Energy is like money

[brenthutch 384]

https://fb.watch/runGaPUcRf/?
 

You have to spend it to get it. What form gets a better ROI?

[olofscience 422]

...so is your argument that, as soon as solar power generates 3.5x breakeven energy, the sun stops shining?

[billvon 2,402]

Sure, energy is like money.  In fact you can convert one to the other.

With natural gas, you build $100 worth of plant, put in $20 worth of natural gas, and get $22 of energy out.  After a while you pay off the plant.  Then you keep paying for the gas and making $2.  At that point you are OK - as long as natural gas prices don't rise!

With solar, you build $200 worth of plant and get $4 of energy out.  After a while you pay off the plant.  At that point you are making that $4 forever.

(and yes, both will need maintenance.)

[Phil1111 912]

8 hours ago, olofscience said:

...so is your argument that, as soon as solar power generates 3.5x breakeven energy, the sun stops shining?

No, republicans believe that solar is a bad investment because when the sun stops shining they can laugh at all the liberals for being optimists.

[kallend 1,632]

Is dark energy like dark money?

[JoeWeber 2,306]

23 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

No, republicans believe that solar is a bad investment because when the sun stops shining they can laugh at all the liberals for being optimists.

And in +\- 4.5 Billion years they’ll be right and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Phil1111 912]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

And in +\- 4.5 Billion years they’ll be right and there is nothing you can do about it.

Yep rats, republicans, lizards, reptiles and forever chemicals. They will eat anything to survive, morph into whatever is necessary.

[metalslug 31]

On 4/18/2024 at 3:23 AM, olofscience said:

...so is your argument that, as soon as solar power generates 3.5x breakeven energy, the sun stops shining?

Nah, depending on geography the sun stops shining for around 12 hours of every day and that's assuming there's no inclement weather to reduce sunlight further.

On 4/18/2024 at 3:40 AM, billvon said:

At that point you are making that $4 forever.

Here we see the repeated outright green lie. Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years, the supporting batteries about half that, and then someone gets to decide which landfills to dump them in (any toxic materials in them notwithstanding), and that assumes they wont have a 'Fort Bend County' moment before then.  Other than their much smaller site footprint; gas and nuclear plants will get 50 to 80 years of life and won't be dependent on wind or sunshine. 

[wmw999 2,124]

OK, idle curiosity -- what happened in Fort Bend County?

Wendy P.

[olofscience 422]

53 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years, the supporting batteries about half that

This is the lie, solar panels are getting a LOT more reliable. Some of the newest ones are rated for 40 to 50 years: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html

The battery lifespan is also a lie - the 10 years usually quoted is for the number of cycles for batteries to reach 80% of their rated capacity.  You're talking as if they suddenly go to zero.

57 minutes ago, metalslug said:

then someone gets to decide which landfills to dump them in (any toxic materials in them notwithstanding)

The lithium in them is extremely valuable, this is another silly argument. If you replace your car's catalytic converter, do you dump it, platinum and all, in a landfill? Most batteries are easily recycled.

[BIGUN 1,059]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

gas and nuclear plants will get 50 to 80 years of life and won't be dependent on wind or sunshine. 

Well, ummmm, about that, are you saying that . . .  nevermind

[winsor 186]

On 4/17/2024 at 12:39 PM, brenthutch said:

https://fb.watch/runGaPUcRf/?
 

You have to spend it to get it. What form gets a better ROI?

My first thought was the petrodollar.

One of many problems I have with fossil fuels is that they are, by their very nature, finite.

I agree that the people who want to 'simply' replace fossil fuels with sunshine and unicorn farts tend to be weak on the thermodynamics of scale involved, but that does not mean we can continue indefinitely down the road of plentiful and cheap fossil fuels shoring up our way of life.

The point that the video missed is that the ROI on natural gas is only good until you use it up.  Quite when is that point can vary as a function of efficiency and sundry wild cards, but that point is coming sooner than later.

You may as well get in another few skydives and tear around in exquisite Italian cars and whatnot, because it will only slightly affect when the inevitable comes to pass.  No long term gain from missing out.  BTW, Lamborghinis are best rented, so the owner is stuck with it when the fuel pump runs dry.

 

BSBD,

Winsor

[metalslug 31]

48 minutes ago, olofscience said:

This is the lie, solar panels are getting a LOT more reliable. Some of the newest ones are rated for 40 to 50 years

..and what did my post state by comparison?  Are you standing with bill on that $4 forever ?  Nuclear technology is also improving, arguably a truly long-life plant or cost reduction breakthrough could be possible someday.

49 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The battery lifespan is also a lie - the 10 years usually quoted is for the number of cycles for batteries to reach 80% of their rated capacity.  You're talking as if they suddenly go to zero.

Are you asserting that replacement is only required when it gets to zero?

50 minutes ago, olofscience said:

The lithium in them is extremely valuable, this is another silly argument. If you replace your car's catalytic converter, do you dump it, platinum and all, in a landfill? Most batteries are easily recycled.

By that standard I can confidently state that I recycle paper cups filled with warm coffee. The coffee inside them is valuable to me, the rest of the item goes someplace else. Win !

[olofscience 422]

9 minutes ago, metalslug said:

Are you asserting that replacement is only required when it gets to zero?

No, I'm asserting that the lifespan is more than 10 years.

10 minutes ago, metalslug said:

By that standard I can confidently state that I recycle paper cups filled with warm coffee. The coffee inside them is valuable to me, the rest of the item goes someplace else. Win !

This is a bizarre and nonsensical analogy. Are you ok?

[billvon 2,402]

4 hours ago, metalslug said:

Nah, depending on geography the sun stops shining for around 12 hours of every day and that's assuming there's no inclement weather to reduce sunlight further.

And fossil fuel power plants have to go down for maintenance regulary.  Fortunately, we can plan for that, just as we can plan for intermittent renewables.

Quote

Here we see the repeated outright green lie. Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years

I have panels that have been in continuous use for 25 years, on my first house.  Last time I checked they were still generating at least 90% of their original rating.

The first panels at the Topaz solar installation were installed in 2011.  They were thin film, which are cheaper but shorter-lived than the sort of crystalline panels that are used today for most solar installations (including residential.)  Those panels are still operating.

The oldest known solar panel installation was installed in 1976.  It is still operating.

So one of us is lying.

Quote

and then someone gets to decide which landfills to dump them in

Well, no, you are thinking of coal power plants, that have huge ponds that they dump their toxic and radioactive wastes into (and store coal and ash slurry.)  When the dams on these ponds fail, dozens die and hundreds of acres of land are poisoned.

Solar panels?  They are often recycled, partially or completely.  The most common recycling now is to strip the aluminum off the panels (easy to recycle) then throw the glass in a landfill.  That saves about half the energy needed to make a solar panel, and the remaining stuff (glass, EVA and silicon) is inert.

Right now about 80% of panels are partially recycled, and 20% of panels are completely recycled.  In the future that will be much higher.

And no one has ever been killed by a "solar panel dam failure."

Quote

Other than their much smaller site footprint; gas and nuclear plants will get 50 to 80 yeaof life and won't be dependent on wind or sunshine.

No gas or nuclear power plant - EVER - operated for 50 years without maintenance and parts replacement.  EVER.

Quote

Are you standing with bill on that $4 forever ? 

Fair point.  It will go up with time - since energy will get more expensive, but sunlight will not.

 

 

 

[brenthutch 384]

57 minutes ago, billvon said:

No gas or nuclear power plant - EVER - operated for 50 years without maintenance and parts replacement.  EVER.

 

Voyager 1, 47 years and counting 

[metalslug 31]

14 hours ago, billvon said:

Fair point.  It will go up with time - since energy will get more expensive, but sunlight will not.

Did you forget the original context of your statement? ; "After a while you pay off the plant.  At that point you are making that $4 forever."  What you dismiss as 'maintenance' are replacements of entire panels and batteries over time as they age. While sunshine may be an infinite resource, the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite; expected supply&demand pricing and the countries controlling those markets, you'll rival or exceed the original capital cost after (I'll be generous now) 30 years, a ratio higher than equivalent gas or nuclear 'maintenance'. You'll be spending a good percentage of that $4 forever. 

"..since energy will get more expensive.." As renewable solutions? I don't doubt it.

[kallend 1,632]

2 hours ago, metalslug said:

Did you forget the original context of your statement? ; "After a while you pay off the plant.  At that point you are making that $4 forever."  What you dismiss as 'maintenance' are replacements of entire panels and batteries over time as they age. While sunshine may be an infinite resource, the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite;  

Recycling works for panel and battery materials.  Not for fossil fuels.

[tkhayes 127]

22 hours ago, metalslug said:

Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years,

 

Most Industrial gas turbines don't last any longer, in fact generally cost millions of dollars per year to keep them running.  I know this because that is the industry that I work in.

[olofscience 422]

6 hours ago, metalslug said:

the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite;

This is why your coffee cup recycling analogy was so bizarre. Lithium in lithium batteries don't get "used up" - a dead battery still contains 100% of the lithium a new battery has, and can be recycled pretty much indefinitely.

Same with the infrastructure - they're not burned like fossil fuels.

You need to brush up on the basics like the laws of conservation of mass and energy...not to mention the DIFFERENCES in maintaining a turbine that rotates at 200,000rpm at 1500C, and a solar panel with no moving parts at room temperature.

[billvon 2,402]

14 hours ago, metalslug said:

Did you forget the original context of your statement? ; "After a while you pay off the plant.  At that point you are making that $4 forever."  What you dismiss as 'maintenance' are replacements of entire panels and batteries over time as they age.

Which are currently the cheapest portion of the plant.  PV panels are down to 20 cents a watt.  And those are panels I can buy right now.  In quantity, they are under 8 cents a watt.  That means that the panels make up less than 20% the cost of the plant - and last ~40 years.  And the plant can keep running while they are replaced; you only have to take down the string that you are replacing.

Again, compare that to a natural gas plant that not only has to regularly replace bearings and turbines to the tune of millions of dollars a year (averaged) and ALSO has to pay for M+O (filter changes, lubrication changes, operator salaries) but will also have to pay for natural gas - forever.

Quote

While sunshine may be an infinite resource, the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite

Nor do they have to be.  Unlike natural gas, the materials in solar and storage are not "used up." They can be recycled forever, and thus effectively last forever.

 

 

[johnhking1 72]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

a solar panel with no moving parts at room temperature.

No moving parts but still moving at 650,000 miles per hour.

[metalslug 31]

On 4/19/2024 at 11:32 PM, olofscience said:

the 10 years usually quoted is for the number of cycles for batteries to reach 80% of their rated capacity. 

By what percentage do reactors and gas turbines reduce in output or capacity over the same period? (assuming maintenance and not replacement).

23 hours ago, olofscience said:

Lithium in lithium batteries don't get "used up" - a dead battery still contains 100% of the lithium a new battery has, and can be recycled pretty much indefinitely.

And yet, as others have said, most are not recycled, as it's currently cheaper to mine more lithium than to recycle. It's thereby implied that as recycling increases in future years, the price goes up. Herein lies another contradiction; renewables are hailed as the cheap form of energy and yet in (nearly?) every place where solar and wind are are on the rise to replace fossil fuel electricity there are no trends of a drop in wholesale electricity pricing. People can 'brush up' on renewable talking points all day, but most are 'brushing up' on what they read on their utility bill, and a future of recycling costs (potentially more than mining costs) and many more batteries to be built for sustainable all-day output.

18 hours ago, billvon said:

And the plant can keep running while they are replaced; you only have to take down the string that you are replacing.

The whole site is effectively down, in terms of active solar, for about 12 hours of every day. I'll bet turbine and nuclear plants wish they had that percentage of maintenance opportunity.

Edited April 21 by metalslug

[olofscience 422]

17 minutes ago, metalslug said:

By what percentage do reactors and gas turbines reduce in output or capacity over the same period? (assuming maintenance and not replacement)

Why are you comparing batteries to reactors and gas turbines? Batteries don't generate electricity, they merely store it. The correct comparison would be to solar panels.

And if you assume you spend millions in maintaining the reactors or turbines, you already have an unfair comparison. Tell you what, if you spend the SAME AMOUNT maintaining the gas turbine/reactor as the solar panels, I can tell you the gas turbine/reactor output will go to zero very quickly. (or you have another Chernobyl/Fukushima)

24 minutes ago, metalslug said:

And yet, as others have said, most are not recycled, as it's currently cheaper to mine more lithium than to recycle. It's thereby implied that as recycling increases in future years, the price goes up.

You misunderstood billvon's post - he was talking about solar panels, not lithium.

For lithium, the price surge in 2021 of lithium carbonate means that it's very economically sound to recycle batteries. With the projected global demand for lithium carbonate in the coming decades, recycling will benefit from economies of scale and the price will go down as recycling increases. Another reason why there's not a lot of recycling at the moment is that batteries are lasting quite a long time in most of their current applications and very few have needed replacement so far.

21 minutes ago, metalslug said:

and yet in (nearly?) every place where solar and wind are are on the rise to replace fossil fuel electricity there are no trends of a drop in wholesale electricity pricing.

And the same happens with fossil or nuclear, because there are many variables involved, not just whether they're fossil/nuclear or renewable. There's a new nuclear reactor being built near me, and it's going to lock people in my area into decades of higher electricity bills.

 

[metalslug 31]

10 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Why are you comparing batteries to reactors and gas turbines? Batteries don't generate electricity, they merely store it. The correct comparison would be to solar panels.

..and batteries provide when solar is unavailable (e.g; evening), therefore their ability to do that becomes very relevant. Not obvious to you?

12 minutes ago, olofscience said:

You misunderstood billvon's post - he was talking about solar panels, not lithium.

Scroll up again. I wasn't replying to bill's post, I was replying to yours. Are you OK ?