Emmissions up, renewables nowhere

[markslawson + 1,042]

We have to thank a BP report out this week for this graph

This seems about right.. note that its total energy so it includes transportation (the oil). As can be seen renewables have increased from very little to something but its total contribution is less than the increase in the contribution from natural gas over a decade, mostly at the expense of coal although overall energy demand is growing. Gas has pushed coal out of both the UK and US for market reasons. Note that renewables would also include things like biomass (the UK, California) and geothermal (New Zealand, California and Iceland, I think). That does not leave much room for solar and wind but a common trick of the renewables lobby is too quote all those sources plus hydro as collectively as renewables and leave readers with the impression that they are talking about solar and wind. To be clear biomass and geothermal are dispatchable, they do not have the problems of intermittent sources, while hydro is very high value as it is very easy to switch on and off - none of the ramping up or down required for other generators.

 

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

That does not leave much room for solar and wind but a common trick of the renewables lobby is too quote all those sources plus hydro as collectively as renewables and leave readers with the impression that they are talking about solar and wind.

Maybe you meant that a common trick is for FF lobbyists to overlook how renewables have managed to capture such a large slice of the energy mix in such a short period of time!

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

3 hours ago, Red said:

Maybe you meant that a common trick is for FF lobbyists to overlook how renewables have managed to capture such a large slice of the energy mix in such a short period of time!

Well, no, considering the  billions that have been thrown at renewables it isn't surprising at all. Its sad. And the vast amounts spent do not seem to have reduced emissions very much at all.. The same report points to a rise in emissions 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/11/surprise-rise-global-emissions-puts-climate-change-targets-doubt/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=eada365315-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_12_11_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-eada365315-36443173

 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, markslawson said:

Well, no, considering the  billions that have been thrown at renewables it isn't surprising at all. Its sad. And the vast amounts spent do not seem to have reduced emissions very much at all.. The same report points to a rise in emissions 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/11/surprise-rise-global-emissions-puts-climate-change-targets-doubt/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=eada365315-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_12_11_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-eada365315-36443173

 

Perhaps compare that investment expenditure on renewables against the cumulative investment expenditure on fossil fuels over the past 100 years. That may put some perspective on this.

Edited June 13, 2019 by NickW

[Keith boyd + 178]

Most countries plan to take their nuclear reactors offline soon and replace them with wind, solar, and......oh snap natural gas as the backup!

 

Therefore ensuring that emissions will go up. As nuclear is zero emissions, and wind plus gas is more then zero. 

The horror! 

[NickW + 2,714]

41 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

Most countries plan to take their nuclear reactors offline soon and replace them with wind, solar, and......oh snap natural gas as the backup!

 

Therefore ensuring that emissions will go up. As nuclear is zero emissions, and wind plus gas is more then zero. 

The horror! 

Nuclear is not zero emission either. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

3 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

Most countries plan to take their nuclear reactors offline soon and replace them with wind, solar, and......oh snap natural gas as the backup!

 

Therefore ensuring that emissions will go up. As nuclear is zero emissions, and wind plus gas is more then zero. 

The horror! 

No. You just have to overbuild with a little bit of storage. 

Daytime, renewables don’t need any backup at all. Solar is very cheap and on a continent scale, more reliable and predictable than gas. At night, wind is predictable on a continent scale as well. Together, they need to be overbuilt 2x each, then they backup themselves and each other with only a couple of hours of storage needed when transmission lines are lost in storms.

And that is just here in the US. In Europe, they have sufficient hydro to backup renewables.

The idea that fossil has to be the backup is a fallacy.

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

No. You just have to overbuild with a little bit of storage. 

Daytime, renewables don’t need any backup at all. Solar is very cheap and on a continent scale, more reliable and predictable than gas. At night, wind is predictable on a continent scale as well. Together, they need to be overbuilt 2x each, then they backup themselves and each other with only a couple of hours of storage needed when transmission lines are lost in storms.

And that is just here in the US. In Europe, they have sufficient hydro to backup renewables.

The idea that fossil has to be the backup is a fallacy.

You can also manipulate demand to help manage intermittency

[Keith boyd + 178]

How is anything more reliable then gas? It can be flipped on and off almost instantly on demand. The entire quagmire of renewables is you cant control the amount of energy you receive consistently. Which is precisely why gas is so popular, it can make up for the havoc renewables do to a grid. 

 

Also overbuilding 2x renewables plus storage is 3 times the Infastructure Instead of just the  gas plants which can do the entire job themselves.  And storage costs 10x the turbines which is why gas is used as the backup. Things cost money how expensive should electricity be?  

I assure you that making synthetic fuel out of co2 is cheaper storage  then any of the quackery being proposed, with batteries being the most expensive of them all. Yes gigantic batteries are hella nice and provide grid stability better then anything else. But the cost is ridiculous and there isn't enough lithium to do it anyway unless you want to strip mine half the planet in order to save it from evil co2.  Grid stability is the only purpose for giant batteries, and if you didn't use renewables you wouldn't need the batteries in the first place  

[Red + 252]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

Well, no, considering the  billions that have been thrown at renewables it isn't surprising at all. Its sad. And the vast amounts spent do not seem to have reduced emissions very much at all.

Again, just an outright denial of the rapid inroads made by renewables in a very short period of time.  Clearly some sectors are going to lead and others lag in terms of renewables uptake as, for example, we cannot put wind sails on vehicles, while covering them in solar panels won't help while they are parked in garages most of the time!

"Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017. During this period, renewables are forecast to meet more than 70% of global electricity generation growth, led by solar PV and followed by wind, hydropower, and bioenergy."

By 2023 renewables are expected to add another 2 percentage points to their global energy position, which is a massive effort given the hundreds of trillions$ invested in extant energy infrastructure to date. 

What is really sad is that the world has never agreed to put a price on carbon so that investment in renewables could have gained traction a lot earlier.  Had that been the case, energy costs today would be a lot less and global economies would be powering into the 21st century without needing to worry about oil tankers in the Gulf of X, Y or Z.

 

Edited June 13, 2019 by Red
add colour

[Red + 252]

16 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

Also overbuilding 2x renewables plus storage is 3 times the Infastructure Instead of just the  gas plants which can do the entire job themselves.  And storage costs 10x the turbines which is why gas is used as the backup. Things cost money how expensive should electricity be?  

You seem to have overlooked that FF energy capacity builds are about double what the market draws as its very difficult to get, for example, a coal fired power plant to deliver consistently at 60% of its rating.

As to your claim that "storage costs 10x the turbines," please offer evidence.  New US solar plus battery offerings are now competitive with other dispatchable supply options in particular locations and are being built.

More importantly, grid scale battery costs are now falling at a faster rate than wind or solar PV, so it's not hard to see where the future lies.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 hours ago, Keith boyd said:

Most countries plan to take their nuclear reactors offline soon and replace them with wind, solar, and......oh snap natural gas as the backup!

 

Therefore ensuring that emissions will go up. As nuclear is zero emissions, and wind plus gas is more then zero. 

The horror! 

Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xhPQIIW9xpOwn92z5hCGshSF7e6TP3R9sFBAAg-eQe4/edit    New Nuclear Plants are ruled out by the people of Western Countries and Japan. They are not even economically competitive if you figure the entire lifetime costs. Natural gas is the low cost answer to clean energy. Warming due to CO2 is just a theory but natural gas has far lower emissions than oil, coal, and other fossil fuels. By replacing some coal use, it has enabled America to surpass pollution emissions of all large advanced nations. 

[Red + 252]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Warming due to CO2 is just a theory...

Like relativity is a theory, or evolution.

Burning fossil fuels rather than replacing the energy with renewables should never be the preferred option unless it's the only option.  

Transitioning is not just underway, it's gathering pace.

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Perhaps compare that investment expenditure on renewables against the cumulative investment expenditure on fossil fuels over the past 100 years. That may put some perspective on this.

NickW - how many times does this have to be said. Solar and wind are there due to obsessions over emissions. Without that obsession and without the resulting subsidies and legal mandates requiring distributors to take the power they would  be a no-show. The market for power from wind and solar is entirely artificial. 

 

4 hours ago, NickW said:

You can also manipulate demand to help manage intermittency

Yes, for a price. In Australia, major users are being paid to stay off the grid during periods of very high demand, It is one of the many additional costs of renewables.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

2 hours ago, Red said:

"Renewables will have the fastest growth in the electricity sector, providing almost 30% of power demand in 2023, up from 24% in 2017.

Sadly it is you who is in denial. The renewables figure you cite counts hydro and the other dispatchable technologies I discussed in the original post. As I believe major hydro projects are expected to come online in the next few years then the projection is not all that surprising. Again, solar and wind's contribution would be quite small.. larger than it was but still a tiny part of the overall energy task, and one that requires vast effort to achieve. Considering that the whole effort has had little effect on emissions, as I noted, then its time to dump the whole thing.

2 hours ago, Red said:

You seem to have overlooked that FF energy capacity builds are about double what the market draws as its very difficult to get, for example, a coal fired power plant to deliver consistently at 60% of its rating.

As far as I know this is wrong - or at least is not the full story. My understanding is that brown coal plants have to run at or near full capacity with very little variation. If they have to be shut down then it takes a whole day to restart them. Black coal plants are more flexible but I strongly suspect the 60 per cent figure is, to be generous, something that comes from renewable activist web sites. There may be coal plants run at 60 per cent for operational reasons but without any barrier to them going to the full rating. Anyway, leave it with out.

[Red + 252]

25 minutes ago, markslawson said:

The renewables figure you cite counts hydro and the other dispatchable technologies I discussed in the original post.

Tyr building a dam in a year or two - will never happen.  Hydro has a legacy position in the energy mix, so for other renewables to catch up with dam construction during the 20th century will take some time.

Below is what the transition looks like for Australia's electricity market:

Your headline article was again more of the same fake news we expect from you.

 

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

As far as I know this is wrong

Another guess!

Edited June 14, 2019 by Red
added a link

[tldpdb1 + 24]

https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/25/global-renewables-growth-outpaces-fossil-fuels/

Here are Some Growth Charts For Ya!

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, markslawson said:

As far as I know this is wrong - or at least is not the full story. My understanding is that brown coal plants have to run at or near full capacity with very little variation.  Black coal plants are more flexible but I strongly suspect the 60 per cent figure is, to be generous, something that comes from renewable activist web sites. 

You should respond to the actual point I made, rather than invent a new narrative.

Nevertheless, this links to US data, and since 2013 the capacity factors for utility scale generators primarily using coal has averaged only 56%.  I read older data for the UK, and coal in that nation has gone completely off the boil (see page 147).

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Good article but remember that it is a lot greater percentage when you start at a very low figure by comparison. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

8 hours ago, Red said:

Like relativity is a theory, or evolution.

Burning fossil fuels rather than replacing the energy with renewables should never be the preferred option unless it's the only option.  

Transitioning is not just underway, it's gathering pace.

If evolution is a given and no longer a theory...why do we still have those pesky monkeys and apes after all this time?

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If evolution is a given and no longer a theory...why do we still have those pesky monkeys and apes after all this time?

Maybe some epistemology with your bananas will help you out of the trees 🙈.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

NickW - how many times does this have to be said. Solar and wind are there due to obsessions over emissions. Without that obsession and without the resulting subsidies and legal mandates requiring distributors to take the power they would  be a no-show. The market for power from wind and solar is entirely artificial. 

 

Yes, for a price. In Australia, major users are being paid to stay off the grid during periods of very high demand, It is one of the many additional costs of renewables.. 

The drivers to develop renewables go well beyond just emissions. Much of the interest in renewables has been driven by national desires to have some level of energy independence and security if not blessed with natural energy resources. Denmark,  although a oil producer saw that this would not be forever so supported its wind industry to develop as an energy source beyond oil. It now has the largest wind turbine producer on the planet and has displaced much of its import requirements for power generation with wind. 

For many countries stuck in the middle they would prefer not to rely too much on Trumps  /Putins 'freedom molecules' (ie do what we say or we will cut you off) 

Its not an artificial market. Across Europe now many businesses and homes are fitting solar and wind power (mainly businesses) purely for commerical purposes without subsidy. My wifes firm bought a second hand 500KW turbine which simply provides power to their site and is cost competitive with power purchased commercially.

In many locations its more cost effective to install solar (and wind)  and batteries than run power lines or deliver diesel regularly for gensets. This is increasingly common in Oz. 

As for demand manipulation its relatively easy to do - adjust price accordingly. Alternatively offer major users who can switch off for limited period of times - large refrigeration plant, air conditioning, and smelters are a few examples. 

On a micro level it can be done too. I have some solar panels grid connected but with no export arrangement so I have put our freezer on a time switch as well as some charging devices onto daytime charging only. Likewise with the dishwasher and washing machine. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Red said:

Tyr building a dam in a year or two - will never happen.  Hydro has a legacy position in the energy mix, so for other renewables to catch up with dam construction during the 20th century will take some time.

Below is what the transition looks like for Australia's electricity market:

Your headline article was again more of the same fake news we expect from you.

 

Mark just can't grasp that point, certainly when it comes to fossil fuels in that there is a century or more of legacy investment in place for coal, oil and gas so even if renewables investment was 10 fold that of fossil fuels it would take decades to achieve parity. 

Also the comparison is made solely for generating plant which of course omits the amount of upstream investment in oil and gas production which you certainly don't need for wind and solar. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, Red said:

Maybe some epistemology with your bananas will help you out of the trees 🙈.

I actually saw that on a sign board outside a pub here in Malaysia. It does raise an interesting question.