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

iPlug said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

SageBrush said:

It will not be to over-build by 5x and curtail 80% of generation.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

None of those things will become widespread withing the next decade. Perhaps some of them will start to be common in two decades.

SageBrush said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hydrogen seems to be one of the best solutions available for seasonal storage, but it is also one of the least efficient.

SageBrush said:

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%.

Click to expand...

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 said:

Simply put

Click to expand...

Simply put, you lack vision.
And due to lack of insight regarding AGW, you lack commitment.

SageBrush said:

RegGuheert said:

Simply put

Click to expand...

Simply put, you lack vision.
And due to lack of insight regarding AGW, you lack commitment.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

RegGuheert said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

RegGuheert said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

iPlug said:

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...

Click to expand...

Energy deferred to storage will always be VRE since it is the cheapest to produce. That VRE is not over-built, just time shifted.

I expect off-shore wind to take off in the next 10 years despite NIMBY, specifically in the northeast.

Although particularly solar poor there in the winter, off-shore wind is a resource available for them to develop and quite available in the winter. Relatively shallower than the Pacific coast is a plus.

iPlug said:

I expect off-shore wind to take off in the next 10 years despite NIMBY, specifically in the northeast.

Although particularly solar poor there in the winter, off-shore wind is a resource available for them to develop and quite available in the winter. Relatively shallower than the Pacific coast is a plus.

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. Most of the Eastern seaboard is a tremendous resource.

As for the West coast, there are already good solutions to deep seabeds. I think the most promising I have read about are floating platforms. The main obstacle I have read about off CA is the Military. I expect that to go way once the trumpers are flushed.

The U.S. government just broke a record by leasing the rights to build new offshore wind power, in a deal reaching upwards of $405.1 million late last week. This is the most expensive offshore wind deal in the country’s history. In a few years, a small region in New England could start producing enough electricity to power around 1.5 million homes, according to a new Utility Drive report.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25605212/offshore-wind-auction-marthas-vineyard/

In 2018, there were ~127.6 million households in the United States, so this is a big step.

iPlug said:

The U.S. government just broke a record by leasing the rights to build new offshore wind power, in a deal reaching upwards of $405.1 million late last week. This is the most expensive offshore wind deal in the country’s history. In a few years, a small region in New England could start producing enough electricity to power around 1.5 million homes, according to a new Utility Drive report.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25605212/offshore-wind-auction-marthas-vineyard/

In 2018, there were ~127.6 million households in the United States, so this is a big step.

Click to expand...

Yep. 125 of these would cover the current fossils used for electricity in the US. If we build 10 of these a year split between the coasts and quadruple the current rate of land wind and PV installations the country will turn current electricity and transport to VRE in 10 years. That is exactly the timeline we need to avoid the worst ravages of AGW.

iPlug said:

I expect off-shore wind to take off in the next 10 years despite NIMBY, specifically in the northeast.

Although particularly solar poor there in the winter, off-shore wind is a resource available for them to develop and quite available in the winter. Relatively shallower than the Pacific coast is a plus.

Click to expand...

The main problem with offshore wind installations is that long-term maintenance can cost HUNDREDS of times as much as the original installation:

idw-online said:

"This protective film makes the repair process more cost-effective, because you can plan the critical time between surface preparation and coating order much better," Plagemann describes the effect. This is a key factor because the maintenance and repair costs of offshore wind turbines can add up to hundreds of times the cost of new construction over the years. While a metal coating costs € 20 to € 30 per square meter for the construction of an onshore plant, it can cost several thousand euros for offshore installations. RepaKorr aims to significantly reduce these costs.

Click to expand...

Who knows? Maybe someday they can reduce the maintenance costs to only 10s of times the construction cost. :roll:

Growing predictive maintenance capabilities, drones and multi-turbine control strategies will combine with logistics innovations to lower operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, industry experts said.

Sweden's Vattenfall launched last month its pioneering 93 MW European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) in Aberdeen Bay, north-east Scotland. The new 300 million-pound ($393.0 million) facility hosts the largest operational turbines to date and will be used to test the latest technology and services designed to cut operations and maintenance (O&M) costs.

Falling offshore wind capex costs have placed increasing importance on O&M costs which account for approximately 25-30% of total costs. As installed capacity grows, an increasing number of turbines will be operating out of original warranty, typically set at around five years.


http://newenergyupdate.com/wind-energy-update/offshore-wind-analytics-cut-opex-less-quarter-costs


Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities typically represent a big part of the total costs (e.g. 25–30% of the total lifecycle costs for offshore wind farms).

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51159-7_4

Am I missing something here?

Building some wind farms isn't going to do anything to save the world from CO2.
China is going to continue to out pace what the US can reduce.

I will believe it when I see it. Until it's all built the nimby useful idiots can still some how block it.
They have only successfully blocked every over the water wind farm proposal for the last 20 years.
I guess the trump administrations people isn't listing to the nimby cry babies for this one.

Oilpan4 said:

Building some wind farms isn't going to do anything to save the world from CO2.
China is going to continue to out pace what the US can reduce.

Click to expand...

The data (those darn facts !) say otherwise but here is the thing:
Take responsibility for your household, in your state, and in your country. Vote responsibly.

THEN you can preach to other countries.

China's economy is slowing and they are shifting somewhat from a largely manufacturing based economy to a less carbon intense, service based one. A rising middle class will increasingly demand cleaner air there and more renewable sources. The data trends already show this; China is not a lost cause.