Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The CCP has decreed that five years from now, batteries and compressed air energy storage prices will drop by 30%. But even if these promises are more than hot air, a 30% reduction is nowhere near enough.
Climate Change: China to slash costs of energy-storage systems for industry to leapfrog the world by 2030, according to five-year plan
The production cost of large chemicals-based energy-storage systems will be cut by 30 per cent by 2025, putting the industry on path to leapfrog the world by 2030Compressed air energy-storage technology would realise “engineering applications” in units with 100 megawatts of capacity, according to the government’s plan
Eric Ng+ FOLLOW
Published: 8:30am, 24 Feb, 2022China’s government plans to cut the cost of energy storage systems by 2025 to help local industries leapfrog the world as the vanguard of novel energy storage technology five years later.
The production cost of large chemicals-based systems will be cut by 30 per cent by 2025, while compressed air energy-storage technology would realise “engineering applications” in units with 100 megawatts of capacity, according to a five-year plan drafted by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA). The document has been sent to local government and central government-administered enterprises for implementation.
“By 2030, China’s new energy storage should see well-rounded market-based development, with proprietary technology, world leading innovation and manufacturing capabilities,” said the industry development plan for 2021-25.
Energy storage is a key part of the Chinese government strategy to decarbonise the energy system and put the world’s second-largest economy on the path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. Affordable energy storage is vital in turning solar and wind energy into commercially viable substitutes of fossil-fuel energy, helping to compensate for the industry’s volatility and reliance on weather patterns.
…
Read more: https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3168078/climate-change-china-slash-costs-energy-storage-systems-industry-leapfrog
In my opinion there is a very obvious tell that these promises were drafted by politicians rather than engineers.
Compressed air energy storage suffers a fatal thermodynamic flaw.
When you compress a gas, the gas heats up. When you decompress the gas, to withdraw energy from your storage unit, the gas sucks heat out of the environment. Ice starts rapidly forming around the decompression system.
Ice is a good heat insulator. This is a big problem, especially in winter, because unless the decompressed air heats up to ambient temperature before it is used to drive a turbine, you lose an unacceptable amount of the energy you tried to store. So you either have to severely limit decompression / energy withdrawal rates, to minimise ice formation, or you have to chip away and physically remove the ice as it forms.
A serious compressed air storage system would produce a lot of ice.
Maybe China has a solution – they have some pretty clever engineers. But in my opinion, compressed air storage is a technology which appeals more to accountants and politicians than to engineers. Looks great on paper, awful in practice.
Compressed air might even be worse than hydrogen for energy storage.
Hard to imagine anything worse than Hydrogen. Air does not burn.
I don’t know how economical, or uneconomical, this is but a large Japanese company seems to be moving forward on implementing it now, not at some tenuous future date. Possibly it is a way to make wide spread hydrogen use practical. for thermal plants or fuel cells. Certainly it markedly changes the safety and storage dynamics.
https://www.chiyodacorp.com/en/service/spera-hydrogen/innovations/
CHINA PROMISES CHEAP ENERGY STORAGE…
Pretty much EVERYTHING China delivers is “CHEAP” and I’m not talking Inexpensive…rather poorly made and doomed to failure
Hence the saying – Chinese junk!!
By the way, this is a Japanese company
Rubbish (referring to your comment; not to Chinese manufacture.)
Looks like an interesting industrial solution.
Hmmm, looks a little bit of a perpetual energy machine.
Hahaha, ask any refinery how cheap a hydrgenation plant is….
Correct me, but ‘Oxygen Embrittlement’ is also not considered a concern by most professionals.
On the other hand, you can burn hydrogen, which is mostly the point of it being an energy source.
As industrial methods of storing and later transferring energy both are pretty unicorn.
I always thought hydrogen is a battery not an energy source……..
Hydrogen can indeed be viewed as a battery. That stored energy is the key ingredient in a fuel cell. But hydrogen can also be burned. As far back as 2002, BMW had both fuel cell electric vehicles as well as hydrogen powered internal combustion engines. Both remain a long way from commercial viability.
“At the time of the concept’s unveiling, nuclear technology was relatively new, and it was believed that nuclear fission technology could be made compact and affordable, such that nuclear fuel would become the primary energy source in the U.S., and gasoline would become obsolete.[3] Ford envisioned a future where gas stations would be replaced with full service recharging stations, and that the vehicle would get 5000 miles before the reactor would have to be exchanged for a new one. These would be scaled-down versions of the nuclear reactors that military submarines used at the time, utilizing uranium as the fissile material. Because the entire reactor would be replaced, Ford hypothesized that the owner would have multiple choices for reactors, such as a fuel-efficient model or a high-performance model, at each reactor change. Ultimately, the reactor would use heat to convert water into steam and the power train would be steam-driven.[4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Now, what does this remind me of?
Except elemental hydrogen doesn’t exist in any quantity on the surface of the earth unless energy is put into producing it. Burning it is only utilizing the energy that was used to make pure hydrogen from some hydrogen compound. So, burning it or using it in some kind of fuel cell is no different than getting energy from a charged battery.
The process reference above, by Chiyoda, is way to store the electricity that all the wind and solar produce when the grid can’t use it. Could it be a cheaper, better method than other batteries?
The hydrogen burns in the air. 2H2 + O2 > 2H2O. No one is remotely wanting to create and store atomic H.
The point being that hydrogen has to be created by using other energy sources. No mass supplies can be created that generate more energy than used to create them. Thus it is not a source but a rather a means to make energy mobile.
Although it isn’t flammable compressed air can explosively decompress.
Far more than tank failures are coupling or line failures.
A torn hose or a slipped coupling causes the hose to whip about, often with deadly consequences.
The only other equivalent are hoses carrying water at fire hose pressures; only water hoses whip much slower than the compressed air hoses.
Shutting off the air supply and waiting for the hose to stop whipping is the safe solution.
Many planes use compressed air to turn over their engines when starting.
As before, compressors run to keep the air pressure at maximum.
That would be my concern as I have seen pressurised air cylinders suddenly “decompress” i.e fail. Even small ones can do a lot of damage. A failure of a pressurised vessel is an instant release of all that stored energy. I am sure there will be safety systems, but if 100 megawatt unit suddenly failed and dumped all the energy in one hit, that would be the similar energy as 100 ton of TNT if my calculations are correct.
Hydrogen burns upwards -away from the ground.
Compressed air explodes sideways – along the ground….
They are also working with U.S. companies on batteries.
Carlsbad’s Amionx inks deal for tech that helps fireproof lithium-ion batteries – The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com)
From the link:
It’s a thermal shutdown for batteries in consumer electronics, not industrial battery storage solutions.
Which means phones and laptops with this installed will shut down when warm.
Since many of the fires are when the batteries are charging, I presume they shut down the charging circuit.
Meaning dead uncharged device.
Compressed air is here and works well, it goes under name of LNG
Merrily into the past we go. The compressed air systems will be developed “according to a five-year plan”. The communists of yore in the Soviet Union and China loved their 5 year plans. As I recall, they were not particularly successful.
I can’t see the NetZero by 2050 plans being very successful either.
It might be net zero by 2150.
2050 is starting to get uncomfortably close where people will be able to remember predictions when it actually gets to 2050.
By far the best predictions to make are ones which will be well and truly after the death of the prognosticator.
I believe everything these tyrants from Peking Duck
promise; just as they did not deliver the imports
agreement they made with The Donald.
I think what Ambri is doing seems pretty darn cool; well hot, pardon the pun.
Worth looking up. But I think their first killer app will be to allow server farms and other large energy users to do some arbitrage farming.
Maybe interesting..couldn’t tell from the website how far away these are from being commercialized.
From this podcast the founder is suggesting they are in the final push for commercialization. They have units in the wild, and are building the factory.
The website says it uses liquid metal. The battery is inert until internal heaters melt a calcium compound and this it is ready to store or release energy.
What powers the internal heaters? Do they need to continuously supply heat to keep the metal liquid?
According to the website, once it is heated up the internal chemical reactions keep it operating at the correct temps. The only issue is it needs to be charged/recharged fairly regularly to maintain the temps. No issue for solar.. the Sun sets every night.
This is a realistic approach to storing energy from unreliable reliables. I’m not sure what the efficiency of this is, but who ever said solar and wind has to be efficient?
What rbabcock said.
I was really curious and looked. For the most part if there is a discharge/charge cycle ever 24 to 48 hours the chemical reactions are enough, with the uber-insulated enclosure, to keep it in its operating range.
And there is no such thing as too warm. And too cold just means to electrons come squirting out.
Where Li-ion batteries, there is a too warm, and too cold. And in most environments you have to actively cool and monitor the internal temperature of li-ion batteries.
I’d be happy with a 30% reduction in energy prices such as we had while Trump was President
No kidding, the Obama Biden regime has done nothing for Americans. I am still trying to figure out what they were doing with all that taxpayer money in Ukraine.
Ukraine is Deep State Laundry Mat for US tax dollars. Example; George Soros received 1.5 billion washed by his bank. Biden had prosecutor fired investigating. Some returned to Democrats for election scam. President Putin say NWO worship Satan. It is important to understand what his statement means. Slaves or Freedom. I hope Putin cleaning house. General Washington used Durham boat to defeat the Cabal once. Looking for repeat.
If Republicans take the U.S. House, this should be one of the things they investigate. What did Obama and Biden and their cronies do in Ukraine while they were in charge?
We know Hunter made a lot of money, but there’s so much more than that.
Maybe some of this will come out in the Durham investigation.
secret bio labs for starters
A certain faction has been accusing others of colluding with Russia while embezzling tax dollars through Ukraine. Trump calls this out and they try to impeach him for it, but the Ukrainian president doesn’t go along with the scam and supports Trump – even meeting with him during the scam impeachment.
Then coincidently Russia is invading Ukraine one year after this faction takes control of D.C. Sanctions are worthless with China et al. able to support Russia, and when asked if he had been pressuring China to condemn Russia, Biden responded that he wasn’t prepared to answer that question.
Let’s face it, China and Russia know that America is weak and is more worried about climate change. I blame this squarely on the CIA and Obama. Biden is just carrying water for that administrations players.
Money laundered out from there to all the progressive/neo-marxist interests worldwide. Ukraine was just a washing station.
Is this one of those developments where somewhere in the project plan we see the phrase
“and then a miracle happens”
Compressed air energy storage (CAES) has been done. First in Germany at 42% net efficiency with no waste heat recapture, then in McIntosh AL. That facility provides 2860MWh of storage at a cost of $23/KWh at (using waste heat recapture) 54% round trip (power in-power out) efficiency. A disaster even the Chinese know they cannot fix. Maybe just trying to get gullible California to buy more Chinese solar panels.
And, if they plan on reducing chemical storage costs by 25%, it sure isn’t LiIon because cobalt and lithium prices are up sharply from growing EV demand. And every other chemical storage electricity system I am aware of (flow batteries, hydrogen, various Germany exotic renewable based systems) simply have not worked either at all or for more than a short period.
Moreover a 25% cost reduction in batteries would have no impact on the enormous cost of making wind and solar reliable. The back of my envelope estimates that 200,000 MWh or more of storage are required to make 1,000 MW of solar reliable, wherever you can occasionally get five dark cloudy days, which is most places. Wind is worse because you can get seven low wind days almost everywhere. The cost is so huge that cutting it 90% would still make it in feasible.
Agree. Storage cannot overcome intermitency even conceptually, let alone economically.
There is no conceptual issue. There isn’t even a technical issue. It’s all economics.
There are various efforts to convert “excess” electricity into a chemical hydrocarbon or hydrogen form that can be used in a thermal plant. When millions of $ are being paid to other jurisdictions to take the excess electricity off someone’s hands, or paid to wind and solar generators to stop producing the excess, then the economics change markedly. That isn’t to say that having a primary system that doesn’t use intermittence generation to begin with would not be better but right now that seems to be a losing battle, no matter how much we scream and stamp.
Probably batteries have to drop to 1/4 of their present price to hit the next level of public “unreliability acceptance” though….a drop by 25% in battery price is just not going to excite any more people than now into buying an EV second car for their grocery runs.
That is simply not going to happen because the raw materials for batteries will never be there at those implied prices. Battery cost is determined by raw material prices.
Well the IEA says that in 2021 the price of lithium carbonate for use in EV batteries rose by 150% compared to 2020 so don’t see battery prices dropping much in the near future.
For quite a while now, a company has been touting an automobile powered by compressed air. As far as I can tell, and after many grandiose announcements, no practical vehicle has emerged onto the consumer market.
I usually provide a link but I was floored by the amount of bs I encountered. The Wikipedia pages on the subject seemed to be particularly egregious. Given the amount of online bs and given Brandolini’s Law, I gave up trying to find a credible link. Mind you, the observation, that no practical vehicle has emerged onto the commercial market, seems to be quite telling and should stand on its own merits.
The original Whitehead torpedo produced from 1866 to around 1904 used compressed air to drive a piston engine. Early models operated at 400 psi or so and had a range of just 200 yards at around 7 knots. By 1904 this had been improved using much higher pressures, but the icing problem limited further advances using just compressed air. Those torpedos had a range of roughly 1,000 yards at 35 knots.
To overcome icing, ambient sea water was used to heat the air and some fuel (kerosene) was injected into the cylinder and combusted, providing both heat to maintain pressure in the tank and much more energy in the engine cylinders.
By 1905 the development of compressed air only Whitehead torpedos had ceased. All further improvements on torpedo propulsion used combustion engines.
Chiyoda is going into commercial production (hydrogen storage and recovery) now. I don’t now if that is with government subsidies or if it is really just commercial.
I think you mean $23/MWHR.
“Maybe just trying to get gullible California to buy more Chinese solar panels.”
That’s what I was thinking.
They want to keep the West thinking windmills and solar are viable alternatives to fossil fuels so the West will continue to destroy their economies while enhancing the economies of the windmill and solar manufacturers.
Maybe China has a solution – they have some pretty clever engineers
well they certainly have very clever reverse engineers
innovation… not so much
poured tens of billions on chip research but are still dependent on Taiwan SMC
meanwhile the housing market is collapsing even as they continue to pour several times the OECD average concrete
credit deteriorating, less room for research
my bet is the great north-south water boondoggle will fail next
pumping a river uphill is monstrously expensive
The last time a country in Europe and a country in Asia became desperate because of a collapsing economy and then became allies was in the 1920-30s.
yep, ironically US cronyism (political favors to silver miners) drove up the price of silver, crashing the silver-standard Chinese economy and creating the conditions for Communists to take over
also didn’t help that feckless US advisers repeatedly advised China not to finish off Mao when they had him cornered
Way off topic here, but is anyone else having trouble with their browser’s ‘back’ function working properly on just this site since some time last week?
Yes, its a PIA only happening for me on WUWT….
…..a couple of hours later….the “disable backbutton” box has been unchecked….
Right click the link and select open link in a new tab.
And if you use Firefox you can change the settings so when you “open in new tab” the new tab opens on your screen (can’t seem to do that in Chrome, you have to click on the new tab to see it). Then close the tab when you want to go “back”. I barely use the Back button these days.
Works for me in Chrome.
My Android phone also has a glitch with the back button only with WUWT.
Whenever I order Chinese food takeout, I look to make sure the order is complete before leaving. People make mistakes. But when it’s only the shrimp that is missing three times, it goes beyond coincidence. Ditto for the lead in dog food, sulfur in drywall, screws without threads, capacitors that self ignite…. the list goes on.
I suspect that China has a Department of Distraction, whose primary job is to publish plausible but meaningless papers like this. These papers are meant to distract the west from the fact that China is using more fossil fuel and nuclear not less. Second they need to keep the west following the pipe dream of wind and solar until China squeezes the last buck out of us buying their wind and solar products.
The obvious storage for baseline power is gravity.
Except the world has mostly used up good hydro dam sites— unless you want to dam Yosemite like CA did Hetch Hetchy. Or, as in China, you brute force move millions for 3 Gorges.
>>Except the world has mostly used up good hydro dam sites— unless you want to dam Yosemite like CA did Hetch Hetchy. Or, as in China, you brute force move millions for 3 Gorges.<< https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs?fbclid=IwAR02bXlu12CzaciCCnB2p_un88tjYEaKjCwB3oWgYuek_T-i9NJPuFprkcM
Are you claiming that these alleged scientists studied the geology, hydrology, earthquake histories, people living in the valley and simultaneously ensure downstream communities are not endangered?
Assuming that these sites are fed by water sources sufficient to the task of filling and maintaining the reservoirs. That a dam and reservoir do not impede spawning or the upstream/downstream movement of creatures that live in the water nor flood out creatures requiring highly oxygenated water?
Such amazing alleged scientists to intensely research 500,000 separate sites… NOT!
I lately came to the realization that damming salmon rivers is fantastically damaging to the ecosystem upstream of the dam. Consider the American River Drainage of the Sierra Nevada Range in California. In 1955, suddenly, millions of spring & fall run salmon didn’t swim up to the Sierra to spawn, die, and provide untold energy to the predators and scavengers with the carcasses. Next, many critters feed off the developing egg masses and fry. Later, these juveniles provided a food source for countless birds, snakes, small predators, etc.
Think about the loss of life caused by damming the American River in 1955.
On the east coast, the Delaware River used to have abundant salmon returning to spawn.
George Washington wrote about both the salmon and shad runs.
Clear cutting the forests surrounding the river and feed streams warmed the water.
Dams were built, not on the Delaware, but on many of the feeder streams.
Pennsylvania tried to restore salmon to the Delaware in the mid 20th Century, but the salmon were unable to pass by the Delaware pollution block ranging from Trenton to well south of Philadelphia.
Outside of the suburban homes, a lot of the forests have regrown
That has been mostly cleaned up, but I haven’t heard anything about them trying again.
Water is a huge problem in the West. What communities haven’t siphoned directly from the waterways, they’ve drawn from aquifers. Both contribute to pathetic stream flows
>>Are you claiming that these alleged scientists studied the geology, hydrology, earthquake histories, people living in the valley and simultaneously ensure downstream communities are not endangered?<< I’m claiming that you clearly didn’t read the article. ; )
Wrong, again!
Has your BS detector been permanently sidelined?
How big are these so called sites? Do any of them have nearby sources of water? Are any of them close enough to population centers to make the interconnections affordable? Have you ever had an independent thought in your head?
>>Has your BS detector been permanently sidelined?
How big are these so called sites? Do any of them have nearby sources of water?<< Read the article and find out.
Cant see why you got negative score. The report is correct in that pumped storage systems have different site requirements than hydro dams and may be much easier to find good sites.
A hydro dam needs a river which means all sorts of environmental problems. Pumped storage doesnt need additional water once filled.
The report may be overly optimistic but it does point to an alternative that has been unfairly overlooked.
My $600 bike battery that stores the energy equivaled of less than 3 ounces of gasoline tells me lipo batteries have a long ways to go.
>>My $600 bike battery that stores the energy equivaled of less than 3 ounces of gasoline tells me lipo batteries have a long ways to go.<< You’re referring to total energy, not energy to the wheels as a measure of systemic efficiency. EVs have an efficiency of roughly 65%. ICEVs are around 21%. This is why the dominance of the former is inevitable.
And yet when the battery is dead the efficiency is zero. Same with an empty tank.
What are the efficiencies of refueling? The total system is the total system, a fact people who push EV’s always ignore.
Time is money. EV refuling is 1200 times slower than IC. Far fron efficient.
And then there is the problem of massively increasing the number of EV charging stations. Friends with EVs end up having to park at a charging station and take a cab to come visit.
>>Time is money. EV refuling is 1200 times slower than IC. Far fron efficient.<< Charging overnight at home is quite efficient, actually.
ferdberple,
Pumped storage needs continual replenishment of the water that evaporates off the surface. This varies by the surface area, location, etc., but you can’t fill it once and go.
Only in a desert does evaporation exceed precipitation. California is a desert but no one in their right mind lives their.
I checked the “best” two sites in Arkansas. One requires damming the beloved Buffalo National River so that’s never gonna happen. The other requires flooding part of a state nature preserve for the lower reservoir and 3 square miles of a lush farming valley for the upper reservoir. Two local highways will be flooded. Oddly the height of the upper reservoir at over 1900′ is about 100′ higher than the highest terrain for which it is located and the illustrated shape of the reservoir does not match the topographic contour lines at all. Possibly the idea is this 3 square mile reservoir will have to be walled in by miles of levees up to 100 ft high? The creek the upper reservoir is built on does not have enough watershed to maintain it so it would have to be filled from the lower reservoir.
China is planning a massive new dam on the Brahmaputra River, they claim will produce 60GW. Big dam, huge reservoir, seismically active area. Downstream, India and Bangladesh are worried.
https://www.opindia.com/2021/04/china-plans-super-dam-on-brahmaputra-river-three-gorges-tibet-and-india/
“Brahmaputra River”
That doesn’t sound like a Chinese name.
A hydro dam needs a river to supply water. Gravity storage does not need water except the initial fill.
A hydro dam has no need for a reservoir at the base. Gravity storage does. A hydro fam typically stores months worth of grid power. Gravity storage need only store 1 week.
Thus it is a mistakr to dismiss gravity storage on the basis of hydro dams because the site requirements are quite different.
Its efficient but the problem is scale. A 500 ton weight falling 90ft releases enough energy to power a single household 2KW heater for a day. You need insane amounts of weight to contribute meaningfully to energy storage.
30m x 9.8 m/s^2 x 500,000kg = 147 million joules.
147 million joules / 86400 seconds in a day = 1701 watts.
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potential-pumped-hydro-sites-to-meet-all-our-renewable-energy-needs?fbclid=IwAR02bXlu12CzaciCCnB2p_un88tjYEaKjCwB3oWgYuek_T-i9NJPuFprkcM
When you find a meaningless article, you pump it over and over again. Are you paid by the cite?
You would need a huge expensive battery ro power a 2kw heater for a day. Then you have the lifetine problem. Batteries wear out quickly when cycled. Pump storage does nor.
Not to mention the huge array of solar panels you need to generate 2kw for 24 hours. Realistically you need 8kw of panels minimum and a sunny location.
Batteries, panels, location. It all adds up and without location it isn’t even an option. Add in the lifetime factor and the low cost of power from fossil fuels very hard to break even
Compressed air storage
According to google a 5 litre bottle pressurised to 200 bar (about 2800psi ) contains 530 KJ of compressed air energy = 0.1429 KW hr
So to get a GWhr of storage we need 30,000 5 litre containers ( think of 30000 gallon containers or 10000 15 litre scuba tanks.
the storage efficiency is about 50%. so to back up a single 10MW turbine for 100 hours
we need about 20000 scuba tanks at about $300 each. That is $6 million. Our UK grid at the moment is 40 GW so to back it up we need 80 million Scuba tanks costing $24 Billion
Now multiply that figure by 3 when in halcyon net zero days we need 120 GW of power
That is a lot of scuba tanks- about 3 per person for all UK citizens
I think CAES has a chance in natural dry gas reservoirs. The gas is kept at a higher temperature in the reservoir and the decompression could simply take place at multiple outlets. Still have no clue about the economics, probably have a lot to do with the price difference in electricity buying/selling.
Compressed air energy-storage technology would realise “engineering applications” in units with 100 megawatts of capacity, according to the government’s plan
Chinese hacks are just as ignorant as western ones. Battery capacity is measured in Megawatt Hours not megawatts so the above statement is meaningless
I worked on hydraulic hybrid trucks, where high pressure oil is fed in to an accumulator and so the storage of energy is a confined compressed gas, nitrogen. Never caught on because too heavy, noisy, expensive and lack of subsidies. That was an EPA boondoggle, million$ wasted.
…million$ wasted….
You dont understand government monetary theory (/s)….that money that you say was wasted went to pay peoples’ salaries, mortgage payments and groceries. Only just one economic layer removed from the positive returns expected by businessmen and banks…Big gov’t is very at ease with this concept, for example military spending on expensive hardware that they don’t really want to ever use, but in the meantime is a job creation program for workers, wealth creation for corporations and investors…..
One more thing, remember that little plastic French car a few years back which was to run on compressed air? Seemed crazy at the time…still does.
I can get 30% cheaper things before, during, and after every Christmas season.
Wind, solar, and storage are already more cost-effective than thermal electricity generation. And with prices still dropping, the deployment rate of those energy sources will only increase. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-solar-and-storage-still-cheapest-by-far-latest-csiro-gencost-report-says-34929/?fbclid=IwAR0LGyg083nnfzTCznrIp6mFIcEobWti-Lpoh-KjBboUSfAnoYXnfRsQ9n0
If they are so cost effective how come the more wind and solar we add the more electricity rates increase?
>>If they are so cost effective how come the more wind and solar we add the more electricity rates increase?<<
Here are the four states in the US with the most wind power (over 35%), and their kWh cost:
Iowa: 8.97 (57% wind)
Kansas: 10.38 (43% wind)
Oklahoma: 7.63 (31% wind)
Texas: 8.36 (24% wind)
The US average is now 10.59. (And the recent spike in gas and coal prices are going to drive the US average up even more, to be sure.)
You were saying?
All plains states with a population density in the bottom 50% of the US.
When New Jersey has more than 10% Wind and Solar, get back to us.
As has been discussed here at WUWT, the EASY wind and solar have the greatest returns. The wind in these states is the EASY, was installed early in the process and was the most heavily federally subsidized.
Also, ALL have easy access to natural gas so can use that to fill out for the unreliable output of wind and solar.
Since they were early, and you seem to know so much about wind Barry, when do these states need to begin replacing their earliest installations, and how much is that going to cost?
I know Oklahoma stopped subsidizing future windmills last year. The legislators said if they continued to do so, it would bankrupt the State.
And all these States with large numbers of windmills had a lot of problems supplying electricity to their citizens in February 2021 arctic blast.
Those rolling blackouts turned out to be very expensive.
>>When New Jersey has more than 10% Wind and Solar, get back to us.<< It’s just a matter of time. https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/renewables-are-87-of-new-u-s-generating-capacity-so-far-this-year/?fbclid=IwAR2X0cLvmPjA2Gc1p4e-sVy5GlhjAtbdphPm7zvw5VFsvwu5UFa-wGZsfcA
Why am I not surprised to find out that Barry doesn’t know the difference between output and face plate power. It’s almost as if he specializes in not knowing what he’s talking about.
Last time I looked at Iowa’s official website, the actual wind capacity factor meant that less than 10% of their electricity came from wind. Therefore the actual 80% from coal had little trouble keeping their grid stable (the six warmer months of the year averaged 16% wind capacity factor) Iowa may well have more wind power installed now but I doubt that 10% actual has grown to 57%.
>>Last time I looked at Iowa’s official website, the actual wind capacity factor meant that less than 10% of their electricity came from wind.<< Post an official link that makes this claim. We’ll wait, patiently. https://iub.iowa.gov/iowas-electric-profile
This study shows that the more solar and wind capacity a country has, the higher its cost of electricity.
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0319-MM.pdf
This is the conclusion to the above study.
Hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy”.
I am with you. Wind, solar, and storage don’t need subsidies anymore.
It’s always good for a chuckle when fossil fuel shills pretend to be offended by the subsidies renewables receive, all the while pulling down trillions in subsidies around the world each year. https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds#:~:text=Fossil%20Fuels%20Received%20%245.9%20Trillion%20In%20Subsidies%20in%202020%2C%20Report%20Finds,-An%20open%2Dpit&text=Coal%2C%20oil%2C%20and%20natural%20gas,8%20percent%20of%20the%20total.
The subsidies fossil fuel receives are direct payments to the poor for utility bills.
Tax deduction for exploration expenses.
That’s not subsidy.
Confirmed: Repeating False Statements Over And Over Magically Makes Them True | The Babylon Bee
Wow, is there any lie you won’t repeat?
Even without considering backup, renewables are many times more expensive than thermal electricity generation, and prices are rising, not dropping. Every time the subsidies are stopped, people not only stop deploying renewables, but usually abandon the ones already deployed.
>>Wow, is there any lie you won’t repeat?<< Is there any long-debunked old trope you won’t attempt? Here’s the latest Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy report. This is considered to be the industry’s most accurate and objective. Check page 8. https://www.lazard.com/media/451881/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf
And an easily accessible real-world reference can be seen at this link, a current snapshot of South Australia’s energy market generation and pricing. Food for thought? https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=30d&interval=1d
When you decompress the gas, to withdraw energy from your storage unit, the gas sucks heat out of the environment. Ice starts rapidly forming around the decompression system.
Has China just invented refrigeration?
On you tube recently, I love old films like this, lots of power and energy in action! (Periscope films)
1947 WARNER BROTHERS PATRIOTIC FILM “POWER BEHIND THE NATION” INDUSTRY & RAILROADS 72042
Compressed air storage could easily work from a technical standpoint. The economics are another matter.
Environmental and labor arbitrage? Shared responsbility? Prices are easy.