ABG: U.S. carbon emissions spike in 2018 after years of falling

Oilpan4 said:

The IEA says that the US has 60 billion watts of PV installed as of 3rd Q of 2018.
2018 started with 55 billion wattts, so average that to 57 billion watts for all of 2018?
That 57ish billion watts made 1.2% of all the power generated in the US.

Click to expand...

Why are you still distorting basic facts ?
Stop confusing national PV capacity with utility scale PV

As of 1/2019 utility scale PV was ~ 31 GW
https://www.seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list

About 6 GW of utility scale PV was installed in both 2017 and 2018
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-residential-and-utility-scale-solar-see-installations-fall-first-time#gs.AMC3sBMh

So 1/1/17 PV utility capacity was 19 GW
1/1/18 PV utility capacity was 25 GW
Average 2017 PV capacity was ~ 21 GW (more installations later in the year)
PV was 1.3% of total US utility generation in 2017
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
~ 63% of 2017 total US electricity generation was from fossils.

And now .... drum roll ... some arithmetic:
(63/1.3)*21 GW = 1.017 TW for replacement of current fossils consumed by US utilities for electricity by PV

SageBrush said:

GRA said:

there's all the existing PV at lower levels of CF, which will be around for decades to come.

Click to expand...

Sure, but it is small fraction of the eventual total.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, but all those new plants will continually degrade in output, both as their modules degrade and as their trackers fail at higher rates as they age, inevitably reducing both their output and their CF, so initial numbers are deceptive. After all, these arrays are presumably intended to last at least 20 years and probably longer (the typical fossil fuel plant is designed for 40 years or so). It's the maintenance and replacement costs that have led previous attempts to use trackers to fall far short of their potential advantages, and it will take a decade or more to see how well the actual LCOE compares with the predicted LCOE.

Well, if your attitude is that any numbers which disagree with your existing conclusions can't be right, then there really isn't anything to talk about. I'm at least willing to read new info and change my conclusions when it's justified.

Click to expand...

My refusal is to read Smeagol. It is you that wants him to be the truth

Click to expand...

No, I want us to be working from the same set of numbers, since he's aggregated them. And you have to be careful what you're comparing. As with many people, when you see 100% renewables you think 100% electricity, which wasn't what the 50% land area represents. I don't have the book here (both interlibrary copies I could get are unavailable at the moment) so working from memory, but IIRR the 50% figure assumed (he ran several different scenarios) that VRE would take over most electricity, but biofuels and biomass would be responsible for most transport and industrial heat (as well as much baseload electricity replacing fossil-fueled thermal plants). For reasons which are presumably obvious, he concluded that any large scale dependence on biomass isn't feasible, barring the development of some genetically-modified super algae or some such, because the power density of biomass (i.e. surface land area) is far too low (too much land). He also looked at other scenarios which were more achievable.

But the point of the book isn't that we can't or shouldn't make the transition away from fossil fuels, it's that as with all past energy transitions (or attempted ones which failed, e.g nukes), it will take longer, be more expensive and be a lot less straightforward than the enthusiasts believe.

SageBrush said:

Oilpan4 said:

The IEA says that the US has 60 billion watts of PV installed as of 3rd Q of 2018.
2018 started with 55 billion wattts, so average that to 57 billion watts for all of 2018?
That 57ish billion watts made 1.2% of all the power generated in the US.

Click to expand...

Why are you still distorting basic facts ?
Stop confusing national PV capacity with utility scale PV

As of 1/2019 utility scale PV was ~ 31 GW
https://www.seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list

About 6 GW of utility scale PV was installed in both 2017 and 2018
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-residential-and-utility-scale-solar-see-installations-fall-first-time#gs.AMC3sBMh

So 1/1/17 PV utility capacity was 19 GW
1/1/18 PV utility capacity was 25 GW
Average 2017 PV capacity was ~ 21 GW (more installations later in the year)
PV was 1.3% of total US utility generation in 2017
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
~ 63% of 2017 total US electricity generation was from fossils.

And now .... drum roll ... some arithmetic:
(63/1.3)*21 GW = 1.017 TW for replacement of current fossils consumed by US utilities for electricity by PV

Click to expand...

Well I see the problem.
Those sources are only counting utility owned.
All I do is search "US solar power generation".
For 2018 EIA is saying solar made 1.2%, which is pretty close to 1.3% you are saying.
And I'm saying 5Gw was installed quarters 1, 2 and 3. It's presumable that 1 more could be installed in the 4th quarter for a total of 6Gw in 2018.

The only problem with replacing fossil fuels with solar is the sun sets.

Every where I look including seia is saying 60 Gw of solar generating capacity was or had been installed by of the last part of 2018 for all solar installs. Its the first thing that came up in the google search.
http://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight

Notice how that seia article you posted says say "utility scale installs" and my seia article says "all solar panels". Yeah......

An article I was reading yesterday (not seia, something on cnn, comrades news network) said that privet installs are adding more solar faster than the utilities. So when you look at only counting utility owned solar then it's going to be wayyyyy off.

It’s the norm to report only utility level solar. California, for example, does not include home solar and explains that in their reports. It’s “behind the meter” and not available mass data in most places.

Because most solar PV systems on residential households and commercial buildings are less than 1 MW, data on these installations are not collected through the Quarterly Fuel and Energy Report CEC-1304, the power plant owners reporting form.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html

My solar will have to go on its own over the air cogen meter, so the utility can track production for federal something or other credits and this is in new mexico, on a coop where I don't even have to pull a permit to do a service upgrade.
About the time they started talking about the government stuff I stopped paying attention.
All I know is they monitor it, they have to approve the kw capability.
So it's not like the information on private installs is unobtainable.

You would think California would track solar production more than wild west, any goes NM.

Oilpan4 said:

An article I was reading yesterday ... said that privet installs are adding more solar faster than the utilities. So when you look at only counting utility owned solar then it's going to be wayyyyy off.

Click to expand...

Actually, the EIA counts all capacity from installations above 1 MW that is either sold to, or owned by utilities. But yes, your error was in not differentiating between large scale PV (which provided 1.3% of total US utility generation in 2017) with total US PV capacity.

It just turns out to be true (for now at least) that the lion's share of energy produced from plants 1 MW and above is either bought or outright owned by the utilities so the short hand "utility PV" is pretty accurate. I'm relieved that we finally understand each other. I just don't understand why it took so long and so much effort, and I dread the thought of how many people are like you or more difficult. Anyway ... now that you are more open minded, look again at these numbers:

Total utility electric generation is ~ 4.1 PWh a year
60% is fossils, equal to 4.1*0.6 PWh a year = 2.47 PWh a year

Recently built Utility scale PV has a capacity factor of 26.3%.
This implies a watt generates 365*24*0.263 = 2.3 kWh a year

Dividing 2.3 kWh into 2.47 PWh tells us that 1.074 TW of that form of PV is required to replace the current fossil use.

Agreed ? Ask about any statement that you find unclear.

Oilpan4 said:

All I know is they monitor it, they have to approve the kw capability.
So it's not like the information on private installs is unobtainable.

Click to expand...

Your local co-op knows about your generation but it is not included in the utility data, meaning it is not included in what we have been calling utility scale PV, and it is not included in the fraction of utility scale power production that is from PV. In short, 'behind the meter' commercial and residential PV is not part of the utility data.

I didn't expect privet installs to be included in the utility level installed capacity.
But I did expect privet solar power to be included in the much higher "all solar panels" number.

Oilpan4 said:

I didn't expect privet installs to be included in the utility level installed capacity.
But I did expect privet solar power to be included in the much higher "all solar panels" number.

Click to expand...

What is "privet" ? Do you mean private ?

As opposed to government owned PV in the US ? There is a minuscule amount of that.
In fact, most 'utility PV' as counted by the EiA is not owned by the utilities themselves.

I asked you in my previous post to go over each statement in the calculation and let me know of anything you do not understand or disagree with. Will you do that ?

Just that ridiculously low 30Gw solar capacity generating number supposedly making 1.2% of all grid power.
And the even more ridiculous "1Tw to replace all fossil fuels"number.

Oilpan4 said:

Just that ridiculously low 30Gw solar capacity generating number supposedly making 1.2% of all grid power.

Click to expand...

Look at the link I posted. Do you dispute the reported 31 GW utility PV at end of 2018 ?
Feel free to provide a competing reference, just be sure to distinguish utility from national total.

By the way, the EIA publishes a more extensive document
https://drive.google.com/open?id=17ba3lpspgrtFZw08-_2hDnshRwW1PYo9

Try the arithmetic from this table TS1.B pulled from that document for the first 10 months of 2018



Notice that PV (plus a little CSP) provides 59.5 of the total 3520 (same units) = 1.69%
Notice that Coal+ NG provides 2,213 (of the same units)

Arithmetic time ...
(2213/59.5) * 28 GW = ?

Perhaps you doubt that 30 GW of PV could provide 59.5 TWh of electricity in 10 months ?
Well, there are 304 days in 10 months.
If capacity factor is 27% then generation is 28 GW * 304 days * 24 hours/day * 0.27 = ?
I used 27% because the annual is 26.3% -- dropped a bit by lower generation in November and December.
I used 28 GW as the 2018 average

I'm sorry that the data does not fit your misconceptions or political ideology ... or whatever else is preventing you from grasping reality. It is what it is.

+1

Nothing wrong with learning new information, updating/replacing information previously held to be true with the most accurate information available.

Should be proud to update knowledge, not defend information known to be incorrect.

SageBrush said:

Notice that PV (plus a little CSP) provides 59.5 of the total 3520 (same units) = 1.69%
Notice that Coal+ NG provides 2,213 (of the same units)

Arithmetic time ...
(2213/59.5) * 28 GW = ?

Click to expand...

More nonsense.

It is clear you haven't thought about this problem. Not even a little bit.

We should be able to come to an agreement on what the foundational numbers are then work from there.

But not sure what the objection is here. Is it:

a) SageBrush's foundational numbers are technically right: the amount of energy solar would have to produce, at a minimum, to offset fossil fuels currently used to generate electricity; but objection with the amount that would be required in reality (to account for no sun at night, much less production in the winter, lack of current existing grid infrastructure and storage...)?

b) objector(s) disagree with SageBrush's foundational numbers on how much fossil fuel energy would have to be displaced, before accounting for no sun at night, much less production in the winter, lack of current existing grid infrastructure and storage...?

c) something else?

SageBrush said:

RegGuheert said:

Nonsense.]

Click to expand...

Your conclusion, because you lack insight.
The VRE economy will rely on energy sinks, geographic integration of the grid, and demand/supply signals.

Click to expand...

Been busy, and I'm still catching up to back posts. It will certainly require all of those things plus storage, and those will all take a lot of cash and a lot of time to accomplish. Building the interconnections for a true national grid instead of the current three essentially independent grids we have now will be crucial, as well as upgrading transmission capacity if we want to send VRE across the country from the areas with good resources to the areas of high demand (cities), essentially load-shifting. Even if we assume going forward that all utility scale VRE will operate at an average of say 25 or 30% CF, baseload thermal plants typically operate at 70% + CF (nukes 90+%, although Sweden is apparently trying to use theirs in load-following) so the total amount of generating capacity will have to be a multiple of what currently exists to supply our current needs, even before we start talking about an all BEV fleet.

California is in a fairly enviable position, as we've got good to excellent VRE resources from a variety of in-state sources (solar/wind/geothermal/biomass) plus old renewables (large hydro), so our goal of 100% net-zero carbon (NOT 100% VRE) for electricity by 2045 is a lot more achievable than what many other states can accomplish: it also doesn't rule out nukes, although that would all be imported once Diablo Canyon closes.

But that's just electricity, and ignores all the other energy uses that fossil fuels currently provide, and for which there isn't currently any practical substitute (either none at all, or else not commercially on the scale needed).

So your position from Post #171 is "a"?

We should all be able to come to an agreement on the foundational numbers, then go from there.

GRA said:

baseload thermal plants typically operate at 70%

Click to expand...

You should look at the data for the total fossil fleet.

I will agree that simply installing a single Tw of solar capacity is never going to cover the power grid base load.
But one does not just simply install a Tw of solar panels.
With solar power rounding up the production capabilities and being optimistic only gets you left in the dark.

GRA said:

But that's just electricity, and ignores all the other energy uses that fossil fuels currently provide, and for which there isn't currently any practical substitute (either none at all, or else not commercially on the scale needed).

Click to expand...

Yeah and that's the elephant in the room no one has even tried to touch.
If I remember correctly gasoline, diesel, jet fuel for transportation makes up around 1/3 of the total energy the US consumes.
Hey put up a Tw of solar panels for transportation too, that should cover most of what could be ran off electricity, like passenger vehicles, trains, some commercial vehicles and might even have some left over.
Not so much ships or air planes and assuming most diesel power long haul trucks go the way of the dinosaur and most goods get shipped by an electric train or an electric delivery truck.

My political idealolgy is more $ less gov.
For me I am perfectly fine with 7 cent a KwH power. I have 0 intrest in paying double that to force the switch to renewable energy.
There are hundreds upon hundres of megawatts worth of wind power and a little solar going up every year in new mexico.

I say if you want solar power. Put solar panels on your house like I'm doing.
If some one wants it and they aren't doing it, then they must not want it that bad.

Oilpan4 said:

I will agree that simply installing a single Tw of solar capacity is never going to cover the power grid base load.
But one does not just simply install a Tw of solar panels.

Click to expand...

Correct, replacement is 1 TW of PVe to replace NG+Coal currently used in utility scale generation.
PVe is PV equivalent.

As one example,
If replacement is
1/3 PV
1/3 on-shore wind
1/3 off-shore wind

And the weighted average capacity factor replacement is 35% then 0.71 TW would be required.

--
Incidentally, I looked up US transport today.
Annual vehicle miles travelled is 2.1 Tera-miles in 2017
I'm not sure if that includes commercial trucking,
But using 3 miles a kWh:
0.7 PWh required,
So about 0.28 TW PVe to convert to electricity

Land based wind, over water wind power and solar all handle one thing in common.
They stop working.
Well we all know solar stops as soon as the sun sets, I hope. Land based wind usually stops around 2 to 4 hours after sun set and doesn't start back up for a few hours after sun rise. About once a week here the wind will blow through the night as a new weather system blows in.
Off shore wind will last through most of the night. As far as wind power goes over the water appears to be the most predictable, but it's the most expensive and it still stops.

But... the bigger problem with over the water wind in the US is, and as far as I know all the proposed off shore wind projects have been blocked or indefinitely delayed by nimby useful idiots.

That transportation fuel also would have to replace diesel power in trains.
And any large trucks replaced by electric ones would probably get some where around 4KwH to the mile. That's my WAG, just assuming it takes around 10x as much power to move a semi than it does to move a car.
If you have KwH per mile for a semi do tell, I'm rather curious my self.

May need to search out passenger vehicle miles, medium duty commercial and heavy duty big rig mile. Big rig truck miles are pretty closely tracked by the fed so those are out there some where.

Edit: I tried to look it up, there appears to only be a single experimental 30Mw total off shore wind farm in the US. I hope I'm wrong.
That would mean the nimby useful idiots are effectively running at a 100% success rate.