Why Renewables Can't Save the Climate

[billvon 2,400]

21 minutes ago, mbohu said:

1. Energy security: A distributed system should be many times more resilient than a centrally run system. A single terrorist attack--and probably more importantly right now--a natural event like a hurricane would not be able to take out the entire system (or a big part of it) in one single swoop

2. The system would also be resilient to price manipulation and economic downturns.

3. It would be better for individuals as it makes you more independent from government and large corporations (conservatives should be all over this!)

Challenges may be necessary updates of infrastructure, and how to efficiently manage the flow of surplus and shortage (Although both could be solved via technological solutions.)

But what I really wonder about is, if the slow progress with transitioning to such a system isn't also related to the fact that large companies don't like this distributed model, and haven't figured out how to control and OWN it in a way that can lead to monopolies similar to what they now enjoy.

Point 1) is generally termed "grid resilience."  Microgrids are a big part of this.  This allows (for example) parts of the grid to stay up while the larger grid is down.  This isn't anything new - Rockville Centre, a town my sister lives in on Long Island, has a microgrid that can power essential services (police, fire, traffic lights, cellphone towers and about 3000 residents) when the Long Island grid fails.  And it does this with 1950's generation (diesel generators) and some much more recent control systems.

As DG (distributed generation) and BESS (battery energy storage systems) continue to grow, microgrids will become more and more popular, and will contribute more and more to grid resilience. 

2) is partly true, although the utilities are now trying to recover income by increasing connection charges (i.e. $50 a month whether you use them or not.)

3) Also partly true.  You can do this yourself, but it's expensive.  What is more likely are local organizations (HOA's, villages, towns) doing this on their own, because economies of scale and utility cooperation make it a cheaper proposition for them.

The utility model is undergoing some very rapid changes, and no one knows what the outcome is going to be.  It is pretty clear that utilities that can best integrate microgrids, DG and DR (demand-response) are going to win in the end.

[mbohu 77]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

2) is partly true, although the utilities are now trying to recover income by increasing connection charges (i.e. $50 a month whether you use them or not.)

Yes, I noticed that. That is one indication, I think, that they are struggling with their business model and are seeing the writing on the wall, but aren't ready or capable of making more structural changes in their business model (or are trying to drag the necessary change out as long as possible.)

[airdvr 197]

Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/#3630b4558e48

"Problems are manifesting in all three dimensions of the energy industry triangle: climate protection, the security of supply and economic efficiency," writes McKinsey.

[Stumpy 256]

On 9/9/2019 at 1:07 AM, mbohu said:

Yes, I noticed that. That is one indication, I think, that they are struggling with their business model and are seeing the writing on the wall, but aren't ready or capable of making more structural changes in their business model (or are trying to drag the necessary change out as long as possible.)

I'm not sure for them it's even a matter of business model - their business could fundamentally disappear. They (and their Shills like one of the posters here) HATE the idea of people doing it for themselves.

[billvon 2,400]

On 9/9/2019 at 5:35 AM, airdvr said:

Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/#3630b4558e48

"Problems are manifesting in all three dimensions of the energy industry triangle: climate protection, the security of supply and economic efficiency," writes McKinsey.

Shellenberger apparently wants lots of nuclear power - and wants someone else to pay for it.  If you want more expensive power, it's a great option.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Shellenberger apparently wants lots of nuclear power - and wants someone else to pay for it.  If you want more expensive power, it's a great option.

France makes nuclear work.  In fact if it were not for Germany’s neighbors it’s grid would crash from the unreliable and sporadic production of its renewables.  

Edited September 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

France makes nuclear work.  

Yep.  And should you decide to move to France you could benefit from their nuclear power plants.

However, if you want to build new plants, nuclear is the most expensive form of power there is.  I am all for research on reducing that, and maybe HTGR's, SMR's and LFTR's will reduce that premium.  But until then, wind+storage (for example) is far cheaper than nuclear for new generation.

[brenthutch 383]

Do we have wind and storage now?  (actual commercial deployment, not just in the pages of Popular Science)

BTW just listened to a piece on NPR about the environmental nightmare of dealing with the blades of aged out windmills

Edited September 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

France makes nuclear work.  In fact if it were not for Germany’s neighbors it’s grid would crash from the unreliable and sporadic production of its renewables.  

France's nuke grid was created after the oil spikes in the 70's and the plants they use are no longer feasible for new construction.  Basically, it's cheap because they're driving a car they already paid off.  Can you point to an example of renewables resulting in sporatic energy production in a modern grid system or are you trying to predict the future.  You've had issue with people trying to predict the future so I'm curious.

[DJL 232]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

BTW just listened to a piece on NPR about the environmental nightmare of dealing with the blades of aged out windmills

If you're game for NPR's input you should check out their series on coal ash in your own state.  https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2019/03/04/report-coal-ash-contamination-widespread-in-u-s-pa/

[brenthutch 383]

46 minutes ago, DJL said:

France's nuke grid was created after the oil spikes in the 70's and the plants they use are no longer feasible for new construction.  Basically, it's cheap because they're driving a car they already paid off.  Can you point to an example of renewables resulting in sporatic energy production in a modern grid system or are you trying to predict the future.  You've had issue with people trying to predict the future so I'm curious.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennet-germany/german-grid-stabilization-costs-tennet-1-billion-euros-paper-idUSKCN1PS0FI

 

[DJL 232]

21 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennet-germany/german-grid-stabilization-costs-tennet-1-billion-euros-paper-idUSKCN1PS0FI

 

Exactly what I'm saying, they're designing the system to prevent again blackouts.

Edit:  I guess I did say "energy production" so that's fair so say I could mean it's at the point of production, like a set of windmills or solar arrays.  I'll correct myself to mean energy delivery, the whole system.

Edited September 11, 2019 by DJL

[billvon 2,400]

21 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do we have wind and storage now?  (actual commercial deployment, not just in the pages of Popular Science)

 

Yep.  So far 5GWHr of storage, 600GW wind.

Quote

BTW just listened to a piece on NPR about the environmental nightmare of dealing with the blades of aged out windmills

Yep.  Vs the environmental nightmare of dealing with the thousands of tons of toxic, radioactive waste from coal plants.

[Coreece 190]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

radioactive waste from coal plants

Pardon me, but I don't know everything - big surprise, right?  But is that true about radioactive coal?

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

23 minutes ago, billvon said:

radioactive waste from coal plants

Pardon me, but I don't know everything - big surprise, right?  But is that true about radioactive coal?

Wow, I just checked for myself.  Weird wild stuff, I did not know that.

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  So far 5GWHr of storage, 600GW wind.

Yep.  Vs the environmental nightmare of dealing with the thousands of tons of toxic, radioactive waste from coal plants.

About as radio active as kitty litter 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/glow-cat-glow/

[billvon 2,400]

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

About as radio active as kitty litter 

 

Nope, sorry.  From SciAm:

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.  . . .

McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

 Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as well as 1978 paper in Science authored by J. P. McBride and colleagues, also of ORNL. . . .Ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

 

[brenthutch 383]

That is why I am for fracking and natural gas.  BTW your study did refute radioactive kitty litter.

[kallend 1,625]

Your once trendy* granite counter top is measurably radioactive too.

* I believe marble is the current trend in kitchens.