Irina Slav interviews Doug Sandbridge about hurdles to NET ZERO

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

Irina Slav says: For this week’s interview I sat down with oil industry vet and energy educator Doug Sandridge to talk about the biggest obstacles on the way to net zero and why many of the current plans by governments are unfeasible.

Bio: Doug Sandridge has more than 46 years of experience in the energy industry, from oil to renewables. He is currently Senior Vice President of Fulcrum Energy Capital Funds and is the founder/director of EnergyPolicyUS, an organization which promotes non-partisan energy education.  Doug is an adjunct professor at the University of Oklahoma teaching Alternative Energy, Power & Fuels in the EMBA program. Doug has recently gained national notoriety for his “7 Hurdles to Net-Zero Carbon Emissions.”

In this interview you will learn:

• Why the energy transition cannot happen the way it is being planned

• What the issues are that we need to talk more about to avoid blackouts and poverty

• Why intermittency may not be the biggest problem of renewables

• Why decision-makers are ignoring the problems inherent in transition plans

LINK - https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/interview-doug-sandridge-and-the?s=r

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

https://irinaslav.substack.com/p/brussels-we-have-a-land-problem?s=r

Brussels, we have a land problem

That solar panels and wind farms take up a lot of space is a fact that can hardly be disputed because of how visible it is. That this spatial aspect of renewables could create much broader problems than the ‘Not In My Back Yard’ opposition seen in the U.S. and elsewhere was not something I’d given much thought to, until recently.

Two weeks ago, as I was reading a presentation by Doug Sandridge for an upcoming interview, I came across this eye-popping quote: “In a decarbonized world that is renewable-powered, the land area required to maintain today's British energy consumption would have to be similar to the area of Britain.”

The illustrious source is Professor Sir David John Cameron MacKay, a British physicist and mathematician, who is, sadly, no longer with us after passing away aged just 48. The paper it comes from was published in 2013 and focused on the power density of renewable energy.

Solar panels, MacKay explained, have to occupy a minimum amount of land. Based on calculations of per capita power consumption in different countries and on differences in population density, he concluded that in Britain, for instance, consumption per square metre is 1.25 Watts and that the power density of solar and wind farms in Britain—as well as other forms of renewable energy—is roughly the same.

So, if Britain really wants to go 100% renewable, it would need another Britain to supply the electricity necessary because of the extremely low power density of the generating sources.

Moreover, power density is also lower in solar farms than in individual panels, MacKay notes, “because the filling factor—the ratio of functional panel area to land area—is small, say, 14 per cent”. This is something well worth considering given the current focus on utility-scale solar as the way forward.

The paper makes for a fascinating read and I recommend it to everyone. It also makes for some gloomy inferences. One of these is that if we stick to the net-zero-with-renewables scenario that is based on a massive build-up of wind and solar, we would need to make some serious environmental sacrifices—ironic as that may be given that it is ‘environmentalists’ who are pushing the 100% renewable agenda.

MacKay’s paper is not the only expert warning out there.

A more recent study by Spanish researchers found that going 100% renewable with solar will be impossible for most EU member states, as well as countries such as Japan. Of course, defenders of the EU climate change plan will immediate point out that nobody plans to go 100% solar. Yet the authors explain why they are using solar only for their scenario: because it has the highest power density among renewables.

Their studies found that “for many advanced capitalist economies, the land requirements over the total terrestrial surface area to supply current electricity consumption would be substantial, the situation being especially challenging for those located in northern latitudes with high population densities and high electricity consumption per capita.”

One might wonder why these findings are so different from all the studies that conclude there’s no problem at all going 100% renewable. According to the paper’s authors, the reason for their worrying conclusions is that, unlike other research focused on renewables, they take into account two factors that are usually omitted.

These are, first, the intermittency of solar power generation and, second, the “real land occupation” of solar farms. Not taking these factors into account when modeling the energy transition raises awkward questions, especially in light of the fact that excess solar—and wind—capacity is being put forward as the way to solve the intermittency problem.

There is indeed little else you can do about intermittency than put in more solar panels than you need and back it all up with batteries. There seems to be plenty of research on that, too, including assessments of how much extra land would be needed. But, according to the Spanish authors, “The real land occupation of solar technologies is five to ten times higher than the estimates usually considered, which are based on ideal conditions.”

So, in Bulgaria, for instance, forests would need to be cleared—and indeed they already are — to build solar farms in places with more sunshine. Alternatively, farmland would need to be converted into solar and wind farms to achieve this massive capacity increase, even if we’re not aiming for a 100% renewable grid. The reason, of course, is that there is simply not enough available, unused, and otherwise unusable land in the country to avoid forest-clearing and farmland-conversion if we go all in on the net-zero scenario (and if we exclude nuclear).

But this is not true of all countries.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, has a substantially lower population density than Bulgaria, at 16 people per sq km compared to 64 people per sq km in Bulgaria. The kingdom also has a lot of sunny desert space, perfect for solar, and a pretty long coastline, perfect for wind. Saudi Arabia, then, could much more easily afford a massive wind and solar capacity build-up than Bulgaria without making environmental compromises such as forest-clearing. Theoretically, it could then export the excess energy to countries such as Bulgaria.

After the years I’ve spent covering renewable energy, I became convinced that the top advantage of wind and solar power over fossil fuels is energy security rather than reduced emissions. When you have wind and solar farms at home you don’t need to import oil and gas. However, that was before I started considering the power density issue Professor MacKay explained so vividly.

You might wonder why power density is not often talked about as part of energy transition issues since it is such an important one. Then again, you might not. Challenges to the conventional narrative are most unwelcome, especially when they question fundamental tenets of the plan. However, these challenges are just as important as they are unwelcome.

To go back to the above example, if public pressure prevents Bulgaria from covering every available surface with solar panels and wind turbines, the chances are that, with enough pressure to lower emissions from Brussels, it will find itself forced to become dependent on other countries for its energy needs.

In other words, instead of becoming more energy independent due to renewables, as the narrative claims, we would become less independent, because, in addition to all the solar and wind farms, we’d be shutting down the one local energy resource we have: coal. It’s all part of the transition, after all.

I’m sure there are people who would welcome such a development, not only in Saudi Arabia and other land-rich countries that stand to benefit economically from the transition. For me as an average Bulgarian, however, this is not exactly a dream scenario. I’m sure it’s not exactly ideal for the average Brit or German or Belgian, either—even if Brits and Germans are already quite dependent on imports and Belgians are about to become dependent when they phase out their nuclear power plants.

The picture at the top of this post shows our village and the plain beyond. If you look closely, you’ll see three plumes of smoke or steam in the distance. They are from the Maritsa East thermal power plant that supplies a good portion of the electricity in the country. Obviously, Maritsa East is a target in the energy transition with commitments being made to close all coal power plants by 2038 or sooner.

The way I see it, if we are to replace the energy generated by the Maritsa East, whose three plants have a combined installed capacity of 3.2 GW, we would probably need to cover the area between our village and the power plant with solar panels. That’s farmland, by the way, and it is actively used. So, we’d need to choose between farm land and solar energy—or, to put it another way, we’d need to choose whether to import energy or food.

This sounds like a pretty unpleasant choice to make and it is also one that would only hold true if those solar farms are backed with huge battery capacity to store enough electricity to replace the Maritsa East. That would need more land, as batteries are hardly likely to shrink a lot in the coming years.

Ultimately, I think, if we go down that road we’d be importing both food and energy. And so will many other countries that failed to solve the power density problem of renewable energy because they are too focused on the net-zero narrative.

What this potential development suggests is that, as the authors of the Spanish research remind us, way too many convenient assumptions are being made by the net-zero transition planners. Just like pretty much all solar industry growth forecasts assumed costs will consistently continue to go down, ignoring such obvious facts as falling metal ore grades and higher energy costs, it seems that the bigger net-zero plans assume things about renewables that are very different from reality.

[markslawson + 1,058]

8 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

Irina Slav says: For this week’s interview I sat down with oil industry vet and energy educator Doug Sandridge to talk about the biggest obstacles on the way to net zero and why many of the current plans by governments are unfeasible.

I watched a few minutes of it. I hadn't really considered the problem of making the mining and supply chains for rare earths and all the other things required for batteries and wind farms net zero, which is a good point. That guy is right in that it may be possible to do it, but the cost would be horrendous and it requires political will that is simply not evident at the moment. In any case, how will we get countries like China and, in particular, Russia to work towards net zero considering that they can't even get Russia to stop invading neighbours (wars cause lots of emissions)? At present, all the western obsession with net zero is doing is shifting emissions elsewhere. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

9 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

So, if Britain really wants to go 100% renewable, it would need another Britain to supply the electricity necessary because of the extremely low power density of the generating sources.

Yet Britain is already half way there.

9 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

Their studies found that “for many advanced capitalist economies, the land requirements over the total terrestrial surface area to supply current electricity consumption would be substantial, the situation being especially challenging for those located in northern latitudes with high population densities and high electricity consumption per capita.”

 

There is this thing called off-shore wind.

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

I watched a few minutes of it. I hadn't really considered the problem of making the mining and supply chains for rare earths and all the other things required for batteries and wind farms net zero, which is a good point. That guy is right in that it may be possible to do it, but the cost would be horrendous and it requires political will that is simply not evident at the moment. In any case, how will we get countries like China and, in particular, Russia to work towards net zero considering that they can't even get Russia to stop invading neighbours (wars cause lots of emissions)? At present, all the western obsession with net zero is doing is shifting emissions elsewhere. 

Thanks for the good comment Mark. 

This Climate Change "pandemic-like scare tactic" is NOT designed to benefit the populace nor the environment.  It is designed to control the population.  This is not to say that sane, viable approaches to alternative energy are bad.  No sane person wants a planet with toxic chemicals in our food, water, earth and air.  But this entire push to NET ZERO is on-its-face madness, crazy, looney-tunes. 

Here is the future...  We will see first the destruction of Europe, and then later, the United States as we now know it.  Eventually, everyone will be put on a Centralized Digital ID along with all their data and their Central Bank currency.  That is when they win complete control over the populace.   This is their End Game and it has nothing to do with Mother Earth.

"Why Big Oil Conquered the World" lays out the agenda of control and is a captivating visual documentary.  James Corbett has many recent updates on what is occurring in 2021 and 2022.

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World with transcripts
https://www.corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Episode 310 – How Big Oil Conquered The World – 12/28/2015
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-310-rise-of-the-oiligarchs/
Episode 321 – Why Big Oil Conquered the World – 10/06/2017
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-321-why-big-oil-conquered-the-world/

[El Gato + 254]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yet Britain is already half way there.

There is this thing called off-shore wind.

🤣🤣🤣.That failed miserably last summer when the wind died?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, El Gato said:

🤣🤣🤣.That failed miserably last summer when the wind died?

Because they are still in the middle of the transition. In the future green hydrogen will be stored up for the occasional lull years.

[El Gato + 254]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Because they are still in the middle of the transition. In the future green hydrogen will be stored up for the occasional lull years.

Yeah, that and the Fusion reactor will provide an eternal source of power.:)

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 minutes ago, El Gato said:

Yeah, that and the Fusion reactor will provide an eternal source of power.:)

Well not quite eternal but the fusion reactor that drives the wind is set to last a few more billion years.

[Tom Nolan + 2,443]

I hope that people listen to the interview by Irina Slav.

[markslawson + 1,058]

On 3/13/2022 at 6:14 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Because they are still in the middle of the transition. In the future green hydrogen will be stored up for the occasional lull years.

Jay, you live perpetually in hope. The problem with the European wind droughts is that they go on for so long. Go back and look at some of the reports.. we are talking about days at a time - I think I recall reading 11 days at one point - without significant wind over a large area. The amount of storage required would be horrendous - far in excess of anything that could even begin to be supplied by existing technologies. Conventional back up power is essential and that is that. Dunno about Australia but the last time I looked at a wind site the longest it was down was about a day - however my researchers were not extensive. I don't know about US wind conditions but I bet the problem has not be analysed or even commented on.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

Interesting conversation, attempting to understand atmospheric patterns, while China merely wades in with abandon.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/03/asia/china-weather-modification-cloud-seeding-intl-hnk/index.html

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

25 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Jay, you live perpetually in hope. The problem with the European wind droughts is that they go on for so long. Go back and look at some of the reports.. we are talking about days at a time - I think I recall reading 11 days at one point - without significant wind over a large area. The amount of storage required would be horrendous - far in excess of anything that could even begin to be supplied by existing technologies. Conventional back up power is essential and that is that. Dunno about Australia but the last time I looked at a wind site the longest it was down was about a day - however my researchers were not extensive. I don't know about US wind conditions but I bet the problem has not be analysed or even commented on.

You underestimate how much can be stored and more importantly you ignore how much can be shipped in when needed. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

21 hours ago, markslawson said:

Jay, you live perpetually in hope. The problem with the European wind droughts is that they go on for so long. Go back and look at some of the reports.. we are talking about days at a time

Europe/N. America/ASIA It is not DAYS, it is WEEKS(2 weeks for winter high is average, 4 is not unheard of) surrounded by a month of LOW wind speed. And sub 10% for solar during this time period.  I went through this with Nick W a year ago and showed him the weather data and used Germany's own reported data and he still did not believe me.  I hardly doubt Jay would. 

Wind happens in Spring/Fall + winter.  Summer wind speed everywhere is pitiful. 

You have to have at minimum 1 month energy storage, be it natural gas, coal, nuclear, oil, ethanol, hydrogen, pumped hydro storage(burying all of Switzerland/Austria/Norway/Sweden along with parts of France/Italy etc) batteries(as if) even if we assume you have several multiples of total capacity. 

All of that before one even converts existing infrastructure to run on electricity instead of NG, coal, oil.  Of course this is all a joke as there is no substitute for fuels in boats/airplanes

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

You underestimate how much can be stored and more importantly you ignore how much can be shipped in when needed. 

Do the math and find out what kind of storage volume you would need for 11 days. Seeing as you might be a bit rusty with the equations of state, I'd be happy to chip in. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

24 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Do the math and find out what kind of storage volume you would need for 11 days. Seeing as you might be a bit rusty with the equations of state, I'd be happy to chip in. 

If you knew what you were doing you would have already done it. 

It depends on how much wind and solar is built. Niether actually goes to zero for 11 days. Surely you know that.

For the UK?

10 or 20 Spindletops should do it. They have plenty of salt formations and plenty of excess generation capacity to fill it on the cheap once full wind build out occurs. Also don't forget that they can import from other regions just like they import fossil fuels. This is the fact that truly undermines your supposition.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/01/f70/fcto-fcs-h2-scale-2019-workshop-19-meeks.pdf

Edited March 14, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If you knew what you were doing you would have already done it. 

Actually no, because it's the equivalent of doing a thermodynamics assignment. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

This is the fact that truly undermines your supposition.

My supposition is that hydrogen is a shit storage medium, and I'm correct about that. Let me run the numbers on work required for isothermal compression of hydrogen per kilogram. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Actually no, because it's the equivalent of doing a thermodynamics assignment. 

Whatever, it is a rather straightforward economics assignment.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Whatever, it is a rather straightforward economics assignment.

You need roundtrip efficiency to do the economics. I never trust sources like the one you listed, because I've got plenty of examples where published "figures" didn't match actual industrial data. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, KeyboardWarrior said:

You need roundtrip efficiency to do the economics. I never trust sources like the one you listed, because I've got plenty of examples where published "figures" didn't match actual industrial data. 

Roundtrip efficiency is not overly important when your inputs are based on zero marginal cost sources. You just build enough to do the job.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

The integrand for work during isothermal compression is as follows: nRTln(p2/p2)

Where, for an ideal gas, (assuming this is ideal helps your case @Jay McKinsey

n = number of moles (will convert to a 'by kilogram' basis once we're done)

R = gas constant (will use 0.083144 for Bar here)

T = temperature to be held constant as Qsystem becomes increasingly negative

p2/p1 = final/initial pressure

Now, assuming we're not liquifying the gas, we'll be raising its pressure from 1 bar to 500 bar. The process is isothermal because we need to allow heat to escape. 1 kilogram of H2 is 496.11 moles, so we'll use this for n. Temperature will be 298.1 Kelvin. 

W/kg = 496.11 * 0.083144 * 298.1 * ln(500/1) = 76,416 J/kg

Let's find out how many kilograms of H2 we need to store 1 MWh of power, that we we can find the work to compress this hydrogen per MWh stored. 

1 kg H2 = 120 MJ. 3600 MJ/120MJ = 30 kilograms * 76,416 joules = 2.29 MJ per stored MWh before final losses accounted for

Not bad honestly. 

Edited March 14, 2022 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Roundtrip efficiency is not overly important when your inputs are based on zero marginal cost sources. You just build enough to do the job.

If you pay for the equipment, roundtrip efficiency does affect capital returns. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

If you pay for the equipment, roundtrip efficiency does affect capital returns. 

Not if you are using power that would have otherwise been curtailed because of over production. 

[TailingsPond + 1,008]

6 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The integrand for work during isothermal compression is as follows: nRTln(p2/p2)

Where, for an ideal gas, (assuming this is ideal helps your case @Jay McKinsey

n = number of moles (will convert to a 'by kilogram' basis once we're done)

R = gas constant (will use 0.083144 for Bar here)

T = temperature to be held constant as Qsystem becomes increasingly negative

p2/p1 = final/initial pressure

Now, assuming we're not liquifying the gas, we'll be raising its pressure from 1 bar to 500 bar. The process is isothermal because we need to allow heat to escape. 1 kilogram of H2 is 496.11 moles, so we'll use this for n. Temperature will be 298.1 Kelvin. 

W/kg = 496.11 * 0.083144 * 298.1 * ln(500/1) = 76,416 J/kg

Let's find out how many kilograms of H2 we need to store 1 MWh of power, that we we can find the work to compress this hydrogen per MWh stored. 

1 kg H2 = 120 MJ. 3600 MJ/120MJ = 30 kilograms * 76,416 joules = 2.29 MJ per stored MWh before final losses accounted for

Not bad honestly. 

The work used to compress could, in theory, be partially captured during decompression.