Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[Ray01 + 1]

Algeria has a large quantity of Gas and shale gas under ground.....

[markslawson + 1,042]

20 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

This is what is needed using what is available for sale right now. By the time anything like this is built out, batteries would have most likely improved markedly. There are about 135 million households in the US, so 90 million suggests one shipping container for every single family home in the country. This is patently unaffordable for most households.

While I don't disagree I don't think there is any real chance of individual families having their own container sized batteries (especially not if they live in an apartment). As you point out the cost would be horrendous, and think of the immense cost in emissions and the environment in getting the raw materials required.. as for battery technology its advancing at a slow rate.. there is no indication of a big breakthrough.. but anyway.. time to move on.. 

[slk_rk 0]

Really enjoying this thread and learning a lot.

Found this, which talks about alternative battery technologies that aren't Li-ion based and wouldn't have the related material supply constraints.

Bump!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/22/2020 at 1:09 PM, Meredith Poor said:

The expression of 'backup systems' is a non-sequitur. An RE system needs to include storage, so a more accurate representation is Wind/Storage and Solar/Storage.

China imports natural gas, so wind and solar in China are cheaper than natural gas, but not cheaper than coal. Of course, environmentalists that grouse in China soon end up in detention, so the relative silence is deafening. Some of the numbers I'm running into right now suggest that China is closing the gap on coal, and other numbers suggest that American RE is about to pull the rug out from under NG.

If that were true you would see it somewhere in the world right now. It doesn't exist. Denmark pays two to three times what we pay for power. If electric cars catch on electrical demands will require more natural gas plants also. Wind and solar are less productive after dark when they would normally be charging. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/23/2020 at 1:09 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Yes.

6 Mwh per shipping container. 6 x 4 high = 24Mwh

Average 500Gw consumption per hour in the US, 12Twh per day, 12Twh x 180 days = 2160Twh over a half-year interval.

2,160,000,000,000,000 / 24,000,000 = 90,000,000 stacks.

90,000,000 * 40 feet * 8.5 feet = 30,600,000,000 square feet.

One square mile = 27,878,400 square feet (5280 * 5280)

30,600,000,000 square feet / 27,878,400 square feet = 1098 square miles.

Square root of 1098 = 33 miles.

So the math above is a bit off, unless the containers are stacked higher.

However, these containers would need access space around them, so the square miles is really 4x, or 66 miles on a side.

It's unlikely that most of the power storage would be done this way, some storage would be in purpose built stations. Since the US has roughly 1000 'gigawatt-scale' power plants scattered around the country, it's likely that power storage would be similarly distributed, so there would be roughly 1000 locations that would cover 4 square miles each.

If this appears excessive, it's worth keeping in mind that coal and nuclear plants include their respective cooling water, and in any case the land area used by transmission lines within the US is far greater than 4000 square miles. Land used for transmission lines could also be used for storage.

So, your power wouldn't need transmission lines?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/23/2020 at 2:02 PM, Enthalpic said:

Well, because that stuff is already in place and profitably runs. Zero cost.

If anything fossil humans fear they will lose money as renewables grow.

No, they fear that they are indeed being snookered into paying more in taxes for subsidies and in power bills for more expensive power than can be provided by natural gas. They are already paying more for nuclear power to pay for outmoded plants. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

52 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

If that were true you would see it somewhere in the world right now. It doesn't exist. Denmark pays two to three times what we pay for power. If electric cars catch on electrical demands will require more natural gas plants also. Wind and solar are less productive after dark when they would normally be charging. 

It can be very windy at night; most anti-renewable people point that out (energy made when not really needed); this will change as more people plug in e-vehicles.

 

The whole "battery grid storage" complaint becomes moot if there are many cars plugged in day and night to suck up electricity.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Enthalpic

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 2/23/2020 at 8:40 AM, Meredith Poor said:

In other words, you don't like the message. 'Conventional' power plants are installing storage in order to smooth out cycling. GE's combined cycle plants are now using storage so that they don't have to run in 'standby' - when peak loads justify starting up the plant they can cold-start.

Right now, 'utility scale storage' can house 6Mwh in a 40' shipping container. Stack these 4 high, and 180 days worth of storage for the entire US would fit in a square about 20 miles on a side. While solar and wind aren't 'continuous' in a 24 hour timeframe, they're pretty reliable in a 180 day timeframe.

I've got a better idea. Let's just build nuclear plants okay? 

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

On 2/23/2020 at 8:21 PM, Enthalpic said:

Agriculture and livestock did most of that a long time ago... just finishing off the Amazon now...

 

England has essentially no forests or top predators anymore (all dead).

" just finishing off the Amazon now.." Very true!!

"England has essentially no forests or top predators anymore (all dead)."  We have plenty of forests thanks, we don't have any "top predators" apart from the Golden Eagle in Scotland due to hunting over the millenia.

However there is a growing movement in the UK to reintroduce top predators back into the countryside. Mind you we'll probably just hunt them all to extinction again. Sad!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/19/-sp-rewilding-large-species-britain-wolves-bears

[NickW + 2,714]

More accurately:

Record low gas prices, so low they are bankrupting some producers are helping to squeeze coal out of many markets and have moderately slowed the growth of wind and solar power

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/22/2020 at 7:36 PM, KeyboardWarrior said:

Even if we could squeeze 600 W per square meter out of solar, it still takes up too much space, and demands an energy storage system all the same. I keep tabs on my state’s wind power projects, and I can tell you that the saddening figures you can find elsewhere are true if you do the math here. 

Not if:

placed on rooftops

Marginal land

Grazing land where the animals can still graze around the panels

Farmland where shade is actually a bonus -  Solar panels can actually increase food output in high temp climates by shading crops from the midday sun. 

Floating solar on reservoirs , irrigation canals where the panels reduce evaporation, produce more power due to cooling effect and the ability to rotate the panels to keep their orientation to the sun optimised. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

Not if:

placed on rooftops

Marginal land

Grazing land where the animals can still graze around the panels

Farmland where shade is actually a bonus -  Solar panels can actually increase food output in high temp climates by shading crops from the midday sun. 

Floating solar on reservoirs , irrigation canals where the panels reduce evaporation, produce more power due to cooling effect and the ability to rotate the panels to keep their orientation to the sun optimised. 

Nah, I'll take the nuclear option. Developed industry and ocean uranium will make for a great option. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Nah, I'll take the nuclear option. Developed industry and ocean uranium will make for a great option. 

Well that a different argument. You stated wind / solar takes up too much space which is what I was responding to. 

Sea water extraction of uranium is in its infancy. 

Ever been to a Uranium Mine and seen how much space they take up? 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Well that a different argument. You stated wind / solar takes up too much space which is what I was responding to. 

Sea water extraction of uranium is in its infancy. 

Ever been to a Uranium Mine and seen how much space they take up? 

The fact is that nuclear will take up far less space for an equivalent power output. I saw on another forum where you posted an image of an open coal mine as an argument for space usage. It seemed very fallacious to me, and it seems very fallacious to think that Uranium mines will take up more space than solar or wind. I would be willing to bet that current globally installed renewable capacity takes up more space than all the coal mines in the world. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

It can be very windy at night; most anti-renewable people point that out (energy made when not really needed); this will change as more people plug in e-vehicles.

 

The whole "battery grid storage" complaint becomes moot if there are many cars plugged in day and night to suck up electricity.

So, you don't think that there will be need for more electricity and wires to transport the equivalent energy used by gasoline and diesel through electrical wires?!

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Also, shall we take into account the mines required for the production of solar and wind power? I'm not dishonest, and so I won't post pictures of lithium strip mines as a space argument. 

And yes, seawater extraction is in its infancy. We have plenty of Uranium to get us by until the idiots protesting plant construction will let the industry thrive, and thus drive demand for seawater Uranium. Besides, if you're processing seawater or mining the ocean bed you're simultaneously acquiring other precious metals. 

If you think that demand won't drive the cost down, then I'll simply say that demand will never allow solar/wind to work without subsidy. And that's a problem. You don't notice a massive deficit until you've financed a national solar revolution with tax money, realizing that $.30 per kWh is part of the deal. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[NickW + 2,714]

26 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The fact is that nuclear will take up far less space for an equivalent power output. I saw on another forum where you posted an image of an open coal mine as an argument for space usage. It seemed very fallacious to me, and it seems very fallacious to think that Uranium mines will take up more space than solar or wind. I would be willing to bet that current globally installed renewable capacity takes up more space than all the coal mines in the world. 

They probably don't but as I have pointed out on numerous occasions to say a wind farm takes up say 20 hectares of space is incorrect because 95% of that land is still usage for farming whether than be arable or grazing. Offshore the space taken up is effectively irrelevant. 

[NickW + 2,714]

24 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Also, shall we take into account the mines required for the production of solar and wind power? I'm not dishonest, and so I won't post pictures of lithium strip mines as a space argument. 

And yes, seawater extraction is in its infancy. We have plenty of Uranium to get us by until the idiots protesting plant construction will let the industry thrive, and thus drive demand for seawater Uranium. Besides, if you're processing seawater or mining the ocean bed you're simultaneously acquiring other precious metals. 

If you think that demand won't drive the cost down, then I'll simply say that demand will never allow solar/wind to work without subsidy. And that's a problem. You don't notice a massive deficit until you've financed a national solar revolution with tax money, realizing that $.30 per kWh is part of the deal. 

I'm not anti nuclear but the new developments in the UK are certainly drawing some hefty subsidy commitments

In contrast solar gets very little subsidy now. Onshore wind gets none and offshore is falling towards parity with other forms of generation. 

In terms of back up and storage in response to your comment about Lithium mines this is irrelevant in the short medium term because most Lithium is going into EV / appliance uses. Maybe in the long term vehicle batteries will be redeployed as storage in a 2nd life application. 

In the meantime renewables are normally backed up by Gas, Hydro, Pumped storage, biomass or in worst case scenarios coal. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I've got a better idea. Let's just build nuclear plants okay? 

Good luck with that. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

It can be very windy at night; most anti-renewable people point that out (energy made when not really needed); this will change as more people plug in e-vehicles.

 

The whole "battery grid storage" complaint becomes moot if there are many cars plugged in day and night to suck up electricity.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2006-05/1146592099.Es.r.html Is it windier at night or during the day?

[dgowin + 43]

"energy independence, reliable and inexhaustible supply"

I wish that were true. The red dots are depleted Natural gas wells.

[dgowin + 43]

I wish Natural Gas was infinite resource. Shale gas wells peter out in less than six years.

[Joseph Hall 0]

Hahahaha.  An article from Stephen Moore in the Washington Examiner.  That's worth about a cubic foot of NG - almost nothing.

Let me help you out - the age of fossil fuels is over. The age of renewable energy is here. That’s all there is to it…

[WHY + 12]

1 hour ago, Joseph Hall said:

Hahahaha.  An article from Stephen Moore in the Washington Examiner.  That's worth about a cubic foot of NG - almost nothing.

Let me help you out - the age of fossil fuels is over. The age of renewable energy is here. That’s all there is to it…

Hahahaha right back at you. Black and white thinking as always from the extremists. What you are seeing is a re-balancing to a new equilibrium. That is at least clear from all the endless discussion on this website. I admire beyond measure most of what is written here since you'all really take the time to research your facts (and correct me when I am wrong).

What the new re-balanced world we are moving into looks like is anyone's guesstimate but I assure you it is not the "end" of anything. It is good to see innovation happening. It is equally good to see that we care about the billions who live without our developed world and want them to have their energy needs met to improve their quality of life. We take so much for granted. Even our ability to comment on this changing world is made possible by the fact that industrial development has showered this largesse upon us and we are so ungrateful to the engineers, scientists, operators, entrepreneurs, healthcare workers, financial systems & banks etc etc etc for bringing about the miracle of our complex society. Personally, I try to remember to thank them every time I boil the kettle, take a shower or get in my car.

So have a care when you laugh at those who have allowed you the existence you feel so entitled to denigrate.

 

[dgowin + 43]

"WHY" we engineers thank you.

I don't get enough folks like you thanking me for the things that I build.

Lucky for all of you we have already found a way past many of these issues.

Unfortunately is going to get worse before it gets better.

The age of burning wood did not end because we ran out of trees.

It ended because it became to expensive to burn before we switched over to coal.

Petroleum has ruled the house for over 100 years. Its going to be painful for many.