quality of life we’re owed because of our lifelong investments in affordable energy. That affordability is being stolen without any rational justification. Where is the outrage?
I know this coincidence is too remarkable to be believed, but this story emerged from Napanee, Ontario today:
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/solar-flares-how-renewable-energy-is-raising-hackles-in-rural-ontario-and-across-canada
A French solar multinational comes to milk the PV subsidies and displace farming from Ontario farms. Cash cows are the latest thing in agriculture, don’tcha know?
This it what theoretical Green has to learn. For get about the Climate extremists though, they are so happy with themselves about being “Right” that they don’t want to hear or see anything else.
If not it is going to be a similar learning by trial and error process for various countries and states, Denmark, Germany and California in the lead ha,ha ha.
And what very little CO2 was reduced as emissions did not change global average temperatures at all … Anywhere.
Ya, and you could close down America and it would still do essentially nothing.
having no way to store the extra power, must simply “dump” it unused.
===================
you can’t simply “dump” power anymore than one can dump the excess water from a river. if you could, wholesale power rates would not go negative when there is too much power available. when there is more power than needed, power companies have to PAY to produce power.
windmills on the other hand get paid to produce power, even when there is already too much.
actually you can dump power.
Into cooling systems or the atmosphere, with a thermal system anyway.
With renewables you just feather the turbines or let the solar panels sit in the sun and don’t draw power
With renewables you just feather the turbines or let the solar panels sit in the sun and don’t draw power
============
Why would any business in their right mind do this? With FIT programs for renewable’s they are guaranteed a price regardless of demand. So you would only feather the windmills because of excess wind, not excess power.
In the case of solar and wind, if you are making power you are going to keep producing power regardless of demand, forcing wholesale prices down during peak periods until they are negative, driving baseline load systems out of business because largely they cannot respond quickly to fluctuating demand.
The existing power system works only because the price mechanism ensures that generating systems will shut down when supply exceeds demand. As soon as you isolate renewable’s from the pricing mechanism as is done via FIT, there is no reason for them to shut down, even if they burn out the entire grid.
You left stuff out.
Since the second gas plant was not in use very often, it was decided to save costs by building a cheap open cycle gas turbine. These burn far more gas per unit electricity generated.
It was then discovered that the total emissions of the renewable energy plus intermittently utilised OCGT gas turbine actually exceeded those of the coal plant it replaced.
The Great Storm of October 1987 blew down 30 million trees, just saying !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Storm_of_1987