Germany’s overdose of renewable energy

[NickW + 2,714]

40 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nick, I find this to be incredibly irritating. I was complaining about solar power.  What makes you think that changing the subject to wind energy is a proper response? 

Also, if I decide to do wind turbines it doesn't look much better. Pretty soon I'll put a word wall in here that examines how much it would cost to power an ammonia plant with solar, but I might go ahead and just rewrite it with wind. Take care to note that the two plants need to have their tonnage multiplied by 1500.

1500 tonnes of Ammonia an hour 24/7 is about 7.5%  (13.14mt) of global annual production so that's one hell of an Ammonia plant. 

If you say the energy requirement is 10 MWh /ton and the plant produces 1500 tons per hour that by my calculation is 131.4 Twh or about 40% of the UK's annual electricity production🙄

RE Solar to produce that equivalent power depends where you are. 

Southern Spain with 1500kwh / KW of capacity you will need about 88 GW of Capacity. At about 6m2 per KW that's about 550km2 of solar panels. 

Move it to Saudi Arabia and its about 370km2 of unproductive desert. 

Add 20% onto that if you want to take account of energy storage to run the Haber processor. Id batch produce the H & N each day and store the equivalent of a few nights production. 

Against wind we would be talking 2500 of these running at 50% capacity factor

https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine

Add another 20% if you want to account in the same way as I did for solar RE storage. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

 The tonnage is for daily production, the first calculations were for 1000 tons per day. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

You want a daft post? How about all of the claims that you're arguing against that I'm not making. I understand that a mix of renewables is the desired outcome, but I can effectively demonstrate why one of these sources is unreliable. You clearly think that a varied application for solar power somehow justifies its shortcomings. It doesn't. If wind is a better source overall, you want to capitalize on that source. If nuclear beats them both, we want to capitalize on that instead. Areas where the sun shines hot and long? Sure, we could do with a little solar. But in the end application isn't as relevant as you think it is. Pick *the best* source, in terms of cash and reliability. 

 

I've just done a theoretical comparison against your Ammonia plant consuming 40% of the UK's electricity consumption!

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, NickW said:

I've just done a theoretical comparison against your Ammonia plant consuming 40% of the UK's electricity consumption!

Right, 1500 tons per day, not hour. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

I'll put the primary point right here again:

Since solar is the less efficient option, we should strive to use it as little as possible. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, KeyboardWarrior said:

Right, 1500 tons per day, not hour. 

Ok - divide the power requirements by 24. 

That's 13.1 Twh

For Spain its 23km2 of solar panels

For Saudi 15km2

UK - 250 Hailade X wind turbines 12MW turbines - about the same size of the UK's largest prospect wind farm. 

Add 20% to account for storage to run the process 24/7. 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I'll put the primary point right here again:

Since solar is the less efficient option, we should strive to use it as little as possible. 

How do you define least efficient? In the two cases I gave the land used has little or no function. 

In Saudi the land is mostly desert or used for rough grazing at best

Southern Spain is semi desert and typically used for rough grazing or at best glasshouses but there is no shortage of land. 

Infact the land can still be used for rough grazing and the shelter the panels provide from the midday sun actually encourages plant growth. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

Ok - divide the power requirements by 24. 

That's 13.1 Twh

For Spain its 23km2 of solar panels

For Saudi 15km2

UK - 250 Hailade X wind turbines 12MW turbines - about the same size of the UK's largest prospect wind farm. 

Add 20% to account for storage to run the process 24/7. 

The power requirement was calculated by hour. I just really horsed things up by suggesting the x1000 multiple. It was for a facility with a rated capacity of 1000 tons per day. Anyways, I'll do it a second time but with wind power. I need to ask first, do you want onshore or offshore? 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The power requirement was calculated by hour. I just really horsed things up by suggesting the x1000 multiple. It was for a facility with a rated capacity of 1000 tons per day. Anyways, I'll do it a second time but with wind power. I need to ask first, do you want onshore or offshore? 

I have already done the Offshore calculation based on the currently headline commercial model available and being rolled out in UK waters. 

For 1500 tonnes per day its 250 12MW turbines operating at a conservative 50%. 

Add 20% to account for storage or borrowed power costs.   For example -Its a calm day - I will borrow from Norway and payback tomorrow as its going to be windy. 

Feel free to do a Onshore equivalent. 

I believe capacity factors in Texas are 37% and contemporary onshore turbines are now in the 4-5MW range. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

I have already done the Offshore calculation based on the currently headline commercial model available and being rolled out in UK waters. 

For 1500 tonnes per day its 250 12MW turbines operating at a conservative 50%. 

Add 20% to account for storage or borrowed power costs.   For example -Its a calm day - I will borrow from Norway and payback tomorrow as its going to be windy. 

Feel free to do a Onshore equivalent. 

I believe capacity factors in Texas are 37% and contemporary onshore turbines are now in the 4-5MW range. 

How much would these cost, all together? Their true value is being generated through production of ammonia, so instead of talking about electric costs, can we use the price of ammonia per ton to calculate payoff? Either way is fine, I just want to see how this compares to gas and nuclear. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Gas will be cheaper, Nuclear more expensive (unless using some fantasy figures)

Costs for Offshore Wind new developments  is $78 MWh

Onshore wind $40-$50

Middle East solar bids have come in around $30-35 MWh

 

If you apply a Carbon tax that's going to raise the cost of gas sourced Ammonia. 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

Gas will be cheaper, Nuclear more expensive (unless using some fantasy figures)

Costs for Offshore Wind new developments  is $78 MWh

Onshore wind $40-$50

Middle East solar bids have come in around $30-35 MWh

 

If you apply a Carbon tax that's going to raise the cost of gas sourced Ammonia. 

 

So... I made a major blunder. I forgot that we're making the hydrogen from water. If 80% efficient electrochemical cells are being used (readily available on the market)  a *power requirement of 16.5 MW is needed for hydrogen production alone. This is before the heat requirement in the actual reactor where the catalyst beds are. I need to find out what the total is, so it might take me a while to get back here. 

*I need to run these numbers again to be certain, but I found out how many moles of hydrogen exist in a metric ton (I stayed in metric to make the math easier, I'll convert to "regular" tons when I give the final answer) of ammonia, then multiplied those moles by water's heat of formation. I converted the kilojoules to megajoules and divided by 3600 seconds to obtain megawatt hours. Once this was done I multiplied by 1.2 to account for the 80% efficiency. 

With the current number you gave, and using the 10 MW/h standard from earlier, that means we'll be spending $780 dollars per ton of anhydrous without any other costs included (water, labor, transportation, capital payoff). The market price in August over here was around the $500 range. If everything is correct (ignoring the massive hydrogen blunder) then we're losing $280 per ton. If we take electrochemical hydrogen into account, this becomes worse. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Another announcement: The 10 MW/h figure I quoted earlier IS IN FACT for metric tons. Therefore we can safely assume that production from renewables will consume at the very least 16.5 MW hours. Actual figure is probably more like 20, I've found a way to calculate it, and I'll throw the figure in using an edit. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Another announcement: The 10 MW/h figure I quoted earlier IS IN FACT for metric tons. Therefore we can safely assume that production from renewables will consume at the very least 16.5 MW hours. Actual figure is probably more like 20, I've found a way to calculate it, and I'll throw the figure in using an edit. 

This compares Gas, Ammonia and Coal

https://ammoniaindustry.com/ammonia-plant-cost-comparisons-natural-gas-coal-or-electrolysis/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 minutes ago, NickW said:

This compares Gas, Ammonia and Coal

https://ammoniaindustry.com/ammonia-plant-cost-comparisons-natural-gas-coal-or-electrolysis/

So what do you think of the $780 + per metric ton calculation? Using offshore wind. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 1/30/2020 at 9:08 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Incorrect calculation of cost.

The correct calculation of cost is "renewables" + storage + fossil fuels (for when "renewables" fail to produce energy.)

So ...  the cost choice is:

A) use the existing fossil fuel systems.

B) use the existing fossil fuel systems +  graft on additional "renewable" energy systems + the cost of huge batteries for temporary storage of electricity + plus the cost of paying tax incentives to those companies providing "renewable" energy systems.

Hmmmm, is option A or option B more cost effective 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

 

P.S.

You forgot a variable: more transmission lines, both to move renewable energy to demand centers and to shuttle energy between regions as renewable output fluctuates. 

In some cases, the cost of transmission alone will exceed the all-in cost of coal. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

On 2/4/2020 at 3:20 PM, markslawson said:

The first link is meaningless the others however, I grant you, point to a few wind turbines used on or around industrial/commercial sites - not building sites, please note. You will note from the pictures they are all in remote locations, except for hospital one which is quite old. That is the problem. Getting planning permission for a turbine on any factory in Australia would be impossible I would say, unless the factory is remote to begin with - basically you can't place them anywhere near residences, within several kilometers as I seem to recall. There would be similar, if less stringent requirements now in place in Europe. The last Dagenham wind turbine was built in 2011 and would be in a remote place.. even so, getting planning permission now would be a real problem. So there's not much scope for this market for second hand turbines you are championing, although there would be some activity. A more likely scenario is entire wind farms being sold and the turbines reconditioned, to extend their life. Anyway my original point stands but thanks for the links.. interesting..   

California has a number of commercial sites with turbines: https://foundationwindpower.com/p-nestle-waters-cabazon.html

[markslawson + 1,042]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

California has a number of commercial sites with turbines: https://foundationwindpower.com/p-nestle-waters-cabazon.html

Interesting link but you can see from the picture that factory is in a remote location.. a market for pre-loved turbines on building sites and factories would be limited for the reasons I previously outlined, not extensive as one of the posters suggested.. leave it with you..  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Agreed that I don't think there is a market for retired turbines. New models are so much more efficient that it doesn;'t make much sense to reinstall old ones.

The factory in the photo was just the first on the list. Several of those installations are at industrial sites located in farmland at the edge of the SF Bay Area. They aren't that remote, you can't enter the Bay Area without driving by several of them. The Budweiser brewery in Fairfield, Safeway distribution center in Tracy, food processing in the Salinas Valley, etc.

Here is the location of Budweiser https://goo.gl/maps/AnAF1V43B2Xzu8Xi8

It is right at the edge of town

Edited May 4, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

In February the US produced more electricity from hydro, wind and solar than coal. We are on track for all of Q1 to do the same.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

On 1/30/2020 at 8:26 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Agreed, "renewable" energy at present can supplement, but not replace, hydrocarbons.

Trying to convert the entire world to electricity powered by "renewable" energy would mean seriously expensive upgrades of electrical grid systems worldwide, as oil pipeline and natural gas pipelines get banned, and electric cars presumably take over the world.

Note that I view Natural Gas (Methane) as a Renewable Hydrocarbon, which is a point obtusely ignored by the solar and wind and dam crowd. 

Natural Gas is a Renewable Natural Resource.

For example, Cow farts are that Renewable Hydrocarbon called Methane which the Climate Scaremongers get hysterical about.

Not quite accurate. Fossil CH4 (i.e., natural gas) is not a renewable resource. When you burn it, it adds carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years into the atmosphere. Green CH4 is a renewable resource that can be generated from excess wind and solar electricity. Vented natural gas is quantitatively a problem, as  are cow farts. Most other sources of atmospheric methane (storage leaks, end user leaks, etc.) are minor by comparison.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

6 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Not quite accurate. Fossil CH4 (i.e., natural gas) is not a renewable resource. When you burn it, it adds carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years into the atmosphere. Green CH4 is a renewable resource that can be generated from excess wind and solar electricity. Vented natural gas is quantitatively a problem, as  are cow farts. Most other sources of atmospheric methane (storage leaks, end user leaks, etc.) are minor by comparison.

Correct, as shown with carbon dating.  The nat gas we burn is almost entirely fossil.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

On 5/9/2020 at 1:51 PM, Enthalpic said:

Correct, as shown with carbon dating.  The nat gas we burn is almost entirely fossil.

*** Get information from Radiocarbon journal found at your local university ***   Enjoy

 Carbon dating is good at best to 5000 years with its extreme upper limit of 10k due to claimed contamination with some super extreme at 50k.  I think you are confusing C-14 dating of peat bogs??? 

BIG PROBLEM with the "fossil fuels are ancient"... All Coal, Nat Gas, etc all have C-14 in them.  C-14 should 100% decay in less than 250,000 years as its half life is ~5000 years.  So, your climate theory based on the burning of "ancient prehistoric fuels" has some MASSIVE holes one can drive an entire universe through dude. 

What is funny is that the contamination rate is less than 0.06pcm(parts per carbon million) and when low pressure steam cleaning and vacuated, is less than 0.01pcm, yet all the oil, ng, shells etc the vast majority have C14 in them above 0.2.  An order of magnitude difference. 

So, if you adhere to uniformitarian belief system regarding age dating, then all these samples of oil, ng, shells cannot be older than ~100,000 years with the vast majority under 50,000years. 

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

*** Get information from Radiocarbon journal found at your local university ***   Enjoy

 Carbon dating is good at best to 5000 years with its extreme upper limit of 10k due to claimed contamination with some super extreme at 50k.  I think you are confusing C-14 dating of peat bogs??? 

BIG PROBLEM with the "fossil fuels are ancient"... All Coal, Nat Gas, etc all have C-14 in them.  C-14 should 100% decay in less than 250,000 years as its half life is ~5000 years.  So, your climate theory based on the burning of "ancient prehistoric fuels" has some MASSIVE holes one can drive an entire universe through dude. 

What is funny is that the contamination rate is less than 0.06pcm(parts per carbon million) and when low pressure steam cleaning and vacuated, is less than 0.01pcm, yet all the oil, ng, shells etc the vast majority have C14 in them above 0.2.  An order of magnitude difference. 

So, if you adhere to uniformitarian belief system regarding age dating, then all these samples of oil, ng, shells cannot be older than ~100,000 years with the vast majority under 50,000years. 

 

Specimens are usually considered to be fossils if they are over 10,000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

That seems both ancient and prehistoric.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

*** Get information from Radiocarbon journal found at your local university ***   Enjoy

 Carbon dating is good at best to 5000 years with its extreme upper limit of 10k due to claimed contamination with some super extreme at 50k.  I think you are confusing C-14 dating of peat bogs??? 

BIG PROBLEM with the "fossil fuels are ancient"... All Coal, Nat Gas, etc all have C-14 in them.  C-14 should 100% decay in less than 250,000 years as its half life is ~5000 years.  So, your climate theory based on the burning of "ancient prehistoric fuels" has some MASSIVE holes one can drive an entire universe through dude. 

What is funny is that the contamination rate is less than 0.06pcm(parts per carbon million) and when low pressure steam cleaning and vacuated, is less than 0.01pcm, yet all the oil, ng, shells etc the vast majority have C14 in them above 0.2.  An order of magnitude difference. 

So, if you adhere to uniformitarian belief system regarding age dating, then all these samples of oil, ng, shells cannot be older than ~100,000 years with the vast majority under 50,000years. 

 

I'm familiar with the technique and it's limitations.  There are lots of complicating factors ("holes") so I'm not going to argue too much about this with you.

We can probably agree that cow farts and mined natural gas are going to have vastly different C-14 levels. The actual age is fairly irrelevant for me as I'm not going to live for 50,000+ years (geological time).

Just don't start saying the earth is 4000 years old or something silly.

Cheers.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Enthalpic