Has anyone else realized how far we are away from running civilization fully on wind and solar?

[labeeman]

Since this thread has now thoroughly derailed, I'm moving it to chit-chat.

Thank you as I will not be going there.

 

[Hedges]

In California we are paying other states to "take our energy" during spring and autumn.
I still think building artificial lakes along the coast, fill those with seawater during surplus of energy during the day and reverse use them at night to generate power is the way to go.
We can easily build more PV in the desert and use that to fill those lakes.

There is a hydro storage plant, was supposed to hold surplus night time production of two turbines of Diablo Canyon.
Which direction is that plant operating while we pay other states to take our surplus PV?

It is a good read,

California governor floats 5-GW, $5.2B 'reliability reserve' amid possible electricity shortfalls

“We also need to be mindful [that] we need to accelerate projects, particularly because we have been changing our modeling and we are now recognizing some new factors and challenges,” Newsom said Friday.

www.utilitydive.com

$5.2 billion for 5000 MW, for a state of about 31 million people. 161W per person. $168 per person.
Turn off the equivalent of two, 100W bulbs each and we accomplish more.
Set back the thermostat a bit, anything else to shave the peak.

The introduction from the people who send things to space, landed on the moon etc says it all:

"NASA:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."

"Rate", they say. Of course, measurement of temperature today is done with a different instrument from how we measure what temperature was thousands of years ago. Forgive me if I at least ask if we are sure the measurements can be compared.

The amount of temperature change, and the amount of sea level rise, which is attributed to and projected to be from humans is small compared to prior geological events we had nothing to do with.

 

[fromport]

There is a hydro storage plant, was supposed to hold surplus night time production of two turbines of Diablo Canyon.
Which direction is that plant operating while we pay other states to take our surplus PV?

Url?
You don't mean this right?

Hydrostor advances 3.2 GWh energy storage project to help replace California's Diablo Canyon plant

While a portion of the project could be online as early as 2026, Hydrostor expects the full capacity of the Pecho facility to be available in 2027.

www.utilitydive.com

compressed air
is currently slated to come online in 2026 and 2027

"NASA:
There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause."

"Rate", they say. Of course, measurement of temperature today is done with a different instrument from how we measure what temperature was thousands of years ago. Forgive me if I at least ask if we are sure the measurements can be compared.

From the article:

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.

The amount of temperature change, and the amount of sea level rise, which is attributed to and projected to be from humans is small compared to prior geological events we had nothing to do with.

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

About the small temperature:

 

[Jordi]

Admin pls check this I want to adhere to rules.
BUT. Has anyone else realized how far we are away from running society on wind and solar? We are here in this group talking about how to squeeze out a few watts to add a refrigerator to a 5kw - 20kw home system, and we, as a nation (US), are being told that we can go green in time to not crash and burn even if “they” cut off fossil fuels. I get that the average joe/josephene doesn’t know that hooking up a tesla car to your rig is like adding a second battery bank that must be charged from the same hours of sunlight that couldn’t quite keep your home as well powered as by utility power...... I was thinking that since we solar peeps know a little more we could educate our friends before it gets to be too late. I think we‘ re years away yet from being fossil fuel independent, yet still functional. as great as that will be someday. Any Thoughts?

I could not read all the posts but I do like you approached this topic. My views and opinions on this can be summarized with one single word: Degrowth.

I think that green transition is crucial for preservation of our future, but another more crucial step is consumption reduction; not 10%, nor 20%, but like 80%. The positive side of this story is that we, households, accounting for 15% of global consumption, don't need to go that far, for us 50% should do. The heavy consumption is found at the industries.

My expectations/requirements for future:
Solar/Wind/Renewables = Deliver 70% of our consumption.
Human energy = It is reintroduced in many contexts.
Batteries (either chemical or natural) = Increase grid efficiency.
Non-renewables (Coal/Nuclear/Gas) = Necessary while we do the transition and necessary to help stabilizing the grid given the nature of renewables variability.

All kind of stories about bioethanol, hydrogen, efuels, micro nuclear,... I find them incomplete; either because they have an energy factor below 1 (more than 1kWh energy required to produce 1kWh energy), because they rely on finite resources (eg. uranium) or because they can't be used as needed (eg. hydrogen storage).

I think our stake as solar enthusiasts, before designing and placing an installation, is to look into which consumptions we can reduce. Sometimes we have significant consumptions we could avoid with an effort smaller than expected (eg. stand-by consumption of appliances; solution = plug with switch or timer). When we reduce consumptions and require one panel less, this panel is placed elsewhere. That is very helpful taking into account that solar panels use rare metals like silver and can not be easily recycled. Also think that some solar scientists claim the power factor of solar panels not being used optimally (wrong angle, unfavorable weather,...) could be very close to 1 actually instead of 2-3. So we should not rely solely on solar and approach more the consumption side at least before we improve this energy factor.

Some articles state we need around 20.000 kWh per year, per person, to lead a decent life. Like 25% of what we use nowadays. This is super complicate to determine because most consumptions happen outside of our area of control (eg. through the food we buy). But within our limits we could do better.
- 600kWh electricity at home per year (1 person)
- 300m3 gas per year (1 person in north european country) = 2.930 kWh
- 5.000km car traveling (1 person alone) = 2.000 kWh
- Flying for holidays (commercial flight) = 40kWh per 100km

And when we add a person most values do not double!! Meeting the budget becomes much easier.

There is a chance however that in 2050 or later we have some breakthrough with all this nuclear technologies we're researching. But will there be enough copper and rare metals in the world to cope with that?

 

[Ampster]

$5.2 billion for 5000 MW

If I did my math correctly that is $1,040 per kW of generating capacity. You can't build a solar system for that price so much of it must be subsidies to stimulate capacity growith. And some of it could be going to demand management programs. I used to belong to a Grid Savvy program that gave me a credit of $5 a month to let them turn off my charging station. The irony is that it was most likely that they would need to do that between 5 and 9PM when the grid is stressed and there was no way I was going to be charging my EVs during that peak rate time frame.

 

[fromport]

related (imo)

Leaked: US power companies secretly spending millions to protect profits and fight clean energy

One industry consulting firm has influenced politics across Florida, Alabama and at least six other states

www.theguardian.com

 

[kanelr]

I could not read all the posts but I do like you approached this topic. My views and opinions on this can be summarized with one single word: Degrowth.

I think that green transition is crucial for preservation of our future, but another more crucial step is consumption reduction; not 10%, nor 20%, but like 80%. The positive side of this story is that we, households, accounting for 15% of global consumption, don't need to go that far, for us 50% should do. The heavy consumption is found at the industries.

My expectations/requirements for future:
Solar/Wind/Renewables = Deliver 70% of our consumption.
Human energy = It is reintroduced in many contexts.
Batteries (either chemical or natural) = Increase grid efficiency.
Non-renewables (Coal/Nuclear/Gas) = Necessary while we do the transition and necessary to help stabilizing the grid given the nature of renewables variability.

All kind of stories about bioethanol, hydrogen, efuels, micro nuclear,... I find them incomplete; either because they have an energy factor below 1 (more than 1kWh energy required to produce 1kWh energy), because they rely on finite resources (eg. uranium) or because they can't be used as needed (eg. hydrogen storage).

I think our stake as solar enthusiasts, before designing and placing an installation, is to look into which consumptions we can reduce. Sometimes we have significant consumptions we could avoid with an effort smaller than expected (eg. stand-by consumption of appliances; solution = plug with switch or timer). When we reduce consumptions and require one panel less, this panel is placed elsewhere. That is very helpful taking into account that solar panels use rare metals like silver and can not be easily recycled. Also think that some solar scientists claim the power factor of solar panels not being used optimally (wrong angle, unfavorable weather,...) could be very close to 1 actually instead of 2-3. So we should not rely solely on solar and approach more the consumption side at least before we improve this energy factor.

Some articles state we need around 20.000 kWh per year, per person, to lead a decent life. Like 25% of what we use nowadays. This is super complicate to determine because most consumptions happen outside of our area of control (eg. through the food we buy). But within our limits we could do better.
- 600kWh electricity at home per year (1 person)
- 300m3 gas per year (1 person in north european country) = 2.930 kWh
- 5.000km car traveling (1 person alone) = 2.000 kWh
- Flying for holidays (commercial flight) = 40kWh per 100km

And when we add a person most values do not double!! Meeting the budget becomes much easier.

There is a chance however that in 2050 or later we have some breakthrough with all this nuclear technologies we're researching. But will there be enough copper and rare metals in the world to cope with that?

I like your position as it appears. I do though fear that there are forces pushing way way way too fast to get to the place you describe. Progress takes time. I do hope we can take time to do it right and at a good efficient pace.

 

[Jordi]

I like your position as it appears. I do though fear that there are forces pushing way way way too fast to get to the place you describe. Progress takes time. I do hope we can take time to do it right and at a good efficient pace.

Hello Kanelr, I am happy to see you have some interest in my say which at the end is a superficial opinion. I am interested on understanding more about the forces that push the change too fast. Can you please explain me a bit more?

I am an engineer with just 10 years experience. In the factories I worked I have not seen energy efficiency as an urge mainly due to insufficient financial returns. Actually, most of the times I have seen efficiency being approached via throughput; the more your produce, the more efficient you become even though absolutely speaking, you increase consumption.

 

[teal95]

It is almost impossible to dry gas below 10° dewpoint and cost prohibitive.

There must be something that can be done because I haven't heard of the northern tier having their gas lines freeze up

Having lived in Texas for a year I have experienced that they refuse to take minimal precautions against freezing. The water line at my house came out of the well head a foot above the ground, went over 4' then dropped below the ground for the rest of the trip into the house. Why that 4' was above ground is beyond me but everytime it got cold it froze.

 

[SparkyJJO]

People have this dumb idea that Texas will never get that cold.

 

[Delmar]

Can’t comment on all of Texas, but in my area (hour north of Houston) there were no issues with the gas delivery. Normally we will get 3-4 freezes in the mid 20sF that never cause a problem, but this time the temps got down to 8F, totally unheard of for here. Gas was available at both my home and my local power plant(s). My self-propelled power station was running my furnace blower.

We had a high-tech dual-cycle plant go online a couple of months before the big freeze. That new plant was not winterized and the cooling water lines froze shutting it down. Luckily the old plant on the same site was not decommissioned and was winterized. The old plant quickly came back online while they thawed the new plant.

 

[LeoThomson]

"Rate", they say. Of course, measurement of temperature today is done with a different instrument from how we measure what temperature was thousands of years ago. Forgive me if I at least ask if we are sure the measurements can be compared.

Did you know that most thermometers use volume as a proxy for temperature? Volume! That's not even close to being a direct measure of temperature! And to think that so many people rely on that kind of nonsensical guesswork! And then they go and try to back it up by saying that they've got this new method that uses light - ANOTHER proxy, mind you - to say that the old one worked! It's all a giant stack of cards waiting to fall over, mark my words.

 

[LeoThomson]

Imagine no other power sources existed, I seriously doubt there is any one here who believes we humans are so stupid that we are not able to power our society with just wind and solar.

To answer the original question.

Solar and wind are already the cheapest sources of electricity in many situations, which means "conventional" sources will need even more subsidies to operate.

Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill

Behind the struggle to stop governments propping up the coal, oil and gas industries.

www.nature.com

Levelized Cost of Energy+

Levelized Cost of Energy+

www.lazard.com

 

[Hedges]

Did you know that most thermometers use volume as a proxy for temperature? Volume! That's not even close to being a direct measure of temperature! And to think that so many people rely on that kind of nonsensical guesswork! And then they go and try to back it up by saying that they've got this new method that uses light - ANOTHER proxy, mind you - to say that the old one worked! It's all a giant stack of cards waiting to fall over, mark my words.

HOW DARE YOU MOCK ME?

As an Aerospace Engineer (employer's words, not mine), I reviewed test data for depth of cut from a cutting charge in witness plate. At one point in the history, depths changed. I inquired about it, and was told the older measurements were made by stylus, the newer by laser.

Temperature readings in recent memory were made with bulb thermometer, or bimetalic strip, or thermocouple.
Prehistoric temperature readings were made by CO2 in ice cores, or strata from the sea bed, etc.

First thing we need to know is the accuracy, repeatability, offset of temperature readings, and dating of those temperature readings.
Are they even capable of showing whether or not rate of temperature change in the past was same as shown for recent history.

I think the temperature vs. CO2 correlation used to determine ancient temperatures is the same used to predict future temperatures, and then some wide range of scenarios simulated, one selected as the Truth. One that says sea levels will rise a horrific 3 feet (vs. the 400 feet they have risen since about the the time Ötzi was performing empirical research on human sexuality.)

 

[LeoThomson]

Prehistoric temperature readings were made by CO2 in ice cores

No they weren't.

 

[Hedges]

Pardon me, apparently it is O2 isotopes that tells temperature?
And, the temperature of the ice has remained unchanged for thousands of years??

Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record

For six weeks every summer between 1989 and 1993, Alley and other scientists pushed columns of ice along the science assembly line, labeling and analyzing the snow for information about past climate

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

I'll admit I was just spouting off by memory.

Paleoclimatology: The Ice Core Record

For six weeks every summer between 1989 and 1993, Alley and other scientists pushed columns of ice along the science assembly line, labeling and analyzing the snow for information about past climate

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Probably a "denier" article:

The Vostok Ice Core: Temperature, CO2 and CH4

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also ob…

euanmearns.com

What is the temperature and time resolution of these measurements? And accuracy?
How about older than ice sheets?

 

[Nobodybusiness]

Those can be the absolute dirtiest energy producers in the world and this has happened several times already Think three mile island. NO THANK YOU TO NUCLEAR.

Dude 3 mile island was built in 1968.
I think we can do a little better today.
The Navy has been using reactors on every ship built for 40 years and no problems.

 

[Hedges]

The discipline in running a naval reactor may be better than at a commercial for-profit plant.
Could naval reactor produce cost-effective power, for purposes other than MAD or Force Projection?
(Has the Navy successfully completed its first ever financial audit yet?)

Windscale was 1957
Three mile island was decades ago.
Chernobyl a couple decades.
Fukashima a couple years.
Which intrinsically safe reactor will be the future one?

 

[labeeman]

Dude 3 mile island was built in 1968.
I think we can do a little better today.
The Navy has been using reactors on every ship built for 40 years and no problems.

What do you think will happen when a Chinese missile hits one DUDE?

 

[Nobodybusiness]

What do you think will happen when a Chinese missile hits one DUDE?

The same thing that would happen if you hit one of theirs. What’s your point?

Either you come up with a High density Storage Solution ( 1000 times more dense than present) or some free fission device or this transition to Green energy is a pipe dream.

No way to provide a viable alternative to fossil fuels for manufacturing or mining or any heavy industries until that happens.

Forcing it it only shoves the divide between those who have and those who don’t.