Guest “What is never?” by David Middleton
Why does this remind me of the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition skit?
New Research: The World May Have Crossed a Solar “Tipping Point”
By UNIVERSITY OF EXETER OCTOBER 19, 2023
The world may have crossed a “tipping point” that will inevitably make solar power our main source of energy, new research suggests.
The study, based on a data-driven model of technology and economics, finds that solar PV (photovoltaics) is likely to become the dominant power source before 2050 – even without support from more ambitious climate policies.
However, it warns four “barriers” could hamper this…
[…]
SciTech Daily
“The Momentum of the Solar Energy Transition”
The full text of the paper is available.
Abstract
Decarbonisation plans across the globe require zero-carbon energy sources to be widely deployed by 2050 or 2060. Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth, and its economic attractiveness is improving fast in a cycle of increasing investments. Here we use data-driven conditional technology and economic forecasting modelling to establish which zero carbon power sources could become dominant worldwide. We find that, due to technological trajectories set in motion by past policy, a global irreversible solar tipping point may have passed where solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, without any further climate policies.
[…]
Nijsse et al., 2023
Nobody Expects “the Momentum of the Solar Energy Transition”!
The authors suggest that solar power will become the dominant power source by 2050 without “more ambitious climate policies.” However, four barriers could stand in the way.
Nobody expects “the momentum of the solar energy transition”! Our chief barrier is grid resilience… grid resilience and access to finance… grid resilience and access to finance… Our two barriers are grid resilience and access to finance… and supply chains…. Our three barriers are grid resilience, and access to finance, and supply chains… and an almost fanatical devotion to silencing political opposition… Our four… no… Amongst our barriers… are such elements as grid resilience, access to finance… I’ll come in again.
Apologies to Monty Python
Overcoming the Solar Barriers
- “Grid Resilience”: Only use electricity only when the sun is shining.
- “Access to finance”: Raise taxes.
- “Supply chains”: Drive up the prices of almost all mineral resources.
- “Political opposition”: Reeducation camps.
Am I Being Flippant?
SciTech Daily
- Grid resilience: Solar generation is variable (day/night, season, weather) so grids must be designed for this. Dr Nijsse said: “If you don’t put the processes in place to deal with that variability, you could end up having to compensate by burning fossil fuels.” She said methods of building resilience include investing in other renewables such as wind, transmission cables linking different regions, extensive electricity storage, and policy to manage demand (such as incentives to charge electric cars at non-peak times). Government subsidies and funding for R&D are important in the early stages of creating a resilient grid, she added.
- Access to finance: Solar growth will inevitably depend on the availability of finance. At present, low-carbon finance is highly concentrated in high-income countries. Even international funding largely favors middle-income countries, leaving lower-income countries – particularly those in Africa – deficient in solar finance despite the enormous investment potential.
- Supply chains: A solar-dominated future is likely to be metal- and mineral-intensive. Future demand for “critical minerals” will increase. Electrification and batteries require large-scale raw materials such as lithium and copper. As countries accelerate their decarbonization efforts, renewable technologies are projected to make up 40% of the total mineral demand for copper and rare earth elements, between 60 and 70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium by 2040.
- Political opposition: Resistance from declining industries may impact the transition. The pace of the transition depends not only on economic decisions by entrepreneurs but also on how desirable policymakers consider it. A rapid solar transition may put at risk the livelihood of up to 13 million people worldwide working in fossil fuel industries and dependent industries. Regional economic and industrial development policies can resolve inequity and can mitigate risks posed by resistance from declining industries
“Even without support from more ambitious climate policies”
Can someone please explain to me how they plan to overcome these barriers “without support from more ambitious climate policies” (AKA massive government intervention)?
Nijsse et al., 2023 envisions the following energy transition:
Bear in mind, this is where we are now in the USA:
Solar power is very dependent on… the Sun. The annular eclipse on October 14, 2023, did this to ERCOT’s solar power at high noon on a sunny day:
The loss of solar generation was accompanied by the usual midday doldrum. 4,904 MW of solar and wind generation tool a lunch break that day. Fortunately, it occurred on a Saturday, the high temperature was only 63 °F and natural gas-fired generation quickly ramped up to fill the gap.
| Timestamp (Hour Ending) | Wind (MWh) | Wind (ΔMWh) | Solar (MWh) | Solar (ΔMWh) | Natural gas (MWh) | Natural gas (ΔMWh) | Coal (MWh) | Coal (ΔMWh) | Nuclear (MWh) | Nuclear (ΔMWh) |
| 10/14/2023 11 a.m. CDT | 12,665 | 6,100 | 13,271 | 5,045 | 5,045 | |||||
| 10/14/2023 12 p.m. CDT | 9,709 | (2,956) | 4,152 | (1,948) | 17,889 | 4,618 | 5,763 | 718 | 5,046 | 1 |
| 10/14/2023 1 p.m. CDT | 7,120 | (2,589) | 5,981 | 1,829 | 18,023 | 134 | 6,164 | 401 | 5,048 | 2 |
There Has Never Been an Energy Transition
All of the blather about the “energy transition” omits a very pertinent fact: There has never been an energy transition. Nor will there ever be an actual energy transition unless we manage to harness nuclear fusion.
We never transitioned from traditional biomass to fossil fuels. On a per capita basis, we consume as much “traditional biomass” for energy as we did when we started burning coal. We have just piled new forms of energy on top of older ones. Now, we have changed the way we consume energy sources. In the 1800’s the biomass came from whale oil and clear-cutting forests. Whereas, today’s biomass is less harmful to whales and forests.
Energy Consumption: Bjorn Lomborg, LinkedIn
From 1800 to 1900, per capita energy consumption, primarily from biomass, remained relatively flat; as did the average life expectancy. From 1900 to 1978, per capita energy consumption roughly tripled with the rapid growth in fossil fuel (coal, oil & natural gas) consumption. This was accompanied by a doubling of average life expectancy. While I can’t say that fossil fuels caused the increase in life expectancy, I can unequivocally state that everything that enabled the increase in life expectancy wouldn’t have existed or happened without fossil fuels, particularly petroleum.
It’s simply absurd to claim that solar power will ever become the dominant power source, with or “without any further climate policies.” Nobody should expect an energy transition. Wishful thinking dressed up as scientific research just encourages politicians to make bad policy decisions.
“Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
I just had to include this:
Reference
Nijsse, F.J.M.M., Mercure, JF., Ameli, N. et al. The momentum of the solar energy transition. Nat Commun 14, 6542 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41971-7
Never is a long way away.
Like infinity, never is a concept, not a destination.
To infinity and beyond – the UN need Buzz Lightyear
To infinity and beyond was used to advertise a cheap telescope on the back of Popular Mechanics – or some such magazine about 60 years ago.
Cant be that far because Peter Pan went there !!!
Plus it’s the source of all the fairy dust ( an essential element in most green technology ) mines.
“Free Beer Tomorrow”
I have that sign!
Dyson sphere time.
It might only take a Ringworld for solar to be dominant
I’ve always wondered how the people who live near the poles of a dyson sphere, keep from falling into the sun.
and oddly enough, it never gets closer
now if we can only find the millions of square miles needed for the solar farms and transmission lines then all will be good
Not that I am recommending solar, but some eco-loon is bound to jump in and take a stab at your comment – so I’m going to steal their thunder….
While the vast desert reaches of the Sahara, Arabian, and other similar barren regions are available, and they have great plans in place to develop, for example, the solar resource – mostly for desalination (easy to store water) – those cases have no bearing on most of the countries represented here on WUWT.
Further, any wide development of any North American desert or plain for solar, and the corresponding regions suitable for wind, would be drowned in lawsuits and regulations (if eco-loons and regulators are consistent).
What one sees as desolate and useless does serve a purpose.
It is the rare desert that contains no life at all or lacks nature’s beauty.
Using anything as inefficient as solar can only be a last resort.
Extremely harsh environment.
Desert solar… have those who propose these ever seen a sandstorm?
What about the seabed, no obstacles there……..oh wait a minute!
No, no, float it on top – it’s not like anyone really uses that bit, right?
Just cover the oceans with floating solar panels. Add some floating high-speed rail tunnels powered by the panels and there is no more need for inefficient fossil-fuel based cargo ships.
(why do i think there are actually people who would think that’s a good idea?)
… and the copper ore to make the copper to make the millions of miles of copper wire for lines, transformers and all the other equipment.
So when the air conditioners come on it’s coal and natural gas that save the day, says figure EIA. What is going to happen when the Sun God (Helios, Apollo, or Huitzilopochtli) starts charging a user fee? Huh? Wait for it. Or don’t.
Do solar panels work in an ice age?
Under a great deal of dirty ice?
I was thinking of low temperatures and solar. Silly me for not thinking of the mile of ice covering it.
Good point. Also when we replace 200 million + ICE cars with plugin EVs when exactly will be off-peak time for charging? I know it won’t be over night when our primary source is solar. Peak production will be about 4 hours from 10:00a to 2:00p Let’s see 200 million times 30 kWh / 4 hours = 1500 GW. That’s new capacity in addition to the 46,000 GW average we already use in the US.
A transition to wind/solar by never is optimistic.
Rick C –
There is no intention of allowing the 200M+ ICEVs to be replaced. Most folk will get sandals – they don’t need charging.
Air conditioning will not be permitted in the glorious future.
Invest in Right Guard immediately.
The continental US is some four hours wide, and the US is the third largest country by area. So one issue is storage, as well as the diffuseness of solar.
Economic models are apparently even worse than climate models if they think solar is viable.
The AGW mob say humans are pushing the planet to global boiling point – do they know solar PV efficiency drops off above 30degC? Someone should include it in a model
Solar really can’t work without Massive Costly Battery Storage.
Solar only produces power when the sun is shining
People use power 24/7
Solar only produces something close to nameplate from 10am til 2pm local time.
People use power 24/7
To provide the power people need 24/7 solar has to produce it all from 10am til 2pm local time.
What isn’t used between 10 and 2 needs to be stored until it is needed.
Massive and Costly Battery Storage is required to keep the energy gathered between 10 and 2 until it’s needed (the battery will need to go from depleted to full in 4 hours when solar is somewhat effective).
To fill this battery storage from solar will require almost 6 times the capacity over what is used from 10am til 2pm
When they specify nameplate, do they also state the latitude?
And time of year…
Winter sun delivers far less energy than Summer sun
And latitude matters deeply in the production of solar.The greater the latitude or distance from the equator the less solar power production.
Your first 4 words sum up the situation perfectly
And that assumes that clouds, or a partial solar eclipse don’t block the sun during that time.
Solar and wind cannot really work without a massive build up of clean, reliable, nuclear energy production.
Actually, the big commercial nuclear plants are baseload. They do not cycle easily—too much thermal mass. So they won’t help with intermittency. That job is best done by CCGT, which can cycle rapidly anywhere from 100% to 40%. They cannot operate below 40% load—not enough steam.
The oncoming SMR’s will do a better job of load-following than the current generation of large reactors can do.
The problem is that when a reactor isn’t generating power, or is operating at reduced power, it isn’t generating as much income. SMR-type reactors which are technically good at load following must be given a rate structure which allows the owners to recover their capital and operating costs.
What is known but not acknowledged in the nuclear industry is that rising prices for electricity driven by wind & solar mandates create a more friendly economic environment for nuclear power — at least in those power markets where regulators allow access to the new money.
Wrong. All nuclear power plants can be operated on load following. EdF has a number of its reactors set to follow load on a daily basis. And you should know that.
And if you have nuclear, who needs solar and wind for anything? They are of no actual use compared to nuclear.
The propaganda is strong with this one.
Anybody else follow this RV nomad? He just built a solar panel array in Arizona, has some big lithium batts to store it. Solar is okay on a small scale for special apps if the limitations are acceptable, but not for everyone all the time.
Off-Grid Power in CHEAP Lithium Batteries from Redodo ~ 800ah LiFeE04 – YouTube
The same applies to wind.
Even if I was an eco-loon (instead of a common-sense-Canuck) I would be upset that governments are forcing a build out of wind, solar and battery storage that is practically obsolete when finally installed and being built at inflated prices, which also have inflated the prices of energy and everything else – definitely hurting marginalized and racialized groups disproportionately!
Since the tech needs to improve a lot, I can understand funding research.
I can understand building out nuclear power, which can be built at an affordable price if the regulators regulate instead of just drowning projects in red tape just to justify their existence and possibly serve hidden masters in the anti-nuke cult.
I can even understand phasing out coal in favour of CCGTs, if the scrubbers aren’t good enough.
But I can’t understand governments subsidizing and fanatics insisting on alpha version tech that is destined for the landfill before it’s time – the tech say 10 years from now will be better enough that the developer will replace the existing units with new ones to maximize profits.
My best explanation (in the UK) is that governments were simply duped. They were convinced that what was needed was subsidies to ‘prime the pump’ then the free market would do the rest. Once the market was properly established, costs would come down over time and everything in the garden would be rosy.
The treasury is gradually trying to make it harder by withdrawal of subsidies as reality begins to bite.
Of course, the green-spending departments and associated enviro-leeches start to squeal like stuck pigs. But the Treasury is the most powerful department which gets it’s way unless the Cabinet (=Prime Minister) says otherwise.
Well, in the last capacity auction the government set a low price, possibly in response to the wind industry crowing about how cheap they are, and nobody signed up to provide any wind generation.
Exactly.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Energy is a complex discussion, and governments don’t do complex discussions with voters. They are incapable of it.
And they really don’t care. The principle object of any politician is to get reelected. So an easy political choice is wind/solar. And then the political problem of public energy policy goes away until the next term in office.
“… governments don’t do complex …” is all one needs to say. Given a complex topic, the government just kicks that can down the road.
There is no science to support such a belief.
I wonder what they want to optimize? With some tech it was yield or size or density – mostly to improve cost. For example improved production yield and product reliability dropped flat screen TVs from us $10k to a $500 in two decades, and now everybody has several. It seems like solar cells can be made pretty well in high volume and useful form factors as of years ago. What improvement would make solar more worthwhile for broader use?
Flat screens have lots of parts. a 1080p screen has 1,920 columns multiplied by 1,080 rows for a total of 2,073,600 pixels. The newer 4K screens have 3,840 columns and 2,160 rows of pixels. 8,294,400 pixels.
That’s for a black and white monitor. If you want color you have to multiply by 3.
And all those pixels have to work. A single dead pixel can ruin a display. And a bad pixel can’t be replaced.
Before an integrated circuit or a solar cell can be made, you first need to create an ingot of pure silicon. Early ingots were only an inch or two in diameter. Last time I read up on the process, the ingots had gotten up to about 6 inches. I wasn’t able to find anything indicating how big the current largest ingots are.
Why does this matter?
Because thin slices of these ingots is what solar cells are made of. The ingots are sliced into thin slices, then are doped with various chemicals to create the solar cell.
The cells are then tested to verify that they meet standards, then a large number of them are mounted on a board of some kind, wired together and then sealed to protect them from the weather.
This system is already automated. The vast majority of cells that are generated pass these tests. I don’t know what the actual current pass rate is, but if it’s 98%, increasing it to 99% won’t provide much of a cost savings.
The process is similar for solar cells that are being made from things other than silicon.
Individual wafers can be made bigger by making the ingots bigger. The industry is already working on that, because the more individual ICs that you can squeeze onto a single wafer, the cheaper you can make those ICs.
There simply aren’t any places where major cost savings can be found.
Author: …renewable technologies are projected to make up 40% of the total mineral demand for copper and rare earth elements, between 60 and 70% for nickel and cobalt, and almost 90% for lithium by 2040.
Comment: plus the minerals for a few 100 million BEV’S? Any chance that quantitatively the author has missed some issues? Incredible.
I read someplace that it will take more than 4 times the current available Copper mining capacity just to replace all current ICE vehicles in the UK. And more than 5 times THAT to replace those in the USA
A !ere 40% must be S L O W G R O W T H and not replacement by 2040
Missed the word GLOBAL
that copper is current Global Mining Capacity
“Not enough resources” arguments don’t usually look good in 10 years.
It takes about that long to get a mine into production. How many are currently under development? Not enough to get you where you want to be by 2045. Which used to be 2035. Which used to be 2025. I can’t help but sense a pattern here…
Goal Posts…Goal Posts…keep on moving Goal Posts
Sort of like fusion power is just around the corner?
Looks like a great time to invest in mining machinery! A good example of a fine capitalist industry happy to see the climate emergency.
The ecolooons don’t want to replace every ICE vehicle, they want most of us to go by bus.
Math is hard (and, of course, racist).
Governments of the world should start convincing people of the potential of solar energy in a simple way. Manufacture an outdoor garden light that is solar powered and can be given away free to each home. Make one that puts out the light equivalent of a 25 watt incandescent bulb. Make it put out that much light all night until dawn. Make it do this every day for 10 years without losing brightness or duration. If something as simple as that can’t be done first, then there’s no use in trying to go any further.
I have solar lights in the garden – they work for an hour in autumn/winter – is this where our grids heading?!
Mine last until about 2 AM. But nothing good ever happens after Midnight so I guess that would be OK.
The house I moved to in the spring of 2022 has a solar powered light over the south facing side door. The PV on its upper surface is about 6.5″ x 2.75″. The down facing side has 29 square LEDs, 3mm on a side, spaced over its surface, a motion detector taking the place of what could be the 30’th LED in the LED array. It is switched on and off by the presence/absence of sunlight.
Situated right below the rain gutter, it constantly produces enough light to see the landing area immediately below it. When the door is opened from the inside, or approached on the outside, the motion detector switches it from idle light mode to full brightness, making using a door key easy and assuring safe footing. Maybe not equal to a “25 watt” incandescent bulb but quite bright in the nighttime.
In the summer I have often been up when the rising sun gets bright enough to turn it off. From beginning of night until then, it remains on at all times. This is in spite of what I suspect is a fault: with no nearby motion, quite a few times each night, it flares to full brightness at random intervals and stays lit for 10 seconds or so (as observable from the kitchen window). That means significantly more battery drain than if it stayed at minimum brightness until motion triggered, but it still produces light as long as it is dark outside.
I have no idea where it came from as there are no identification markings on it and I have no idea how long it has been there.
Make sure it works in winter, when days are short, nights are long and it is cold all of the time.
“Make it do this every day for 10 years without losing brightness or duration. If something as simple as that …”
Simple? Nothing has ever worked that well.
The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) has a category in its power sector called “Fossil/Biomass” that means burning stuff. Mostly this involves burning waste from paper and wood products and landfill gas. About once per month I take “my stuff” to a transfer station (dump) and see others dumping burnable materials. It goes to a landfill about 70 miles away. I predict that more of this will be used to produce electricity when the climate-scam dies.
The first chart of this post shows nuclear decreasing. That, I think, is wrong.
If that was true, why would the Uranium Nuclear Energy ETF (NLR) be rising over the past 7 months? URNM and URA etfs are up big this month.
Companies like X-Energy and NuScale Power are signing contracts to build reactors (pending NRC certification or recertification, respectively).
I think a lot of readers looked at the Nuclear category of the charts questioningly. One can only assume the authors didn’t know what to do with it, so they assumed it would keep goig on the same way it seems to have gone for about 30 years. Rabid resistance may have given way ti willful ignorance, leaving people who care, both for and against, as historical footnotes.
“The first chart of this post shows nuclear decreasing. That, I think, is wrong.”
Nuclear gigawatt hours produced worldwide will grow substantially in the next forty years. What the chart shows is that nuclear’s percentage of the world’s total energy production will decline as solar PV takes on the bulk of the world’s energy production. Or so the authors claim. It’s all horse puckey of course, but lots of people believe it.
A lot of nuclear power plants are older. As units are being retired due to age, they aren’t being replaced by newer nuclear units.
‘Research’ has taken on a new meaning. Models of pixie dust.
“based on a data-driven model of technology and economics”
So they know when the next Great Depression comes?
I think they’ll have more luck in banishing the night than of being energy source #1
“Solar energy is the most widely available energy resource on Earth.”
Last time I checked, there is no place on Earth where the wind never blows.
But there is still not much solar at night and in polar winters for months on end.
There is another place where the sun don’t shine, which is probably the best place for that person’s opinions.
Actually, for topological reasons, there is always at least one place on earth where the wind doesn’t blow.
This pathetic ‘research’ was funded in part by the U.K. Department of Energy. Little wonder that the U.K. is in such a mess. Exeter is vying to be the Potsdam Institute of the U.K.
Incredibly (from the link): “During COP28, a research team led by the University of Exeter will publish the first Global Tipping Points Report, the most comprehensive ever assessment of climate tipping points and positive tipping points that could help tackle the climate crisis.”
The hubris is mind boggling!
Pretty sure they crossed the hubris tipping point a long time ago… 😉
Can they also predict when the Yellowstone volcano will blow, when the asteroid Apophis will hit and if aliens will eventually make contact (maybe they have a way to control the climate?)
Well, Apophis is scheduled to hit Earth in 2036, Aliens have already made contact, so as Meatloaf sang, Two out of Three Ain’t Bad.
Apophis is scheduled for a close pass only. Do you have evidence that is somewhat better than unidentified lights?
Apophis will supposedly do a close pass in 2029 and then return in 2036. Now, the government will not let on that it has a very good chance of hitting Earth. That would cause all kinds of panic and disrupt future investing. As for aliens, “A Truth Revealed” by Timothy Brown and his follow up “Another Truth Revealed” are supposed to be based on true events. Both are on Kindle. If actually only mostly true, it is good evidence of alien presence.
They’ve refined the orbit of Apophis sufficiently to determine that it will not pass through the keyhole in its 2029 pass so it won’t be hitting the Earth in its 2036 pass.
Haven’t read that book, but all the other ones that I have read, their “evidence” has always been on the lines of, here’s something strange, it must be space aliens. Or there’s no way our ancestors could have done this without help, must have been space aliens.
As to writing a book, when you only present the evidence that supports your case and don’t let anyone challenge your interpretation of the evidence you do present, anyone can prove anything.
Exeter is actually bent on outdoing the Potsdam Institute. It has a number of wackos including James Dyke author of ‘Fire, Storm and Flood: The violence of of climate change’
leaving lower-income countries – particularly those in Africa – deficient in solar finance despite the enormous investment potential.
Can’t seem to wrap my mind around that statement. How is there enormous investment potential in a lower income country?
You gotta think like a Marxist. Poor countries need outside investment, therefore it’s an enormous investment opportunity.
–Karl Marx, the least funny Marx Brother.
Yeah, that stops working when most people lose the ability to do anything.
I hate to be pee on the parade, but has anyone analysed the risk to solar of volcanic activity and resultant ash? I know, it will never happen……………..
I lived 250 miles east of Mt. Saint Helens. My house got ½ inch of very fine ash. A nice mess, it was. No solar panels to worry about.
Volcanoes are fortunately, quite rare. Your panels will be covered by dust long before they need to worry about ash.
How do these people keep their jobs. This is nonsense, is there no one checking their work. I would fire all of them.
Thanks for the post, David…educational and entertaining once again. I believe the one of the crossbeams on the common-sense treadle used by Nijsse et al., 2023 was askew.
Regards,
Bob
You’re making this too complicated. We simply need to return to a lifestyle and technology that pre dates the discovery of fire. Simple.
Ooops sorry, I just modelled that suggestion, and the methane released by 7.5 billion dead humans that would result from this would actually increase the worlds temperature, at least for a little while.
Pre dating agriculture will do it. Then forest for firewood will grow faster than people — and there will be no government grant money.
I suppose it depends how you define “data”.
It also depends on how you define “study”, “based”, “driven”, “model”, “technology” and “economics”.
Making fun of this toxic sludge is the best alternative to weeping in dismay at the demise of the 18th century Enlightenment. It had a good run of 250 years. Age of Reason, RIP. We miss you.
I read a book back in ’04.. Seeing What’s Next: Using Theories of Innovation to Predict Industries
Change. I found it quite interesting, especially a few years later during the big crash in 08-09
in energy. The theory of disruptive innovation has many examples, the one that rose up during
that time was fracking. Another one that failed that I really liked was Green Crude. Using a
genetically modified algae that mimicked crude oil. But solar electrical power seems to miss
all the buttons of disruptive innovation..I’ve made a few dollars in the stock market using the
parameters of disruptive innovation, starting with a purchase of Microsoft stock at under $5/sh
back in the early 90’s.
“Decarbonisation plans across the globe require zero-carbon energy sources to be widely deployed by 2050 or 2060”.
Across the globe? What planet might that be?
“a global irreversible solar tipping point”
WTF?
“Political opposition”: Reeducation camps.
Jordon Peterson is being sent to one by his professional licensing board in Canada. He doesn’t really need the license so could just ignore it but he’s going to do it just to play rough with them. He’s had on his YouTube channels many climate skeptics. I don’t agree with all his views but I do respect his opinions and I do enjoy most of his videos.
When did it slip to 2060?
Not here in Wokeachusetts. It’s 362 pages of climate emergency totalitarianism. Every state agency must participate. All hands on deck! I’m planning on studying it- then ranting about it- and maybe making a video about the insanity. Check it out, everyone.
Statewide Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan
Not only do they require new builds but every existing solar plant will have or be approaching the end of it’s life by 2050.
The sad/frightening thing is there is a significant percent of the populace who will swallow this nonsense hook, line and sinker.
& we give them the vote !!!
Boy, the authors should meet the folks of this reality:
https://www.americanexperiment.org/solar-farm-components-are-starting-to-fail-after-only-10-to-15-years/
Whilst I am very skeptical about the ‘claimed harmful effects’ that human CO2 emissions have in changing the climate, I have a lot of confidence in the capacity of science and technological development to produce amazing results in the future.
The goal of the development of ‘clean’ renewable energy sources should be to find methods of producing energy more efficiently than current fossil fuel methods.
As solar panel and battery storage technologies develop, it should be possible in the future, if not already possible, to build a new house designed to produce more electricity than is required to run all household appliances and recharge the BEV. The surplus electricity could be sold through the grid.
In other words, the house could effectively be a miniature solar farm. Now I understand that many posters on this site will claim this idea is just fanciful nonsense, and could never happen in reality. To some extent, I would agree that for many people who lead fanciful lives and who are not concerned about living efficiently, this could never happen for them in reality.
Such a reality would exist only for sensible and pragmatic people. For example, when people buy a new house, most are concerned about the appearance of the house. The appearance of a house designed to maximize the production of solar energy might not appeal to many people.
Australia, because it’s a relatively sunny country, has a lot of homes with solar panels. However, most roofs have only one side that is tilted towards the sun, and usually less than half of that one side is covered with solar panels. Now, imagine if the entire roof area, built using solar tiles, were tilted towards the sun, and all the windows were covered with ‘solar film’, and any other building on the site, such as a garage and/or shed, also had the entire roof covered with solar panels, or better still, built using solar tiles with a life expectancy of 40 to 50 years.
In such a scenario, the amount of solar power generated would be about 10 times or more, than the amount currently produced by the average home with solar panels on the roof.
Of course, this could cause a huge oversupply to the grid during sunny periods, which is why a battery storage system in the house would be mandatory for such homes, if they were connected to the grid.
Since there will be a continuing stress on materials required for Lithium-ion batteries, as BEV production continues to increase, a new battery system, which doesn’t rely upon scarce materials, will be required. The Sodium-Ion battery seems to meet the requirements for batterry storage, although not ideal for EVs, yet.
“Sodium-ion batteries offer a versatile and economically viable option by relying on an alkaline metal so abundant on Earth and with relatively low production costs. They provide energy efficient power with fast charging, stability against temperature extremes and safety against overheating or thermal runaway.”
https://www.iberdrola.com/sustainability/environment/energy-efficiency/sodium-ion-batteries#:~:text=Sodium%2Dion%20batteries%20offer%20a,against%20overheating%20or%20thermal%20runaway
From Wikipedia:
“Electric vehicles using sodium-ion battery packs are not yet commercially available. However, CATL, the world’s biggest battery manufacturer, announced in 2022 the start of mass production of SIBs. In February 2023, the Chinese HiNa Battery Technology Co., Ltd. placed a 140 Wh/kg sodium-ion battery in an electric test car for the first time, and energy storage manufacturer Pylontech obtained the first sodium-ion battery certificate from TÜV Rheinland.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-ion_battery
Vincent, it is easy to extol the virtues of solar power if you live in a country like Australia. However, solar power in Europe is a joke. I live in Scotland where solar capacity utilisation falls to 1% in winter. Most other European countries aren’t much better. So solar power fails drastically when power demand is highest.
http://euanmearns.com/solar-pv-potential-in-scotland/
Of course. I’m not suggesting there’s one solution that’s ideal for all locations. It’s obviously silly to build solar farms in areas where the sun doesn’t shine on most days, and build windmills in areas that are relatively calm most of the time.
We have data on the areas that have the most and the least sunshine. Here’s one site that provides some details.
https://sleepopolis.com/blog/world-cities-ranked-by-average-annual-sunshine-hours/
The battery shell game ..
[…]
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/10/sodium-ion-batteries-shaping-up-to-be-big-technology-breakthrough.html
“Sodium-ion batteries can’t provide the type of range for electric vehicles offered by lithium-ion batteries…”
However, if they are cheap, durable and safe, they could serve the purpose of battery storage in homes, which could be used to recharge the EV batteries during the night, when the sun doesn’t shine.
“Now the power load on the electric grid is enormous. It can be really hard for the grid to support all those vehicle chargers simultaneously.”
If the petrol and diesel used in domestic ICE vehicles were transferred to large scale generators connected to the grid, they could provide sufficient electricity to fuel about 3 times the number of BEVs compared to ICE vehicles, each driven the same number of kilometres.
BEVs are far more energy efficient than ICE vehicles. Didn’t you know that?
If they were cheap durable and safe, they wouldn’t be lithium-ion.
Could you supply a source for that, please?
Sure. Always ready to help.
“According to the Department of Energy (DOE), in an EV, about 59-62 percent of the electrical energy from the grid goes to turning the wheels, whereas gas combustion vehicles only convert about 17-21 percent of energy from burning fuel into moving the car. This means that an electric vehicle is roughly three times as efficient as an ICE vehicle. Needing less energy to power your car also helps bring down the cost.”
https://www.nrdc.org/bio/madhur-boloor/electric-vehicle-basics#:~:text=This means that an electric,helps bring down the cost
You’ve missed the thermal efficiency of the electricity generation, the transmission losses, and the battery charging loss.
The DOE figures for diesels are also wrong, though petrol (gasoline) is reasonable for older vehicles.
Turbo-diesels are around 40% thermal efficiency and 85 – 90% mechanical efficiency (say 35% overall efficiency)
Conventionally aspirated petrol vehicles are around 25% to 35% thermal efficiency.
To match the turbo-diesel’s 35% overall efficiency, what thermal efficiency would you need burning it to power the generator?
btw, the electrical efficiency of the BEV seems a little low to me.
I was just testing your capacity for logic. (wink)
Yes, I was wrong in claiming that large scale generators connected to the grid could provide sufficient electricity to fuel as much as 3 times the number of BEVs as ICE vehicles, using the same amount of gasoline.
The point I was making is that a large scale generator will produce energy more efficiently than a small scale vehicle-ICE generator. That extra efficiency should more than take care of the losses during electricity transmissions and battery charging of the EVs.
My post was in answer to the question ‘how could the electric grid meet the challenges of increased electricity demand for charging BEVs if they became the norm?
I can’t find any precise data, but from the evidence available, it seems reasonable to presume if the gasoline used in ICE vehicles were used to generate electricity from an efficient, large-scale generator, then the electricity produced would be more than sufficient to fuel all the BEVs that have replaced the ICE vehicles. However, 3 times is an exaggeration. The true figure is perhaps only 20% more, excluding energy from solar power.
If a large percentage of EV owners were to recharge their vehicles from their own solar panels, then that would significantly reduce the stress on the grid.
I’ve told yo a thousand times not to exaggerate 🙂
20 -25% is probably close to the mark if the fuel is used for CCGT generators. OCGT is far less efficient. Surprisingly, big diesel engined generators have much the same efficiency as CCGT, but apparently cost a lot more to maintain.
The problem with this comparison, is that you are only comparing what happens to electricity in the car. You ignore the inefficiencies of generating that electricity in the first place, and then getting it from the plant to the car.
When you add all the factors in, not just the few factors that make EVs look good, you find out that at best, efficiency is a wash, with the odds that ICEVs are a little more efficient.
I don’t have any precise costing of all the details involved in the processes, so I just have to use my common sense. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s more efficient to transport energy in the form of electricity than in the form of liquid gasoline in trucks that have to be regularly maintained and involve drivers that have to be paid a salary?
Isn’t it more efficient to transport large quantities of gasoline to just one location where there’s a large and efficient electricity generator, rather than transport many smaller quantities to individual petrol stations?
My general position on all energy sources is that they should not only be as clean as possible, but used as efficiently as possible. The EV appears to me to be a significantly more efficient device than an ICE vehicle, especially if all the electricity it uses is generated by reliable fossil fuels, and especially if battery storage in homes with solar roofs, becomes more affordable, allowing the EV owner to recharge the vehicle overnight.
The problem is that there is no excess power from wind and solar during the day. They can’t build enough to power what we already have.
According to the linked Wiki article, sodium-ion batteries have lower energy density by weight compared to lithium-ion. Volumetric energy density ranges overlap for the two types, but at the high range L-ion batteries are also significantly more compact.
140 Wh/kg = 0.14 KWh/kg. If you assume 3 miles per KWh of battery, then a sodium-ion battery giving a range of 350 miles (sorry to mix imperial and metric units here, but 350 miles is a typical range for a gasoline ICE vehicle), would be 116.6 KWh and weigh ( 350 / 0.14 ) = 833.3 kg (1,837 lbs). That’s over half the total weight of a typical passenger vehicle.
A Na-ion battery that can go 350 miles without dropping below 20% charge, would be 145.8 KWh and weigh 1,041.7 kg (2,297 lbs).
Depending on the electrolyte used, Na-ion fire hazard can be as high as L-ion. Naturally, the highest energy density electrolyte comes with the highest hazard.
Durability (lifetime charge/discharge cycles) appears not markedly different for the two types.
The main advantage of Na-ion appears to be cost due to more abundant materials, but the figure given ($40-$77 / KWh) is theoretical as there is no actual manufacturing data to go by.
A lower cost battery that is just as hazardous as L-ion while being bulkier and heavier is not the breakthrough the EV industry is looking for.
Having said all the above, there is still a viable market for any battery which improves on lead-acid, which is still used almost exclusively in automotive, golf cart, and UPS applications. It appears from the Wikipedia comparison chart that Na-ion achieves this goal in all aspects — assuming the safer aqueous electrolyte doesn’t give up too much energy density.
I personally would love better UPS batteries.
A smaller lighter battery would be loved by the automotive industry. Which is why they have people scanning the literature looking for candidates.
If one existed, I’m sure it’s already been evaluated.
10 times??? 2 or 3 times, at the very most.
There is no solar cell that will last 40 to 50 years. The substrate may last that long, but the solar cell itself will last only 20 years or less.
Redesign the house away from the cheapest, to one that will maximize solar collection.
Add solar panels.
Add batteries.
You really hate homeowners, don’t you.
Even in a place like Australia, it’s more virtue signaling than virtue.
As I understand, the warranty period for the solar cells in solar tiles refers to the percentage of output over a period of 25 or 30 years
For example, “The power output warranty guarantees that your solar roof’s performance won’t decrease to any less than 95% at five years and won’t decrease any more than 0.5% per year for the next 20 years.”
In other words, the warranty guarantees that the power output should be no less than 85% of the initial output after 25 years. That does not mean that the solar tiles suddenly stop producing electricity after 25 years. There will likely be a continuing degradation of output over the next 10, 20 or perhaps even 30 years, before the system stops producing entirely,
If the electricity production was initially twice the amount the home-owner uses, the surplus being fed into the grid, then after, say, 40 years, the solar tiles might still provide all the electricity the owner uses.
In 40 years’ time, solar technology will have developed significantly, so there will likely be many more efficient options available, and the defunct solar tiles might still serve as a substrate, after some degree of maintenance.
Twice, the power needed by the home? Are you utterly delusional, in the best of circumstances, you will be lucky to get 10% of what a house needs. And that’s when the panel is brand new.
BTW, you are only counting the degradation of a panel in a laboratory setting. In the real world, where panels frequently get quite hot, the degradation is a lot faster. You are also not counting the degradation of the glass as it slowly accumulates scratches, grime and dust.
You are also completely ignoring the fact that solar only produces it’s max value for a few hours a day. Between sunrise and a few hours after sunrise, as well as sunset and a few hours before sunset the amount of power you get from your panels is close enough to zero that the difference isn’t worth talking about.
Beyond that as the seasons cause the sun to move higher and lower in the sky. You get the most power on the longest day of the year. The amount of power drops daily until the shortest day of the year. This drop in power is not only due to the day itself being shorter, it’s also due to the fact that the sun is no longer hitting your panels at a 90 degree angle and the fact that the sunlight has to pass through more atmosphere to reach your panels.
Please, try to learn all of the facts, not just the ones that support the position you have decided to take.
Fuels of the future always will be fuels of the future.
The main thing working against them is Physics.
Anyway isn’t solar already 98% of our energy supply, and don’t we have huge storage batteries underground stuffed with it just waiting to supply us?
“There’s no power like solar power
Like no power I know
Everything about it is concealing
All the bad about it disavowed
Nowhere do they get that happy feeling
When they are stealing from that cash cow …”
Well, other than a couple of drawbacks, this idea should work just fine. It says so here on paper.
Solar is and has been the primary source of energy.
And it’s been stored for later use.
All we need to do is find the “batteries” then dig it out or pump it up.
Who needs “panels”?