Wind and Solar Power are pointless alternatives?

[SunsetBengal]

I found this article to be somewhat interesting, as both the US and British governments have been investing heavily into wind and solar energy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-wind-and-solar-power-myth-has-finally-been-exposed/ar-AA1aZrIs?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=1b3e0dd0bf6c4d97a5b56835a0a21870&ei=13

Quote:Many governments in the Western world have committed to “net zero” emissions of carbon in the near future. The US and UK both say they will deliver by 2050. It's widely believed that wind and solar power can achieve this. This belief has led the US and British governments, among others, to promote and heavily subsidise wind and solar.

These plans have a single, fatal flaw: they are reliant on the pipe-dream that there is some affordable way to store surplus electricity at scale.

In the real world a wind farm’s output often drops below 10 per cent of its rated “capacity” for days at a time. Solar power disappears completely every night and drops by 50 per cent or more during cloudy days. “Capacity” being a largely meaningless figure for a wind or solar plant, about 3000 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar capacity is needed to replace a 1000 MW conventional power station in terms of energy over time: and in fact, as we shall see, the conventional power station or something very like it will still be needed frequently once the wind and solar are online.

The governments of countries with a considerable amount of wind and solar generation have developed an expectation that they can simply continue to build more until net zero is achieved. The reality is that many of them have kept the lights on only by using existing fossil fired stations as backup for periods of low wind and sun. This brings with it a new operating regime where stations that were designed to operate continuously have to follow unpredictable fluctuations in wind and solar power. As a result operating and maintenance costs have increased and many stations have had to be shut down.

In fact it's already common to see efficient combined-cycle gas turbines replaced by open-cycle ones because they can be throttled up and down easily to back up the rapidly changing output of wind and solar farms. But open-cycle gas turbines burn about twice as much gas as combined cycle gas turbines. Switching to high-emissions machinery as part of an effort to reduce emissions is, frankly, madness!

Certain countries are helped because their power systems are supported by major inter-connectors to adjacent regions that have surplus power available. The increasingly troubled French nuclear fleet, which formerly had plenty of spare energy on tap, for a long time helped to make renewables plans look practical across Western Europe.

But this situation is not sustainable in the long term. Under net-zero plans, all nations will need to generate many times more electricity than they now can, as the large majority of our energy use today is delivered by burning fossil fuels directly. Neighbouring regions will be unable to provide the backup power needed; emissions from open cycle gas turbines (or new coal powerplants, as in the case of Germany at the moment) will become unacceptable; more existing base load stations will be forced to shut down by surges in renewables; more and more wind and solar power will have to be expensively dumped when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing.

Power prices will soar, making more or less everything more expensive, and there will be frequent blackouts.

None of this is difficult to work out. Building even more renewables capacity will not help: even ten or 100 times the nominally-necessary “capacity” could never do the job on a cold, windless evening.

Only one thing can save the day for the renewables plan. Reasonable cost, large scale energy storage, sufficient to keep the lights on for several days at a minimum, would solve the problem.

First we need to consider the scale of the issue. Relatively simple calculations show that that California would need over 200 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage per installed MW of wind and solar power. Germany could probably manage with 150 MWh per MW. Perhaps this could be provided in the form of batteries?

The current cost of battery storage is about US$600,000 per MWh. For every MW of wind or solar power in California, $120 million would need to be spent on storage. In Germany it would be $90 million. Wind farms cost about $1.5 million per MW so the cost of battery storage would be astronomical: 80 times greater than the cost of the wind farm! A major additional constraint would be that such quantities of batteries are simply not available. Not enough lithium and cobalt and other rare minerals are being mined at the moment. If prices get high enough supply will expand, but prices are already ridiculously, unfeasibly high.

Some countries are gambling on hydro pumped storage. Here the idea is to use electricity to pump water uphill into a high reservoir using surplus renewables on sunny, windy days: then let it flow back down through generating turbines as in a normal hydropower plant when it’s dark and windless.

Many pumped systems have been built in China, Japan and United States but they have storage sufficient for only 6 to 10 hours operation. This is tiny compared with the several days storage that is needed to back up wind and solar power through routine sunless calm periods. Much larger lakes at the top and bottom of the scheme are needed. There are very few locations where two large lakes can be formed with one located 400-700 m above the other and separated by less than 5-10 km horizontally. Such a location must also have an adequate supply of make-up water to cope with evaporation losses from the two lakes. Another problem is that at least 25 per cent of the energy is lost while pumping and then generating.

Hydro pumped storage will seldom be a feasible option. It cannot solve the problem on a national scale even in countries like the USA which have a lot of mountains.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) for fossil fuel stations is also touted as way of avoiding the problems of wind and solar power. But this is not a technology, just a case of wishful thinking. In spite of many years of work and enormous amounts of money spent, nobody has yet devised a technology that can provide large scale, low cost CCS. Even if capture worked and didn't consume most or all the energy generated, storing the carbon dioxide is a huge problem because three tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced for every tonne of coal burned.

Hydrogen is another technology which is often suggested for energy storage: but its problems are legion. At the moment hydrogen is made using natural gas (so-called “blue” hydrogen). This, however, will have to stop in a net-zero world as the process emits large amounts of carbon: you might as well just burn the natural gas. Proper emissions-free “green” hydrogen is made from water using huge amounts of electrical energy, 60 per cent of which is lost in the process. Storing and handling the hydrogen is extremely difficult because hydrogen is a very small molecule and it leaks through almost anything. At best this means that a lot of your stored hydrogen will be gone by the time you want to use it: at worst it means devastating fires and explosions. The extremely low density of hydrogen also means that huge volumes of it would have to be stored and it would often have to be stored and handled cryogenically, creating even more losses, costs and risks.

The conclusion is simple. Barring some sort of miracle, there is no possibility that a suitable storage technology will be developed in the needed time frame. The present policies of just forcing wind and solar into the market and hoping for a miracle have been memorably and correctly likened to “jumping out of an aeroplane without a parachute and hoping that the parachute will be invented, delivered and strapped on in mid air in time to save you before you hit the ground.”

Wind and solar need to be backed up, close to 100 per cent, by some other means of power generation. If that backup is provided by open-cycle gas or worse, coal, net zero will never be achieved: nor anything very close to it.

There is one technology that can provide a cheap and reliable supply of low-emissions electricity: nuclear power. Interest in nuclear power is increasing as more and more people realise that it is safe and reliable. If regulators and the public could be persuaded that modern stations are inherently safe and that low levels of nuclear radiation are not dangerous, nuclear power could provide all the low cost, low emissions electricity the world needs for hundreds or thousands of years.

But if we had 100 per cent nuclear backup for solar and wind, we wouldn't need the wind and solar plants at all.

Wind and solar are, in fact, completely pointless.

Bryan Leyland MSc, DistFEngNZ, FIMechE, FIEE(rtd) is a power systems engineer with more than 60 years experience on projects around the world

[*pally*]

The flaw on his arguement is that somehow he doesnt seem to think there will be any technological improvements in gathering the power, storing it, or distributing in the next 25 years.
Use will demand improvements. We are in the infant stages of this technology for mass use.




Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2023, 12:12 PM)pally Wrote: The flaw on his arguement is that somehow he doesnt seem to think there will be any technological improvements in gathering the power, storing it, or distributing in the next 25 years.
Use will demand improvements.  We are in the infant stages of this technology for mass use.




Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

The man is a power systems engineer, with over 60 years of experience around the world.  I think that I'll trust his opinion over yours. 

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 12:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The man is a power systems engineer, with over 60 years of experience around the world.  I think that I'll trust his opinion over yours. 

Years of experience can be good. But that doesn't mean is "opinion" is.

Oil companies, for decades, denied that they affected the climate even though they knew they did.

The engineer also "recently" started doubting climate change....though he has no experience in studying that.

Oh, and he's heavily invested in hydro power.  

But to the topic itself...I wouldn't say "pointless".  Everything we are currently relying on from oil to goal to gas to wood is finite to varying degrees.  We also have lots of people with lots of experience who are showing how those are damaging the Earth.  

So why not invest in alternatives now instead of when we are in a desperate situation?  

[NATI BENGALS]

I keep hearing about SMRs. Small modular reactors. Bunch of new patents and a new easier way of doing nuclear.

Then I heard about the idea of using the nuclear power to desalinate water or make hydrogen to fuel vehicles. Sounds like some good ideas to me.

It wasn’t long ago people were still fighting to protect coal

[SunsetBengal]

(05-10-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Years of experience can be good.  But that doesn't mean is "opinion" is.

Oil companies, for decades, denied that they affected the climate even though they knew they did.

The engineer also "recently" started doubting climate change....though he has no experience in studying that.

Oh, and he's heavily invested in hydro power.  

But to the topic itself...I wouldn't say "pointless".  Everything we are currently relying on from oil to goal to gas to wood is finite to varying degrees.  We also have lots of people with lots of experience who are showing how those are damaging the Earth.  

So why not invest in alternatives now instead of when we are in a desperate situation?  

Well, he's not alone on doubting the impact human hands have on climate change.  As he states on his intro page, "climate has been changing forever".

I also think that hydro production is the way to go, particularly tidal and wave production.  I think that the issues with that are how efficient is long distance transmission, i.e. how much power is lost over the distance of the transmission to those who don't live near the coast or along rivers?

[Stewy]

Anyone who has been reading my posts on oil, the future and renewables shouldn't be surprised by this as I have been preaching that sustainability is the key problem with renewables. However, the article lives life in the fairly world where 100% renewables are the only solution. 100% is what people are screaming for, but it is unrealistic for the reasons he, and I, have stated.

Where he is incorrect, is that renewables are pointless because of the lack of storage. The problem is that is a singular solution. My company, TotalEnergies, and the other majors, who will build, run and own the renewable market, are planning to bridge the gap created by sustainability issues with cleaner hydrocarbons. Reducing the use of coal and oil power generation in favor of cleaner natural gas, but in lesser amounts as we approach 2050. TTE estimates only 25% of it's power generation will come from HC's by 2050 (and be carbon neutral) whereas it is over 90% now.

The oil majors have a plan toward renewables and are acting upon it. Meanwhile govt's hem and haw and point fingers talking a lot or doing nothing at all because they have no control over the situation nor the capital to do it themselves. It's always funny to me how much environmentalists hate on the O&G industry when it will be O&G money that walks us into a renewable future.

The real future of renewable energy is fusion, but that's 100 years out, but at least real fusion has finally been achieved.

Lastly, none of this speaks to or has a solution for our crumbling power grid, which cannot handle an EV future.

[Stewy]

(05-10-2023, 02:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, he's not alone on doubting the impact human hands have on climate change.  As he states on his intro page, "climate has been changing forever".

I also think that hydro production is the way to go, particularly tidal and wave production.  I think that the issues with that are how efficient is long distance transmission, i.e. how much power is lost over the distance of the transmission to those who don't live near the coast or along rivers?

Not touching the first line.

Harnessing wave action on a large enough scale to be economic is the problem with it, aside from the normal "not in my backyard" mentality.  Everyone wants renewables until there's a windmill, dam, solar farm etc. to be built that they can see or affects them and that's when the hypocrites step forward.

[Stewy]

(05-10-2023, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: So why not invest in alternatives now instead of when we are in a desperate situation?  

See my note above.  The majors ARE investing now.  My companies renewables capital budget is larger than the O&G budget with the gap being planned to grow yearly going forward.  Frankly, I don't think people want to hear that the big major oil companies are actually the ones who are going to own the energy market in the future too.  But let's throw some logic on the hysteria.......who is best suited to provide energy to an needy easy energy populace going forward???  How about the companies who have been generating, supplying and delivering energy to homes for a Century+?  Who has the know how?  Who has the capital?  

You guessed it....the evil eight, but why don't people talk about it?  That I don't know because it isn't like the majors aren't talking about it.  It isn't like the majors aren't sharing their budgets with their investors.

Anyway, the future is coming whether people know it or not.  And you all better be happy that those who know how to supply energy are the ones bringing the future and not our govts. or environmentalists.

[*Nately120*]

(05-10-2023, 02:13 PM)Stewy Wrote: Not touching the first line.

Harnessing wave action on a large enough scale to be economic is the problem with it, aside from the normal "not in my backyard" mentality.  Everyone wants renewables until there's a windmill, dam, solar farm etc. to be built that they can see or affects them and that's when the hypocrites step forward.

Interestingly, I live in a rural and conservative area of PA and people from out of state are buying up land here and setting up solar farms which send power to other states.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 02:23 PM)Stewy Wrote: See my note above.  The majors ARE investing now.  My companies renewables capital budget is larger than the O&G budget with the gap being planned to grow yearly going forward.  Frankly, I don't think people want to hear that the big major oil companies are actually the ones who are going to own the energy market in the future too.  But let's throw some logic on the hysteria.......who is best suited to provide energy to an needy easy energy populace going forward???  How about the companies who have been generating, supplying and delivering energy to homes for a Century+?  Who has the know how?  Who has the capital?  

You guessed it....the evil eight, but why don't people talk about it?  That I don't know because it isn't like the majors aren't talking about it.  It isn't like the majors aren't sharing their budgets with their investors.

Anyway, the future is coming whether people know it or not.  And you all better be happy that those who know how to supply energy are the ones bringing the future and not our govts. or environmentalists.

My question about investing was more about the OP's source calling it "pointless".  I'm sure every energy producer is working on the it and wants to the one that gets the lead on the next get source of power.  

I wish they and the government could do more to improve the grid while they're at it too!

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 02:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, he's not alone on doubting the impact human hands have on climate change.  As he states on his intro page, "climate has been changing forever".

I also think that hydro production is the way to go, particularly tidal and wave production.  I think that the issues with that are how efficient is long distance transmission, i.e. how much power is lost over the distance of the transmission to those who don't live near the coast or along rivers?

Correct.  There are outliers and those who profit who don't want to believe in climate change.  But his 60 years of experience doesn't make his opinion better than someone who works and studies such things.  

And hydro is great...but so can the other things over time.  They aren't "pointless" because they are progress.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

The real energy answer is nuclear. Design and build new plants. Pretty sure all operational US nuclear plants right now started construction in the 70s which means they were probably designed in the 60s. Need a wave of new construction using whatever new designs and materials would make it even more efficient.

Don't fully understand how people can be both pro-reducing carbon emissions and anti-nuclear as it's the only realistic answer for consistent power delivery that isn't fossil fuels. Doubly so if they're sold on the concept of trying to transition to electric cars, electric stoves, electric house heating, etc. That'd be a huge increase in electricity demand.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2023, 02:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The real energy answer is nuclear. Design and build new plants. Pretty sure all operational US nuclear plants right now started construction in the 70s which means they were probably designed in the 60s. Need a wave of new construction using whatever new designs and materials would make it even more efficient.

Don't fully understand how people can be both pro-reducing carbon emissions and anti-nuclear as it's the only realistic answer for consistent power delivery that isn't fossil fuels. Doubly so if they're sold on the concept of trying to transition to electric cars, electric stoves, electric house heating, etc. That'd be a huge increase in electricity demand.

I think its an issue people have with safety and what to do with the waste.  I'm not well read on it but I do know that nuclear is getting a bit of a "push" to the forefront again recently based on the few things I've seen.

[Dill]

(05-10-2023, 12:34 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The man is a power systems engineer, with over 60 years of experience around the world.  I think that I'll trust his opinion over yours. 

"Trusting opinions" is not really a good strategy. Especially when expert "opinions" clash. 

We ought to inform ourselves as much as possible about the science behind these debates, even as laypersons.

But if you still want to trust "opinions," then perhaps rate scientists higher than engineers, and scientific consensus over outliers.

(05-10-2023, 02:07 PM)SunsetBengalT Wrote: Well, he's not alone on doubting the impact human hands have on climate change.  As he states on his intro page, "climate has been changing forever".

There isn't much clash of expert opinion when it comes to climate change, though, is there? 

Even EXXON, who's probably done the most to increase public doubt (e.g., by funding "alternative" studies), now affirms the anthropogenic thesis publicly--as they did privately back in the '70s. 

Someone who doubts the human impact on climate change because "climate has been changing forever" is not reasoning very well and/or lacks fundamental understanding of the argument that climate change is anthropogenic. No one supposes the climate has not been changing forever; the question is whether it is changing with extraordinary rapidity and with what effects. 

And it's not just about science. That becomes quickly embedded in the politics of regulating extraction; doubts about whether carbon emissions accelerate climate change are largely generated by the hydrocarbon lobby, both here and abroad. 

Final note--Leyland's argument seems to presume that energy consumption will remain at present levels. It's not clear to me that will be the case.  E.g., innovations in public transportation and home design could cut much of our present energy costs--though I'm not arguing that would be enough to finally eliminate the need for fossil fuels.

[Stewy]

(05-10-2023, 02:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: My question about investing was more about the OP's source calling it "pointless".  I'm sure every energy producer is working on the it and wants to the one that gets the lead on the next get source of power.  

I wish they and the government could do more to improve the grid while they're at it too!

The dirty secret about the US Power grid is that they are mostly owned by local authorities, who are not beholden to anyone but their stock holders.  Big Energy companies have nothing to do with it, and the Federal Govt has no authority over it.  Personally I don't think the power grid has a chance of being improved unless the Fed Govt nationalizes the power grid.  But their so F'd in DC, that would be a disaster too.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-10-2023, 09:06 PM)Stewy Wrote: The dirty secret about the US Power grid is that they are mostly owned by local authorities, who are not beholden to anyone but their stock holders.  Big Energy companies have nothing to do with it, and the Federal Govt has no authority over it.  Personally I don't think the power grid has a chance of being improved unless the Fed Govt nationalizes the power grid.  But their so F'd in DC, that would be a disaster too.

This was really frustrating to read last month. I did not make it all the way through. I do not believe there was a happy ending.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/outdated-us-energy-grid-tons-of-clean-energy-stuck-waiting-in-line.html

There has to be a way to not disrupt the system too much and get more of these projects in waiting permission to tie in to the grid. Feels like an area gov resources could help.

If they don't get their shit together we may end up having the technology to produce as much energy as you need at home and you won't even need a grid.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-10-2023, 09:06 PM)Stewy Wrote: The dirty secret about the US Power grid is that they are mostly owned by local authorities, who are not beholden to anyone but their stock holders.  Big Energy companies have nothing to do with it, and the Federal Govt has no authority over it.  Personally I don't think the power grid has a chance of being improved unless the Fed Govt nationalizes the power grid.  But their so F'd in DC, that would be a disaster too.

Kind of my stance on the healthcare system, too. Anytime I think that maybe some more government control in there wouldn't be the worst idea, another part of my brain reminds me it took 3 weeks for me to get my last medicine refill from the VA and that's without adding 300m+ people to the system, and the last attempt with the ACA wasn't exactly great. Lol

[masonbengals fan]

That's actually a very informative article.

[Dill]

(05-11-2023, 12:41 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Kind of my stance on the healthcare system, too. Anytime I think that maybe some more government control in there wouldn't be the worst idea, another part of my brain reminds me it took 3 weeks for me to get my last medicine refill from the VA and that's without adding 300m+ people to the system, and the last attempt with the ACA wasn't exactly great. Lol

Your problems with the VA sound more like a problem with party control, not government control.

I.e., one party's efforts to "cut waste" there by reducing the staff needed to serve veterans.