Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 27, 2016
The Burning Issue: The Energy Transition From Fire to Electricity
Fire is at the root of our climate problems and it is time we put it out, writes Walt Patterson, Associate Fellow at Chatham House. “We need to switch from using fire to using electricity.”
Is climate complicated? Yes – except in one key respect. Countless reams of disputed text preceded the Paris Agreement of December 2015. Media coverage before, during and after the summit was hectic with controversy. Yet all the furious disputation that surrounds the climate issue can be traced back to a single common fourletter word. The word is fire.
Why fire? In the headlong climate debate worldwide, no one talks about fire. They talk about fossil fuels, about emissions, about carbon dioxide, about increasing global temperature, about floods and droughts, about sea-level rise, about melting glaciers and collapsing ice sheets. These, however, are symptoms of what is wrong. They are not the cause. Somehow the commentators fail to notice or remark that all of these factors arise because of fire.
The confrontation is neither technological, nor economic. It is fundamentally political – a political battle we can’t afford to lose
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and Saudi Aramco do not produce petroleum to make lubricants and plastics, although they could. They produce petroleum mainly for us to burn. No one even thinks of the useful molecular structure of coal. Peabody, BHP and Glencore gouge the landscape and blow the tops off mountains to produce coal for us to burn. The frackers extracting natural gas expect to sell it for us to burn. Vast worldwide enterprise is devoted to feeding fire.
Fire predates us; our Neanderthal precursors used fire. We Homo sapiens evolved with fire. It has been a critical factor in developing human society, allowing us to make light, to cook, to bake ceramics and smelt metals. Even now, we still think of fire as cosy and welcoming. But fire is a violent, extreme process. It produces heat at a temperatures so high it’s dangerous. Fire turns resources rapidly into waste, usually pernicious. Yet because we have always used fire, we have never accurately costed its deleterious consequences. We take them for granted, as though we had no alternative.
We do have an alternative. With the help of fire we have learnt to control electricity. With electricity we can now do most of what we used to do with fire. We make light not by burning oil but with electric lamps. We exert force not with the fire of steam engines but with electric motors. We are even beginning to move people and goods not with fire – internal combustion – but with electric vehicles. Perhaps most important of all, we now manage information with electricity in electronics, expanding at a rate we can hardly comprehend.
We still allow planners to call firebased, coal-burning electricity ‘cheaper’, even as it suffocates cities and upsets the climate we have to live with
Fire is a chemical process. It destroys the material it happens in. Electricity is a physical process. It does not alter the material it happens in, nor does it produce pernicious waste. Electricity could save us the damage fire is doing – except for one awkward detail. We still make most of our electricity with fire.
We don’t have to. We have known for two centuries how to produce electricity without fire, from chemical batteries, then from moving wires, and more recently from sunlight. Today we have a rapidly expanding shopping list of fire-free electricity from water power, wind power and solar power, in many versions, with costs decreasing and performance increasing. But we still allow planners to call firebased, coal-burning electricity ‘cheaper’, even as it suffocates cities and upsets the climate we have to live with.
That is another corollary of fire. Its unwelcome consequences are not just gradual, long-term and global, as is the case for climate. Fire under indoor cooking pots and in kerosene lamps in rural villages in Africa and Asia kills millions of women and children each year. Fire is also the reason you can’t breathe today in Beijing or Delhi. Some sceptics say we should focus on these immediate local issues, rather than climate. But both local and global issues arise from the same ultimate cause. Locally as well as globally we have let fire get out of control.
Governments have always been more financially generous to fossil fuels, than to fire-free renewable electricity. That has to change
What can we do about this? Much of the commentary around the climate issue talks of the emerging transition to a different way of doing what we do – a ‘low-carbon economy’, a ‘fossil-free future’ and so on. However, once we acknowledge the central role of fire, we can describe what we need to do coherently.
First, we need to stop wasting fuel and electricity – that is, stop using fire unnecessarily. That means above all getting serious about improving our inadequate buildings, so they no longer need so much fire-based heating and cooling.
Second, we need to switch from using fire to using electricity, especially in industry and transport.
Third, we need to switch from fire-based to fire-free electricity.
All of these transitions are already under way. Together they constitute a coherent programme of policies and measures that we need to adopt, accelerate and disseminate as rapidly and as widely as possible. We have to challenge spurious comparisons of cost and ‘subsidies’ that ignore the damage wrought by fire. Governments have always been more financially generous to fossil fuels, than to fire-free renewable electricity. That has to change.
In essence, all the different policies and measures supporting the Paris Agreement are a form of fire-fighting
Fire insurance was one of the oldest forms of risk management. Global fire insurance, investment to cope with the global threat of fire, is now crucial. As the cost of fire-free electricity continues to fall, the opportunities for technological and financial innovation are burgeoning, with new business models, transactions and arrangements. An appealing vision of an electric future, ever more free of fire, is steadily taking shape. But innovators face fierce opposition from those who derive financial and political clout from feeding fire. The confrontation is neither technological, nor economic. It is fundamentally political – a political battle we can’t afford to lose.
In essence, all the different policies and measures supporting the Paris Agreement – the Nationally Determined Contributions, the financial framework, the undertakings and commitments – are a form of fire-fighting. So are national and civic laws and regulations about air quality. To keep our air safe enough to breathe, to keep our only planet cool enough to live on, we have to put out the fire.
Walt Patterson is an Associate Fellow in the Energy, Environment and Resources Programme at Chatham House. His latest book is Electricity vs Fire: The Fight For Our Future, which you can download from his website Walt Patterson on Energy here. It is also available from Amazon for just $7.50 or £5.00.
This article was first published in the February-March 2016 issue of the Chatham House monthly The World Today and is republished here with permission.
63 Comments on "The Burning Issue: The Energy Transition From Fire to Electricity"
Mark Ziegler on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 1:10 pm
That makes me wonder. How many BTU’S are generated from burning gasoline in automobiles? I bet someone from MIT could get a close estimate.
My guess is that it is more than the amount generated from coal burning.
penury on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 1:16 pm
Very true, outlaw fire and everything will be marvelous
JN2 on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 1:19 pm
See Amory Lovins’ book Reinventing Fire.
GregT on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 1:37 pm
Sorry humanoids. No fire, no electricity. At least not the human generated kind.
rockman on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 2:30 pm
p – Old Walt seems to be another “expert” that deserves the title Dr. Obvious. And a more fitting term then fire is combustion but that’s being picky. Yes: getting more of our energy in a manner different then breaking down the molecular structures of hydrocarbon chains and releasing those carbon atoms into the atmosphere would be a good thing.
Wonder if he has any other new ideas to make the world a better place?
Hubert on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 2:56 pm
Non of these Idiots have nay clue what’s going on.
Kevin Cobley on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 6:39 pm
The private automobile/air travel are the greatest destructive forces on the planet. 40% of all Global Warming gases are produced by these two items. It’s not just the immediate consumption of fuel but the entire resource base devoted to them, road construction, construction of parking space, plant to manufacture them right down to the Hospitals required to repair injuries.
If the world is serious about action on Global warming, these 2 items need to go. Electric cars ain’t reality, the resource base to produce and operate them is very limited, they are essentially rich dudes toys and that’s all they will ever be.
Nony on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 6:52 pm
Strange article. Well over 50% of electricity COMES FROM FIRE.
One third of electricity generation comes from coal burning and one third from natural gas burning. And a couple percent from biomass and oil burning.
In terms of non-FF sources, the major sources are nuclear and then hydro (solar/wind/geotherm are still very minor). If you think we will suddenly build a huge number more nukes, you are smoking. Nuke power is not cost competitive. And there’s a limit on how many rivers can be dammed also.
Davy on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 7:39 pm
Kevin, I have said this so many times. If you want to be green reduce your driving. Combine necessary trips and or eliminate unnecessary travel. This relative sacrifice can make a major impact on your carbon budget if you have one. I do this even though I feel we have passed the point of no return for arresting climate change.
Cars may be what could be the cause of the death of our species. I hate cars and everything that goes with them. The TV commercials are the worst I guess becuase they project who we should be when the reality is they are killers and we are fools. That said I have them and I drive them. Where I live and how I live I have little choice if I want to have some normality.
rockman on Tue, 27th Dec 2016 10:47 pm
Kevin – “If the world is serious about action on Global warming, these 2 items need to go.” So if you’re correct then we have an answer to the question of the world being serious about climate change despite so much of the rhetoric, don’t we?
meld on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:27 am
is this and onion article? this must be one of the most hilariously idiotic things i have ever read
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:44 am
Put out the fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPMRodnlY4Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnKyTeggV4
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 5:05 am
What about garbage fires in my backyard? That’s ok isn’t it? I especially like the intense black smoke
that comes from those slabs of burning styrofoam.
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:08 am
Video showing production process monopiles for lucrative offshore wind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNt7R-0LPxw
This is the industry that will replace the industry specialized in building hundreds of kilometer of pipelines.
The planned Nabucco pipeline through Turkey has a length of 3891 km or 2 million ton of steel.
A large monopile has a weight of 600 ton (London Array). In other words, the Nabucco pipeline is worth 3000 monopiles.
Current market price steel plate: $477/ton or 286k euro per monopile.
You “only” need to bend the plates, weld them together and ram them in the seabed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV9PykR5bHo
A 6 MW turbine produces the equivalent of 124 barrels of oil per day. A country like Holland consumes 1 million barrel a day. So you need 8000 turbines to replace that oil.
They are working on it.
Those countries/companies who are first to invest in this technology can expect to become the equivalent of what the oil majors were in the past.
GregT on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 12:18 pm
“Those countries/companies who are first to invest in this technology can expect to become the equivalent of what the oil majors were in the past.”
For a much shorter period of time. A temporary solution at best Cloggie. Simply replacing one set of non-renewable resources for another, is not the answer. Just kicking the can a little farther down the road.
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 12:21 pm
Let’s post yet another article talking about how we all need to switch to renewable energy. Doesn’t it make us sound so trendy and clever? Never mind that there isn’t enough land in European countries for the sort of infrastructure they need. Renewable energy is trendy and cool. If we talk about it enough, our ttendy myths might just trump reality.
Of course, there are reasons why this hasn’t happened in the real world. Renewable energy is weak, diffuse and intermittent. These are not problems that technology can get around and no amount of political BS is going to make a difference. In the absence of fossil fuels, or ‘fire’ as the latest idiots prefer to call it, power can be produced in the large amounts needed by industrial civilisation, only by using nuclear reactors. They must now be rolled out at a scale that makes the previous nuclear age look like a dry run.
GregT on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 12:41 pm
” These are not problems that technology can get around and no amount of political BS is going to make a difference. In the absence of fossil fuels, or ‘fire’ as the latest idiots prefer to call it, power can be produced in the large amounts needed by industrial civilisation, only by using nuclear reactors.”
Perhaps it would be a good idea for those ‘latest idiots’ to figure out a way to clean up the old nuclear reactors first, before they build more?
Nah, that would make too much sense. Something that the ‘latest idiots’ completely lack.
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 12:54 pm
Simply replacing one set of non-renewable resources for another, is not the answer.
I explained here why renewables are renewable (Mon, 26th Dec 2016 1:10 pm and below)
http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/2016-was-the-year-solar-panels-finally-became-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/comment-page-1#comments
Haven’t heard a rebuttal yet.
GregT on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 2:06 pm
RENEWABLE Defined for Kids
renewable
adjective re·new·able \ri-ˈnü-ə-bəl, -ˈnyü-\
: capable of being replaced by natural processes <Forests are a renewable resource.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/renewable
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 2:29 pm
Childish reaction. You keep insisting that alt-energy in the long term can’t exist without fossil fuel and that therefore pursuing alt-energy is a futile exercise, with only temporary value.
That’s simply not true. You can use energy produced by installed alt-energy to create new sources of alt-energy and gradually expand the alt-energy base, as long as the EROEI of that alt-energy source is substantially > 1.
Besides you only quote the #2 definition. The first is:
: capable of being renewed
Renewable energy sources are called that way because the aspect of depletion is absent.
This is an extremely important debate, because the outcome of that debate determines if we will fall back towards an agrarian society or somehow we are able to sustain a higher form of civilization.
But from the intensity of your reaction I suspect that the personal stakes are high for you. Could it be that you are an instructor, public speaker, author, teacher or the like and that you have broadcasted your opinion over several years? And that it is difficult to paddle back? Comparable to ShortOnOil and his Hillgroup?
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 2:49 pm
Clog, Greg is the real deal with alternative energy and living. He knows what he is talking about. He is challenging you to be honest with the technology and it’s potential. I have yet to get a solid narrative I would bet the farm on out of you. You are the preacher clog and we are the judges. If I want hype I will turn on the TV. We expect more here.
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:01 pm
Clog, Greg is the real deal with alternative energy and living. He knows what he is talking about.
So, I should therefore accept his position without a “fight”?
I have a completed relevant formal academic education under my belt and worked several years in the renewable energy field and presented my work at international conferences. That’s not to say that I am always right, but at least I feel fit to defend my positions. So let’s have a debate on the subject, without personal innuendos, which is the purpose of this forum anyway.
He is challenging you to be honest with the technology and it’s potential.
It is not a matter of honesty, but a matter of growing insight. I wasn’t lying when I thought 5 years ago that peak oil had immediate relevance. Now I know it hasn’t and I admit I was wrong. Reason: I had no knowledge of alternative sources of fossil fuel.
You are the preacher clog and we are the judges. If I want hype I will turn on the TV. We expect more here.
Everybody is a preacher here, including you and Greg. I am not the only one.
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:08 pm
Clog, you are indeed an asset to this board with your relevant contribution of technical information. I read all of it. Several of us have issues with your passion on the subject. We feel you are crossing the line between science and marketing a not yet realized reality. You judge me on my doom when I preach I do the same back at you. It’s good debate. My point is Greg is legit on alternative energy and the living involved with it. His home is much like yours. You guys have much in common.
Tom S on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:11 pm
GregT,
Why can’t we use electricity from renewable sources to make chemical fuel (such as compressed hydrogen), then use the chemical fuel to power mining equipment to build the next generation of renewables? Seems pretty straightforward.
-Tom S
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:14 pm
You guys have much in common.
Absolutely true. This issue is in fact one of the very few differences of opinion I have with Greg. But it is a very fundamental one and precisely the reason why I have less doomerish views than Greg.
The answer to the question if a renewable energy base in the long term can exist without substantial fossil fuel support, determines in a spectacular way how our future society is going to look like:
a) Olduvai Gorge
b) Light-weight industrial society
I think b) is possible.
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:19 pm
Tom, you ever run a business? There are many things we can do but many don’t pass the cost benefit threashold. Too often techno optimist like you discount or disregard profit and loss. Your thinking is the economy can make these things happen and if it can’t the government can. It is a case of the wrong priorities with you guys with economic realities as fuzzy details to be worked out later.
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:23 pm
Why can’t we use electricity from renewable sources to make chemical fuel (such as compressed hydrogen), then use the chemical fuel to power mining equipment to build the next generation of renewables? Seems pretty straightforward.
That’s very well possible.
Alternatively growing biofuel for niche applications like agricultural machines (not mass “happy motoring”) is possible as well.
All sorts of energy can be converted in all sorts of different forms of energy (only into nuclear is excluded).
Example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/business/worldbusiness/28iht-carbon.4.7290268.html
Güssing, 100 miles south of Vienna, population 4000. In 1988 the annual fossil fuel bill amounted to $8.1 million. The community wanted to keep that money in town and started to look for ways to save energy and replace it with local sources. Answer: biomass, fueling a district heating system and in 1996 covered the entire town and generated electricity as well, all based on an area with 5 km radius. The city’s power plant produces on average 2 megawatts of electricity and 4.5 megawatts of heat, more than enough energy for the town’s needs, while only consuming one-third of the biomass that grows every year. In 2007 the NYT reported about the town, now they have a research institute focusing on ‘thermal and biological gasification and production of second-generation fuels’. Additionally 850 MW worth of solar panels are produced in Güssing, as well as several other photovoltaic and solar thermal companies. The town meanwhile earns $17 million per year due to locally produced renewable energy sales.
It does work.
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:25 pm
Your light weight industrial society might be possible like a Byzantine empire post the fall of Rome. It may be an extender civilization or a stepping down civilization. This may happen in your Northern Europe. I don’t see it globally and in most locations. But I am learning new things daily. I am all ears for good news. Extinction and collapse seem to be more relevant to the macro science we see routinely in the news today.
Tom S on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:31 pm
Davy,
So there are no technological barriers to replacing renewables with renewables? The problem is financial?
Aren’t renewables becoming cheaper anyway? The price of solar has declined by 90% in the last 10 years, and hydrogen from electrolysis is now $4 per gallon of gasoline equivalent. How do you know the price won’t decline further in coming decades?
Why wouldn’t it become profitable to use renewable fuels, as fossil fuels gradually become more expensive and renewable fuels gradually become cheaper? It seems to me those curves would eventually cross at some point. When renewable fuels are cheaper to produce than diesel, wouldn’t it be more profitable to use renewable fuels?
-Tom S
onlooker on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:40 pm
I also thank the relevant experts on Renewable and off grid living for your advice and information. You do a service to any and all who frequent this site. However, from all I have read of the macro or full planet ability to scale up Alternatives/Renewable energy it is NOT happening. But do not take my word for it with the same zeal that you have found out interesting and important facts that bolster your case for Alt/RENEW , research the problems with scaling it up within a realistic time frame and with some reasonable concession that most countries continue relying on the uniquely virtuous qualifies of FF and that the context of a full scale transition will be in a world that is on a downward spiral economically, socially with less available resources. Oh and that it will mean a world of less energy to service the needs of the current 7 plus billions and still growing population. But if you refer to one or a few countries than that is something different.
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 3:52 pm
Tom, I am seeing evidence the curves are going the other direction. Price is a poor indicator of real value in today’s distorted financial world. For example is the cost of money rises or the Chinese economy implodes will alternative components be economic at the scale needed. We may have a trade war with China. If the status quo economy deteriorates the likelihood of the huge build out of alternatives that is needed for it to achieve a break out of economies of scale is doubtful. I want it to happen and there are signs some of it can but we should be careful to anticipate too much. There may be better investments for a different type of world if alternatives don’t measure up. They have yet to measure up in many cases per the hype.
Cloggie on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 4:02 pm
English spoken documentary about the small Austrian town of Guessing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1WsbQQNsV0
It has made itself completely energy autark and is blossoming. A good model for rural towns all over the (developed) world.
peakyeast on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 4:16 pm
The problem is not converting to renewable energy – that could be possible. The problem is human nature which gives all indications that its not able to solve our problems without using tried and true methods: Kill the others and take what they have.
And, of course, that we have to make this adjustment during a time of empty forests, dying oceans and peak of many resources.
I find it acceptable that cloggie is positive about the possibility, but i find that many other problems has to be ignored to make the energy transition possible.
onlooker on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 4:31 pm
Peak not to mention our propensity to procreate and multiply. So continued energy just allows to continue to procreate and live our consumerism lifestyles that in sufficient numbers also is damaging our host environment
makati1 on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 5:46 pm
Mother Nature laughs at our “renewables”. She knows it will never happen. She holds all the power cards in this game. Build your windmills. She will shift the climate, and the winds. Build the solar farms and she will change the cloud pattern and rain to make them inefficient. Plant the fuel crops and she will ruin them with her weather, insects and disease. No? Read the news…
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:03 pm
This article is specious.
http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/2016-was-the-year-solar-panels-finally-became-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/comment-page-1#comments
It ignores two inconvenient truths about solar power: (1) Cheap solar power depends on cheap natural gas. Electrical grade silicon must first be reduced in an electric furnace with pyrolytical graphite electrodes (made from thermal decomposition of natural gas) and then further purified by conversion to silanes, another gas hungry step. (2) By comparing intermittent solar power to a load following coal or natural gas plant you a comparing apples to oranges. To solve the intermittency problem, storage is needed. On the scale needed to balance the grid over periods of days, weeks or months, there are few technologies suitable. Thermal storage in phase change materials is an option, though still experimental. The real cost of solar would need to account for energy losses in storage, in addition to the capital and operating cost of what amounts to an entire additional power station whose function is to convert high entropy (I.e intermittent) solar electricity into low entropy energy that is suitable for the demand pattern of the grid. A full cost analysis must account for the cost of storage otherwise you are not comparing the same things.
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:13 pm
‘Why can’t we use electricity from renewable sources to make chemical fuel (such as compressed hydrogen), then use the chemical fuel to power mining equipment to build the next generation of renewables? Seems pretty straightforward.’
You can, but it costs a fortune. You are taking a high grade energy source with close to 100% work potential (i.e electricity) and converting it into a lower grade energy source. Conversion losses through electrolysis and compression will waste about half of the energy that you started with. You then lose even more converting the fuel into motive power. It is never very practical to store electricity.
Jerome Purtzer on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:29 pm
I don’t know if many of you have heard of PENV or Phoenix Energy of Nevada. They are a group of engineers who are planning on using industrial induction to push an electrical turbine. They have converted an old coal fired plant that generates 110MW while using 8MW to fuel the inductors. In the next month or two it will be ready to go online. They are now negotiating to purchase a mothballed TVA nuclear plant and replace the nuclear with the inductors. If their process works it will make moot FF and nuclear powered electricity plants.
Sissyfuss on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:32 pm
Cloggoid, Antiup just shot all of your commentary full of holes.Damn him all to Hell!
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:39 pm
Jerome, I am not holding my breath. I am old enough to have heard many such wonderful claims and nothing has ever materialized. What has materialized is all the scary things people deny but that are now occurring. That tells me maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with humans. Just a thought.
Sissyfuss on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:44 pm
Purlitzer prize winning Jerome, from PENVs’ own literature which coincidentally is filled with boner pill ads, it is selling a more efficient turbine, not a FF free miracle.
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:55 pm
“Cloggoid, Antiup just shot all of your commentary full of holes.Damn him all to Hell!”
I am not saying that it isn’t possible to use solar energy as a grid energy source. But advocates of this technology routinely underestimate its real costs. The truth is that beyond minimal levels of market penetration, it will be very difficult and expensive for developed countries to produce large amounts of electricity from intermittent renewables. I am as disappointed as anyone that that is the case.
Maybe we can use biogas in cell manufacturing steps to replace natural gas. But until someone rolls out a storage technology that is low capital cost, efficient and capable of storing huge quantities of energy in a low cost medium, renewable electricity will remain a bit player in the global energy market. Its only real advantage is reducing fuel consumption in coal or gas powerplants that must be built anyway. On that limited basis, it would need to be very cheap to be competitive.
Davy on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 6:59 pm
Well put Anti!
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 7:14 pm
The industrial price of natural gas in the US has averaged out at about $3/1000 cu-ft in 2016. That works out at about 1¢/kWh thermal energy. If one assumes that a combined cycle NG power plant is 50% efficient and that labour costs are incured whether it is operating or not, then solar must produce power at 2¢/kWh to displace natural gas generated electricity at present prices. That is the real value of intermittent solar, since its only real benefit is to reduce the fuel burned in the backup powerplant. Until very low cost storage is developed, solar power will remain expensive and marginal.
Sissyfuss on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 7:30 pm
I’m just jerkin Clogets’ chain, Antimus. I defer to your greater knowledge.j
Tom S on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 7:53 pm
Antius:
“You are taking a high grade energy source with close to 100% work potential (i.e electricity) and converting it into a lower grade energy source. Conversion losses through electrolysis and compression will waste about half of the energy that you started with.”
Sure, but that wouldn’t matter for replacing renewables. Very little of the energy investment for solar PV goes to transporting the panels or mining the silicon. More than 90% of the energy investment for solar PV is electricity which is used to make the solar panel itself (for the Siemens process). Only 10% of the energy investment is used to smelt metals for the frames, for installation, for decomissioning, etc. Perhaps only a few percent of the energy used is to mine silicon, transport the panels, etc. Only that part (a few percent) would require compressed hydrogen. The rest could use electricity directly.
If solar PV has an EROI of 15 (according to the NREL, which includes mining, transportation, and decomissioning), and only 5% of the energy investment is in the form of hydrogen, then only 0.3% (0.05/15) of the total energy returned from a solar panel needs to be converted to hydrogen to replace itself. Even if hydrogen and fuel cells entailed a 75% round-trip energy loss, that still would mean only 1.2% of energy from a panel would be needed to produce hydrogen to replace itself. It’s a minor loss.
-Tom S
Tom S on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 8:00 pm
Antius:
“(1) Cheap solar power depends on cheap natural gas. Electrical grade silicon must first be reduced in an electric furnace with pyrolytical graphite electrodes (made from thermal decomposition of natural gas) and then further purified by conversion to silanes, another gas hungry step.”
IIRC, very little natural gas is used to make solar panels.
“convert high entropy (I.e intermittent) solar electricity into low entropy energy that is suitable for the demand pattern of the grid”
I don’t think that’s what high entropy means.
-Tom S
Antius on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 9:03 pm
A lot of natural gas is needed to produce solar cells. Pure graphite is needed to reduce silica to silicon. Hydrogen from natural gas is then used to produce silane. Solar cells are relatively cheap only because low cost fossil energy is used to produce them. Remove low cost chemical energy from the manufacturing stages and the cost of solar cells will increase substantially.
Entropy is disorder. In this context, energy doled out by nature at random intervals which we must spend money and resources converting into an energy source that is dispatchable on demand. No one ever escapes the second law of thermodynamics. It is one of those irritating facts of life that appears to have been purposefully invented by the almighty to scupper utopian dreams 🙂
Tom S on Wed, 28th Dec 2016 11:58 pm
Hi Antius,
“A lot of natural gas is needed to produce solar cells. Pure graphite is needed to reduce silica to silicon.”
Any source of carbon can be used to reduce silica to silicon. This step has frequently been done with different sources of carbon, such as coal, gas, and wood chips. No fossil fuels are required to reduce silica to silicon, because there are easy substitutes such as biomass or other sources of carbon.
At present, using biomass or other sources of carbon may be more expensive than using coal or gas. However, carbon fuels for the reduction step represent less than 0.5% of energy required to make solar panels (see EROI of crystalline solar photovoltaics, J Lundin). As a result, an inferior or more expensive substitute such as biomass would have very little effect on either the cost or the energy balance of solar PV.
The overwhelming majority of energy inputs for the manufacture of PV consists of electricity and process heat. Both of these can be provided by renewable sources. The overwhelming majority of material inputs are silica and bauxite, neither of which are fossil fuels and both of which are incredibly abundant and easily obtained.
-Tom S
Tom S on Thu, 29th Dec 2016 12:01 am
Antius:
“Entropy is disorder. In this context, energy doled out by nature at random intervals which we must spend money and resources converting into an energy source that is dispatchable on demand. No one ever escapes the second law of thermodynamics.”
Entropy has a technical meaning which is not just the same as “disorder”. Entropy is often translated as disorder, but it’s not the same. Entropy does not mean intermittency.
-Tom S