Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[TimLee]

Germany may get there sooner than most.
But their plan needs some adjustment when they are hitting highest power production from brown coal in past twenty years and exporting lots of power a large % of it made from brown coal and displacing lower green house gas emission gas plant generation.

 

[AndyH]

Haven't been following this thread closely, so thanks for the links. But personally, I'm more likely to rely on the word of the people who actually get into the nitty gritty and do the design tradeoffs, i.e. looking at what's practical rather than what's ideal, than those 'at the top of the chain of command', who are more likely to skate over the details if they're even aware of them. Kind of like the Nissan execs who assured everyone that the battery was good for 5 years/80% even in Phoenix. I suspect that the Engineers were much more cautious.

I look forward to seeing how the well the reality matches up with the claims. Smallish islands that have to import fuel are just about the ideal location for an RE Grid. BTW, does the hydro system _still_ have storage for seven days, seeing as how they had to reduce its size, or was that the storage as originally designed?

The nitty gritty is still relative to the project at hand and varies with project and level/sphere of influence. Unless I missed something, the guys talking about the hydro project were only working that part of the process. Someone higher in the food chain has to be integrating all the pieces. The guys working the upper-level details, integration plans and procedures, test requirements, disaster plans, etc. are much more likely to be working for the mayor, not a Spanish contractor.

The PhysOrg articles say that both the wind and hydro system are capable of 11.5 MW - each can produce much more electricity than the island uses now. It appears they're already 100% wind powered (maybe on a 'net zero' basis considering they still have their diesel generators). They're reported to be starting the hydro system at 50% capacity and ramping up to 100% until 2015. The articles from multiple sources are written as if they are already renewable without the pumped hydro storage.

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-spanish-island-fully-powered.html
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-spanish-island-eyes-world-power.html#inlRlv

 

[AndyH]

Germany may get there sooner than most.
But their plan needs some adjustment when the are hitting highest power production from brown coal in past twenty years and exporting lots of power a large % of it made from brown coal and displacing lower green house gas emission gas plant generation.

They are not in an end-state yet, Tim - it's not yet 2050. In the mean time, feel free to cite a source that supports your brown coal claim. And don't even start about gas being lower GHG, not with all the NG system leaks around the world.

Besides, I've already provided you industry-sourced info that shows the coal bump was temporary, is already on the decline, and was there to meet energy export requirements, not for internal use. And don't forget that Germany's already cut GHG emissions more than 27% since the 1990s - this coal speed bump is a small jiggle on a long-range chart, nothing more.

edit...fixed marked typos.

 

[RegGuheert]

Deleted - Wrong thread.

 

[GRA]

I've got some systems design time under my belt as well in combinations of generator only, PV/generator, PV/wind/generator, and PV only for single off-grid dwellings. Storage at that scale is battery - not pumped water or compressed air or H2. Generation is limited to the immediate vicinity where drought, clouds and/or calm can bring generation to a halt.

My focus in this and other threads however is not for a single off-grid building but rather for scales of city to country. I have no idea what Wet's focus is (other than promoting nuclear, repeatedly suggesting there's not enough biomass available, and that 100% renewables is too expensive). That's why I've been posting things as I find them that shows that 100% renewables is possible and is increasingly cost effective even without a price on carbon and with no regard to the environment.

Wet has stated in other threads that he has zero affiliation with the power industry. This rules him out as an 'expert witness'. His problem has no bounds or indications of scale. He references a single paper from a 2012 conference that uses an unknown MatLab model. This is all less than exciting. Is Wet trying to analyze a country with zero power generation or distribution system? Or a developed country with infrastructure in place? Just one example of an error in the post is his insistence that wind and solar is variable and that each can drop to zero generation. I'd agree with regards to a single PV array or a single wind turbine. This is absolutely incorrect, however, when a grid is populated by geographically dispersed wind and PV collection assets.

Okay, I take it you're talking now generally about a fairly large country, and not a small island like El Hierro? Because that's almost certainly too small an area to see much benefit from dispersed PV or wind production sources. Assuming, of course, that they don't have an eruption or major earthquakes that damage the systems, especially the storage reservoirs. El Hierro had some major earthquake swarms in 2011. BTW, I haven't yet read all the links, but how are they planning to clean the reservoirs and keep them from silting up? Aside from local dirt and dust, the Canaries are downwind from the Sahara dust storms that reach all the way across the Atlantic. I don't know how much of that get's deposited there and if the amount is even an issue, just wondering. Dredging would damage the plastic liners, so are they planning to use some kind of filtration system, or are they just going to drain the reservoirs periodically and vacuum the silt out?

Pessimist much?

One person's pessimist is another person's realist, just as one person's optimist is another person's fantasist

I haven't changed my position here - when I talk about TIR, Reinventing Fire, or the Solutions Project I'm absolutely talking about them in at least a US state context. I agree about El Hierro - it's a smaller project in the overall scheme of things. I'm simply using it and other smaller projects like this as mile-posts on our transition out of the fossil fuel age.

Okay, just so we agree that scale and site conditions most definitely _do_ matter, and are generally far more critical when designing RE.

I wouldn't think this project would need filters, though I don't expect the pump inlets in the bottom 'lake' to be placed right on the liner. They probably have an overflow configured for the bottom lake and could probably siphon silt if they needed as part of a refurb process. I haven't seen anything on the project that goes into this level of detail, however, so this is just a guess.

Alright, I'll try to dig up some details when I find the time, because this does strike me as a potential issue for power turbines using a fairly shallow, open, plastic-lined reservoir, as opposed to one used for drinking water for livestock.

By comparison, we have The Solutions Project, based on Mark Jacobson's work at Stanford. Over the course of years of research, many peer-reviewed papers, and studies, he's shown that the entire USA can be powered (electricity, heat, hot water, industry, and transportation) with 100% of the energy supplied by wind/wave/sun. This has been shown for the entire USA, a five-state zone in the NE USA, and the state of NY. The project breaks the numbers down by state, provides a cost accounting compared with our current system, and shows that 100% renewables does not require storage other than that provided by concentrating solar and V2G BEV and FCEV. We have the Third Industrial Revolution plan as well. This plan also includes hot water, heating, and transportation across an entire country and region. It's been created with input from industry and governments and is being deployed in various countries in Germany, the EU, the developing world, and China. This program, too, is less expensive than business as usual and results is lower energy prices. And finally, we have Reinventing Fire. This too is a plan designed around current tech, requires no intervention from any politician, and is done by business for profit. This is the only plan of the three that is not 100% renwable as it retains a significant natural gas percentage (about 75% of the volume of gas used in our country prior to the fracking boom). It is designed to support a ~150% larger economy and results in not only a capital cost savings of many $billions over business as usual but also provides lower electricity prices. This and the TIR are being deployed in various parts of the US.

These three plans are developed by experts in their respective areas of expertise, are either being deployed or are deployable across an entire country, and all three show that the premise of the original post in this thread is erroneous.

Andy, we already know that we disagree on the difference between what could be done technically and what's realistic, given the interplay between social, political, economic and environmental factors and their interest groups. I regard all such plans as aspirational goals, which will inevitably take far longer or only be achieved partially in the real world. Germany being a case in point; you say that even if the top down end of things is currently faltering, the bottom up will continue. I say the reason that the top changed is because the bottom changed first and altered their votes, and there's no guarantee that they will continue to support personal shifts to AE if they have to pay more to do so. AIUI, the change eliminated all subsidies for PV arrays above 10 kW and taxed them at 4.4 Eurocents/kWh, so home systems would still be immune, but small commercial and industrial users would be hurt. Whether that continues to be the case remains to be seen.

Sorry man - I still think you should pull back to a broader view. Germany started their bottom-up energy transition in the 1990s. They started their top-down TIR transition in the early 2000s. They are not slowing from these programs - they are meeting goals well ahead of schedule (they've already exceeded their 2020 goals) and are accelerating on all fronts. They are slowing the PV expansion because they are miles ahead for this pillar - they need to expand H2 generation and BEV/FCEV to regain balance. They haven't slowed their nuke or coal phase-out. The German people are much more aware of the environment than we are (hell, most of the rest of the world is more aware than we are...) and they have significant peer pressure from all of their neighbors in and out of the EU (also advancing the TIR). Barring a meteor impact, I think Germany will be the first in the world to fully deploy all five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution plan. It's in their laws, it's in their long-range plans, and it's an expanding part of their industry and jobs growth progress.

Time will tell, Guy, but I think betting against their progress is a sure loser.

I'm not betting against it, hell, I hope it succeeds, although I think this demonstrates the problems with just throwing money at an issue when it becomes a political fad, rather than taking the time to design the system so the elements advance in sync. But then, that's the way politics works in the real world, so I'm not surprised if they've gotten out of step. And I am still pissed at the Germans for retiring nukes before retiring coal. But mainly, I'm just skeptical of all utopian plans. I've been reading lots of history lately about the inter-related development of roads, cities, and mass transit, and they too are full of unrealized ideal plans by just the sort of experts as you cite above. Real life is messier. Barring someone with the overwhelming political power and influence of, say, Robert Moses in New York*, who could and did ride roughshod over almost anyone who didn't share his views, the path toward those broad, sunlit uplands is never straight, and often you never arrive.

*If you haven't read it, Robert Caro's Pulitzer-winning biography "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York" is well worth the time. Moses wasn't a nice man, but he was a very effective one for several decades.

 

[electricfuture]

The costs of "natural disasters". The Government has increased the budget an average of $1.3 billion per year and yet has had a shortfall every year.

Worldwide weather related disasters as a proportion of GDP have dropped over the past quarter century.

Greenhouse gas related climate change (the science has proven this beyond a doubt to rational people) has already caused more disasters than "anticipated" by the naysayers, worse the government forecast are based on 5 year averages and eliminate huge disasters i.e. New Orleans as anomalies.

:?: :?: :?: The disaster in New Orleans had NOTHING to do with climate change and was very publicly predicted several years before it happened. U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1990. There has been no trend, up or down, in the number of tropical cyclones, both strong and weak since 1970. Currently, the U.S. is in the longest drought (over 8.5 years) of major hurricanes (Cat 3 through 5) since records began around the time of the Civil War. U.S. Floods have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1950 and losses have decreased 75% since 1940. Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or damage since 1950. The fraction of the globe in drought has gradually dropped over the past 30 years.

They are in business to make a profit not to provide electric power - that is just the means. So don't expect the cost of electricity to go down as the proportion of renewables increase if you have a "for profit" utility company.

I suspect you are correct here.

Points taken I stand "corrected" on my statement concerning disasters - so why has the cost of disasters gone up? Please do not use "GDP" examples based on sliding monetary scales and world increases measured by governments that report what they want their populations to believe (i.e. USSR) to justify that the world's climate has not changed (not the weather - the climate). Carefully reading your argument implies that there is no evidence of global warming effecting climate change, much less humans being the causing factor. In fact your arguments would be great ammunition for the fossil fuel industry in Congress or in North Carolina .

I am sticking with purely scientific numbers shown in ice core samples going back 800,000 years that clearly show a very unnatural increase in airborne carbon coinciding with the increase in atmospheric temperature: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/environmental-change/measuring-climate-change/ice-cores/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the real evidence is not in the air - its in the water. Ocean temperatures have also gone up over this same period - a direct result of greenhouse gas increases: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The simple cost of renewable energy must be compared to the full spectrum of currently produced energy alternatives, not on a stand alone basis and must include the loss of human life due to wars, poor air quality, mine explosions/cave ins, black lung, coal/oil train wrecks, oil/gasoline/diesel delivery truck wrecks, gas line explosions and the real financial cost of producing/burning fossil fuels.

So the simplified costs of renewable energy is priceless for the human race to embrace and continue in order to save ourselves. The effects of fossil fuel alternatives are already apparent and measurable in the oceans and the atmosphere. Ice caps are melting rapidly causing less sun reflection = warmer atmospheric temperature = warmer oceans = faster melting ice caps. Increases in global disasters and their magnitudes are inevitable as a result. The short term answer is nuclear coupled with solar/wind. The long term will probably be Thorium mini-reactors/solar/fusion plants. Wind will not last - anyone who has stood under a utility size wind tower will understand this.

 

[AndyH]

Points taken I stand "corrected" on my statement concerning disasters - so why has the cost of disasters gone up? Please do not use "GDP" examples based on sliding monetary scales and world increases measured by governments that report what they want their populations to believe (i.e. USSR) to justify that the world's climate has not changed (not the weather - the climate). Carefully reading your argument implies that there is no evidence of global warming effecting climate change, much less humans being the causing factor. In fact your arguments would be great ammunition for the fossil fuel industry in Congress or in North Carolina .

I am sticking with purely scientific numbers shown in ice core samples going back 800,000 years that clearly show a very unnatural increase in airborne carbon coinciding with the increase in atmospheric temperature: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/environmental-change/measuring-climate-change/ice-cores/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But the real evidence is not in the air - its in the water. Ocean temperatures have also gone up over this same period - a direct result of greenhouse gas increases: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The simple cost of renewable energy must be compared to the full spectrum of currently produced energy alternatives, not on a stand alone basis and must include the loss of human life due to wars, poor air quality, mine explosions/cave ins, black lung, coal/oil train wrecks, oil/gasoline/diesel delivery truck wrecks, gas line explosions and the real financial cost of producing/burning fossil fuels.

So the simplified costs of renewable energy is priceless for the human race to embrace and continue in order to save ourselves. The effects of fossil fuel alternatives are already apparent and measurable in the oceans and the atmosphere. Ice caps are melting rapidly causing less sun reflection = warmer atmospheric temperature = warmer oceans = faster melting ice caps. Increases in global disasters and their magnitudes are inevitable as a result. The short term answer is nuclear coupled with solar/wind. The long term will probably be Thorium mini-reactors/solar/fusion plants. Wind will not last - anyone who has stood under a utility size wind tower will understand this.

Don't let him suck you in, Electric. Reg doesn't 'believe' in science or climate change. He's a follower of the church of Watts and the Heartland Institute. No need to let him destroy another thread.

 

[AndyH]

Pessimist much?

One person's pessimist is another person's realist, just as one person's optimist is another person's fantasist

Realism is only possible when one has all the data and chooses to examine it.

I haven't changed my position here - when I talk about TIR, Reinventing Fire, or the Solutions Project I'm absolutely talking about them in at least a US state context. I agree about El Hierro - it's a smaller project in the overall scheme of things. I'm simply using it and other smaller projects like this as mile-posts on our transition out of the fossil fuel age.

Okay, just so we agree that scale and site conditions most definitely _do_ matter, and are generally far more critical when designing RE.

Absolutely location and scope of project matters!

I wouldn't think this project would need filters, though I don't expect the pump inlets in the bottom 'lake' to be placed right on the liner. They probably have an overflow configured for the bottom lake and could probably siphon silt if they needed as part of a refurb process. I haven't seen anything on the project that goes into this level of detail, however, so this is just a guess.

Alright, I'll try dig up some details when I find the time, because this does strike me as a potential issue for power turbines using a fairly shallow, open, plastic-lined reservoir, as opposed to one used for drinking water for livestock.

I thought one of the articles said they were using Pelton wheels - shouldn't need more than a mesh to keep rocks and small kids out.

Found these articles:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/2445a8fea944fac8c125789b00507caa.aspx
http://www.goronadelviento.es/index.php?accion=articulo&IdArticulo=121&IdSeccion=104
The diesel generators the island uses now produce 11.36 MW. The wind turbines are rated for 11.5 MW and the hydro system 11.32 MW. The lakes are sized to meet expected 2030 requirements.

I'm not betting against it, hell, I hope it succeeds, although I think this demonstrates the problems with just throwing money at an issue when it becomes a political fad, rather than taking the time to design the system so the elements advance in sync.

Whoa there, Nellie - political fad? Shoddy design? Seriously man - this is rock tossing, not 'realism'. There is a wide gap, not a fine line, separating 'critical review' from 'Debbie Downer'. LOL Nobody's simply 'throwing money' at the problem here. As expected (read Rifkin's book), the power generation industry resisted the transition away from their products and services and they put plenty of money and propaganda into the political process. The people (bottom up) and the government (top down) continued as they could. While there's still pro-fossil/nuke messaging in the press, the power industry reports that they made a mistake fighting renewables, and admits that it would have been a better business decision to be part of the transition. I think Germany's at the turning point now and I expect to see an accelerated deployment of H2 generation/storage and BEV/FCEV.

But then, that's the way politics works in the real world, so I'm not surprised if they gotten out of step. And I am still pissed at the Germans for retiring nukes before retiring coal. But mainly, I'm just sceptical of all utopian plans.

I get you on Germany's nukes, but if you were in Europe when Chernobyl blew I suspect you'd see the problem differently. The nuke blew in 1986 and the last UK sheep weren't cleared for human consumption until 2012. I was there during that time and while I'd also prefer to see the coal plants off-line before the nukes, I don't blame the Germans at all. At least they're being phased out together.

As for politics and such, TIR is a fully-engineered plan that is being implemented in the real world with (in spite of?) real world politics. Recall from the H2 thread that the companies deploying wind to H2 equipment are earning an industry-standard 12% rate of return. The bottom-up Energy Transition isn't about capitol-P politics - it's about individual people taking control of their energy - so far there's no indication that they've changed their votes. There's nothing Utopian about the results, either - Germany leads the world in PV and has cut their carbon emissions more than 27% from 1990 levels - they've made more progress than any other country on the planet.

Have a good week, Guy.

edit...fixed quote tag typos.

 

[RegGuheert]

Points taken I stand "corrected" on my statement concerning disasters - so why has the cost of disasters gone up? Please do not use "GDP" examples based on sliding monetary scales and world increases measured by governments that report what they want their populations to believe (i.e. USSR) to justify that the world's climate has not changed (not the weather - the climate). Carefully reading your argument implies that there is no evidence of global warming effecting climate change, much less humans being the causing factor. In fact your arguments would be great ammunition for the fossil fuel industry in Congress or in North Carolina .

When the Earth warms, it is primarily at the poles that the warming occurs, with some at the middle latitudes. Because of this, the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator goes down. Large storms like hurricanes are heat engines which operate on a temperature differential to create their motion. As such, it makes sense that at least hurricanes would reduce as the globe warms. And the data speaks for itself.

I am sticking with purely scientific numbers shown in ice core samples going back 800,000 years that clearly show a very unnatural increase in airborne carbon coinciding with the increase in atmospheric temperature: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/environmental-change/measuring-climate-change/ice-cores/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is no correlation between the concentration CO2 and temperature in the long proxy data found on Earth:

It's the same thing we see today. CO2 is going up ever more rapidly, but temperature is not going up.

But the real evidence is not in the air - its in the water. Ocean temperatures have also gone up over this same period - a direct result of greenhouse gas increases: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems that the entire Pacific and the North Atlantic Oceans didn't get the memo telling them to warm:

Sorry, but that is pretty strong evidence that a well-mixed gas like CO2 is not the cause of the warming. Since temperatures go in the opposite direction of the greenhouse effect, it is much more likely clouds, which are not evenly distributed, are the primary factor in warming and cooling of the Earth.

The simple cost of renewable energy must be compared to the full spectrum of currently produced energy alternatives, not on a stand alone basis and must include the loss of human life due to wars, poor air quality, mine explosions/cave ins, black lung, coal/oil train wrecks, oil/gasoline/diesel delivery truck wrecks, gas line explosions and the real financial cost of producing/burning fossil fuels.

I'm in full agreement with this idea. But pricing of externalities is easier said than done.

Still, none of this changes the point of the OP in this thread: Currently renewables are very cheap for the first few tens of percent but get more and more expensive as you try to increase the ratio toward 100%.

So the simplified costs of renewable energy is priceless for the human race to embrace and continue in order to save ourselves. The effects of fossil fuel alternatives are already apparent and measurable in the oceans and the atmosphere. Ice caps are melting rapidly causing less sun reflection = warmer atmospheric temperature = warmer oceans = faster melting ice caps.

Neither of the polar ice caps are currently melting and the sea ice around Antarctica is at the highest area ever recorded in the instrument record. As a result, you have much more reflection farther from the poles than ever seen in the instrument record which equals a strong cooling effect.

Increases in global disasters and their magnitudes are inevitable as a result.

Bad data leads to the wrong conclusion.

The short term answer is nuclear coupled with solar/wind. The long term will probably be Thorium mini-reactors/solar/fusion plants. Wind will not last - anyone who has stood under a utility size wind tower will understand this.

I'm pretty much in agreement here except that I expect cold fusion will win out in the long term for a wide variety of reasons. I imagine PV will always be with us.

 

[Weatherman]

When the Earth warms, it is primarily at the poles that the warming occurs, with some at the middle latitudes. Because of this, the difference in temperatures between the poles and the equator goes down. Large storms like hurricanes are heat engines which operate on a temperature differential to create their motion. As such, it makes sense that at least hurricanes would reduce as the globe warms. And the data speaks for itself.

Just a quick comment on this point...

I agree with most of this, except that it's not hurricanes, but rather middle latitude cyclones, which are driven by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles. In a warmer world, middle latitude cyclones would be expected to be less intense (good thing for anyone who has gone through a midwestern blizzard or a powerful nor'easter).

Unless your yearly rainfall/snowfall is dependent on the intensity of middle-latitude cyclones (as it is in California, for example), a decrease in their intensity would be a good thing.


now, back to your regularly scheduled topic...

 

[RegGuheert]

I agree with most of this, except that it's not hurricanes, but rather middle latitude cyclones, which are driven by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles. In a warmer world, middle latitude cyclones would be expected to be less intense (good thing for anyone who has gone through a midwestern blizzard or a powerful nor'easter).

Thanks for the clarification. So should I understand that hurricanes are generally equatorial? What about after they move away from the equator? Doesn't the issue of polar amplification in a warming world tend to reduce the amount of strengthening/increase the amount of weakening that a hurricane will experience as it moves to higher latitudes?

 

[Weatherman]

So should I understand that hurricanes are generally equatorial?

They, typically, form between 10 and 30 degrees north and south of the equator where the sea surface temperatures are above 80F. Any closer to the equator and there isn't enough coriolis force to start the storm to spin. Too far from the equator and the sea surface temperature is too cold.

What about after they move away from the equator?

They either dissipate due to cold sea surface temperatures (common off the northwest coast of Mexico), or evolve into middle latitude cyclones due to an increase in temperature gradient.

Doesn't the issue of polar amplification in a warming world tend to reduce the amount of strengthening/increase the amount of weakening that a hurricane will experience as it moves to higher latitudes?

There are two parts to this one. A hurricane would be expected to maintain its intensity longer as it moves north, due to warmer sea surface temperatures, but dissipate much more rapidly once it reaches a point where the sea surface temp drops below 80F.

A storm like Sandy would be much more unlikely in a warmer world, since a lot of the energy Sandy had late in its life was due to a strong temperature gradient between the cold interior of the eastern U.S. and the warm water of the Atlantic. I'm sure everyone remembers New Jersey getting snow just a few days after Sandy hit. Temperature gradients can really spin storms up. If the temperature gradient wasn't there, Sandy would have just slowly wound down as it moved north. So, instead of becoming more frequent, a conversion of a hurricane into a nor'easter (like Sandy did) would be increasingly rare.

 

[GRA]

One person's pessimist is another person's realist, just as one person's optimist is another person's fantasist

Realism is only possible when one has all the data and chooses to examine it.

Absolutely, but every one filters the data through their own experiences and knowledge.

<snip area of agreement>

[Re silting]
Alright, I'll try dig up some details when I find the time, because this does strike me as a potential issue for power turbines using a fairly shallow, open, plastic-lined reservoir, as opposed to one used for drinking water for livestock.

I thought one of the articles said they were using Pelton wheels - shouldn't need more than a mesh to keep rocks and small kids out.

Found these articles:
http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp202/2445a8fea944fac8c125789b00507caa.aspx
http://www.goronadelviento.es/index.php?accion=articulo&IdArticulo=121&IdSeccion=104
The diesel generators the island uses now produce 11.36 MW. The wind turbines are rated for 11.5 MW and the hydro system 11.32 MW. The lakes are sized to meet expected 2030 requirements.

Sand and silt can ablate Pelton wheels quite well. Not saying it's necessarily critical here, but it would be a concern.

I'm not betting against it, hell, I hope it succeeds, although I think this demonstrates the problems with just throwing money at an issue when it becomes a political fad, rather than taking the time to design the system so the elements advance in sync.

Whoa there, Nellie - political fad? Shoddy design? Seriously man - this is rock tossing, not 'realism'. There is a wide gap, not a fine line, separating 'critical review' from 'Debbie Downer'. LOL Nobody's simply 'throwing money' at the problem here. As expected (read Rifkin's book), the power generation industry resisted the transition away from their products and services and they put plenty of money and propaganda into the political process. The people (bottom up) and the government (top down) continued as they could. While there's still pro-fossil/nuke messaging in the press, the power industry reports that they made a mistake fighting renewables, and admits that it would have been a better business decision to be part of the transition. I think Germany's at the turning point now and I expect to see an accelerated deployment of H2 generation/storage and BEV/FCEV.

In short, you're saying that exactly the sort of friction that I expect to occur with any such societal-changing project as this one, did occur, and caused things to take longer/cost more. BTW, the 2011 ABB link you provided says the upper reservoir will provide seven days of storage, but that's at 556,000 m^3, not the 380,000 m^3 one the other link says they actually built. As built, they have about 1/3rd less storage.

But then, that's the way politics works in the real world, so I'm not surprised if they gotten out of step. And I am still pissed at the Germans for retiring nukes before retiring coal. But mainly, I'm just skeptical of all utopian plans.

I get you on Germany's nukes, but if you were in Europe when Chernobyl blew I suspect you'd see the problem differently. The nuke blew in 1986 and the last UK sheep weren't cleared for human consumption until 2012. I was there during that time and while I'd also prefer to see the coal plants off-line before the nukes, I don't blame the Germans at all. At least they're being phased out together.

Meanwhile, the number of people in Germany who die early deaths annually each and every year since Chernobyl owing to the coal fuel cycle is presumably a few thousand, judging by the estimates of 6 to 30k (median estimates seem to be 10-12k) early deaths annually in the U.S. due to coal, and the relative population sizes. This is the same kind of illogical risk aassessment that leads people to reason, "Oh, look, an airplane just crashed and killed 200 people. Boy, I'm never going to fly again, it's so much more dangerous than driving!"

As for politics and such, TIR is a fully-engineered plan that is being implemented in the real world with (in spite of?) real world politics. Recall from the H2 thread that the companies deploying wind to H2 equipment are earning an industry-standard 12% rate of return. The bottom-up Energy Transition isn't about capitol-P politics - it's about individual people taking control of their energy - so far there's no indication that they've changed their votes. There's nothing Utopian about the results, either - Germany leads the world in PV and has cut their carbon emissions more than 27% from 1990 levels - they've made more progress than any other country on the planet.

Have a good week, Guy.

You too, Andy, but it's always 'with', never 'in spite of' politics, at least at any significant scale.

 

[AndyH]

But then, that's the way politics works in the real world, so I'm not surprised if they gotten out of step. And I am still pissed at the Germans for retiring nukes before retiring coal. But mainly, I'm just skeptical of all utopian plans.

I get you on Germany's nukes, but if you were in Europe when Chernobyl blew I suspect you'd see the problem differently. The nuke blew in 1986 and the last UK sheep weren't cleared for human consumption until 2012. I was there during that time and while I'd also prefer to see the coal plants off-line before the nukes, I don't blame the Germans at all. At least they're being phased out together.

Meanwhile, the number of people in Germany who die early deaths annually each and every year since Chernobyl owing to the coal fuel cycle is presumably a few thousand, judging by the estimates of 6 to 30k (median estimates seem to be 10-12k) early deaths annually in the U.S. due to coal, and the relative population sizes. This is the same kind of illogical risk aassessment that leads people to reason, "Oh, look, an airplane just crashed and killed 200 people. Boy, I'm never going to fly again, it's so much more dangerous than driving!"

I understand what you're saying here about knee-jerk reactions. And I'm not 'against' nukes overall, and am certainly against coal. But I also think it's important to realize that the nuclear industry has pretty good control over what research is done or which long-term studies survive. Another problem with less than lethal nuclear damage is that it takes a long time, sometimes the next generation, for trouble to appear. Whether nuclear-related or chemical contamination, our medical system does a very poor job recognizing cause/effect until well after the fact. I much prefer the precautionary principle used in Europe to the 'wild west' lack of process we use in the US.

I'm not betting against it, hell, I hope it succeeds, although I think this demonstrates the problems with just throwing money at an issue when it becomes a political fad, rather than taking the time to design the system so the elements advance in sync.

Whoa there, Nellie - political fad? Shoddy design? Seriously man - this is rock tossing, not 'realism'. There is a wide gap, not a fine line, separating 'critical review' from 'Debbie Downer'. LOL Nobody's simply 'throwing money' at the problem here. As expected (read Rifkin's book), the power generation industry resisted the transition away from their products and services and they put plenty of money and propaganda into the political process. The people (bottom up) and the government (top down) continued as they could. While there's still pro-fossil/nuke messaging in the press, the power industry reports that they made a mistake fighting renewables, and admits that it would have been a better business decision to be part of the transition. I think Germany's at the turning point now and I expect to see an accelerated deployment of H2 generation/storage and BEV/FCEV.

In short, you're saying that exactly the sort of friction that I expect to occur with any such societal-changing project as this one, did occur, and caused things to take longer/cost more. BTW, the 2011 ABB link you provided says the upper reservoir will provide seven days of storage, but that's at 556,000 m^3, not the 380,000 m^3 one the other link says they actually built. As built, they have about 1/3rd less storage.

Yes, the storage volume appears to have fallen from what is possible, but the follow-on solar thermal and PV projects change the demand numbers. I've not seen anything yet that suggests the 7 days of storage metric has changed.

I think we agree on the existence of friction, especially when one tries to turn the ship more dramatically than is typical. I don't discount it, I just consider it to be in the stew already. Germany's transition has been going on since before the 1990s (RMI reports the 1980s). Their nuclear phase-out predates Fukushima. But both projects got a burst of 'afterburner' because of the disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Here's a timely piece that compares/constrasts Japan and Germany: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylo...-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/

 

[electricfuture]

Don't let him suck you in, Electric. Reg doesn't 'believe' in science or climate change. He's a follower of the church of Watts and the Heartland Institute. No need to let him destroy another thread.

Yes I agree especially after reading his last post ignoring NOAA data in favor of his favorite cherry picked data. Apparently Reg is in ignorant of the ocean buoy programs and satellite data tracking ocean warming and ice core measurements showing the exponential increase in CO2. Moreover, his charts go back to a time when earth's atmosphere would be difficult for modern humans to breath due to substantial differences in the chemical composition. All Reg's augments seemed to try to prove Climate Change and Global warming does not exist, and can be ignored in the face of scientific data that has not been cheery picked in an effort to deny it in favor of the oil/gas industry. Of course it doesn't matter what he thinks or I think - science has already shown us the truth - and Mother Nature is not happy.

My mistake was to use an example of "weather" which is only a short term symptom of climate change. If the symptom is ignored too long though, the disease will be fatal.

I would like to add tidal power to the list of renewables - but new salt resistant materials must be developed for this to work.

 

[GRA]

<Snip areas of general agreement>

I think we agree on the existence of friction, especially when one tries to turn the ship more dramatically than is typical. I don't discount it, I just consider it to be in the stew already. Germany's transition has been going on since before the 1990s (RMI reports the 1980s). Their nuclear phase-out predates Fukushima. But both projects got a burst of 'afterburner' because of the disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Here's a timely piece that compares/constrasts Japan and Germany: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylo...-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/

I note the author Meanwhile, let's see what was skated over in the article:

"Rising German Coal Use Imperils European Emissions Deal"

". . . Germany, Europe’s largest economy, boosted consumption of the fuel by 13 percent in the past four years, while use in Britain, No. 3 in the region economically, rose 22 percent, statistics from oil company BP Plc show. While Germany pledged to cut heat-trapping gases 55 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it’s managed 25 percent so far and is moving in the wrong direction, according to the European Environment Agency. . ."

". . . Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade. Utilities boosted production from profitable coal-fired plants after Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to close all 17 of the country’s nuclear plants by 2022 in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

Next-year coal for delivery to northwest Europe is down 9 percent this year to $78.75 a metric ton, near the lowest price in five years, according to broker data compiled by Bloomberg.

"The U.K. plans to retire all but one of nine atomic generators by 2023 . . ."

". . . German fossil-fuel emissions climbed 5.5 percent to 843 million tons in the four years through 2013, the BP data show. To meet its commitment, Germany would have to reduce its pollution by about 379 million tons, a further 45 percent. The BP statistics cover only fossil-fuel burning, which makes up about 88 percent of the nation’s greenhouse gas output.

“There’s real pressure” on German government departments to reverse the nation’s increase in emissions, Michael Schroeren, a spokesman for Germany’s environment ministry, said June 17 by phone. For example, the country is seeking to lower fossil-fuel use in transport, he said."

Full article here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/rising-german-coal-use-imperils-european-emissions-deal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

There is no correlation between the concentration CO2 and temperature in the long proxy data found on Earth:

Interesting picture. I wanted to find the real source for this image.

So I went to Google Scholar, and searched:

Your search - "analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras" - did not match any articles.

In other words, no author, in any scientific paper, ever wrote that exact phrase. Think about that.

So I went to Google and searched for that exact phrase limited to the years 2001-2003.

No results found for "analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras".

But with Google, I did get a hit on just the Author and year, and found this image on the author's personal webpage:

Comparing the two graphs, they seem to be related, but different. And notice that this is just a sketch, not a graph of real data.

Where is the real source(s) of data for this graph?

Back to Google, searching by year, I find the earliest reference:

Carbon Dioxide Through the Geological Eras - Biocab.org
biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html
Mar 22, 2009 - Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese © 2002. Ruddiman, W. F. 2001. Earth's Climate: past and future. W. H. Freeman ...

Paleoclimatología - Biocab.org
http://www.biocab.org/Bioxido_de_Carbono_Eras_Geologi...Translate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this page
Mar 20, 2009 - BIBLIOGRAFÍA. Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras by Dr. C. R. Scotese © 2002. David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin, Jere H. Lipps.

Interesting, eh? The English one seems to be a translation of the slightly older one. However, note that the text "Analysis of the Temperature Oscillations in Geological Eras" is in English, and this is the first place where that text seems to occur.

 

[RegGuheert]

Yes I agree especially after reading his last post ignoring NOAH data in favor of his favorite cherry picked data. Apparently Reg is in ignorant of the ocean buoy programs and satellite data tracking ocean warming and ice core measurements showing the exponential increase in CO2.

Since you clearly do not understand the chart that I posted, let me explain it. Here it is again:

The term "ARGO-Era" means that this chart includes the data available since the time when the highest-resolution ocean temperature data has been available from the ARGO floats. Far from being "ignorant" of it, that is exactly what I am showing you, but you were not even aware of what you were looking at! This data is publicly-available to anyone who wants to educate themselves on what is going on in the world around them. Bob Tisdale even teaches you how to duplicate his graphs using this data.

Again, the point is that there is NO increase in heat in the ENTIRE Pacific ocean in the past ten years and the heat content in the North Atlantic is dropping over that period. The climate models which assume that CO2 is the primary driver of our climate do not predict these trends. As I mentioned, CO2 is a well-mixed gas in our atmosphere. If it is the dominate factor in the warming of the world's oceans, how then did it miss the Pacific Ocean? The answer is simple: It is NOT the dominate factor in the warming of the world's oceans. That honor falls to the sun and whatever modulates the sun's rays.

All Reg's augments seemed to try to prove Climate Change and Global warming does not exist, and can be ignored in the face of scientific data that has not been cheery picked in an effort to deny it in favor of the oil/gas industry.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I have never said any of those things. And, no, I have not ignored scientific evidence. Rather, I have provided a significant amount of scientific evidence in this discussion.

My mistake was to use an example of "weather" which is only a short term symptom of climate change. If the symptom is ignored too long though, the disease will be fatal.

Your mistake was that you posted quite a few pieces of information which were directly contradicted by the scientific data.

 

[AndyH]

<Snip areas of general agreement>

I think we agree on the existence of friction, especially when one tries to turn the ship more dramatically than is typical. I don't discount it, I just consider it to be in the stew already. Germany's transition has been going on since before the 1990s (RMI reports the 1980s). Their nuclear phase-out predates Fukushima. But both projects got a burst of 'afterburner' because of the disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Here's a timely piece that compares/constrasts Japan and Germany: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylo...-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/

I note the author Meanwhile, let's see what was skated over in the article:

I figured you'd note the author. And since you (ahem) 'respect' his and his organization so much, it forces you to try to debunk the points made, yes? Happens to me, too - I guess we're human after all. (And not a witch. Or a duck. ) The points I hoped you'd notice were the main ones - how two countries with similar challenges are coping with their decisions. My overall desire is not to get lost in details about exactly how much political friction might slow a process, but to look at the possibilities and decide which way WE might want to steer our country.

The info on coal and new coal plants and emissions has been documented in this and other threads Guy - it's a speed bump. It's used by industry in Germany and other countries and by pro-business press to 'prove' that renewables aren't working now and won't in future. Germany's the world leader in cutting their emissions - nobody on the planet has done it better. They've cut more than 27% since ratifying the Kyoto protocol - exceeding both the emission volume targets and time to reach that volume. Read Rifkin's book and read the plan for Germany and the EU then look at the results - look at what's happening in the country. That will give you the info you need to show that I'm not pulling my position out of my nether region. The rest - much from Forbes, the pro-business press, and industry (their PR messaging is different from what they're printing in their shareholder filings - that's a clue too...) - is the 'dog' in the weather/climate meme. Keep your eyes on the man, not the dog.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw[/youtube]

 

[WetEV]

Since you clearly do not understand the chart that I posted, let me explain it.

Many things I don't understand.

Why does the graph stop in 2012 when there is 2013 data available?