You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
If you are going to use energy to synthesise something which will store that energy, why not generate a liquid that is easier to store?
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
If you are going to use energy to synthesise something which will store that energy, why not generate a liquid that is easier to store?
Aluminium as storage since you can get energy out and get back to the original components and you can redo the process reusing everything and the only consumable is water since the Hydrogen is spent in water vapor.
But the DOE already refused that notion and has some professor that pushed the research pretty mad at them.
You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.
Without too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.
Take the hydrogen and add a little carbon, to make methanol, ethanol and other organic acids. Advantages are that you do not need cryogenic storage, insane pressures and it does not diffuse through apparently solid metal with ease. As well you can handle it with existing infrastructure and methods, and there is not that annoying 5/95% range in which hydrogen is an explosive.
However much you want the exhaust to be H2O, the only place hydrogen use is viable in in spacecraft where you can use the water, and the cost of the platinum group catalysts are worth it for the usage. Hydrogen fuel cells will use the entire world's platinum reserves in the first half decade of mass production, even if you use a near monatomic film on a substrate. Will a fuel cell still be viable if the platinum cost is at the $15k per troy ounce mark.
Take the hydrogen and add a little carbon, to make methanol, ethanol and other organic acids.
Methanol and ethanol are alcohols, not acids.
However much you want the exhaust to be H2O, the only place hydrogen use is viable in in spacecraft where you can use the water, and the cost of the platinum group catalysts are worth it for the usage. Hydrogen fuel cells will use the entire world's platinum reserves in the first half decade of mass production, even if you use a near monatomic film on a substrate. Will a fuel cell still be viable if the platinum cost is at the $15k per troy ounce mark.
That would be a valid argument if platinum group metals were the only possible materials.
Living organisms have been achieving the same end for billions of years using hydrogenase enzymes, and ongoing research into biomimetic catalysts has shown that a similar process can be carried out on an industrial scale. The metals in such catalysts are nickel and iron, neither of which are exactly scarce.
I said that if you really solve the storage problem, then getting to 100% renewable energy is very much possible. I did not say that renewables only make sense if you can have 100% renewable energy. That was your invention.
You said that renewables were a stupid idea, and then went on to talk about the need for storage. If these two points are unrelated you need to learn to communicate better.
You are still making stuff up.
I think that in general wind power is a stupid idea, unless you come up with some seriously effective storage scheme
It's on the previous page, and I took a screenshot so don't bother editing it.
You are not just a troll. You are a pathetically bad troll. My statement above is perfectly valid. Why would I want to change it?
Without effective storage wind power is stupid. I referred to the car charging scenario where the cars could provide the storage, and I think that could work well. I referred to places with large hydro-electric capacity that have the potential to offer storage, and that can certainly work well. Installing half a solution is just pouring money down the drain.
In Denmark, they have avoided the need for storage schemes. 4855MW of wind turbines installed, currently outputting just 25MW.
Just as well they don't drive Tesla's or the Lego factory would have to shut
In Denmark, they have avoided the need for storage schemes. 4855MW of wind turbines installed, currently outputting just 25MW.
Just as well they don't drive Tesla's or the Lego factory would have to shut
What is the actual deal? I know their lack of storage facilities mean they have to export most of what they produce by wind. Is 25MW the little bit they can keep for themselves?
I tried reading up, and the whole thing seems a mess, but I didn't see a figure for just how much of their output they are able to keep. They have the typical pattern of lots of wind at night and little during the day. It looks like charging Teslas might work well for them.
25MW is all they are producing from 4855MW of installed wind turbine capacity, their grid is currently being propped up by reliable means of generation located in other european countries, the kind where fossil fuels are burnt with a big flame and neutrons fly about in a concrete bunker, the kind of generation that ensures the lego factory carries on working. If they had been relying on wind and a country full of Tesla's parked in garages then the lights would have gone out for good many hours ago.
25MW is all they are producing from 4855MW of installed wind turbine capacity, their grid is currently being propped up by reliable means of generation located in other european countries, the kind where fossil fuels are burnt with a big flame and neutrons fly about in a concrete bunker, the kind of generation that ensures the lego factory carries on working. If they had been relying on wind and a country full of Tesla's parked in garages then the lights would have gone out for good many hours ago.
So, are they (a) faulty or (b) calmed? Sorry, couldn't resist.
I guess we have to see what Musk has to say with his gigafactory.
Now Google says it
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
That article seems to be useless. Its starts with a reasonable description of how badly renewables have failed to deliver up to this point. Then it goes in to the fallacious "it can't be done, because I can't see how to do it" argument against renewables. This is supported by the old and bogus "this must be true. Just look at the impractical amount of space and materials it would take to do anything I can think of" ruse. Then it goes into a rant about how wonderful nuclear looks if you are sufficiently dismissive of all the problems it has had to date.
Now Google says it
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
That article seems to be useless. Its starts with a reasonable description of how badly renewables have failed to deliver up to this point. Then it goes in to the fallacious "it can't be done, because I can't see how to do it" argument against renewables. This is supported by the old and bogus "this must be true. Just look at the impractical amount of space and materials it would take to do anything I can think of" ruse. Then it goes into a rant about how wonderful nuclear looks if you are sufficiently dismissive of all the problems it has had to date.
I agree that the article is useless, that's usually the case when a reporter has limited space and want the most amount of readers to see it.
But if Google now had a 4 year long project regarding renewable energy which came to the conclusion that we can not solely live on renewable energy, and that nuclear is the most plausible solution we have at this time. Then maybe we should start criticizing the propaganda from the oil companies that nuclear is dangerous, and the propaganda from the renewable energy company that they actually can replace fossil fuels.
It is hard to argue when 1 gram of Uranium has the same effective energy-content in a reactor as ca. 500 m^2 of solar panels receive in one year in Australia (ca. 2000 solar hours). I handle Uranium compounds at work in smaller quantities on a daily basis, and 1 gram does not kill you even if you eat it.
... And their electric price is higher than almost any other country in Europe. Nothing to brag about.
Cheaper than the UK though, and our renewable energy is crap. In other words, they are getting value for money and building an awesome system that will keep prices down in the future, plus give their economy a massive boost and set Germany up as the biggest supplier of renewable energy engineering in the world.
We missed the boat.
No idea where you get the idea that energy prices in Germany are cheaper than the UK, electricity prices there are the second highest in the EU after Denmark. The German approach to renewables is continuing to have a huge impact on their grid infrastructure. With France having a heating demand that is significantly electrical, it only takes a few days of cold weather and a static high pressure system over Europe for their own demand to rise to that of their available generation, leaving nothing for export to prop up Germany and it then starts to rapidly fall apart. Lose a bit of gas import into Germany say with a few political issues in Russia and its game over.
Prices in Germany, particularly those that consumers have to pay are soaring, the Eurostat figures only go to the end of 2013 but they getting worse, much worse and the CO2 emissions are also increasing. The CO2 figures of Denmark, aka wind turbine central are truly shocking. I suggest you have a strong drink and position yourself on the floor surrounded by a cushion of beanbags before googling them.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/electricity_and_natural_gas_price_statisticsOr to save you dragging out the data and doing a sort. In ascending order 2013 Domestic Prices Electricity in Euros / kWh
Bulgaria 0.0882
Romania 0.1279
Hungary 0.1326
Croatia 0.135
Latvia 0.1358
Estonia 0.1367
Lithuania 0.1391
Poland 0.1437
Czech Republic 0.1493
Finland 0.1559
France 0.1589
Luxembourg 0.1646
Slovenia 0.1657
Slovakia 0.1678
Greece 0.1697
Malta 0.17
United Kingdom 0.1797
Netherlands 0.1915
EU-28 0.2009
EU-27 0.2014
Austria 0.2018
Sweden 0.2046
Spain 0.2075
Portugal 0.2131
Euro area 0.2134
Belgium 0.2215
Italy 0.2323
Ireland 0.2405
Cyprus 0.2481
Germany 0.2921
Denmark 0.2936
It's not about price it's about the carbon emissions. If it were not for the carbon issue then yeah renewables would make very little sense. $/kWh is not the bottom line here.
It's true to say "lol if we just burn coal we have cheaper electric", it would also be true to say manufactured goods would be cheaper if we could just pump what we like into the air and water or housing would be cheaper if there were no planning regulations.
Without factoring the cost of carbon all figures quoted are moot.
If it is about the carbon emissions then France, a country with over 75% of electricty supplied by nuclear wins by a very long long way and both Germany and Denmark lose.
If it is about the carbon emissions then France, a country with over 75% of electricty supplied by nuclear wins by a very long long way and both Germany and Denmark lose.
75% nuclear + another 10% from hydro. They have a good safety record for nuclear, and popular support. They still haven't worked out what to do with the waste, though.
It certainly looks like nuclear has a part to play, it's the only viable alternative in the short term.
As for the carbon debate, that's a whole other can of worms. Set aside that debate for a moment and assume that there's a 50/50 chance that high CO2 levels are harmless/disastrous.
The cost of switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is high, very high.
The cost of not switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is infinitely higher.
This is quite a good read, it's a quantitative analysis of energy footprints and solutions.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdfOf interest are things like telling your friends how eco you are by unplugging your phone charger when you don't use it, compared to the energy footprint of driving to their house to tell them about it.
For example, one day of phone charging is equivalent to one second of car driving.