Are current renewable energy strategies worth it?

[Trakar]

I disagree with most of the rest of your post (no, I'm not going into detail), but I'll fully agree with this. The idea that we need a one-size-fits-all solution is part of what's holding us back. In areas like California, where there are large open spaces that can support wind power, it'd be insane to NOT harness that power. There are areas in Nevada that would be ideal for solar power as well (the Ivanpah power plant demonstrates that). In contrast, solar power doesn't work so well in northwestern Ohio; not enough sunny days. Wind power works to some extent, but isn't reliable enough. Each region has to figure out what works best for it.

This is a point I've tried to make for nearly a decade now!

What is especially frustrating is that not only is the fight to make such a point contested by those arguing against any fossil fuel alternative, it is also argued against by alternative source advocates who have fixated on a preferred single source energy alternative.
My personal assessment of the global energy picture indicates that there will be a role for fossil fuelled power sources indefinitely into the future. Of course, my goal is to minimize that role, and reduce fossil carbon emissions as much as possible, but I readily acknowledge that it may be a significant while before our technology achieves alternatives that can efficaciously and economically transition our industry and society fully away from fossil fuels.

 

[macdoc]

DInwar -

I disagree....

The big issue is storage/load leveling. No appropriate answers.

The implication is that I think there needs to be a smart grid to handle the uneven power sources.

That there needs to be either storage or the ability to rapidly spin up additional power when power from solar or wind falls off.

I''d be happy to hear why you disagree with both or either of these and why.

Currently I only see coal as an achievable goal of elimination for first world nations in a short term.
Fossil fuel will be with us for a good long while tho additional integration with biofuels may ease the fossil CO2 emissions with out radical changes to our liquid fuel infrastructure

 

[aleCcowaN]

What is especially frustrating is that not only is the fight to make such a point contested by those arguing against any fossil fuel alternative, it is also argued against by alternative source advocates who have fixated on a preferred single source energy alternative.

That's the problem with universal assertions: wind power is good bad good ...

or assertions with the wrong adjectives: using coal is despicable ...

or the wrong settings: there's a conspiracy regarding nuclear power ...

but I have to admit that these fora would come to a halt if everybody really reads consciously the posts they're replying to and writes a balanced opinion.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Yes, but unlike a gas powered plant they are not exclusive. Most in Texas are surrounded by either farm land or grazing. In other words they don't displace other uses in the same way a much smaller generations facility would.

And you are not taking into account the massive lands that are needed to produce the feedstock for the gas plant, coal plant, or what have you. In that regard, I think gas drilling wells are very similar to wind farms in land usage: small actual footprint to extract energy from a rather large area of land without changing the other surface uses very much.

Comparing the acres needed for a wind farm to the acres needed for a fossil fuel turbine is a little disingenuous if you put much thought into it.

Just so. The subjective metric of "Disproportionate and Meager" is pretty irrelevant when you consider the vast swaths of land available for various kinds of wind and solar production in the western US. Quite a bit of the best land for is already owned by the Federal gov't so they wouldn't even need to buy it.

 

[macdoc]

Alec
When coal's externalities are accounted for it costs more than it supplies in value.
Coal needs eliminating for a variety of reasons and can be in the first world.
Who said despicable.
It's damaging to the environment and to health and is not needed in the first world - one reason it becomes increasingly difficult to fund a new coal plant.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post

Yes, but unlike a gas powered plant they are not exclusive. Most in Texas are surrounded by either farm land or grazing. In other words they don't displace other uses in the same way a much smaller generations facility would.

And you are not taking into account the massive lands that are needed to produce the feedstock for the gas plant, coal plant, or what have you. In that regard, I think gas drilling wells are very similar to wind farms in land usage: small actual footprint to extract energy from a rather large area of land without changing the other surface uses very much.

Comparing the acres needed for a wind farm to the acres needed for a fossil fuel turbine is a little disingenuous if you put much thought into it.

Just so. The subjective metric of "Disproportionate and Meager" is pretty irrelevant when you consider the vast swaths of land available for various kinds of wind and solar production in the western US. Quite a bit of the best land for is already owned by the Federal gov't so they wouldn't even need to buy it.

But they need to be on a transmission line and one that can handle the variable output and the further away the source is from the line the greater the capital cost.

Expansion of nukes and gas turbines have the relative advantage that they can often be grouped with existing facilities on existing transmission corridors.

Now to a point wind can do that as well.....we have a wind facility spinning up where the biggest coal facility was in Ontario....and there is also consideration for a gas turbine facility - again because the transmission corridor exists.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Alec
When coal's externalities are accounted for it costs more than it supplies in value.
Coal needs eliminating for a variety of reasons and can be in the first world.
Who said despicable.
It's damaging to the environment and to health and is not needed in the first world - one reason it becomes increasingly difficult to fund a new coal plant.

Paradise

 

[Trakar]

That's the problem with universal assertions: wind power is good bad good ...

or assertions with the wrong adjectives: using coal is despicable ...

or the wrong settings: there's a conspiracy regarding nuclear power ...

but I have to admit that these fora would come to a halt if everybody really reads consciously the posts they're replying to and writes a balanced opinion.

Well, some would definitely find them much less interesting/entertaining;...personally, that would enhance my appreciation of them.

I'm a big fan of "Boring;" I've more than explored, and barely survived, all too many of life's adventures.

 

[aleCcowaN]

The implication is that I think there needs to be a smart grid to handle the uneven power sources.

Well, the problem with most alternative sources have a very small share worldwide. If I extended to the whole planet the local technical analysis that concluded that Argentina could handle up to 26.5% of installed power being wind before unbalances become a problem. That means that we could theoretically expand human energy sources during 4 or 5 years just using wind without increasing the flow of pollutants in the environment.

But the fact is that, as already said, it's an analysis to be made on a regional basis. Argentina might have potentially the luxury of 26.5% wind power because of the high capacity factor of certain regions, up to 62% which is reached in 45-50° coastal latitudes, and that is not what Brazil or Austria have.

Today I read a piece of news telling that the first CNG-H2 station start operating here, apparently the first one in the world. It's a humble achievement but it shows what can be done about energy sources.

CNG for vehicle use is very common here -Argentina had the largest fleet until 2007-. This tiny project means that one of our +1,100 CNG stations now generates hydrogen by night using the electricity available from the local wind park and it "enriches" -in fact, slightly "dilutes"- the CNG sold there with a small percentage of hydrogen. The long term plan would be having all stations and the total fleet using CNG with a 25% of hydrogen coming from nuclear and wind unused night power. A quick calculation tells me that a potential use of 10 km3 of GNC-H2 in, say, 20 years -now it's about a half of that- would include 2.5 km3 of H2, some 220,000 tons of H2 -equivalent to 850,000 tons of gasoline-.

Yeah, a drop in the bucket, but with the capacity to replace fossil fuels with a renewable product that takes advantage from something regarded as an inconvenience achieving the wind power generated at 3 a.m. stored in your vehicle's tank. And you know the saying: many a little makes a mickle, and that's in the end the role of the whole range of alternative power sources.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Alec
When coal's externalities are accounted for it costs more than it supplies in value.
Coal needs eliminating for a variety of reasons and can be in the first world.
Who said despicable.
It's damaging to the environment and to health and is not needed in the first world - one reason it becomes increasingly difficult to fund a new coal plant.

Certainly we have two different cost analysis:

mining coal and burn it to generate electricity ---> the cheapest fuel in the world

mining coal and burn it to generate electricity, capture and store all the carbon dioxide generated, the sulphur, the methane liberated by the mining process (or having it compensated elsewhere) ---> maybe the most expensive fuel in the world, unless we burn incunabula to generate electricity, which is surely even more expensive.

Like the coal based power industry, the owners who walk their dogs find the cheapest way to be leaving their alter-egos' droppings wherever they drop them. Surprisingly both groups continue to do it, but one considers to have a right to it while the other knows they don't and contents in doing their indiscriminate sowing under the cover of night.

 

[macdoc]

Well, the problem with most alternative sources have a very small share worldwide.

Mmmmm not so in in the leading areas...

even globally

lGobal demand for renewable energy continued to rise during 2011 and 2012, supplying an estimated 19% of global final energy consumption in 2011 (the latest year for which data are available), with a little less than half from traditional biomass.ii

Useful heat energy from modern renewable sources accounted for an estimated 4.1% of total final energy use; hydropower made up about 3.7%; and an estimated 1.9% was provided by power from wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass, and by biofuels.

Total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1,470 GW in 2012, up about 8.5% from 2011. Hydropower rose 3% to an estimated 990 GW, while other renewables grew 21.5% to exceed 480 GW.

Globally, wind power accounted for about 39% of renewable power capacity added in 2012, followed by hydropower and solar PV, each accounting for approximately 26%.
Renewables made up just over half of total net additions to electric generating capacity from all sources in 2012. By year’s end, they comprised more than 26% of global generating capacity and supplied an estimated 21.7% of global electricity, with 16.5% of electricity provided by hydropower. Industrial, commercial, and residential consumers are increasingly becoming producers of renewable power in a growing number of countries.

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_highres.pdf

 

[aleCcowaN]

Mmmmm not so in in the leading areas...

even globally



http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_highres.pdf

"Alternative" -what I wrote- is not the same as "renewable" -what you highlighted. Among renewable sources there's hydro power, the most old, extended and successful of all renewable sources. Renewable minus hydro-electrical gives "small share".

Also "energy sources" -what the thread deals with- and "electricity" -where your 19% comes from- are different levels. Currently, wind power, solar power, geothermal, tidal and biofuels -to name the most important both alternative and renewable energy sources- maybe account for some 2.5 or 4% of all human energy sources.

Solar power and secondarily wind power are probably going to provide some 15% to 25% of all our energy needs by 2050. I personally hope nuclear will cover a similar share. All of that together with replacing coal and part of oil with natural gas -as in CNG- and increasing the efficient use of energy -like electric cars and led lamps- should be enough to level, if not drop a little, our yearly contribution to the greenhouse gases pool. That together with other changes in soil use and capture projects should put us on track of defusing the long term bomb we're managing to have. The ocean thermal resilience of 5 ZJ/°C (1 ZJ = 1,000,000 PJ) makes mostly improbable to have scenarios of +4 or +5°C in a century, but it won't resist forever.

 

[Belz...]

And the starring words are disproportionate and meager, yet they are very poor to substantiate your assertion. You may replace those unfortunate adjectives with figures -not with links or other adjectives- if you first have clear that people placing a mill inside the Madison Square Garden are "they" in your "they use a dis....". Sort of "cars are inherently dangerous because inebriates think they can drive them".

What in the blazes are you on about ?

By the way, you didn't really address Cuddles' message.

Yes, I did. I specifically quoted the part I was answering.

 

[macdoc]

I'd rather see the whole spectrum and not slice it up.....carbon neutral....not carbon neutral.
Measure it that way and who cares how we get there.

The increased sensitivity paper ( narrowed range ) makes 3C tho a near certainty. - just depends on when.

The cosequences of 3C tho may not be as dire as projected by some but shoreline engineering will be a growth industry.

Arctic tho gets big time changes.

WIththe exception of Japan and Germany being seriously brain dead on nukes I'm generally satisfied there is some substantive progress toward carbon neutral.

A US repugly win in 2016 tho might curtail that...might have it's own momentum then tho.

I do wish jurisdictions would toughen up building codes and flat out legislate R level and energy efficiency compliance before any sale and for all multi-dwellings.

We have fire legislation....what wrong with some stiff energy efficiency legislation. Put a lot of people to work.

 

[Belz...]

Just so. The subjective metric of "Disproportionate and Meager" is pretty irrelevant when you consider the vast swaths of land available for various kinds of wind and solar production in the western US.

Subjective metrics can be pretty good when you're voicing your opinion.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What in the blazes are you on about ?



Yes, I did. I specifically quoted the part I was answering.

Well, you didn't reply or comment on my post either

If you had did so you would have realized your reply to Cuddles clearly says that we are not able to build wind turbines and solar panels that produce electricity nor we can build a number of them given all the money needed (what is needless to add in sight of your previous implicit statement). Reality tells you're dead wrong or you just won't read that what you'll reply to.

But if you want to keep blinkers -an agenda on one side and a list of hates or distrusts on the other-, well, be my guest.

 

[Trakar]

I do wish jurisdictions would toughen up building codes and flat out legislate R level and energy efficiency compliance before any sale and for all multi-dwellings.

We have fire legislation....what wrong with some stiff energy efficiency legislation. Put a lot of people to work.

Fully agreed, I'm of the considered opinion that a massive overhaul of national building codes in cooperation with insurers, mortgage companies and construction trades is the best means of addressing near term adaptation measures.

 

[macdoc]

Australia has done it with cyclone proofing.....not only new builds but retrofits are mandatory.

 

[Trakar]

Australia has done it with cyclone proofing.....not only new builds but retrofits are mandatory.

So has Florida and much of the SE US coastlines, California with Earthquake standards etc.,. Most of the construction Trade codes are updated every decade, its not like we have to shoot for 2100 standards by 2020, but I'd really like to see 2020 standards that look toward where we need to be in climate adaptations by 2050. This type of thing should actually give confidence to broad swaths of the economy regarding what changes are coming and how they will be implemented.

 

[macdoc]

Is Florida retro-active or only for new builds?