Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[RegGuheert]

The links you provided are not convincing.

Convincing is a machine I can put into a room, put cold water into this machine and get steam out of this machine for long enough to convince me that the machine isn't chemical.

Scientific evidence doesn't do it for you? I guess that says it all. There are dozens of references to the papers which documented the excess heat and reaction products from cold fusion experiments the world over.

1) if useful amounts of power could come from hydrogen (abundant) and any interaction with solid matter, the Earth in it's current form couldn't exist.

"Useful amounts of power" do not "come from hydrogen (abundant) and any interaction with solid matter". Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Cold fusion only occurs under extremely difficult-to-achieve conditions. In the case of palladium/heavy-water cold fusion, excess heat has *never* been observed with a loading factor below 0.9. This level of loading is extremely difficult to achieve. That's the primary reason most early experiments failed.

2) fusing hydrogen has a huge energy to activate compared with chemical and thermal energies, and releases even more energy. The first requires very high temperatures and pressures, or high velocities,...

That was an important part of Martin Fleischman's brilliance:

“Whatever you say,” says Fleischmann, “you can achieve conditions in a lattice through electrolytic action which you could never achieve in any other way known.”

He has been proven correct on this point many times.

...the second means that very high energy photons at minimum will be produced. Lots of X-rays.

That's hot fusion. Cold fusion does not suffer the same issues as hot fusion. That's why Fleischmann, Pons and many other cold fusion researchers survived their successful experiments.

Cold fusion doesn't exist so the economics of it are undefined. Put this into a new topic.

It exists in exactly the same form as grid-sized batteries, but those solutions, as poor as they may be, are being discussed with virtually no knowledge of their economics.

 

[WetEV]

The links you provided are not convincing.

Convincing is a machine I can put into a room, put cold water into this machine and get steam out of this machine for long enough to convince me that the machine isn't chemical.

Scientific evidence doesn't do it for you?

The first principle of science is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

Notice I can be convinced. Just need an example not explainable by experimental error or fraud.

1) if useful amounts of power could come from hydrogen (abundant) and any interaction with solid matter, the Earth in it's current form couldn't exist.

"Useful amounts of power" do not "come from hydrogen (abundant) and any interaction with solid matter". Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Cold fusion only occurs under extremely difficult-to-achieve conditions.

You missed my point. If it is possible at all at useful levels with specific materials, then the Earth's iron nickel core with lots of hydrogen dissolved in it should be pumping out enough cold fusion reactions to melt the planet. It would only take a tiny amount per cubic meter, undetectable if it doesn't release radiation, and difficult to detect if it did.

2) fusing hydrogen has a huge energy to activate compared with chemical and thermal energies, and releases even more energy. The first requires very high temperatures and pressures, or high velocities,...

Fleischmann, “you can achieve conditions in a lattice through electrolytic action

But not pressures or temperatures even .001% of what is needed for a whisper of fusion reactions.

...the second means that very high energy photons at minimum will be produced. Lots of X-rays.

That's hot fusion. Cold fusion does not suffer the same issues as hot fusion.

Ok, why?

Why no neutrons?

Why no multi MeV photons?

Energy is being released in a very tiny space. Why no ripples?

Cold fusion doesn't exist so the economics of it are undefined. Put this into a new topic.

It exists in exactly the same form as grid-sized batteries, but those solutions, as poor as they may be, are being discussed with virtually no knowledge of their economics.

Utility scale batteries do exist. A house water heater sized cold fusion device doesn't.

Oh, and Mods, this example of Pathological Science has nothing to do with Renewable Power or Economics. Please put this cold fusion in it's own topic.

 

[AndyH]

California - follow Vermont!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/15/3567307/vermont-renewable-power/

Vermont has a statewide goal of getting 90 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050, including electricity, heating, and transportation.

Largest City In Vermont Now Gets All Its Power From Wind, Water And Biomass

According to Nolan, the utility will get about one-third of its power from the Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station, one-third from wind energy contracts, and one-third from the hydroelectric stations Winooski One and Hydro-Québec. The McNeil power station is a biomass facility that primarily uses wood chips from logging residue leftover from the harvesting of wood for other products.

 

[AndyH]

El Hierro is almost there...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/...d-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy

This past summer, El Hierro inaugurated the Gorona del Viento power plant, a $110 million wind and water turbine farm. By the end of this year, the plant will generate all of the island's energy needs of up to 48 gigawatt hours per year.

"The wind machines, we basically ordered out of catalog; we didn't invent the technology. Same with the water turbines," Quintero says. "The innovation we made is hooking up the two systems together."

"How much will be the price for oil in 20 years' time? We don't know! But we are sure that we will still have wind in the Canary Islands in 20 years time," Escribano says. "And the price, or the cost to generate an additional gigawatt, will be ... zero."

Meanwhile, El Hierro is already planning its next energy project. It wants all the island's cars to be electric by the year 2020.

 

[RegGuheert]

The challenges we face in a transition from a fossil-fuel-based economy to one based on renewables are not imaginary gremlins, but they are real issues which we can learn about by looking at what is going on in Europe.

First, in Spain, where sunlight is plentiful, things did not go so well with their attempted transition. This excellent piece discusses some of the issues that impacted that effort: Solar Dreams, Spanish Realities.

"The energy industry is much more complicated and integrated than anyone thought. The left side of Spain's energy planning brain didn't know what the right side was doing."

But what troubled Prieto most were the paltry energy returns of some 57,900 solar plants, both big and small. He reviewed Spain's excellent data on the energy outputs of the nation's solar network and than compared those findings to actual energy inputs. To his dismay Prieto found that solar offered only slightly better returns than biofuels. Or 2.4 to one.

"That is not enough to maintain society as it is today."

And it is not just Spain. Germany is in the middle of their Energiewende. But there are massive issues with this transition and the jury is still out on whether or not it will succeed. Here are a couple of reports from Germany:
- According to the European Institute for Climate and Energy, Germany's power grid is on the verge of collapse - The number of interventions by grid operators has grown from almost zero in 2006 to over 3500 in 2014. In the past year, they have had to shut down production twice to prevent a grid failure:

In the last 12 months the German power grid barely averted a collapse twice by shutting down production. The Westfälische Rundschau (here) on 17 September quoted Trimet Chairman Martin Iffert: ‘We are prepared that something like that would happen as a consequence of the transition to renewable energy, however we were surprised that we had to slam on the brakes already two times.’ According to Iffert the power grid had been on the ‘brink of collapse’ shortly after a drop in wind energy.

Thus the power supply in Germany is no longer secure enough. It is even highly vulnerable. A blackout could occur on any given day. Up to now they have been successful at averting grid collapses by taking lightning speed action, but the number of emergencies has increased massively and is still rising.

- Forbes: Should other nations follow Germany's lead on promoting solar power? - This scathing review looks closely at many of the challenges that Germany faces as the try to implement their energy utopia. One interesting point in the article is how the Energiewende is creating a situation which prefers coal over nuclear or even hydroelectric power:

Here’s the truly dismaying part: the latest numbers show Germany’s carbon output and global warming impact are actually increasing [5] despite flat economic output and declining population, because of ill-planned “renewables first” market mechanisms. This regime is paradoxically forcing the growth of dirty coal power. Photovoltaic solar has a fundamental flaw for large-scale generation in the absence of electricity storage — it only works for about 5-10 hours a day. Electricity must be produced at the exact same time it’s used. [29] The more daytime summer solar capacity Germany builds, the more coal power they need for nights and winters as cleaner power sources are forced offline. [6] This happens because excessive daytime solar power production makes base-load nuclear plants impossible to operate, and makes load-following natural gas plants uneconomical to run. Large-scale PV solar power is unmanageable without equally-large-scale grid storage, but even pumped-storage hydroelectricity facilities are being driven out of business by the severe grid fluctuations. They can’t run steadily enough to operate at a profit. [2,7] Coal is the only non-subsidized power source that doesn’t hemorrhage money now. [8] The result is that utilities must choose between coal, blackouts, or bankruptcy. Which means much more pollution.

- Gemany's Debacle: 2/3 Of Wind Projects Are Running Badly To Very Badly - Case Of The Missing Wind - This English summary of a German TV report tells about how some of the wind investments in Germany are struggling, even with the generous subsidies which they receive:

At the 2:06 mark Daldorf tells SWF that the cause is “the missing wind, too much wind was planned, shoddy planning, improper planning, and unexpected (or falsely expected) high repair, maintenance, and insurance costs“.

- Spiegel: Germany's Large-Scale Offshore Windpark Dream Morphs Into An Engineering And Cost Nightmare - The 400 MW Bard Offshore 1 windpark is over 100 km offshore and has not been able to produce power since its commissioning in August 2013:

The trouble surrounds the BARD 1 offshore windpark in the North Sea. Originally the park had been officially opened last year in August, but had to shut down almost immediately because of technical faults.

Then in March, 2014, engineers tried once again to bring the massive windpark online, again they were met with failure as “wild current” fried filters an offshore electrical converter station after a just a few mere hours.

Spiegel estimates that the value of the electricity not produced is 340 million Euros. But the problem is not resolved:

The problem, Spiegel writes, is the great distance the windpark is located from the coast, which makes it impossible to bring the power onshore with conventional technology. The power cannot be transmitted through an underwater cable as alternating current, but rather must be transmitted as DC current. Unfortunately that task is proving not easy to manage.

Spiegel cites an expert on whether it will be possible to solve the big problems. Hans-Günter Eckel, Professor of Power Electronics at the University of Rostock: "Most likely there isn’t a single thing that is responsible, but rather it’s about a faulty total system. It’s going to require patience. It’s a completely new and complex technology.”

 

[AndyH]

Here's another look at the 'economics" (not a real science) of Renewable Power, simplified:

One indisputable piece of evidence on behalf of this new model: Power outages in Germany have decreased (to 15.3 minutes in 2013) as the renewable content of its power supply has increased since 2006; in all of Europe, only Denmark (which has higher renewable content than Germany in its power supply) and Luxembourg have higher supply security.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/germany-renewableenergyclimatechange.html
http://www.derwesten.de/wirtschaft/zahl-der-stromausfaelle-ging-zurueck-aimp-id9734230.html

 

[AndyH]

It doesn't get any simpler than this.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3kve0PV0VA[/youtube]


"It ain't ignorance causes so much trouble; it's folks knowing so much that ain't so."
Henry Wheeler Shaw (AKA Josh Billings)

 

[AndyH]

As an aside, our progress on renewables - and the truth of their superiority - isn't all roses.

7 Nov 14

NEW ORLEANS – A joint federal-state investigation continued Friday into the shocking firebombing Thursday at the Uptown home of a well-known political strategist.

On Wednesday, we told you about the surprising results in the Public Service Commission race and how the high-stakes, expensive runoff between incumbent Eric Skrmetta and alternative energy advocate Forest Bradley-Wright could affect the future of energy regulation in Louisiana.

Just a few short hours later, everything changed. Bradley-Wright's finance director and chief fundraiser, Mario Zervigon, had his two cars and Uptown home destroyed in a shocking firebombing.

"I feel that additional precautions have been important, sensible precautions to realize that clearly there is someone out there that is willing to do absolutely terrible act of violence in this case," Bradley-Wright said.

http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/cri...mpaign-shaken-by-uptown-firebombing/18674021/

 

[WetEV]

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wet - I don't disagree with this article when I look at the problem from approximately their point of view. This type of limited thinking is akin to the process that got us into this mess, and we already know it's going to be insufficient to get us out of it.

I really wish you'd read about agroforestry, especially since you've expressed a desire to have more trees, reform big ag, and truly get the Keeling Curve under control.

No, wind turbines and solar panels are not enough to fix the problem. Neither are batteries or H2 or nukes. But they're a necessary component. We also need a ton of efficiency improvements, to encase big-ag in a Lucite block and laser-engrave it with 'never again', and cover the planet in trees.

PM me an address - I'll send you a copy of Shepard's "Restoration Agriculture" - we truly can eat familiar foods (and non-foods like Cheetos) from a combination of trees, perennials, and some annual crops (with no fossil fuels or fossil-fuel derived inputs), while at least doubling the per-acre productivity (often 3-6 times), while sequestering atmospheric carbon on the scale we need. Along with my 'favorite three' 100% renewables plans, this gives me the best hope yet of getting where we need to go.

Andy

 

[WetEV]

PM me an address - I'll send you a copy of Shepard's "Restoration Agriculture"

Thanks, but not interested.

 

[AndyH]

PM me an address - I'll send you a copy of Shepard's "Restoration Agriculture"

Thanks, but not interested.

Sorry to hear that.

I was under the impression you were concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels and recognized that part of the solution was to plant trees to sequester old carbon. I guess I was mistaken.

 

[AndyH]

Real-world case study: In the mountains of BC, Canada, is it cleaner and cheaper to use propane or the sun? Is a low-tech solution better than high tech? And why does a solar solution pay back in about a month while continuing to save ~$200CDN each month through the long winter?

Here's 9 minutes 25 seconds of reality.

http://www.geofflawton.com/fe/76555-heating-your-glasshouse

It'll cost an email address. The address is used to announce the next video. There's no advertising, no spam.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXOYsYCukY8[/youtube]

Burlington, VT - Net-zero city

...our financial analysis at that time indicated, actually to our surprise, that the cheapest long-term financial investment with the least amount of risk was moving in this direction [to 100 renewable electrical generation]... switching from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy will likely save the city about $20,000,000 over the next 2 decades. What's more, consumers haven't been hit with a big price increase...Burlington's rates haven't seen a price increase since 2009.

 

[AndyH]

Fair enough @AndyH, I'm really done beating up the Germans for not doing enough PV under their cloudy skies. They are clearly doing many different things (as part of a complex plan) to get to a sustainable ecotopia. And they have an admirable dedication to the task, no matter how hard it will be.

Different countries (and US states) will get to 100% RE in different ways, and with different degrees of difficulty...

"Difficulty" is relative. The fact remains that the planet's power grids will have to be upgraded between now and 2050 anyway, so "expense" and "difficulty" are already baked into this pie. The choice we have is how the grid will look after we do the work.

As for what appears to be the use of "ecotopia" as a pejorative...

I personally prefer a transformational ecotopia to any of the collapse scenarios...

Let's leave storage aside for a moment, and just talk about energy sources.

I think David MacCay has done a great job describing possible scenarios for the cloudy UK, and settled on a highly diversified RE portfolio including a lot of tidal and offshore wind, in addition to onshore wind (in the north) and some PV.

Edit: it is David MacKay....see downthread.

I expect that the Germans, trying to solve similar challenges, also will likely need to rely heavily on wind (onshore and offshore) RE sources to get to 100%.

I've been a huge fan of MacKay's book "...without hot air" in the past, but no longer recommend it as it's severely out of date. The price of renewables have come down so fast, storage tech has emerged and matured, and the confluence of IT/smart grid/decentralization/collaboration has allowed for synergistic transformation in ways that didn't exist when the physicist put pen to paper. In a world changing as rapidly as ours, I think that anyone that wants a grounding in energy flows that will continue to serve them even when some tech is overcome by events would be better served with a copy of Howard T Odum's revised classic on energy: Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy http://www.amazon.com/Environment-Power-Society-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0231128878

Enjoy.

 

[AndyH]

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/energy transitions in Germany and the United States.pdf

The substantial growth of renewable energy in Europe has contributed to a sustained decline in electricity prices at the European Energy Exchange, to below 5 U.S. cents per kWh on average in 2013, a drop of 26 percent from 2011. This is evidence that renewables can help lower energy prices.  

 

[RegGuheert]

El Hierro update:

This recent paper covers some of the economics of the El Hierro renewable energy system along with projections of the percent of the island's energy which will be provided by the system:

Therefore, the initial goal of reaching such a renewable penetration to supply the demand by 100% cannot be achieved relying solely on this project. The maximum penetration of renewable will be reached in 2015 (77%) then will decrease over the years.

This is true, in spite of the following:

El Hierro is a singular case among the rest of the islands. Being remotely located and using for theirdem and only diesel fuel, local energy system exploration is the most expensive per capita in the universe of the Canary Islands. And yet the island has plenty of natural resources such as wind and sun which could be explored.

And from the results:

The goal for the first year is to make sure that 80% of the energy provided annually to the grid would be renewable. Gorona recognizes though, that 100% remains a utopia [9].

In other words, this island, which is one of the best cases for renewable energy, is only able to meet about 80% of their current electricity needs using this approach. Likely this is due to the fact that the storage system can only handle a few days' worth of storage. The result is that seasonal energy shifting is not provided.

Also, it appears that even though they had intended to produced 80% of their electricity this year (2015), with six months nearly gone, almost all of El Hierro's electricity still comes from diesel generators. Very little is produced by wind power: Historical Production Data for El Hierro

 

[AndyH]

El Hierro update:

This recent paper covers some of the economics of the El Hierro renewable energy system along with projections of the percent of the island's energy which will be provided by the system:

Therefore, the initial goal of reaching such a renewable penetration to supply the demand by 100% cannot be achieved relying solely on this project. The maximum penetration of renewable will be reached in 2015 (77%) then will decrease over the years.

This is true, in spite of the following:

El Hierro is a singular case among the rest of the islands. Being remotely located and using for theirdem and only diesel fuel, local energy system exploration is the most expensive per capita in the universe of the Canary Islands. And yet the island has plenty of natural resources such as wind and sun which could be explored.

And from the results:

The goal for the first year is to make sure that 80% of the energy provided annually to the grid would be renewable. Gorona recognizes though, that 100% remains a utopia [9].

In other words, this island, which is one of the best cases for renewable energy, is only able to meet about 80% of their current electricity needs using this approach. Likely this is due to the fact that the storage system can only handle a few days' worth of storage. The result is that seasonal energy shifting is not provided.

Also, it appears that even though they had intended to produced 80% of their electricity this year (2015), with six months nearly gone, almost all of El Hierro's electricity still comes from diesel generators. Very little is produced by wind power: Historical Production Data for El Hierro

Interesting analysis, though not one I share after reading the entire presentation. As for the cool energy generation charts, one would expect them to change a bit once the renewable system's actually brought on-line...

 

[RegGuheert]

Interesting analysis, though not one I share after reading the entire presentation.

Your thoughts are not what matters here. This project was billed as the first 100% renewable energy power grid system. Unfortunately, it was overpromised and has underdelivered.

But don't get me wrong: This is exactly the right application for renewable energy. They are applying it where it makes the most sense. But it does give support to the thesis of the OP of this thread: As the renewable percentage increases, the cost for each additional renewable percent goes up. Getting to 100% is quite a challenge, even in the most ideal of situations.

As for the cool energy generation charts, one would expect them to change a bit once the renewable system's actually brought on-line...

According to the paper I linked, the systems were brought online last year. Unfortunately, the amount of wind energy in the mix has not increased since then. It's still 25% or less. I wonder what is holding this project back.

 

[GRA]

El Hierro update: <snip>

Thanks for finding this. I went looking for production data 6-8 months ago but didn't find anything except the same articles we had already discussed upthread. I also re-read some of this thread to remind myself of what I wrote. In one post I said 65% provided by RE would be doing pretty good, with 80% about the max. to be expected, and it seems the company is in general agreement, predicting a peak of 77% then gradually declining as demand increases (and maintenance issues arise). Looks like they still have a ways to go to get a full year's worth of data with the system fully operational, but the 3%/97% RE/diesel split reported on a low wind day early on, and 25%/75% split less than a month later shows just how critical storage will be. Still, early days yet, and hopefully we'll see a paper at or before the conference next year reporting at least a full year of production/demand.