My repeated calls for a Demonstration Project of a zero-emissions electrical grid have led to a spirited debate among knowledgeable commenters. While most back my position, some say that a Demonstration Project is really not necessary and would be a waste of effort.
The gist of the argument of those disputing the necessity of a Demonstration Project is that it is so obvious that a zero-emissions grid powered predominantly by wind and solar generation cannot be achieved that the expense and effort of building an actual physical facility cannot be justified. Before the building of a physical demonstration project there would inevitably be an engineering feasibility study, and such a feasibility study would not get through its first day before everybody involved realized that this could never work. All it would take would be a few back-of-the-envelope calculations using basic arithmetic and the whole endeavor would be sunk.
Regular commenter Richard Greene leads the forces arguing against a demonstration project. From a comment by Richard on my August 10 post:
A good demonstration project that included manufacturing and farming is very likely not needed. A real local utility Nut Zero grid engineering plan on paper would have grid engineers laughing hysterically. The money allocated for backup batteries would be nowhere close to paying for the battery GWh capacity needed. Backup natural gas power plants could do the job, but gas backup is not wanted. . . . 100% wind and solar can never work due to compound energy droughts, wind drought and solar droughts (batteries are far too expensive).
Representative of the pro-demonstration project side is a comment from “dm” on the August 13 post. Excerpt:
Because many people doubt paper analyses, lived experience is a necessary teacher. Thus, demonstration projects are NEEDED to prove the folly of “sustainable” electricity grids. Furthermore, the demonstration projects MUST be in regions heavily populated with nut zero enthusiasts, and ALL costs MUST be paid SOLELY by households, businesses, institutions … located within the demonstration areas.
My natural sympathies here would lie with Richard’s side of this debate. How can spending what would likely be billions of dollars of public money be justified when calculations that I have made or verified myself show that the project will never come close to success?
But then we must look at what is happening in large states and countries that are proceeding toward the stated goal of a zero-emissions grid without ever having had a working demonstration project. In some of these cases (Germany, UK) the wasted resources are now into the trillions, not billions. And at some point the whole effort will inevitably be ended with some kind of hard-to-predict catastrophe (long blackouts? multiplication of consumer costs by a factor of ten or more?). By then, many of the working resources that have made the grid function will have been destroyed and will have to be re-created, at a cost of further trillions.
Consider the case of Germany. Germany is a very substantial country (80+ million people, making it twice the size of California and four times the size of New York), with the world’s fourth largest GDP at over $4 trillion annually. Germany was one of the first to start down the road to a zero-emissions grid back in the 1990s, and formally adopted its “Energiewende” fourteen years ago in 2010. Germany has proceeded farther than any other large country in converting its electricity generation to wind and solar.
And yet, as I look around for information on Germany’s progress toward zero-emissions electricity, I can’t find any concern or recognition that this might not be doable in the end. Perhaps that exists in German language sources that I can’t read. But from anything I can find, it looks like Germany is forging ahead in the blind faith that if only they build enough wind turbines and solar panels at some point they will have the zero-emissions electricity that they crave.
Go to the website of the Umweltbundesamt (Federal Environmental Agency) for the latest information. At least on the electricity front, you will not find any indication that there may be problems in achieving the zero-emissions utopian future:
The “Energiewende” – Germany’s transition towards a secure, environmentally friendly, and economically successful energy future – includes a large-scale restructuring of the energy supply system towards the use of renewable energy in all sectors. . . . [T]he switch towards renewables in the electricity sector has been very successful so far. . . . While in the year 2000 renewables accounted for 6.3 percent of electricity demand only, its [sic] share has been growing significantly over the past years, exceeding 10 percent in the year 2005 and 25 per cent in the year 2013. In 2023 renewable energy sources provided 272 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and account for 51.8 percent of German electricity demand. With wind power being by far the most important energy source in the German electricity mix.
Some 30+ years into this process, and they’re only up to barely over 50% of their electricity from “renewables.” And while they may claim that “wind power [is] by far the most important source in the German electricity mix,” in fact when you get a breakdown you find that wind and solar together provided well less than 50%. According to solar advocates Fraunhofer Institute here, in 2023 “biomass” provided some 42.3 TWh of Germany’s electricity (about 8%), hydro provided 19.5 TWh (about 4%), and “waste non-renewable” (I think that means burning garbage) provided 4.5 TWh (about 1%). That leaves under 40% for wind and solar.
If they keep building solar and wind facilities, and expect batteries to be the backup, has anybody calculated how much battery storage they will need? Not that I can find. Here is a website of a company called Fluence, which is an affiliate of German industrial giant Siemens. They excitedly predict a rapid expansion of grid storage in Germany:
Storage capacity will grow 40-fold to 57 GWh by 2030.
Wow, a 40-fold increase! It may sound like a lot. But Germany’s average electricity demand is about 50 GW, so the 57 GWh of battery storage in 2030 will come to about 1 hour’s worth. Competent calculations of the amount of energy storage needed to back up a predominantly wind/solar grid run in the range of around 500 to 1000 hours.
Here from another website is a chart of the growth of energy storage in Germany up to this year.
Look at that acceleration! But the 10 GWh of storage that they currently have will last no more than about 10 minutes when the wind and sun quit producing on a calm night.
In short, this large and seemingly sophisticated country is completely delusional, with no sane voices anywhere to be heard. A demonstration project that fails spectacularly is the only thing with any hope of saving them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If it fails they will just use it as an excuse to impose more Demand Management. So pay even more at peak periods so you turn the electricity off yourself and the last of your Industry goes overseas.
I think the Germans are finding much more success on the demand destruction side. Industrial production is down, bankruptcies are up.
It may be possible to MAKE renewables work…on a limited basis and where conditions are favorable. The two main things to consider are both Density related.
Population Density
Energy Density or Available airable land
Both must be correlated
The greater the population density the more energy density is required or more land must be dedicated for less dense energy sources
I would suggest El Hierro was conclusive. Even with favorable weather and geology, wind and storage do not work worth bupkis.
I had to google “bupkis”- never heard it before.
Bupkis is a lot of nothing. 🙂
kind of a combination of ‘a lot of nothing’ with ‘a bunch of crap’ (as in goat shit). Less than nothing.
here is a comment I made on Mr. Mentons web site. It was in response to a comment by Richard Greene who felt the same way:
As the Contrarian has pointed out several times, there is an all-renewables demonstration project erected and operating on the Atlantic island of El Hierro. The system consists of several wind turbines, a pumped storage facility and an assortment of electricity grooming equipment needed to convert the turbine outputs to usable electricity. It was designed and advertised to provide all of the island’s electricity but produces only about half, and zero at times. To enlarge it would have as good chance of success as can be, if “chance” is even relevant in such an engineering project, because the island is in the reliable Atlantic trade winds, which are as reliable as wind ever gets. The operator of the system used to publish on their web site a “dashboard” showing just how much electricity was being produced by the system minute by minute . The dashboard has been eliminated, likely because it too often showed that little or nothing was coming from the wind turbines or water reservoir. A group of diesel generators intended as backup has to produce all the needed electricity when there is no wind and at other times are operated to fill in the holes left by erratic wind machine output. Since it was erected several years ago, the system has provided roughly half of the island’s electric power at a very high cost reduced by Spanish subsidies, for which the islanders are likely quite thankful.
El Hierro is a small island so I expect that to increase the number of wind turbines and enlarge the pumped storage machine as calculated to produce all the needed electricity all of the time would cost less than we are spending in any year on any one NASA or NOAA climate model. So if the US Government offered such assistance to Spain, we would have our demonstration project. I am sure that Professor Mark Jacobson of Stanford could produce such calculations. He is notably adept at such things.
The problem as I see it Mr. Greene, is that a demonstration project has been tried in El Hierro island (Spain) without success and not NOAA, nor NASA, nor any US Government office, nor the press have report the results of this experiment so few know of it. Without a Government willing to observe and act on very clear unmistakable data regarding “renewables” it seems you may be right. To build such an intended system, even on a small island, is a fool’s errand. The issue seems not to be lack of a demonstration, it is the failure of our Government (at every level) and that of far too many other Governments to believe in the science and engineering of renewables and climate science.
Madness reigns.
Interested readers should also look up King Island electricity on the web. This island is located in another very windy place, Bass Strait, between Australia and the larger island of Tasmania. It has been equipped with a renewables system intended to provide the bulk of the needed electricity. The results are about the same as El Hierro – on average roughly half comes from renewables and the balance from diesels. King Island at least maintains a dashboard so you can see for yourself. As I write this, 93% of the island’s electricity is coming from diesels.
Isn’t King Island already a useful demonstration site for the viability / efficacy of an attempt at 100% wind & solar backed up by batteries?
There is wind and diesel backup, no storage other than a small flywheel to balance load.
[CTRL-F] Search on “nuclear” comes up 0/0
which reminds me:
It’s Happening – China Launches World’s First Thorium Nuclear Reactor
It is, of course, a false report. A Thorium breeder reactor core was designed, built, and installed in the water-cooled Shippingport Atomic Power Station over 50 years ago in the early 1970s. It was based on the Thorium 232-Uranium 233 reaction wherein fissioning of the U233 produced neutrons which converted Thorium 232 which is not fissionable to fissionable Uranium 233. Uranium 233 is not suitable for making weapons because it is too radioactive to handle in such a form. The reactor therefore met the concerns of the day regarding nuclear weapon proliferation. The reactor operated for a few years, was shutdown and examined to reveal that it produced about 3% more usable U233 than it started out with. This information was filed and promptly forgotten and least by whomever wrote the China article.
Shippingport was not a commercial reactor – it was a test reactor devoted to research and development. China created a pilot scale commercial reactor and tested it and and next is building the world’s first commercial scale thorium reactor. US DOE also built two other experimental breeder reactors in Idaho, but neither was commercial scale.
You do not correctly describe the reactions. Th232 absorbs a neutron, becomes U233, which in turn either absorbs another neutron becoming U234, or it fissions releasing energy, neutrons, and daughter products.
U233 is not “too radioactive to handle in such a form”, which is a little silly when you think on it for a few seconds. U233 is a product of a thorium blanket breeder reactor, and it can be used as the fissile material in either another reactor (including a thorium blanket breeder) or a nuclear weapon. U233 is actually slightly less likely to fission than U235 or Pu239 (i.e., is is slightly more likely to capture a neutron and become U234 than it is to fission and release energy).
Shippingport actually used a US Naval Reactors enriched U235 aircraft carrier reactor initially, then converted to a “breeder” design where the U235 fuel was surrounded by U238 converting it to Pu239. The third and final core of Shippingport was composed of U233 as a “seed” surrounded by Thorium 232 which captures a neutron and converts to U233, which can subsequently be used as fissionable material.
A breeder reactor either starts with a U235 core with Th232 blanket (which is cheap … or U238 which is much more expensive to produce), which creates U233 … or it can start with a U233 core also surrounded by Th232, producing more U233.
The reason that U233 hasn’t been used in commercial reactors to date is because there is little supply of U233. Nearly all U233 is produced from neutron capture of Th232, and there is very little of that available. Once we start using thorium blanket breeder reactors, there will be a correspondingly larger supply of U233.
U 233 is fissionable, but is too prone to predetonation to be practical in a bomb. I.E. there is a good chance it would fizzle.
Not true at all. U233 most certainly can be used in a bomb. It is only slightly less likely to fission than either U235 or Pu239. It is a function of the “fission cross section” of each isotope. All current generation nuclear weapons, whether fission or fusion, use accelerants (like tritium) anyway to greatly boost the yield as a function of the amount of fissionable material available.
The reason that U233 isn’t currently used for bombs is because there just isn’t much available because it is only produced at scale in breeder reactors.
That is also the reason that Pres. Carter issued an executive order banning commercial scale breeder reactors, because of the fear that they would greatly impact nuclear weapons non-proliferation efforts. The objective was to limit the amount of U233 created.
I expect Germany, like other countries in Europe will rely on interconnection between countries to over come supply problems. France with it’s nuclear power plants etc. the problem with this strategy is that, in certain circumstances it could mean large parts of Europe being drawn into a power drought.
Unfortunately, if the EU has anything to do with it, Brussels will advocate even more renewables to overcome the problem. Just like they did when the Euro financial market is in trouble.
Mean while here in the UK we’ve got Mr Ed in charge of keeping the lights on, that’s why I’ve booked January in Spain where at least I can save some money on heating.
Mr Ed
good writers
“…. rely on interconnection between countries to over come supply problems…”
somewhat but hardly enough
Germany already relies on interconnections with other countries (like Poland and France) to compensate for the ups and downs of its “renewable” generation. The neighbors have complained bitterly about the spill over when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. But they rake in the euros supplying power when Germany is in a dunkelflaute.
France has had a strong nuclear energy program since the 1960’s, which currently provides about 75 – 80% of the country’s electrical power, with most of the rest from hydro in the Alps. If Germany’s ultra-green program fails to deliver the required power during a cold, calm night, they may be temporarily bailed out by exported power from France.
It seems like Germany is the poster child for the “failed demonstration project” to show the futility of relying on “renewable” power such as wind and solar. In the 1980’s, West Germany was the dominant industrial nation in the entire European Union, and easily able to absorb the relatively backward East Germany during the “reunification” of Germany in the early 1990’s. Back then, Germany was bragging about its industrial and technological prowess, and other European countries were struggling to compete with the German behemoth.
The later push toward “green” energy in Germany, resulting in the shutdown of not only coal plants but nuclear power plants, has been slow economic suicide for the once-dominant Germany, to the point where they may need to depend on the once-derided France for electric power. Incidentally, radioactive waste from French nuclear power plants is buried in Germany.
It remains to be seen whether Germany will realize the error of its ways, and return to the energy sources that enabled its industrial development.
I too agree that a demonstration project would be a huge waste of effort and time, especially to prove the system doesn’t work. Though it would still prove to be a significantly lesser waste than going forward with full un-vetted implementation.
Unfortunately though, like Flat Earthers, Econutz would be unconvinced regarding the ability of their preferred system of generation to provide reliably affordable power to a modern society. Reliable and affordable have already been disproved.
Too true. They believe the real secrets of the universe are yet to be revealed. Those new insights will overcome all obstacles, including the low power density of sunlight.
Well over a century of (deadly) demonstration projects have shown that communism does not work, and yet it still has its advocates. A demonstration project revealing the shortcomings of renewable energy would likely suffer the same criticisms hardcore communists fling at past failures of their favored ideology. “They did not do it correctly.”
You can lead an Alarmist to Reality, but you can’t make him accept it. Maybe even demonstration projects won’t make a difference.
probably not- they’ll have excuses, otherwise it would be a good idea
Whenever you argue with an alarmist, make sure others are listening or you are wasting your breath/keystrokes. The value of arguing is in getting third-parties to hear the arguments; they might possibly be persuaded, the alarmist? Buckley’s.
Note: Buckley’s is Australian for ‘none’, as in “What chances have you got? Buckley’s and none”.
There you go, end of story. Alarmists are liberals so facts and reality are irrelevant. it’s not their fault, it’s a “condition” with no known cure IMHO.
“”My repeated calls for a Demonstration Project of a zero-emissions electrical grid…””
The reason there isn’t one is it cannot be done. After at least 40 years of this climate doom nonsense someone would have come up with a way or even a reliable technology were it possible.
But that isn’t to say that misery and hardship cannot be thrust upon the great unwashed in the name of an allegedly noble cause – saving the, er, planet. This is the more likely reality, certainly in the UK.
First, you need a true believer in the faith to lead the crusade…
“”Ed Miliband is to take personal control of the UK’s negotiations at vital international climate talks
…
Senior figures in climate diplomacy welcomed the move and said UK leadership would be vital to what is expected to be a tricky and fraught UN climate summit this year.””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/15/ed-miliband-lead-uk-negotiations-cop29-climate-summit
A case of fear the very worst and expect even worse.
so, then, how do we kill off the nut zero idea- if a demonstration project wont do it- and logic doesn’t do it?
we could just wait for civilization to collapse- or not wait- and fight back, harder?
Collapse or very close to it seems likely.
I think the collapse won’t be total- more like the Great Depression.
Only certain Western nations – Russia, China, India and others will be the New Civilization.
Bingo
Eventually the technology will be lost. The easy to tap FF sources will be all exhausted so the energy to recover will no longer exist. Humanity will be trapped in paradise until it dies out. Goal achieved.
But FF resources are far from being exhausted.
With rigorous financial analysis demonstrating the impoverishment that Net Zero will inflict. As with elections, “Its the economy, stupid.”
Will the GOP present such an analysis? We can only hope so.
Republicans in congress are notably listless. I expect nothing, but my representative to the House will receive a strongly worded email tomorrow insisting the House bring forward articles of impeachment against Biden for the now well-documented and treasonous influence-peddling operation he directed while VICE president.
Mr Potato-Ed is one of the dumbest members of a government totally devoid of intelligence. The notion of him leading any negotiation is quite comical.
‘Mr Potato-Ed’ normally refers to Ed Davey (leader of the Liberal party) the idiot who gave Hinkley Point more than they were asking for.
Ed Miliband is the Labour tosspot who pushed the 2008 Climate act
Ed Miliband is the subject of the comment. Davey ran him close as dumbest ever Energy Secretary. Referring to either as Potato-Ed is, to be fair, an insult to potatoes.
I think the UK and Germany ARE our demonstration projects.
If the feasibility study shows it’s not possible and you don’t believe it then you make a demonstration project.
If you are so confident that you don’t think a demonstration is necessary then you build the real industrial size project.
Doesn’t change the end result, just how much it cost to find out.
Maybe the EU’s purpose is to act as a warning about what not to do.
Not deliberately or intentionally.
Nuclear energy as a source of electricity was demonstrated in Atomic City in Idaho. Exactly where is the first demonstration of wind/solar as a sole source of electricity located?
A city with 100 people. One hour. Awesome example. Have you followed renewable news outside this site?
1955
Is that really the best carp you can do? Oh dear.
Its straightforward trolling, as usual – provoking by the posting of absurd and inflammatory material with the aim of getting a rise and producing a flood of responses which then pollute the site.
The true demonstration was at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station near Pittsburgh. The plant reached criticality in 1957 and operated successfully until the early 1980’s. It produced 60 -100 Megawatts which was typical of power plants of the day but was very small compared to today’s machines.
The first wind powered generator was in 1883.
And they still haven’t got any that can provide usable dispatchable electricity.
And the tech has barely changed in the intervening 150 years
No, but the subsidies have grown.
Right Lusername, nuclear doesn’t work at all. The French only get 70%
Very disingenuous of you User. The same could be said for both Wind and Solar at their infancy… As well as today come to think of it.
No Sun, No Solar generation (especially from 4pm until 9am)
No Wind, No Wind Generation (especially under blocking highs)
Either case, no Battery storage, no guarantee of power during peak usage hours
Whenever you build something complex as a new grid system, yes you should try it on a small scale. And yes it must be done by believers otherwise many of the same mind would not accept the failure. However, like most of the people of this type of irrational and innumerate set of the population, they may not accept the results no mater what. I cannot tell you how many people have stated to my that Marxism works, it just has not been implemented the right way. My fear is that these people will think that there wasn’t enough money, the ones implementing it did not believe in it enough, and the list goes on and on. The only good it would do is for those lower information people still able to understand the realities of the situation. It would still be cheaper then doing the entire state or country.
I’m afraid I’ve got to agree with ‘dm’ when he said: “Because many people doubt paper analyses, lived experience is a necessary teacher.” Probably half the crowd don’t trust maths enough to accept paper analysis. They have to be shown a physical system.
There’s an old mountain adage that applies: ‘You can tell a kid a hundred times not to play with fire. But, give him a couple of minutes of field experience, and he’ll quickly learn.‘
A demo project is probably needed to show the masses (who don’t do calculations and don’t listen to people who do) how badly it would fail.
But even a demo like that would fail to convince many true believers.
unless they’re IN the demo project- as Roger said above, the UK and Germany are the demo projects
Not to be a pessimist JZ, but how’s your electric bill lately? How much do you suppose the average ‘newcomer’ (illegal alien fake-asylum seeker living in a Boston hotel) is paying for electricity? How about the welfare queens living in the projects?
For July, $365! Running 3 ACs. Not happy about it. I suspect the “migrants” are paying nothing for electricity. By welcoming these criminals, many more want to come here. Now we’re gonna have to pay the piper.
Migrant crisis projected to cost Massachusetts taxpayers $1.8 billion over next two years
https://www.foxnews.com/media/migrant-crisis-projected-cost-massachusetts-taxpayers-1-8-billion-over-next-two-years
I’m in CA and my last 2 bills have been $748 June and $659 July
I’m in Europe Slovakia, having hot humid summer with temperatures between 32-38C (90-99F), running 2 AC’s with 4 room units, having hot tub, paying 30E (33$) monthly for electricity.
This is because of my 4kW solar system coupled with 5kWh battery.
System is running third year.
Without it I would pay around 100E (110$) monthly.
Electricity prices are quite low here 0.16cents/kWh as around 62% of energy here is nuclear and 16% hydro.
During summer my electricity consumption is around 20kwh daily in average.
You can talk about demonstration project, I created one and it is working.
So when you calculate your monthly electric bill- you don’t count what it cost to install the solar system? How much of that cost was covered by subsidies.
Cost of my system was 4500eur, 1400 from this is already paid off. There was no subsidy. Today such system would cost around 2500eur.
Wow, that’s cheap by American standards- I think, though I’m not sure as I don’t have a solar system. Maybe someone here can say- for a 4kw system.
By the way, this web site seems to be running slow- I often have to wait for it to come up- and it’s not my computer or internet access- all other web stuff is working at high speed. Maybe somebody can say why?
Think of the Biden-Trump debate as what a demonstration project is good for. It doesn’t change reality, it merely makes it harder to ignore.
I generally don’t watch debates but I look forward to watching Trump vs. Harris. And, the VP debate. I think they usually don’t make any difference in the voting- but this time is different. Here in Wokeachusetts, most people are saying Harris will smash Trump. I don’t think so. And I think Vance will do well too.
Harris will smash Trump.
Trump: Bla bla bla.
Harris: Bla bla bla.
There you are, I said Harris would smash Trump and she did.
Harris is extremely practiced at lying.
As are ALL the top politicians.
Trump is posting AI images of people supporting him and has meltdowns on twitter. Even he knows he is finished.
And Vance? It looks like he is sabotaging trump on purpose now.
you are consistent
You forgot to say weird, Lusername. Be careful you might lose your trolling payments.
Few people thought he’d win 8 years ago. He’s not saying much at this time- waiting for Harris to burn out on her own. I’m not crazy about either- but I want Trump to win because he’s more likely to put an end to the climate N*zis.
Good little Liberal Echo chamber… now off to bed and let the adults speak
Your kimono is open
Cheer Up:
Two good articles that will be recommended on my blog tomorrow morning:
Good News: Trump’s 2024 YouGov polling numbers are blowing his YouGov 2020 numbers out of the water
DC_Draino on X: “🚨You ready for some really good news? Trump’s 2024 YouGov polling numbers are blowing his YouGov 2020 numbers *out of the water*🔥 Hispanic: 32% in 2020 -> now 41% in 2024 Black: 9% -> 17% (almost double!) Men: 44% -> 54% Women: 37% -> 44% Seniors: 45% -> 57% Even with https://t.co/nk9npNF6uT” / X
Word Salad Alert: Watch As Things Go South Quickly When Comrade Kamala Harris Finally Takes Questions from the Media
WATCH: Things Go South Quickly When Comrade Kamala Harris Finally Takes Questions from the Media | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger
At the link below you’ll find a visual representation of the inside of Kamala Harris’s head. Anyone who thinks she will smash Trump in a debate is an egg short of a dozen.
https://x.com/katewerk/status/1826839952128118917
To perform a true demonstration project whose outcome is truthful and representative is the very last thing the net zero crowd would ever allow to take place. So if they won’t play, who would make it happen? The climate skeptics?
This is one of those Seinfeld “arguments over nothing”, or to use a religious metaphor, this is like the proverbially useless medieval arguments over how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.
It ain’t happenin’, so move on.
The warmunists are a theological movement. They will no more likely subject their faith to a true test of practical application than Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc etc would subject their faith to a practical public test (such as by walking on water or raising the dead or ascending to heaven in a chariot). It is a matter of faith.
Not supporting an actual demonstration is like not having an actual debate.
It is not needed as current msm opinion does not rely on logic and calculation. It is no longer considered paramount or even wanted as virtue signalling and misunderstanding are the main drivers, sometimes driven by ideology. And you can always offset any negative outcomes of unreliables by the claimed ‘reliable’ negative outcome of climate catastrophy, peak oil etc.
There is no way any part will go: ‘well, we had a look at this and it turns out that..’. That is NOT the way the west works nowadays..
Exactly.
The project will be classified: misinformation. Case closed..
“And yet, as I look around for information on Germany’s progress toward zero-emissions electricity, I can’t find any concern or recognition that this might not be doable in the end.”
Certainly also true here in Wokeachusetts. The governor has her administration doing a “full court press” for net zero. Every agency is obligated to sing the climate emergency opera. All their web sites- that’s the dominant theme.
as I look around for information on Germany’s progress toward zero-emissions electricity, I can’t find any concern or recognition that this might not be doable in the end.
It will all run on woke e-motion so be off with your racist sexist tyrannical physics engineering and economics
I’ll will be blunt. The true believers in Nut 0 will never accept anything, no matter how convincing. On the other hand, the middle of the road Liberal who have been conned by this nonsense since they were children will believe a CNN newscaster standing in front of a ghost town with literal or metaphorical tumbleweeds blowing across the streets. They are all that dense, they have to be repeatedly hit over the head until they accept something as fact.
It’s not about being doable, it’s about feeling good about yourself.
An example of how Greens think.
Our peak is 6GW and some Greens publish: Solar reached 10GW, now let’s go to 20GW. Me: That’s stupid and a waste of money. When the sun shines we have overproduction and negative prices, so why the hell would we build more solar power? At night 10 or 20GW doesn’t matter, it produces zero energy. If you multiply something that doesn’t work with infinite you still end up with something that doesn’t work. Greens are deaf for sanity. So even when impossible a demonstration should be mandatory from the Greens.
We have been paying of billions in subsidies from solar power. People received money for putting energy on the grid even when it’s not needed and took it of the grid for free when it was scarce. It was the wrong way to promote solar power. Instead they had to advise off grid solutions, but that’s illegal over here.
“When the sun shines we have overproduction and negative prices, so why the hell would we build more solar power?” You don’t understand how solar inverters work… Look up MPPT. (Maximum Power Point Tracking.) Inverters don’t produce more electricity than is required for the LOAD. You never have ‘overproduction’ with solar panels. You obviously don’t own any – I do. And only because I am preparing myself for the coming power cuts caused by the Nut Zero idiots, not because I believe in it. But £3,000 worth of batteries in every house in the U.K., with every roof covered in solar panels, and solar panels over car parks, on all business roofs, could provide all the electricity we need. Solar panels are unbelievably cheap now. They are literally magical technology, something that just sits there, and produces useful amounts of electricity for decades and decades, while out in all weathers. You should read solar power forums on ‘over panelling’. Nobody has “put energy on the grid when it’s not needed”, that’s not how solar inverters work… Otherwise – think about it. A house has 5kW of off grid solar panels. Is the house owner constantly using 5kW of energy when the sun is shining? Obviously not.
And California spends millions of $ some months to convince other states to take excess CA solar produced electricity. How does that work?
How appropriate that the guy who comes here to tell us how good the kool aid tastes is named Jones, after Jonestown.
Steve, I have a rooftop system that has MPPT. That works well for that, I don’t think it is something used on industrial grid size PV farms. What they do I don’t know; it just seems over production in the middle of the day is a problem.
Your notion of PV on every rooftop and enough batteries has its own problems, destabilizing the grid, it’s not that simple.
What most people here do not recognize is type of solar installation. You need to “store” produced energy somewhere and balance your production with your consumption. Basically there are 2 main possibilities:
Grid tied. Grid acts as battery and sinkhole for your excess production. This is causing instability of grid. Your inverters are always working on 100% of available solar energy.
Off grid. You need your own physical batteries which act as sinkhole and balancing your production with consumption. This system is not affecting grid, you are pure consumer from grid point of view. In this mode your MPPT is reducing energy taken from panels when batteries are full.
Although second system can not provide 100% of your energy throughout year, it is smoothing peaks in your consumption and changing intermittency of your system from seconds to hours, even days. So it is even beneficial for stability of grid.
Just imagine you have battery for 4 hours of your consumption, you charge during day, and using this energy evening during evening peak hours.
Sound engineering practice in developing some new product or system design starts with a clear goal or purpose in mind. Once a design concept has been produced there should be a feasibility study that includes cost/benefit analysis. If it appears feasible it needs to be proven to work. This requires a prototype, scale model, pilot production run, computer modeling or some other form of proof of concept. Only when this process shows success can you move on to scaling up to full production.
The net-zero build-out of massive renewable energy wind and solar projects has skipped over the second, third and fourth steps in the process. The concept should have been discarded at step 2 – feasibility and cost/benefit analysis. No need to waste resources on demonstration projects.
Yes, but they knew this was the solution, so why bother with the trivial trail stuff. /s
When did a successful con ever have a proof of concept stage?
Alternatieve fur Deutschland is one growing party which has the termination of the idiocy in its program. But its message is ignored by the media and the party itself is ostracised because, you guessed it, they are deemed to be ‘far right’.
The failure of a “demonstration project” will not change the mind of a True Believer. It just wasn’t done right, it was planned to fail, it was sabotaged, too few dollars were thrown at it, crucial details were ignored in its implementation, it really did work but “Big —” killed it, etc. etc.
This is true not just of wind and solar and the 100 mpg carburetor that runs on water, but of socialism, communism, damn near everything that is Fantasy and that goes against Reality…
The real true believers are certain that human ingenuity will overcome the supposed limitations of wind and solar, producing an endless flow of bountiful energy. That is the way all progress works. Whatever is done now is simply necessary preparation for what is to come.
Those greedy and evil oil companies must be cut off from their huge taxpayer subsidies. If denying them subsidies isn’t sufficient to collapse their business, they must be destroyed utterly by any means necessary in order that life, liberty, and the planet might flourish.
No amount of data, logic, or demonstration can change those beliefs.
When it comes to most of the people in charge of the process, one has to conclude that they must not care about the logic, reason, physics or what can be seen in the real world because their end goal has to be something other than for those energy systems to work.
It is impossible to design a relevant Nut Zero demonstration project. The data needed to design a small scale demonstration project for the Nut Zero master plan does not exist … because there is no Nut Zero master engineering plan. A long winded vision statement and arbitrary timing is not a plan.
Some of the basic assumptions needed to design a small scale demonstration project (or used for a paper engineering feasibility study), include:
(1) Percentage growth rate of electricity demand
(2) Percentage of baseload power from nuclear and hydro
(3) Percentage of demand expected to be met with interconnections to other nations/grids, when needed, if any
(4) Worst period of weather for solar and wind”
(a) Longest compound energy drought assumed
(b) Longest wind drought assumed
Very important for battery backup capacity are estimates for the worst case weather conditions for solar and wind.
In the US, I believe the February 2021 seven day wind drought in Texas was the worst wind drought in modern US history.
Compound wind and solar droughts can last up to a week. See link:
“Energy Droughts” in Wind and Solar Can Last Nearly a Week, Research Shows | News Release | PNNL
No, not at all impossible. Since net zero plans are hardly plans at all, and certainly not comprehensive, any demonstration project need only realize what is currently being done, but leaving out any fossil fuel backup generation and having no connection to any grid outside the boundaries of the project.
Read the UK Royal Society report. There are not only week long droughts, there are also whole seasons with very low wind. The Royal Society estimated that Net Zero in generation would require you to have storage equal to one third of annual demand.
The issue would then be having enough wind to keep it charged, in addition to supplying regular demand. Its hopeless.