As for cars, just require all new cars to get at least 30 MPG(e) highway, gradually increasing that over time so progress does not stagnate.
Make that 45MPG and it starts to make sense. In a few years the EU wants new cars to do way better than 45MPG.
Hey, beware: 30 MPG USA = 36 MPG UK
I know.
I calculated with US Gallons.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
Something's wrong here..... I asked, "Just out of curiosity what percentage of Germany’s electricity over the past two months was from solar?"
The link you provided show Germany over the past two months didn't have any solar production. Yet your post shows around 10GW. Makes no sense.
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.
The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.
That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense any more today.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, nuke replaced by coal is more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
<snip>
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone, which is scheduled in 2 Years.
Exactly
that hindered their reduction in coal. Every kW of renewables that could have been used to replace coal/gas was instead used to replace* nuclear.
They choose coal over nuclear. It shows a blatant disregard for human health/life and the environment, only caring about the economical aspect. Apparently to the anti-nuclear crowd human life and the environment isn't worth much.
Why are Russia building a new LNG pipeline to Germany do you think? Would they do that if they didn't expect to sell a lot more LNG to Germany in the future? It is pure madness to shut down nuclear power plants right now, as long as the alternatives are coal, gas or other forms of burning.
*As we already know: without a new storage solution, solar and wind can never completely replace coal, gas and nuclear.
The reality today is that whenever a nuclear power plant is decommissioned it is replaced by a coal/gas power plant.
That's not true at all.
And it makes no sense any more today.
Wind and utility PV are now much cheaper than fossil, so why replace expensive nukes with expensive fossil ?
Makes no economic sense at all, nuke replaced by coal is more of a legend.
An exemple is germany:
The decomissioning of nukes is ongoing, and they are replaced by renewables.
<snip>
Of course that hindered their reduction in coal, but that's their next big target after all nukes are gone, which is scheduled in 2 Years.
Exactly that hindered their reduction in coal. Every kW of renewables that could have been used to replace coal/gas was instead used to replace* nuclear.
They choose coal over nuclear. It shows a blatant disregard for human health/life and the environment, only caring about the economical aspect. Apparently to the anti-nuclear crowd human life and the environment isn't worth much.
Why are Russia building a new LNG pipeline to Germany do you think? Would they do that if they didn't expect to sell a lot more LNG to Germany in the future? It is pure madness to shut down nuclear power plants right now, as long as the alternatives are coal, gas or other forms of burning.
*As we already know: without a new storage solution, solar and wind can never completely replace coal, gas and nuclear.
Thank you. I knew Germany was burning more coal and buying more electricity from France's nuclear power plants but didn't get the connection that this is to offset the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. I've been reading that Germany in Cottbus stopped mining for coal last year unemploying over 5,000. Something's not making sense.
It's also hard to beleive in December Germany is getting 12% (?) of there electricity from solar. Just doesn't seem right.
Wikipedia says Germany produced about 7% of it's electricity from solar in 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#GenerationIf you shut down a power plant, the loss in generated power will have to be offset by an increase somewhere else. You can't say where the electrons in the socket comes from but it has to add up. Less nuclear means you need more of something else.
Say you had 10 total units of power. If you remove 1 nuclear you have to add 1 of something else (or reduce consumption by 1 which haven't happened).
Say you also add 1 unit from solar. Now you still have 10. But instead of removing 1 nuclear you could have removed 1 coal. So you have effectively chosen coal over nuclear. It gets worse though, because you can only have, say 7 units solar max, and that means the remaining 3 will have to be something else. If you have already removed all the nuclear, what remains is coal that you can not get rid of (unless you build new nuclear again, but that is not likely). As long as there is coal/gas in the mix it makes no sense to remove nuclear.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
The bitter reality for German coal country is supplies will come from Russia and the U.S. for decades to come.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government sealed Germany’s exit from coal production in 2007. The plan contrasts with Trump’s efforts to revive the fuel, and the U.S. indeed stands to benefit, exporting 9.1 million tons of coal to Germany last year, second only to Russia’s 19.7 million tons.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-30/germany-closes-last-coal-mine-despite-decades-of-supplies-neededSays here Germany are net exporters of energy. They still get 148 TWh from brown coal, and 94 TWh from hard coal and LNG 86 TWh:
If they had kept their nuclear they could be down to almost 0% hard coal.
WHY do you think the risk of nuclear proliferation is "pretty low for the time being" - just curious?
Because it worries me a lot and I think thats a legitimate concern, given the large number of potential problems.
FYI
nuclear power plants often produce other kinds of uranium that can be used in nuclear weapons.
That is a major problem.
Solutions, 1. solve the world's problems so NO people end up so angry they become terrorists, or
2. Wind down the potential risks, remove the nuclear materials from circulation.
The risk of nuclear weapons proliferation makes me worry quite a bit.
I understand your concern in theory, although the real risk of ever using them (again) is pretty low for the time being IMO. I admit the storage of those weapons itself is a concern though. Even if we never use them purposefully, they are still there, requiring a constant surveillance.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I can't really see how they could,.
The Germans aren't stupid, they would buy direct from Oz.
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I can't really see how they could,.
The Germans aren't stupid, they would buy direct from Oz.
Don’t you think they would buy from China if it were cheaper?
FYI nuclear power plants often produce other kinds of uranium that can be used in nuclear weapons.
I think you need to do a bit more research on what it takes to convert nuclear power grade uranium which is 3% into weapons grade uranium which is 97%. It’s not that easy and takes a lot of energy and time. We only know of three ways to do the separation and the one that’s the most efficient requires special steel and high speed centrifuges. The difficulty with the uranium bombs is separatting out the weapons grade uranium. Weapons grade plutonium is much easer to come by but the problem is getting the bomb to detonate. There is a UC Berkeley Professor, Dr. Muller who explains all of this in great detail. Muller was a student of many of the folks who worked on the World War II atomic bombs. The US pub.lished all of the documents on exactly how to make atomic bombs, so it’s not a secret. The difficult part is the separation of the isotopes or getting the thing to detonate.
https://youtu.be/DJbyvCmybuk
Do you agree Germany and the EU is supporting next gen nuclear?
Nope.
Germany is in the legacy nuclear, with a roadmap to close every remaining plant in 2021, and never get into this risky buisness again.
They don't fund this BS any more, but they still have to ensure the legacy atomic garbage is preserved properly, so they fund the research to find a long term storage possibility (hint: it's not going well for now, as in every country trying hard to get a working long term storage. All those "long term" leak after less than 20 Years.)
Do you agree Germany and the EU is supporting next gen nuclear?
Nope.
Germany is in the legacy nuclear, with a roadmap to close every remaining plant in 2021, and never get into this risky buisness again.
For now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe. There simply isn't a cost effective alternative to meet the CO2 reduction requirements. Some politicians in the NL have already noticed that large scale renewables are just a costly pipe dream and are already advocating building new nuclear power plants. Perhaps the first few get build close to the border of Germany so there are technically no new nuclear power plants in Germany but that is just window dressing ofcourse.
Germany built the world's first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
France built the world first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
US built their "world first" one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. And then they abandoned it without even comissionning it, giving it no chance to leak. Pretty clever marketing here !
...
Your country's next on the long list of failures, it seems.
For now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.
Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
You're simply living in the past.
Germany built the world's first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
France built the world first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
US built their "world first" one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. And then they abandoned it without even comissionning it, giving it no chance to leak. Pretty clever marketing here !
...
Your country's next on the long list of failures, it seems.
It would be nice if you could provide some references to back up those claims. It sounds like you don't want it to work?
For now... within 15 years you'll see new nuclear power plants being built allover Europe.
Not credible any more. Too expensive considering clean alternatives.
You're simply living in the past.
What clean alternatives? Do you mean brown coal? Where should electricity come from when the sun doesn't shine? Should we just shut down the food production, medicine production and hospitals, etc, whenever there is not enough sunlight and wind? Why do you not like nuclear when it has been shown to be one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy there is. Maybe not the cheapest (because coal doesn't pay for it's own externalises like nuclear does, nor is it subsidised like solar and wind), but it is certainly clean and safe, some say even cleaner and
safer than solar.
Germany built the world's first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
France built the world first one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. Then it leaked.
US built their "world first" one. It was considered bullet proof by the nuke industry. And then they abandoned it without even comissionning it, giving it no chance to leak. Pretty clever marketing here !
...
Your country's next on the long list of failures, it seems.
Interesting. Do you have references?
PV energy could be used to lift water and store it in a large reservoir for use in power generation as it flowed back down.
We have one system of hydroelectric dams that pump water up again at night, when the electricity is cheap. Something like that could be used for times of surplus generation, like surplus solar or wind, etc.
I think it is common technology. Even a single dam can have a lower, smaller reservoir, to be able to pump the water up again from there.
One idea for hydrogen cars, is to use surplus generation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. It could also be used as storage and turned back into electricity, but i think that the efficiency is not good. No emissions, however.
You need to do a bit of research. Hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars comes from fossil fuels. It's too expensive to produce with electricity. While the resevior system works, just look at how little electricity it actually produces for Germany. I think I saw less than 3%.
This is from eight years ago, "In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity. That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity."
Want to guess how many for these "planned to be built" are actually being considered? In California the answer is 0. There are issues with fish, water for farmers and people. I think California has close to 200, and we stopped building them for environmental reasons. One of the last ones they were building is about 2 hours from me. It's one of the ones the environmentalists never allowed to be completed.
While it might sound like it good idea, in practice it doesn't work out that way.
It's not economical vs producing it from natural gas, when using power from the grid at the standard price, but if you're looking for something to do with surplus solar or wind generation, that's a special case. Of course, unless the issue of mass production of hydrogen from clean sources is solved, i don't see how the hydrogen car can have any future.
Pumping water up the dam works here in the conditions it's done. YMMV.
This is the wikipedia article for this kind of hydroelectric dams:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricityThis one is also interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storageAlso very interesting. A map with different energy storage plants and projects:
http://www.energystorageexchange.org/projects.html
I hear what you are saying, but here's something I'm not understanding. If Germany has shut down there coal mines are they buying coal from China? If the pull the plug on nuclear and no longer mine for coal they are down say by two. An increase in solar and wind might add an additional .25, but they are still down by 1.75. Where's they getting they getting the electrons to make-up the difference? Are they comming from Fracnce's nuclear power plants? Or are they still burning coal but buying it from say China instead of burning what they have?
Germany Closes Its Last Active Coal Mine, Ending 200-year-old Industry
http://fortune.com/2018/12/21/germany-closes-last-coal-mine/
https://youtu.be/O2l36Bftruw
Why would China sell coal to Germany, whilst simultaneously buying coal from Australia?
You had better believe they would if they could make a profit.
I can't really see how they could,.
The Germans aren't stupid, they would buy direct from Oz.
Don’t you think they would buy from China if it were cheaper?
Why would the Chinese make a loss on something where there is no "extra value added" while it is in their
possession?
They sell steel, made from Australian iron ore, but the the Chinese contribution is substantial in that case.