Natural gas is crushing wind and solar power

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Mark,

If the price of something is zero, generally the term used in English is that it is "free".

The curtailed power from wind turbines just goes to ground and is "wasted", kind of like flaring or venting natural gas.

If one puts a plant to produce hydrogen next to big wind farms, an agreement could be reached with the wind power operator to procure "curtailed wind power" at very low cost, perhaps 0.5 cents per kWhr, maybe less.  Currently for wind power producers any "curtailed" wind power gets zero.  If the hydrogen plant was run by the wind power operator the cost would be zero.

What do you think all the power lines would cost to set up your hydrogen plant and maintain it? Have any such plants ever been built?

[D Coyne + 305]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

🤣

Where do they get their "data" from again?   Oh right... so if the source data is screwed.... Does it matter if someone is honest with manipulated data the source is pushing as "RAW" when in fact it is not?  No.  

Why what I published MATTERS.  You can't argue when the foundation you are standing on and having a discussion on keeps ... MOVING

Read this paper

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

The source data is fine, the urban heat island effect being very important has been debunked numerous times.

also much good information can be found at the page linked below (including links to other websites)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Note that the "raw data" has some very dubious entries, such as surface temperature at 100 C.

Berkeley Earth is quite transparent about how they use the raw data.  See link below

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/Methods-GIGS-1-103.pdf  and

http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Methods-Appendix-GIGS-13-103a.pdf

Edited March 3, 2020 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

43 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

What do you think all the power lines would cost to set up your hydrogen plant and maintain it? Have any such plants ever been built?

Ron,

The power lines would be pretty short if the hydrogen plant is built right next to the wind turbines.  I do not know if such a plant has been built at scale.

I believe it may still be in the research/demonstration project stage.

https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/wind-to-hydrogen.html

[0R0 + 6,251]

3 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Doug,

No theory is irrefutable.  Generally we look at the match between theory and observation and choose the best theory we have.

Consider that fossil fuel is likely to be limited and we will need to find substitutes in any case,  It is likely, based on the global carbon cycle that about 20% of carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere for 10,000 years or more, the rest gets reabsorbed by the biosphere, there are a number of feedbacks that may gradually make the problem worse such as melting permafrost as the Earth warms which leads to more carbon emissions a it occurs.

The more this is studied by climate scientists, the more they are convinced that the problem is real and actually worse than at first believed.  

Also keep in mind it will take time to transition to alternatives to fossil fuel, and many of those alternatives (including simply better built buildings meeting Passivhaus standards and other energy efficiency measures) are likely to be cheaper than fossil fuel as peak output is reached for oil in 2025, coal in 2030, and natural gas in 2035.

I have no problem with the overall data showing the CO2 intermediated temperature rise. The problem is the broad spread of the projections and the really terrible history of predictions. Once you calibrate a model, it should be able to predict results in the Temp vs. CO2 into the future. Those predictions have not come in the ballpark of what actually happened. The range of uncertainty in model predictions is huge. We have every reason to worry about both extremes, being in the bottom range, meaning that little happens, or at the top, where significant changes happen.

We should be able to see the contribution of particulate cloud cover due to the China Quarantine shutting down 1/2 of its economy, and the jet emissions' water aerosol cover now reduced by 1/4 due to less Chinese air travel. It would be interesting to compare to the days following 9/11 where we had a 1 C temperature rise above normal seasonal temp. We don't know how much particulate cover loss due to renewables and NG reduction in dirty fuels will cost us in temperature rises. The big benefit is a rise in evaporation from the oceans, that could relieve the arid conditions of the subtropics in the last half century. Unfortunately, it would also flood Europe every winter. And it has the potential to RAISE temperatures further as coal and heavy oil are squashed. Some models attribute more that 1.2 C of temperature suppression to particulates, one quote I came across is 2.5  C. Fortunately on this count, Germany is intending to fill in its baseload with Lignite when, as happens 17% of the time, they have no significant renewables output. 

Looking at individual data points you can clearly see the particulate cover effect falling off and doing so very rapidly after 1980. I like to joke that the EPA caused global warming. You see much less of the rising temperature trend in pristine locations that remain outside major metro hot spots and were never under the local particulate clouds. 

No doubt that we should be preparing for the reduction of viable FF energy sources over time. So where that is economical, we should definitely remove the red tape from standing in the way. Even subsidize the capital investment if countries can afford to. Taxing FF just creates anti productive income for governments and increases the costs of transition to renewables. 

But my main issue with the CO2 reduction efforts is that it is going to happen anyway. The demographics of the developed economies are forcing a rapid reduction in demand on top of the economic and policy driven reduction. The boomers going into savings mode and retiring is reducing per capital consumption of FF in the developed world. The much reduced younger generations require no marginal investment in infrastructure. Second, the economics of solar in particular offer a 20% drop in FF consumption in the near future with existing storage technology. The main limits are Lithium processing due to limits on Iridium supply. And for US based thin film, it is Tellurium supply that remains an issue if demand rises again.  Third is the restricted supply of Neodymium from China, which does not publish credible resource and reserves numbers. The alternative for EVs is induction motors, which is a serious penalty to motor efficiency

[D Coyne + 305]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

 

 

Resultant efficiency of EVs is lower than an ICE. Start with powerplant efficiency, then account for all losses through transmission, loss through charging, loss through discharge, electric motor efficiency, and so on. 

Don't tell me that we justify it through making use of excess power, because if everybody switched to an EV then so called surplus power would be wholly insufficient to power the mass of EVs. 

No not really correct, first EVs will not replace ICEV instantaneuosly.  The energy needed at plug or tank is what I am talking about.

Generally ICEV get about 25% of the energy contained in the fuel in the tank converted to work at the axle.  For an EV the energy at the plug is converted to work at the axle at about 90% efficiency.

If you want to talk about electricity production and power line losses, then we have to include the entire fossil fuel production, refining, and distribution process as well.  If we did that, ICEVs would look far worse, so we have to do apples to apples.

Easiest comparison is at the tank or plug in my view.  Note the comined cycle natural gas power plants have about 60% efficiency, grid losses are about 10% and other losses converting AC to DC to charge battery about 5%.  For typical oil production today energy out is about 5% of energy in at most, most studies show about a 30 to 1 ratio.

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Coffeeguyzz,

Nobody will continue drilling for natural gas at $1.79/MCF.  Most of these shale gas companies are burning cash at alarming rates.  LNG in the US will also fail as there is an oversupply of Natural Gas Worldwide and at current price levels LNG is also a money losing proposition.

When output slows down and natural gas prices rise to a level where natural gas can be produced profitably, then many of the natural gas fired power plants will become stranded assets as they will not compete well with wind and solar as prices continue to fall over time.

You would have to talk the Mr Smith and Walras about how this works.

The issue is that in most locations you don't have anything remotely competitive with sub $3 NG. LNG remains profitable beyond the collection pipeline. Upstream from there it is essentially priced as a waste product for the near and intermediate future. 

As  Coffeeguyzz pointed out, the breakenven cost keeps dropping. We are yet to hit the point where new wells are using lower quality reserves. There are also new in hole pumps to aid in recovery of NGLs. Well productivity is still rising. I believe what you are saying will happen in time, just that that time scale is far longer than you are saying. 

The oversupply conditions in LNG are a capital constraint on LNG trains, particularly to unload at the destination markets. 

But we have only started the transition to LNG marine fuel and now large megatrucks in mining and construction. Now that LNG pods have been standardized it will catch on rapidly. That is 16% of oil demand falling off the cliff.  

I totally buy into your free H2 scenario and free electrogas. It is a solution to the problem of peak production surpassing demand and practical storage for long chunks of time, as renewables market share becomes sustantial.. 

 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Again nonsense.  The raw data is available see

http://berkeleyearth.org/about-data-set/

So all of the scientists are frauds, there are several different organizations that analyze the data.   All get very similar results.

I have not looked at their database. Will go through it if it is publicly accessible with "in the weeds" data. 

I am saying that the general climate change community relies on the heavily contaminated databases. Fraudulent data coming from practically ALL country's doctoring of their temperature records keeps popping up in the scientific news. The entire field has thus been put in question as a science altogether. When Governments provide the funding and are motivated to impose goals on the researchers, their work becomes blanketed by doubt, if not outright dismissal by technical people outside the field. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

43 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

No not really correct, first EVs will not replace ICEV instantaneuosly.  The energy needed at plug or tank is what I am talking about.

Generally ICEV get about 25% of the energy contained in the fuel in the tank converted to work at the axle.  For an EV the energy at the plug is converted to work at the axle at about 90% efficiency.

If you want to talk about electricity production and power line losses, then we have to include the entire fossil fuel production, refining, and distribution process as well.  If we did that, ICEVs would look far worse, so we have to do apples to apples.

Easiest comparison is at the tank or plug in my view.  Note the comined cycle natural gas power plants have about 60% efficiency, grid losses are about 10% and other losses converting AC to DC to charge battery about 5%.  For typical oil production today energy out is about 5% of energy in at most, most studies show about a 30 to 1 ratio.

So you’re not going to count the energy it took to extract fuel for the power plant? You’re going to lose if you put both systems in their entirety side by side. I knew you would mention combined cycle too. Why don’t we, then, take advantage of our thermochem technology and just produce gasoline from natural gas? That’s more efficient than combined cycle with EV, and you don’t suffer from pitiful energy density and charge time. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I am not so sure there is a big difference. Old folks often travel more than they did before retirement. I am sure our vehicles burn a lot more fuel than we do. We like to keep our homes climate controlled just as well as ever and we are home more. I would like to see some hard data. We sure spend a lot of money, especially helping our adult kids. 

The top quintile don't reduce spending that much till they actually approach retirement, but their savings rate does climb dramatically in the post 50 age group either by them or by their pension plans. It starts with a 25% drop in spending transitioning from covering children's college, last car, downsized house, etc.. Their travel is a one or two month or so winter event. It does not last very long into their retirement. Typically only 5 years till the joy is sucked out of travel by health limitations. Low returns from bonds plays a heavy hand in it near and at retirement. They shut off rooms in winter and don't heat them. The typical EU retiree over 70 now spends 60-70% less than they did in real terms when they were 40-50 age group. You can see it in the fall of European oil consumption for these 20 years before EVs and PHEVs had any effect. And the number of retirees has not skyrocketed yet. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Must note, that 30 to 1 ratio is the payoff, so saying that we get a 5% return on energy from oil is totally ludicrous. 

[markslawson + 1,061]

9 hours ago, D Coyne said:

If the price of something is zero, generally the term used in English is that it is "free".

I meant briefly zero or even for a time zero and your entire argument is about the spot market which is only a fraction of the market. Most electricity is sold on fixed priced contract, but there is still enough activity to make an active spot market which wind farms have been known to crash by giving away their power. Then the next hour when the wind dies, the conventional plants have wound down as they can't sell anything, the price spikes. Wind and solar badly distort both the short term markets with wild variations in supply, and then distort the long-term because the conventional plants have trouble using the short term markets. The damage caused by cheap, green power is enormous..  

[WayneMechEng + 89]

19 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Their last data update is 2010 or so IIRC. You need to collect the data yourself or find a demographer that publishes the data he collects.

The last UN data I have is dated 2017.  Too big to attach.  Search "WPP2017_DataBooklet". Still online.

When I researched the Canadian Carbon tax (and needed per capita) figures, I went to the StatsCan website.

For the US, a new census is on the way, but they are having trouble getting organized.

I can stick with the UN data.  It's close enough for our discussions.  I will keep my eye out for the other sources in future.

I had to use StatsCan data when I sent my unsolicited Carbon Tax studies to our Alberta Premier.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

5 hours ago, WayneMechEng said:

On my local journey's I notice a subtantial down time for wind turbines, either for lack of wind or maintainence.  Still they must be putting out enough power to justify their existence.

Lethbridge and Pincher creek area turbines only spin during peak load times - it's pretty much always windy and they are not broken - it's just load matching / grid stability.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

7 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Resultant efficiency of EVs is lower than an ICE. Start with powerplant efficiency, then account for all losses through transmission, loss through charging, loss through discharge, electric motor efficiency, and so on

So we have more CO2 when the entire cycle is considered.  Then the only way to reduce CO2 is to use nuclear power to generate electricity. Will the enviromentalists allow that?  Small Modular Reactors would be best, according to our Alberta Premier.

Toyota knows the hybrid well.  They say that they will sell more HEV than EV in the future.  They would know.

[WayneMechEng + 89]

On 3/1/2020 at 12:35 AM, Enthalpic said:

Where in Alberta? I'm in E-town.  You still think voting UCP was a good idea? HaHa (increased deficits, reduced industry investment, reduced services, nothing good).

US withdrew from the Paris accord.... no goals to beat.  Perhaps some improvement but as you point out that was market forces; probably just because natural gas became so cheap and displaced some coal, trump gets zero credit.

 

1 hour ago, Enthalpic said:

Lethbridge and Pincher creek area turbines only spin during peak load times - it's pretty much always windy and they are not broken - it's just load matching / grid stability.

Good to know.  It would appear that the addition of storage batteries could be beneficial and allow "time shifting".  But would the addtional cost be economical?  I sent a recommendation to our premier that an "Engineering Infrastructure Study" be conducted (using the correct disciplines and planners) to create a plan to transition smoothly from all carbon to the best we could "economically" achieve and afford.  No set deadlines from politicos.  Someone else said about 20% RE was estimated.  Our premier is considering SMR's.  But that must pass environmental opposition after Fukashima and Chernobyl.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

9 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Doug,

No theory is irrefutable.  Generally we look at the match between theory and observation and choose the best theory we have.

Consider that fossil fuel is likely to be limited and we will need to find substitutes in any case,  It is likely, based on the global carbon cycle that about 20% of carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere for 10,000 years or more, the rest gets reabsorbed by the biosphere, there are a number of feedbacks that may gradually make the problem worse such as melting permafrost as the Earth warms which leads to more carbon emissions a it occurs.

The more this is studied by climate scientists, the more they are convinced that the problem is real and actually worse than at first believed.  

Also keep in mind it will take time to transition to alternatives to fossil fuel, and many of those alternatives (including simply better built buildings meeting Passivhaus standards and other energy efficiency measures) are likely to be cheaper than fossil fuel as peak output is reached for oil in 2025, coal in 2030, and natural gas in 2035.

I never said anything about an irrefutable theory, I said “irrefutable data”.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

4 hours ago, 0R0 said:

The top quintile don't reduce spending that much till they actually approach retirement, but their savings rate does climb dramatically in the post 50 age group either by them or by their pension plans. It starts with a 25% drop in spending transitioning from covering children's college, last car, downsized house, etc.. Their travel is a one or two month or so winter event. It does not last very long into their retirement. Typically only 5 years till the joy is sucked out of travel by health limitations. Low returns from bonds plays a heavy hand in it near and at retirement. They shut off rooms in winter and don't heat them. The typical EU retiree over 70 now spends 60-70% less than they did in real terms when they were 40-50 age group. You can see it in the fall of European oil consumption for these 20 years before EVs and PHEVs had any effect. And the number of retirees has not skyrocketed yet. 

I guess I am looking at it from my experience but my wife is eleven years younger and retired later. She still does a little work. We are major travelers compared to most. We have been to all 50 states and are working on all the Canadian provinces. We honeymooned in Mexico. I did Europe while in the army and my wife is more interested in Caribbean cruises and some safe areas in Mexico. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 hours ago, D Coyne said:

No not really correct, first EVs will not replace ICEV instantaneuosly.  The energy needed at plug or tank is what I am talking about.

Generally ICEV get about 25% of the energy contained in the fuel in the tank converted to work at the axle.  For an EV the energy at the plug is converted to work at the axle at about 90% efficiency.

If you want to talk about electricity production and power line losses, then we have to include the entire fossil fuel production, refining, and distribution process as well.  If we did that, ICEVs would look far worse, so we have to do apples to apples.

Easiest comparison is at the tank or plug in my view.  Note the comined cycle natural gas power plants have about 60% efficiency, grid losses are about 10% and other losses converting AC to DC to charge battery about 5%.  For typical oil production today energy out is about 5% of energy in at most, most studies show about a 30 to 1 ratio.

Your argument seems to fail to prove itself in Europe or anywhere else. All you see is higher energy prices of double or more. No savings at all from renewables unless you are off grid. Maybe you can explain that. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Your argument seems to fail to prove itself in Europe or anywhere else. All you see is higher energy prices of double or more. No savings at all from renewables unless you are off grid. Maybe you can explain that. 

Let me try.

TAXES

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Just now, 0R0 said:

Let me try.

TAXES

Well, I am paying more for delivery charges of energy than the energy itself, and numerous taxes as well. I doubt taxes in Europe are that much higher. Maybe you have figures. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Well, I am paying more for delivery charges of energy than the energy itself, and numerous taxes as well. I doubt taxes in Europe are that much higher. Maybe you have figures. 

I haven't looked it up recently but IIRC in most of Europe, taxes make up 60% or more of the cost of energy. Some cost shifting to the consumer out of industry is not included.

[0R0 + 6,251]

4 hours ago, WayneMechEng said:

The last UN data I have is dated 2017.  Too big to attach.  Search "WPP2017_DataBooklet". Still online.

When I researched the Canadian Carbon tax (and needed per capita) figures, I went to the StatsCan website.

For the US, a new census is on the way, but they are having trouble getting organized.

I can stick with the UN data.  It's close enough for our discussions.  I will keep my eye out for the other sources in future.

I had to use StatsCan data when I sent my unsolicited Carbon Tax studies to our Alberta Premier.

I don't believe that 2017 is the date of collection but publication. The data was collected well before then. The documentation will tell you when each country's data was entered. 

US census is due this year.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

I haven't looked it up recently but IIRC in most of Europe, taxes make up 60% or more of the cost of energy. Some cost shifting to the consumer out of industry is not included.

https://paylesspower.com/blog/european-cost-of-electricity-per-kwh-by-country/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

https://paylesspower.com/blog/european-cost-of-electricity-per-kwh-by-country/

Of course they do. They just swallowed a plate of renewables whole. Of course 60% of the cost is taxes. 

And here we have a perfect example of why subsidizing ineffective solutions doesn't suddenly make them effective. The cost is paid for one way or another, and the more of the bad assets there are installed, the greater the bill which itself isn't noticeable until you do what Europe did. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by KeyboardWarrior

[D Coyne + 305]

18 hours ago, 0R0 said:

I have no problem with the overall data showing the CO2 intermediated temperature rise. The problem is the broad spread of the projections and the really terrible history of predictions. Once you calibrate a model, it should be able to predict results in the Temp vs. CO2 into the future. Those predictions have not come in the ballpark of what actually happened. The range of uncertainty in model predictions is huge. We have every reason to worry about both extremes, being in the bottom range, meaning that little happens, or at the top, where significant changes happen.

We should be able to see the contribution of particulate cloud cover due to the China Quarantine shutting down 1/2 of its economy, and the jet emissions' water aerosol cover now reduced by 1/4 due to less Chinese air travel. It would be interesting to compare to the days following 9/11 where we had a 1 C temperature rise above normal seasonal temp. We don't know how much particulate cover loss due to renewables and NG reduction in dirty fuels will cost us in temperature rises. The big benefit is a rise in evaporation from the oceans, that could relieve the arid conditions of the subtropics in the last half century. Unfortunately, it would also flood Europe every winter. And it has the potential to RAISE temperatures further as coal and heavy oil are squashed. Some models attribute more that 1.2 C of temperature suppression to particulates, one quote I came across is 2.5  C. Fortunately on this count, Germany is intending to fill in its baseload with Lignite when, as happens 17% of the time, they have no significant renewables output. 

Looking at individual data points you can clearly see the particulate cover effect falling off and doing so very rapidly after 1980. I like to joke that the EPA caused global warming. You see much less of the rising temperature trend in pristine locations that remain outside major metro hot spots and were never under the local particulate clouds. 

No doubt that we should be preparing for the reduction of viable FF energy sources over time. So where that is economical, we should definitely remove the red tape from standing in the way. Even subsidize the capital investment if countries can afford to. Taxing FF just creates anti productive income for governments and increases the costs of transition to renewables. 

But my main issue with the CO2 reduction efforts is that it is going to happen anyway. The demographics of the developed economies are forcing a rapid reduction in demand on top of the economic and policy driven reduction. The boomers going into savings mode and retiring is reducing per capital consumption of FF in the developed world. The much reduced younger generations require no marginal investment in infrastructure. Second, the economics of solar in particular offer a 20% drop in FF consumption in the near future with existing storage technology. The main limits are Lithium processing due to limits on Iridium supply. And for US based thin film, it is Tellurium supply that remains an issue if demand rises again.  Third is the restricted supply of Neodymium from China, which does not publish credible resource and reserves numbers. The alternative for EVs is induction motors, which is a serious penalty to motor efficiency

0R0,

There is a relatively simple model that can account for aerosols and other factors, see

https://contextearth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/

Note that when looked at globally, the heat island effect is minimal.  See

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

Chart below attemps a CSALT model based on simple linear regression on Berkeley Earth's Gloabl land ocean temperature cs the five variables of the CSALT model (which is admittedly far simpler than Global Land Ocean Carbon Cycle models).

The centered 15 year average is plated for Global Land Ocean Temperature vs the "Model" which has an adjusted R-squared of 0.8563.  Far from perfect but the physical reality is far more complex than what can be captured by such a simple conceptual model.  The transient climate response of the model (which ignores long term feedbacks as the ocean slowly warms with a typical 400 year lag) is about 2 C for this model for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.  The model was done in 2016 so annual data was only available though 2015 at the time, I have not updated the model of late.