User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:46 am

iPlug wrote: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 has not presented them as "foundational numbers". He has stated "This is all that is needed."

Using numbers with the "same units" is nothing like designing a viable system.

We live in a modern society which depends on fossil fuels for 80% of the energy it uses. This system is designed to cater to the loads in that the energy is delivered when and where it is needed.

With renewable sources, we could perhaps scrap our load-centric system and go with a source-centric system, only using as much energy as is available at any given time. This is extremely unlikely, since many people will die in the wintertime if heat is not provided when and where it is needed.

Another alternative is to try to get renewable generators to be load-centric like the existing system. Replacing just electricity in the near future seems like a reasonable proposition for places like Texas. that might even be affordable.

The problem comes when you move farther from the equator and try to replace ALL fossil fuels in the wintertime. Imagine New England in the wintertime. A nor'easter blows through over 72 hours, blanketing the entire region with FEET of snow. Now that storm has left and it is 10F across the region and the air is still. The challenge is to keep all the homes heated, run the snowplows, provide all of the other services to run the economy there. THAT is the type of scenario that needs to be addressed to get to 100% renewables in the U.S.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

Oilpan4
Posts: 1449
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:16 am

Exactly.

In winter of 2010 here it dropped down to -16F, it wasn't exactly an isolated event, it was the grand finally to a week of -5 to -10 degree over night lows.

This is why I bought a coal furnace.
I only have 1,700 pounds of coal, I save for special near or below 0F nights. All the rest of the time I burn wood, mostly lumber scraps.
Oddly enough the anthracite coal I burn actually burns cleaner than wood.
People who say all coal is dirty and stinks are stupid, don't know what they are talking about or have only ever burned the cheap stuff. I will agree that high sulfur low grade, flakey bituminous coal is dirty and stinks when burned.
My wood stove and coal furnace have lowered my electric bill by about $200 a month over last winter. They will just about pay for them selves this winter.
trumpvirus
Is going to get you.

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:20 am

It should be self-evident that a VRE grid will be run differently than a fossil grid.
It will not be to over-build by 5x and curtail 80% of generation.

The answers will be a mixture of:
STORAGE in the forms of battery, hydro and whatever else emerges for short term demand imbalances
ENERGY SINKS in the form of EVs and hot water
BEHAVIOR changes that adapt to supply/demand signals
TIME SHIFTING facilitated by heat pumps and improved building practices
GEOGRAPHICAL SHARING to smooth out weather fluctuations
COMPLEMENTARY VRE by day and season
REGULATORY and MARKET reform that stop favoring 'baseload' plants

I presume that long term storage will also be required although I'm uncertain how much is required. For now it seems like biofuels (or maybe even gasp(!) hydrogen) may play roles. It appears to be the hardest to solve part of the puzzle for economic reasons but it is also the last part.

For the better part of 10 years now the reactionaries like Reg have been proclaiming the absolute limits of VRE. They started at 5%, morphed to 10%, became shrill at 50% and are now screaming that 100% is impossible. As of 2019 we find that 50% VRE is cheaper than the status quo and 75% VRE is on the horizon. The rapid improvements in integrating VRE and showing that the previously held 'hard' limits are hokum suggest that we proceed full steam ahead. It should also be self-evident that the quicker the pace now, the more time we will have later to solve the last TWh.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:11 am

SageBrush wrote:It will not be to over-build by 5x and curtail 80% of generation.
Evidence? In New England, the *average* PV production in wintertime is 1/3 or less than that in summertime, but the load may be 3X or more. If you cannot load shift from summertime, then you have an order of magnitude increase right there. And even then you are STILL NOT covering the nor'easter scenario above.
SageBrush wrote:The answers will be a mixture of:
STORAGE in the forms of battery, hydro and whatever else emerges for short term demand imbalances
ENERGY SINKS in the form of EVs and hot water
BEHAVIOR changes that adapt to supply/demand signals
TIME SHIFTING facilitated by heat pumps and improved building practices
GEOGRAPHICAL SHARING to smooth out weather fluctuations
COMPLEMENTARY VRE by day and season
REGULATORY and MARKET reform that stop favoring 'baseload' plants
None of those things will become widespread withing the next decade. Perhaps some of them will start to be common in two decades.
SageBrush wrote:I presume that long term storage will also be required although I'm uncertain how much is required. For now it seems like biofuels (or maybe even gasp(!) hydrogen) may play roles. It appears to be the hardest to solve part of the puzzle for economic reasons but it is also the last part.
Hydrogen seems to be one of the best solutions available for seasonal storage, but it is also one of the least efficient.
SageBrush wrote:For the better part of 10 years now the reactionaries like Reg have been proclaiming the absolute limits of VRE. They started at 5%, morphed to 10%, became shrill at 50% and are now screaming that 100% is impossible. As of 2019 we find that 50% VRE is cheaper than the status quo and 75% VRE is on the horizon. The rapid improvements in integrating VRE and showing that the previously held 'hard' limits are hokum suggest that we proceed full steam ahead. It should also be self-evident that the quicker the pace now, the more time we will have later to reach 100%.
It seems you are conflating the success of hydropower with other forms of renewable energy. Where PV and wind have achieved the highest levels of penetration is where electricity is the most expensive. Germany, Denmark, South Australia, are the poster children for expensive renewable energy. What do they have to show for their expensive electricity grid? Germany was at 38% of their *electricity* production for 2018.. Not 50%. Not of all energy, but only electricity. To make this possible, Germany has to maintain fossil-fuel infrastructure that can provide 100% of the electricity needs of their country. They also have to depend on their neighbors to absorb the excess energy they produce or provide for their shortfalls. Those neighbors have been forced to install phase-shifting transformers to keep Germany from burning up their transmission lines.

Simply put, you've been sold a bill of goods. Don't try to sell it to others.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

SageBrush
Posts: 4907
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:45 am

RegGuheert wrote: Simply put
Simply put, you lack vision.
And due to lack of insight regarding AGW, you lack commitment.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 7:57 am

SageBrush wrote:
RegGuheert wrote: Simply put
Simply put, you lack vision.
And due to lack of insight regarding AGW, you lack commitment.
More nonsense added to your previous nonsense.

Let's talk about commitment. My photovoltaic system has produced over 120 MWh of electricity over the past eight years. That level of production covers about 80% of our personal (not embodied in products) energy usage for both our house and our vehicles.

How much commitment do you have?

Making false claims about how trivial it will be to convert to renewable energy is irresponsible, even if it is done out of sheer ignorance.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

WetEV
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:12 am

RegGuheert wrote:In New England, the *average* PV production in wintertime is 1/3 or less than that in summertime, but the load may be 3X or more. If you cannot load shift from summertime, then you have an order of magnitude increase right there. And even then you are STILL NOT covering the nor'easter scenario above.
The way to handle the no'easter is seasonal storage or perhaps backup nuclear power. Perhaps hydrogen storage, which looks to be the best method today, but the need is years into the future as PV isn't cheap enough yet, and there isn't enough PV and will not be for a long time.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:25 am

WetEV wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:In New England, the *average* PV production in wintertime is 1/3 or less than that in summertime, but the load may be 3X or more. If you cannot load shift from summertime, then you have an order of magnitude increase right there. And even then you are STILL NOT covering the nor'easter scenario above.
The way to handle the no'easter is seasonal storage or perhaps backup nuclear power. Perhaps hydrogen storage, which looks to be the best method today, but the need is years into the future as PV isn't cheap enough yet, and there isn't enough PV and will not be for a long time.
No arguments on any of that.

One question: Is there nuclear technology that can qualify as "backup" versus baseload? I'm asking about start-stop capabilities versus whether having that type of technology would be cost effective or not.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

iPlug
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:47 pm
Delivery Date: 25 Apr 2016
Location: Rocklin, CA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:55 am

Nuclear could still run in “baseload” mode but chronically run at overcapacity and make H2 when excess is not needed, storing for vehicle and grid later use such as this scenario. Other renewable sources could be overbuilt a bit to achieve similar results. Yes, cost....

Upgraded grid interconnections could bring in solar, on/off shore wind, hydro, etc from several states away. Yes, cost/upgrades needed...
Last edited by iPlug on Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
'19 Model 3 SR+ (own), '19 Leaf SV (leased), '12 Plug-in Prius (sold 3/19), '16 Leaf SV (prior lease), 11.43kW Solar PV (16MWh/yr real production), 20.5 SEER/13.0 HSPF ducted air-source heat pump, 3.70 UEF heat pump water heater, Induction Cooktop

WetEV
Posts: 3724
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

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

Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:01 am

RegGuheert wrote:One question: Is there nuclear technology that can qualify as "backup" versus baseload? I'm asking about start-stop capabilities versus whether having that type of technology would be cost effective or not.
Don't need "start stop" or load following with sufficient daily storage, which batteries can provide. The nuclear plants could be run in a baseload type way, with shorter than daily variations handled by batteries. The problem is seasonal variability especially in northern locations, and the potential costs of seasonal storage. One possible way of dealing with seasonal variation in northern climates would be nuclear plants that would be mostly operated in winter, when demand is higher and PV production is lower. Hydrogen, flow batteries and other alternatives do exist today, but all would need development before meeting the requirements. Also some imports from warmer places, as the air conditioning load would be reduced in the winter, so they might have excess PV to export north.

Hydrogen currently looks like the best seasonal length store, months of storage. Batteries for as long as a week. Hydrogen doesn't seem to make sense for vehicles, other than perhaps aircraft and rockets.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Return to “Environmental Issues”