No, renewables are not taking over the world anytime soon.
Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
We have spent the last two centuries getting off renewables because they were mostly weak, costly and unreliable. Half a century ago, in 1966, the world got 15.6% of its energy from renewables. Today (2016) we still get less of our energy at 13.8%.
With our concern for global warming, we are ramping up the use of renewables. The mainstream reporting lets you believe that renewables are just about to power the entire world. But this is flatly wrong.
The new World Energy Outlook report from the International Energy Agency shows how much renewables will increase over the next quarter century, to 2040. In its New Policies Scenario, which rather optimistically expects all nations to live up to their Paris climate promise, it sees the percentage increase less than 6 percentage points from 13.8% to 19.4%. More realistically, the increase will be 2 percentage points to 15.8%.
Most of the renewables are not solar PV and wind. Today, almost 10 percentage points come from the world’s oldest fuel: wood. Hydropower provides another 2.5 percentage points and all other renewables provide just 1.6 percentage points, of which solar PV and wind provide 0.8 percentage points.
Neither will most renewables in 2040 come from solar PV and wind, as breathless reporting tends to make you believe. 10 percentage points will come from wood. Hydropower provides another 3 percentage points and all other renewables provide 6 percentage points, of which solar PV and wind will (very optimistically) provide 3.7 percentage points.
Oh, and to achieve this 3.7 % of energy from solar PV and wind, you and I and the rest of the world will pay – according to the IEA – a total of $3.6 trillion in subsidies from 2017-2040 to support these uncompetitive energy sources. (Of course, if they were competitive, they wouldn’t need subsidies, and then they will be most welcome.)
Most people tend to think about electricity for renewables, but the world uses plenty of energy that is not electricity (heat, transport, manufacture and industrial processes).
Actually, if the world miraculously could make the *entire* global electricity sector 100% green without emitting a single ton of greenhouse gasses, we would have solved just a third of the total global greenhouse gas problem.
As Al Gore’s climate adviser, Jim Hansen, put it bluntly:
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”
We need to get real on renewables. Only if green energy becomes much cheaper – and that requires lots of green R&D – will a renewables transition be possible.
References
Data for graph: “A brief history of energy” by Roger Fouquet, International Handbook of the Economics of Energy 2009; IEA data DOI: 10.1787/enestats-data-en, and World Energy Outlook 2017, unfortunately not free, https://www.iea.org/weo2017/
Hansen quote: http://www.columbia.edu/…/mail…/2011/20110729_BabyLauren.pdf
The world emitted 49Gt CO₂e in 2014, and all electricity/heat came to 15Gt or less than a third, http://cait.wri.org/profile/World.
“Only if green energy becomes much cheaper – and that requires lots of green R&D…”
Yes, well, but that’s the same reasoning being used by those insisting on the $3.6 trillion in subsidies. That serious, rapid R&D would only take off when awash in cash and research funds. The internal combustion engine was developed late 18th century when people were burning fuel for steam instead but it was only until 1930 cars ran on this new invention. It’s assumed new green R&D needs to acceleration beyond “warp speed”. Hence the trillions acting like fuel for some economical steam engine as if all technological progress runs like a kind of train?
What? The first gasoline powered vehicle was built in 1885. I must have missed the part in history where a global governmental agency was formed and pushed for global investment in gasoline ICEs in order to create the world we have today.
“We have spent the last two centuries getting off renewables because they were mostly weak, costly and unreliable. Half a century ago, in 1966, the world got 15.6% of its energy from renewables. Today (2016) we still get less of our energy at 13.8%.”
Around 75% of “renewable” is burning trees and garbage (plastics inks, cartons wood waste and so on). I’d like that to be stated far and wide with the word “renewable)
Nice propaganda piece..
Propaganda:
-not objective;
-presenting facts selectively;
-using loaded language;
-seeks and emotional rather than a rational response;
-uses allegations or rumors;
-meant to promote an activist agenda;
Perhaps, Scott, you could enhance your short comment by explaining how the author goes wrong in this “nice propaganda piece.”
Don’t hold your breath on anything pertinent coming from the low information crowd.
A question.
Just what is the definition of “renewable” energy?
The Sun? It’s just there. And it’s dying a slow death.
The wind? The Sun has a lot to do with whether or no the winds blow.
The rotation of the Earth is said to be slowing down (though I don’t know of proposals to tap into the Earth’s for energy.)
Coal. That’s formed from long dead trees and things, right?
New coal should be forming all the time.
The same for oil.
Natural processes should be forming more “fossil fuel” everyday.
The CAGW’ers talk as if natural processes stopped a million or so years before Man showed up.
Just what is the definition of “renewable energy” really?
Energy where the Government burns it’s green and the likes of Al Gore reaps it?
There isn’t a greenhouse gas problem.
Could do with significantly MORE atmospheric CO2, though.
Clear and present climate warming in Australia gives all the justification they might need for their dash to renewables:
https://www.iceagenow.info/australia-freeze-destroys-180m-worth-crops/
renewables prior to 1800
As far as I know, all energy is renewable. The CO2, water, and other substances emtted by burning fossil fuels end up being absorbed by plants and other living things, which in turn create more sources of energy. The plants cut and fed to horses two centuries ago were non-fossilized biological matter, the same stuff we use to power vehicles and plants, only much fresher.
Except for hydro – and even that has qualifications – there are no ‘renewables.’ Unless you think that replacing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries is the ‘renewable’ part. As for being ‘green’ the net costs and impacts of manufacturing, installing, maintaining, replacing and disposing of them – not to mention their impacts on the wildlife and areas where they are installed – makes that suggestion a complete a total joke. And an extremely destructive and expensive joke.
We truly do live in Orwellian times and modern so-called environmentalists are the worst kind of dumbed down Party members.
Wind and solar are free fuels, but the traps we use to catch it are not free and NOT renewable. Storage is definately not free and not renewable. Only the weather is free and using it for fuel is rather insane if you think about it. Everyone knows weather is not predictable and is always changing.
Well sails seem to work reasonably well. That is as long as you don’t have to navigate in confined waterways and the tides and winds are right when your ready to leave port.
Really? Lithium is recycled all the time, so is carbon fiber, aluminum, steel, gold, silver, copper, silicon, and rare earth metals
Never seen coal recycled — seen many environmental disasters caused by fly ash pools failing and flooding cities
Seen the scarring of the land from open strip coal mining and tailing piles growing up in central PA (have you)
Can you point me to a coal recycling facility? — how about a uranium recycling facility ( reprocessing non-spent fuel isn’t recycling )
Natural Gas recycling Plant?
Didn’t think so
Dumbed down my A $$ — learn some science
Coal could certainly be recycled (as carbon) by planting fast growing Ash and Poplar trees, harvesting them, and sinking the carbon rich trunks back into those tailed out open pit mines.
Just how brainwashed is poor karl.
“Seen the scarring of the land from open strip coal mining and tailing piles growing up in central PA (have you)”
He obviously hasn’t seen the pictures of the Rare Earth Element mines in China.
Rare Earth Mines (materials for wind turbines and solar cells) and Open Pit Coal mines are indistinguishable from above and do the same ammount of damage
https://www.google.com/search?lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&tbm=isch&q=%22RARE+EARTH+MINE%22&chips=q:rare+earth+mine,g_2:china&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmke7g7eHXAhXmhlQKHQWyCc8Q4lYIJygA&biw=1902&bih=1070&dpr=1
https://www.google.com/search?lr=&hl=en&as_qdr=all&biw=1902&bih=1070&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ZqUdWuvxHebd0gKa8KP4DA&q=open+pit+coal+mine+pictures&oq=%22open+pit+coal+MINE%22&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0i30k1l2j0i24k1l3.210581.217626.0.221389.19.19.0.0.0.0.251.1769.14j4j1.19.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.4.527…0i8i7i30k1j0i13i30k1.0.BFxep5QjnMY
Shouldn’t we consider wood to be a form of solar energy?
could say the same for coal–just long stored solar energy.
Will the renewal of new coal beds, as in the carboniferous and permian, ever happen again?
Its formation also involved the application of heat and pressure, so one could also say it’s part geothermal.
Peat beds still form and accumulate, wood no longer forms coal as bacteria have evolved, that can digest cellulose, digesting the bulk of the wooden accumulation, which ended the coal forming process.
Richard,
IMO that was fungi, not bacteria, but I could be wrong about that. Termite gut bacteria certainly do break down cellulose.
No it is stored chemical energy that REQUIRES combustion with oxygen to release the stored energy.
Solar energy is EM radiation can either cause the excitation and flow of electrons in photo-voltaic media, or can be absorbed as thermal energy into a heat sink — then used to heat an expanding medium and drive a turbine.
@ur momisugly Extreme Hiatus,
At some arrays, in deserts, greass has started to grow in the shade of the PVs, and sheep have been able graze there. In Spain
‘
Sheepdip.
Tell us how nutritious shaded grass is.
Tell us about sheep crawling under PV arrays to crop their grass?
There is a huge difference between a few sheep grazing along the edges contrasted against the massive loss of arable/developmental land.
One wonders, given the failure of a number of Spanish solar companies, if those arrays are functional or defunct which is why sheep are allowed.
Hi Atheok,
I think the point of the article was that a desert area, Almeria, was able to sustain sheep and goats. It was a minor point but it is interesting, When you consider how much desert there is America. The solar arrays I see being installed are too low to allow sheep and goats under them. The stand need to be at least 5f high.
Then the point of your earlier comment is that sheep and goats can be raised in Spain’s desert areas?
Nor can America’s Mojave/Sonoran/Owyhee/Great Basin/Black Rock/Chihuahuan deserts along with all of the various high deserts, be compared to Spain.
I’ve got some of that old renewable wood burning in the wood stove right now. In the process of clearing up deadfall this winter, I’ll probably round up about 10 cords. At that point I can then think about harvesting millable logs.
The graph is of a ratio.
Misleading because the denominator rises bigly.
LFTRs are the solution. We only need the will power.
Not to mention in ~1850 — WHEN THE SLIDE BEGINS
OIL was discovered
Renewables worldwide have increased by 16% year over year for the past decade
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-renewable-energy.pdf
Actual generation capacity installed (not nameplate) of renewable power generation capacity us more than any other source worldwide
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/25/global-renewable-power-capacity-overtakes-coal-as-500000-solar-p/
You sir are full of excrement
You are one disingenuous troll Mr. Karl…From the article you linked and conveniently left out; “However, the actual amount of power produced by renewable electricity generators was still significantly lower than that from coal, accounting for 23pc of global power production, compared with almost 40pc from coal plants.
This is because power plants do not generate at their full capacity all the time, with sources like wind and solar able to generate at their maximum capacity only when the wind blows or the sun shines.”
You continue to drone on about how ignorant everyone on this site is and you still haven’t dealt with the obvious quote above which has been mentioned by several other “ignorant” posters.
Oil was discovered in 1850? Time to rewrite err revision the history books folks.
Would you care to provide us with anymore gut busters? There is a type of capacity that you are lacking, but at least it results in incidental humor.
The US electricity renewable generation share was 19.35% in the first quarter of 2017 — exceeding nuclear
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/05/31/us-renewable-energy-provides-19-35-us-electricity-first-quarter/
There are actually several nuclear plants scheduled to shit down in 2017 and 2018.
Dayummm — sucks to be uninformed and ignorant
karl,
your ignorance is breathtaking.
Renewables cannot replace the base load sources like nuclear.
Both sides are spewing nonsense lies.
Wind and solar PV are crap. Maybe 10% is the best they can do on an annual average basis. Above that, instability and skyrocketing prices for electricity.
FACTS
China brought 34 GW of solar online in 2016
China brought 24 GW of solar online in 2016
— and 4 GW nuclear in 2016 ( 4 single 1000MWe reactors)
https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/World-Nuclear-Power-Plants-in-Operation
So far in 2017 CHina is on track for 50 GW solar
https://electrek.co/2017/10/19/china-breaking-all-solar-power-records-aiming-for-50gw-in-2017/
Oh, and 1 (1000 MWe) in 2017
https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/World-Statistics/World-Nuclear-Power-Plants-in-Operation
you were saying????
24 GW wind 2016
Your ignorance is breathtaking
Baseload is bull -s in a distributed generation architecture
Also — tell that to DENMARK — where wind has produced their entire electrical consumption on more than 3 occasions since 2015
They had to sell the excess power Germany and the rest of Scandinavia
Karl,
Three whole occasions! Summer Sunday holidays?
Do you have any idea how silly you sound?
Denmark relies on the FF-powered European grid for its base load. Please, get a grip. Your brain has been hijacked by Green Goon lies.
Without subsidies, there would be no wind and solar farms. They’re not economical and never will be. And physically incapable of powering modern society and economies.
And your ignorance is massive
A 400 km by 400 kn array of solar PV can provide more than the Entire US electricity consumption yearly
( 32,000 Tera-watt hours), at a conservative 5 Kilowatt hours per square meter and an efficiency of 12% – which is bottom of the barrel
the desert southwest averages 7 Kilowatt hours per square meter per day – BTW
Of and 160,000 square kilometers is 1.6% of the land are of the US
Not to mention panels can be installed off-shore — over parking lots, on top of buildings.
Talking about parking lots — estimates range from 100 million to 2 billion spaces
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/arts/design/taking-parking-lots-seriously-as-public-spaces.html
If we take the middle — 1 billion parking spaces — at the average parking space is 25 square meters
So, that gives us 25 BILLION square meters of parking spaces to cover
@ur momisugly the US average of ~ 4 kilowatt hours per day (total conus average per day 1998-2005)
That = 12 billion kilowatt hours per day -@ur momisugly 12% efficiency — 4400 Terawatt Hours just from covering parking spaces ( that’s 15% of our electricity consumption)
Underground Thermal energy storage, Battery banks and electric vehicle charging will cover load leveling issues
@ur momisugly Gabro
Do you not realize that Denmark only needs to triple the current generating capacity from wind, and the will consistently cover their entire electricity consumption at greater than 95% of the time?
If you add underwater compressed air energy storage, as well as mega banks of lithium air or aluminum graphite battery storage
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air
to level load and store excess — they would have 100 percent consumption covered!
Karl show renewable’s working and delivering 100% of required power without using fossil fuel backup and we will believe you. Otherwise it is B*llSh*t.
karl November 26, 2017 at 9:11 pm
Sorry, but that’s a pipe dream. And even if possible in Denmark, which it isn’t, a large industrial power such as Germany, France or Britain couldn’t get by on wind.
I’m convinced that no amount of education will work on karl, he needs deprogramming. We’re starting to see grid failures already due to the amount of renewables on the grid, particularly with wind, and these types of zombie cultists only want to unintentionally inflict more hardship on society.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2314717215000550
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/wind-farm-settings-to-blame-for-sa-blackout-aemo-says/8389920
“The key differentiator between the 28 September 2016 event and the other three events is that there was significantly lower inertia in SA in the most recent event, due to a lower number of on-line synchronous generators,” the report said.
In other words, shutting down base power generators and replacing them with windmills was a dumb idea, not thought up by an engineer or physicist, but by a politician, and this is the result you get. Coming to a European market near you!
I can’t wait to see what pseudo-news article he refutes me with.
And I think this chart speaks for itself.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/electricprices.gif
Pay me 3.5X the energy cost and I will save you from manbearpig, I promise.
karl @ur momisugly November 26, 2017 at 7:45 pm
Regarding you statement “The US electricity renewable generation share was 19.35% in the first quarter of 2017”
Ahh… Karl. You never learn do you son? Still quoting “Clean Technica” and don’t understand why you can’t get your facts straight.
OK…well here we go again.
1) “Clean Technica” developed it’s Spring of 2017 19.3% figure by inflating its “renewable” generation figures. Specifically it combined the EIA’s “conventional hydro” generation figures with the EIA’s “non-hydro renewable” figures. The EIA does not include conventional hydro in it’s definition of a renewable (Ironically, nor do most progressives). As of August 2017, the Year-To-Date (YTD) combined hydro/renewable number production figure had dropped to 18.2% — of which only about 8% was from utility and small scale wind & solar “renewable” assets.
Bottom line: In YTD 2017, 0nly 8% of U.S. generation has been produced from the renewable assets you advocate.
2) According to the EIA, as of August, the TYD demand for electricity in the U.S. dropped 7.2% relative to 2016 (the August figures are the latest figures published). So it’s hardly surprising the percentage of total generation produced by both hydro and renewables assets increased slightly in the YTD. This occurs, in part, because: A) U.S. Renewable contracts are “take or pay” and thus are insensitive to demand; B) A number of states have “renewable standards” that uneconomically mandate additional renewable use… ignoring the economic disaster they’re creating for their states; and C) The solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) is due for a substantial drop in 2019 with a complete phase out in 2021. So the solar guys, are desperate to sell as much solar as they can between now and 2019.
Bottom line: In YTD 2017… production using less expensive fossil assets were pared back to make way for more expensive renewable assets due to contractual, State regulatory, and federal tax credit reasons — not due to economics.
3) The bulk “your” definition of any increase in renewable production since YTD 2016 occurred due to a 10.6% increase in hyro generation in YTD 2017. “Non-hydro renewable” generation increased by only 3.8% relative to a YTD 2016.
4) While there has been a modest 947 GHw an increase in total renewables production (due it item 2 above) don’t get too excited – this only represents 0.093% of 2017 YTD production.
5) Wind production actually dropped by 3.8% relative to YTD 2016… So I wouldn’t go around betting on a “renewables” revival… since wind is the cheapest of the renewable assets promoted by so-called “progressives”. Incidentally the drop in wind production isn’t entirely surprising given the production tax credit (PTC) for wind is set to expire at the end of 2019… no one want’s to get caught investing in what would likely be an unsubsidized wind asset.
6) I’m happy to concede that the combined production of wind/solar generation did increase by 7.4% or 1,554 GHw relative to YTD 2014… but this “news” isn’t too exciting given the increase only represents 0.057% of total U.S. generation… and there is an on going “rush” to cash in on the expiring solar subsidies.
See: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_es1a
3.6 trillion for subsidies? Really??
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-hits-sunshot-1-per-watt-goal-for-utility-scale-solar reports $0.06 per Kwh utility solar. WITHOUT SUBSIDY
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html Reports about 22,000 Twh electricity use globally in 2016. 3.7% of this is 814 Twh or 814,000,000 kwh. at $0.06/kwh thats 48.8 million or 0.0000488 trillion again WITHOUT SUBSIDY
100% would cost 1.32 billion or 0.00132 trillion. again WITHOUT SUBSIDY
NO, this does not include the obvious sun doesn’t shine at night or when very cloudy argument but does a 3.6 trillion price which is 73,770 times the current cost make any sense?
even if we assume the real cost is 1000 times actual to account for energy storage and inefficiencies thats still 73 times too expensive.
Take a minute to read the provided articles, THEN prove me wrong…. go
You seem to have the numbers right — except there are solar contracts in UAE and Chile for $.03 per kWH
Lowest-Ever Solar Price Bid (2.42¢/kWh) Dropped In Abu Dhabi By JinkoSolar & Marubeni Score
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/20/lowest-ever-solar-price-bid-2-42%C2%A2kwh-dropped-abu-dhabi-jinkosolar-marubeni-score/
Let’s see Coal, Nuclear, NG, or OIl come close
Have at it
They haven’t released any details on the tenders, so no one knows the committed costs. Also, “…authorities will now evaluate the proposals for technical and economic viability.” Long way from the first shovel-full of sand getting shifted.
Karl,
A buddy of mine is working on the Chile project.
As always, your numbers are pure pie in the sky.
My bad forgot a few 0’s
3.7% would cost 48.8 Billion. 100% would be 1.32 Trillion so actual is 73 times less expensive and assume practical cost is 10 times actual still looking at 7.3 times cost. still outrageous numbers
If you mean outrageous as in outrageous BS in the original post — I agree
Devon, there’s one crucial word you missed: “dispatchable.” Solar and wind are not dispatchable. It’s in the report you cited. It means any estimate of cost for these sources is wildly off base… because until we have realistic technology for long-term grid-scale storage of generated solar/wind power, they do NOT substitute for traditional power.
I see that Allan Macrae talks about this below as well.
Also, all of your “without subsidy” statements are “without subsidy, in theory.” In reality, the 30% ITC subsidy exists (until 2019), making these investments artificially profitable.
And yeah, you’re off by “a few zeros” and off by an entire model. 🙂
My turn to have fun guesstimating costs 😀 😀
You conflated cost per kWH and installation cost. We just hit $1/W installed cost. The world has around 7000 GW of electric generation capacity. At $1/W, and ignoring the dispatchable issue, that much capacity would cost 7 trillion dollars.
VERY roughly, using Allan Macrae’s 5% replacement factor (ie you need 20x as much solar to replace traditional), this produces a guesstimate of 7*20 = 140 trillion dollars to actually replace other electric sources. (And remember, we’re only talking electricity, not all power.) And that is an investment that must be repeated about every 20-25 years.
To be realistic, what is needed is capacity to store several days — probably 1-2 weeks (to survive a bad storm in any given area) — of non-dispatchable power. Doing a rough guesstimate using your 22,000 TWh number, that’s 2/52*22000 = about 850 TWh of storage.
Vanadium Redox-Flow batteries are one of the more advanced storage methods being developed. Below is a link to a realistic cost analysis, which works out to $70/kWH per year. Thus, 850 TWh of storage using this technology will have an annual cost of 850 * 10^9 Tera/kilo * $70 = 60 trillion dollars a year.
As you can see, the problem with actually using non-dispatchable power sources is the energy storage cost.
Bottom line for my rough guesstimates using realistic data, in 2017 numbers:
Electricity generation use: 22000 TWh, using 7000 GW of generation capacity.
Cost to install 100% solar for the world: 140 trillion dollars, repeated every 20-25 years
ANNUAL cost to maintain storage capacity for 2 weeks: 60 trillion
Total 25 year cost: 140 + 25*60 = 1640 trillion dollars
Do I believe those numbers? Not for a second. Technology will advance, and we won’t actually do this because it makes no sense… we will find another way. My guess: nuclear, possibly fusion.
Oops. Here’s the link for cost estimate of VRB (Vanadium Redox-Flow Battery) technology. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-comparison-of-the-capital-costs-of-a-vanadium-redoxflow-battery-anda-regenerative-hydrogenvanadium-fuel-cell-2090-4568-1000140.php?aid=65007
Oh, and here’s a rough guesstimate of $/KWh for solar+VRB tech, assuming:
– NO growth in demand (constant 22 PWh) or generation capacity (7 TW)
– Same assumptions above
– NO inflation etc; no maintenance costs for solar
Annual outlay for the technology (not including labor, or maintenance on solar):
Solar: $140T / 25 years = $5.6 T/yr
Storage: $60T
TOTAL: $65T (rounding down) for 22PWh
Remove 12 zeros from each side and you get $65 for 22KWh. Only $2.95 per KWh!
What a deal.
Sanity check:
“Only” 100% Solar: $7T / 25 years = $0.28T/yr for 22PWh, 1.2 cents per KWh
19x estimate to cover lack of 100% generation most of the time: $133T/25 -> 24 cents per KWh
2 weeks of storage estimate -> $60T/yr -> $2.72 per KWh
Optimistic Blue-Sky Adjustments:
a) 1/3 of populated areas never have clouds or storms (for 1/3 of 19x, no multiplier needed):
So instead of 19x we have (19 * 2/3) = 12.66, so line 2 is (7*12.66/25)/22 = 16 cents per KWh
b) populated areas use 80% of power during the 8 hrs of best sunlight, which is “constant” all year (ridiculous I know but this is being optimistic),
c) only 1/3 of populated areas need 2 week storage; 1/3 need 1 week storage; 1/3 need overnight
==> NOTE: this overrides (b) because storage is most-needed on those days with no useful sunlight. We still purchase and maintain sufficient storage for the stormy days, even though not used on nice days.
So avg storage is ((1/3*2/52)+(1/3*1/52)+(1/3*1/365))*22PWh = 443GWh, only $31T/yr
Optimistic scenario: 1.2 cents/KWh for 100% solar + 16 cents/KWh for lack of generation + $1.41 storage
Optimistic Blue Sky Total: $1.59 per KWh
Bottom Line: Without dispatchable power, it’s ALL about storage costs.
sad troll,karl, real sad
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/22/weekly-climate-and-energy-news-roundup-288/comment-page-1/#comment-2643835
Quote from the SEPP article – TWTW Oct 21, 2017:
“Number of the Week: 2.2 million workers needed to replace 52 thousand? One of the sillier essays in Politico stated: “And as jobs go, coal mining is now a tiny sliver of the U.S. economy, employing about 52,000 Americans last month, down 70 percent over three decades… By contrast, the solar and wind industries employed almost 10 times as many Americans last year, and they’re both enjoying explosive growth.”
If this essay is correct (it is not, and the definitions are vague), the energy industry that employed only 52,000 in mining produced 30% of the US Electricity in 2016, but wind and solar required 520,000 employees to produced 7% (6% wind and 1% solar). To generate the electricity produced by the coal industry, the wind and solar industries would need 2.2 million workers. Who can afford such inefficiency?”
My comment:
WHAT IS GRID-CONNECTED WIND POWER REALLY WORTH?
Wind power is intermittent and non-dispatchable and therefore should be valued much lower than the reliable, dispatchable power typically available from conventional electric power sources such as fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear.
In practice, one should assume the need for almost 100% conventional backup for wind power (in the absence of a hypothetical grid-scale “super-battery”, which does not exist in practical reality). When wind dies, typically on very hot or very cold days, the amount of wind power generated approaches zero.
Capacity Factor equals {total actual power output)/(total rated capacity assuming 100% utilization). The Capacity Factor of wind power in Germany equals about 28%*. However, Capacity Factor is not a true measure of actual usefulness of grid-connected wind power. The following paragraph explains why:
Current government regulations typically force wind power into the grid ahead of conventional power, and pay the wind power producer equal of greater sums for wind power versus conventional power, which artificially makes wind power appear more economic. This practice typically requires spinning backup of conventional power to be instantly available, since wind power fluctuates wildly, reportedly at the cube of the wind speed. The cost of this spinning backup is typically not deducted from the price paid to the wind power producer.
The true factor that reflects the intermittency of wind power Is the Substitution Capacity*, which is about 5% in Germany – a large grid with a large wind power component. Substitution Capacity is the amount of dispatchable (conventional) power you can permanently retire when you add more wind power to the grid. In Germany they have to add ~20 units of wind power to replace 1 unit of dispatchable power. This is extremely uneconomic.
I SUGGEST THAT THE SUBSTITUTION CAPACITY OF ~5% IS A REASONABLE FIRST APPROXIMATION FOR WHAT WIND POWER IS REALLY WORTH – that is 1/20th of the value of reliable, dispatchable power from conventional sources. Anything above that 5% requires spinning conventional backup, which makes the remaining wind power redundant and essentially worthless.
This is a before-coffee first-approximation of the subject. Improvements are welcomed, provided they are well-researched and logical.
Regards, Allan
* Reference:
“E.On Netz excellent Wind Report 2005” at
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
[snip . . . content free posts that use derogatory language are boring. Make your point without being insulting. Thanks . . . mod]
Elon Musk builds biggest ever battery to save Australians from heatwaves
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/elon-musk-builds-biggest-ever-battery-plugs-citys-energy-gap-0nxl8svdh
One or to more of these and he might save world from the catastrophic global overheating.
Re Musk’s super-battery – ya, that’ll work!
NOT!!!
“to power 30,000 homes”
How many homes are in South Australia?
There are about 1.5 million people in SA.
Irony of it is in printing Tesla’s name on the battery packs.
The battery is 200km north of Adelaide. How much loss over that 200km?
Powers 30,000 homes for how long?
I’m a little ignorant here, can someone explain why burning wood is considered ‘renewable’ energy?
Cut down a tree. Plant a tree. Renewable.
I get that, but, since the ‘new’ tree is not directly related to the tree that was cut, why would it be considered ‘renewable’. Especially given the length of time it takes to grow, cut, and season/process a ‘new’ tree for burning.
The other aspect that bothers me a little is that, when the public is presented with the % of ‘renewable’ energy being used, the implication is that these are also ‘green’, non-polluting sources of energy (like wind/solar). Wood burning (especially in its wood stove/open flame variety) is not ‘green’. In many respects is dirtier than burning coal.
I wasn’t saying it is right but that is what they believe.
tree is considered as part of the natural carbon cycle.
using underground carbon is not considered as part of the natural carbon cycle.
… biased by time frame of puny humans
Because the trees grow again “Naturally”, or can be maintained at the same level, but not to meet all energy needs, unsustainable in volume, Just a bit of enrgy, and at more CO2/KWh than coal, loads of particulates, when we have clean low CO2 gas. Why?
BTW the US is decarbonising fastest in the world by replacing coal with clean shale gas at 40% the CO2/KWh. So Brits are burning unwanted American wood pellets in 3GW of old coal power stations, instead of converting to unsubsidised clean CCGT, so producing more CO2 than coal/KWh at twice the price with 100% subsidy. But wood burning renewables have an advantage that they are available to harvest those subsidies, and to the grid, 24/7, unlike the 8/7 intermittents. Recommend both of these links. Note when slavery ended, rapidly reducing need for carbohydrate power from people or draught animals.
Doug LIghtfoot’s slide on agararian economy power sources linked below, and Colin McInnes’ if I am allowed 2.
?dl=0
?dl=0
An overlain graph of human population explosion would also be instructive.
How is wood considered a clean energy source or a renewable fuel? It releases carbon the same as fossil fuels. The only difference between wood and coal is that one is 65 million years older than the other.
@Steve;
The theory (not saying I agree) is that trees “use” CO2 that is already circulating in the biosphere, while fossil fuels are taking CO2 that was in the ground and putting it in the air, increasing the load in the biosphere.
It upsets the delicate balance, doncha know? /sarc
its not considered clean….
it is not controlled by the Exxon or any of the other evils.
politically, some regions can make a profit (and renewable jobs!!!!), so it is defined as renewable.
Actually wood is very clean for making electricity. Wood waste and excess biomass is a big environmental problem. Making electricity is a byproduct of handling that problem.
Heating with wood with a managed wood sources is another example of a clean use of wood. This assumes a good wood stove.
Fire, fire, fire! Fire on the flight deck!
This is why I am a trained fire fighter. As a young nuclear trained navy officer I was the division officer responsible for refueling helos on the two reactor nuclear cruiser I served on. However, all my real fires were electrical.
“Try putting a nuclear plant on your roof or at sea.
BTW — the nominal nuclear facility of 2200 MWe is about 25 square kilometers counting security offsets.”
Fire, fire, fire! Your house is on fire!
Suggesting that a roof of a home is a good place for a power plant indicates poor reasoning skills.
The foot print of a steam plant is relatively small. All power plants are industrial areas with security to protect valuable equipment.
The is a very small part of the population with poor reasoning skills. Sometimes we call them terrorists and sometimes they are teenage boys with rifles. This is why the power industry needs security.
The power industry in general and the nuke I worked turned part of the property over for public use as recreation areas. Duke power has a very profitable property development business. There are a lot of million dollar homes looking at nukes and coal plants on man made cooling lakes.