Renewables Get Some Tough Love From Google

[zapta]

Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

That's a false assertion that you made up. Nuclear has worked great for France.

[Galenbo]

How soon until renewables will provide cheaper electricity 24/7?

Today.

Great, we can stop the subsidies then.

And claim/take them back.

[zapta]

... Hence, the hypothesis that getting renewables as cheap as coal is sufficient to prevent major climate change is suggested to be wrong."

+1.

[nctnico]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants. You need to get the price down well below that of coal to where it justifies them throwing their already-invested capital costs out the window.

That is not entirely true. Governments tend to make emission quotas more strict when alternatives are available so an old coal plant will be literaly taxed to death.

[dannyf]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants.

Those people are totally clueless about power generation.

If you could beat coal on generation costs, you would have been tremendously profitable.

In other words, you don't need to beat coal to be economically viable.

[SgtRock]

Greeting EEVBees:

--Oscar Wilde once called a group of people he was arguing with "a bunch of Philistines". A man in the group responded, "And you are driving us back with the jaw bone of an ass." The working definition of a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts as his goal recedes. So if raising the electric bills of those not on welfare in the UK by 35% to fund renewables has resulted in a net UK carbon reduction of 1%, what could be the problem?

--Please see below a very interesting article about how the North-East USA narrowly averted massive casualties from widespread prolonged power blackouts. Given that generating capacity is now even less, due to the closing of coal fired plants, a similarly cold winter this year could result in a catastrophe. The State of Massachusetts has approved 37% rate hikes for it's two largest power companies, and is avidly promoting PV Solar. Meanwhile the renewbies are working on ways to blame fossil fuel sources, and capitalism in general should a cold winter result in mass casualties.

--And remember a cold winter is just weather, but a warm winter is global warming.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/67810

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
François-Marie Arouet - Voltaire
1694  -  1778
 
Best Regards
Clear Ether

[miguelvp]

True, last winter in Chicago was brutal:
Wind chill of -40 F (which is -40 C as well)
Lowest temp was -16 F (-26.7C)
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140106/chicago/chicago-extreme-cold-temperatures-plunge-chiberia

but this town has seen -27 F (-32.8C)

So I really don't care how dirty my energy is, as long as I don't freeze to death, and we might get version 2.0 of last year:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140822/downtown/chiberia-20-almanac-predicts-colder-than-average-winter

[Zero999]

So I really don't care how dirty my energy is, as long as I don't freeze to death, and we might get version 2.0 of last year:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140822/downtown/chiberia-20-almanac-predicts-colder-than-average-winter

I wouldn't take that too seriously.

The forecasters are often completely wrong. They've predicted cold winters when it was mild and hot summers when it was cool and wet before.

[Someone]

Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

That's a false assertion that you made up. Nuclear has worked great for France.

mojo-chan is full of this sort of rubbish, if you read the rest of that same paragraph its mostly incorrect.

I don't know why you think Germany is being politically correct. They don't want nuclear because of the risks, because of the endless accidents they keep having, because of the accidents in other countries that keep irradiating their land, because of the cost, and because it isn't a business opportunity any more where as renewables clearly are and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Why are you hell bent on using the most expensive and one of the most risky forms of energy available?

The west german (i.e. current German) nuclear industry is the safest in the world on many metrics. Similarly nuclear is the power generation technology with the lowest impact on society when externalisations are included, partly through the extreme levels of safety demanded in their operation but mostly through the containment of their wastes when compared to coal or other fossil fuels.

The biggest issue with nuclear power is that its still an emerging technology that world powers have worked hard to retard innovation on through legitimate proliferation concerns (and less legitimate desires to simultaneously pursue the military potential of nuclear energy ahead of civil applications). Fossil fuel is entirely mature with CHP plants claiming to exceed 80% efficiency, while nuclear fission reactors are still sitting at low single digit percents (or factions of a percent if you consider all the available isotopes) due to the lack of a closed fuel cycle and low burnup rates.

Proliferation may be an insurmountable hurdle to further progress, and the germans leaving the industry will only hasten the demise of nuclear power (and in turn bring forward the end of coal and oil as viable energy sources).

[coppice]

People who have existing coal power plants for example aren't just going to take them down because new renewables projects are cheaper than new coal plants.

Those people are totally clueless about power generation.

If you could beat coal on generation costs, you would have been tremendously profitable.

In other words, you don't need to beat coal to be economically viable.

The original statement has been taken out of context. The article makes sense. They are looking for ways to achieve a rapid replacement of fossil fuel generation, as they see the issue as an emergency. If the life cycle costs of renewables are only slightly lower than fossil fuel generation, existing plants will only be replaced with renewables as they reach the end of their life. The major investment has already been made, so running them to the end of their life is much cheaper than early replacement. If you want to encourage early replacement renewable life cycle costs must be far lower than fossil fuels. So low that it overcomes the effects of compound interest.

[miguelvp]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

[coppice]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

Your second paragraph entirely misses the point of the first one. A grow, crop, burn, repeat cycle is eco friendly. A wood pellet stove viewed in isolation isn't.

[miguelvp]

It is because it uses materials that are going to decompose anyways by nature, releasing the same carbon as if you burn it.
So as long as there is excess bits of wood from all the industries that use it, your carbon foot print will decrease.

Those stoves are over 99% efficient at heating, I wished I had one today, it's around 20F right now, and replacing gas with wood is actually ecological

Edit: well, depending where the natural gas comes from but I'm pretty sure it comes from a trapped resource.

[nctnico]

Reneawables are already profitable if you maintain them and don't over do it.
Even good old hard wood burning has zero carbon emissions as I heard today on NPR, so as long as you repopulate the woods (not with soft woods of course) it balances out.

So a modern wood pellet stove is eco friendly.

Not if you look at the other stuff which comes from the chimney. Besides that there is not enough wood to provide enough energy. I'm also not convinced about the efficiency. Traditionally a lot of heat escapes through the chimney so the efficiency is not very good.

[coppice]

It is because it uses materials that are going to decompose anyways by nature, releasing the same carbon as if you burn it.
So as long as there is excess bits of wood from all the industries that use it, your carbon foot print will decrease.

Those stoves are over 99% efficient at heating, I wished I had one today, it's around 20F right now, and replacing gas with wood is actually ecological

Edit: well, depending where the natural gas comes from but I'm pretty sure it comes from a trapped resource.

When you burn wood efficiently, the vast majority of its carbon ends up as CO2. When wood rots most of the carbon ends up in the soil. What makes wood eco friendly is when it is made part of a cycle. If there were 700M people instead of 7B people there would be enough space to grow enough wood to make our entire society solar powered.

[miguelvp]

I will concede that the transportation of the material contributes to the carbon footprint, so it's not 100% eco friendly.
As for not having enough, I don't know. Say it only can supply 1% of the population, that would be that much reduction to help the whole.

[johansen]

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved. As for myself, I could capture 90% of the heat produced by the wood I burn, but my parents would probably have a problem with the noise of a fan providing forced air into the stove... (after cooling the smoke down to 70F, there is no warm air to provide a draft) ..and they certainly wouldn't like the maintenance cycle of scraping the soot off the heat exchangers.

The problem with the current noise produced by those who are allegedly pro-earth is the perhaps false idea that the planet can't handle the consumption of all of its stored carbon, I think we might actually find a return to the days prior to the deluge, i think that would be fantastic.
Too bad for all the ocean sea creatures that evolved to handle lower co2 levels, sucks you have to live through man getting too big for the planet. Uranus has a lot of methane I heard.

consider this.. it only takes a layer of carbon about 2? inches thick to burn up the entire atmosphere. --is anyone afraid the earth has that much free carbon available?

--nuclear reactors are at the point they can burn the naturally occurring 2%? u235 found in U238.. so, that should get us over the hump towards nuclear fusion.


As for wind power.. currently we're doing it wrong.
The largest 7MW wind turbines have as much steel and copper in the generator as does a 200MW hydro plant.
I hope they get smart and use aluminum.. maybe they already are, but those direct drive turbines are ridiculously huge.
and what happens when the fiberglass blades have to be recycled.--because they won't be.
they will be ground up into bits and dumped in a land fill.. hope man isn't around when a volcano tears up a large landfill.. those chemicals might turn out to be worse than the sulfur naturally released.

[johansen]

When you burn wood efficiently, the vast majority of its carbon ends up as CO2. When wood rots most of the carbon ends up in the soil.

This is only true on a short term. all of the stored energy gets burnt on a longer timeline.
yes, i know allegedly the topsoil in certain parts of america was 6 feet thick in 1492, but it isn't anymore, and we didn't see a significant rise in global c02 levels until the population explosion following the discovery of coal.

and yes we're headed toward 700M people, pending some kind of global "I will not follow orders" type wake up call.
the reset to zero can happen without nepharious plans, but the worlds population is allegedly (i have two sources) already declining and will drop from 7.1 to 6.9 billion in the next 10-20 years.

[johansen]

Not if you look at the other stuff which comes from the chimney. Besides that there is not enough wood to provide enough energy. I'm also not convinced about the efficiency. Traditionally a lot of heat escapes through the chimney so the efficiency is not very good.

not enough wood to build ships either, back when there was only 100 million people on the planet.
you really do not want to climb down the technology ladder...
what is it, 1 cord of wood per acre per year?
maybe 4 cords of fast growing (but not much heat and a lot of ash?)

--there are like, 4 people per acre of land on the planet today, and only 1.15 acres of arable land per person in 2006.

you want firewood or food?

[miguelvp]

I want both.

There is plenty of wood in home construction and a lot of left over that goes to the land fields.

Also I wasn't saying it's a solution for all of it, even if it reduces the release of trapped carbon by 1% it is still 1% in the right direction.

Edit: Modern efficient wood pellet stoves will actually burn most of the gasses, there is new tech on this as well so it's not going backwards.

[coppice]

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved.

You can skip the generation of electricity and use the burning wood to directly power a heat pump. At least one company currently makes natural gas powered heat pumps for domestic heating. You save a lot on gas, and the environment saves on CO2.

[dannyf]

Take a look at the dispatch stack and understand how the energy market works. Then you may be able to have a more constructive conversation.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Can anyone provide a citation for the 35% rise in UK electricity bills, being due to a conspiracy of the power companies. I am also looking for articles about net subsidies for nuclear in Europe, UK, or USA.

--Please see below a link to an article from the Express about runaway electricity costs due to outright net subsidies to wind power. Some quotes below.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/522800/Wind-farms-blamed-for-winter-power-cut-and-rise-energy-bills

"[Headline] UK's wind farm 'folly': Electric bills to soar by £1000 thanks to reliance on wind power.

"HOUSEHOLDERS are facing soaring energy bills and winter power cuts thanks to the 'folly' of relying on wind power, experts said last night."

--Also please see below link for a well documented article from Energy Matters about the true high cost of renewables. Followed by a couple of pull quotes.

http://euanmearns.com/the-high-cost-of-renewables/

"We hear a lot about the plummeting cost of renewables and escalating costs of nuclear power. Looking just at capacity installation costs, nuclear comes in at $8000 / kW and wind at around $2000 / kW. But these figures need to be adjusted for load capacity factors (nuclear 0.9, wind 0.17) and for the longevity of the installations (nuclear 50 years, wind 20 years). Applying these adjustments wind works out at 3 times and solar at 10 times the cost of installing nuclear power."

"The proposed Hinkley Point nuclear power station to be built in England has the ridiculous price tag of $26 billon struck in a deal that is doubtfully in the best interests of UK citizens. The plant is rated at 3.26 GW that it will likely churn out electricity 24/7 for 90% of the time, providing power on demand whenever it is needed for 50 years or more. The $1.3 trillion spent on solar wind so far would have bought 50 Hinkleys. What would have been the better deal?"

"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them....Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Barack Hussein Obama II  1961  -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[johansen]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Can anyone provide a citation for the 35% rise in UK electricity bills, being due to a conspiracy of the power companies. I am also looking for articles about net subsidies for nuclear in Europe, UK, or USA.

"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them....Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Barack Hussein Obama II  1961  -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

obama's handlers have been running the show for the last 100 years.
but....
that 35% increase in power bills is just inflation.

coal burned in a modern, high efficiency furnace and steam, followed by rankine organic cycle heat engine is on the order of 65% efficient.
that electricity, powering a heatpump, cop of 4, provides around 4 times as much heat into a building than does burning wood, per unit of c02, assuming the stove is 50% efficient, which is possible but rarely achieved.

You can skip the generation of electricity and use the burning wood to directly power a heat pump. At least one company currently makes natural gas powered heat pumps for domestic heating. You save a lot on gas, and the environment saves on CO2.

yes, a direct coupling between the steam turbines is great, saves you 10% on the transmission loss and 30% on the efficiency of the induction motor below 5 hp.
but you won't get better performance for anything less than a few thousand hp, which is about right on the level of say, a natural gas turbine driven heat pump for a shopping mall in miami.

[johansen]

I want both.

There is plenty of wood in home construction and a lot of left over that goes to the land fields.

Also I wasn't saying it's a solution for all of it, even if it reduces the release of trapped carbon by 1% it is still 1% in the right direction.

Edit: Modern efficient wood pellet stoves will actually burn most of the gasses, there is new tech on this as well so it's not going backwards.

can't have both, you need the woodgas to power the tractor.

as i said.. you really do not want to climb back down the technology ladder.