[vtsnowedin]

vtsnowedin,

(wind turbines') intermittenticy will restrict their practical use to twenty percent of grid power

That figure could be increased by using time-of-use pricing. The price of electricity could fluctuate based on its current scarcity. When the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, at all, electricity could be much more expensive (and of course, electricity would be much cheaper when it's sunny and windy).

It's quite possible to transmit the current price of electricity over the power grid, using slight fluctuations in frequency. Then digital receivers on appliances could determine whether the appliances should run now or not.

There are appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners which can make a big block of ice when electricity is cheap, then use it up when electricity is more expensive. Or space heaters which can heat an insulated thermal mass when electricity is cheap, then draw down the thermal mass when electricity is more expensive.

Storing heat and cold for a few days in a thermal mass is far cheaper and simpler than batteries.

Most household electricity (60%+) is expended in producing heat and cold (for things like air conditioning, refrigerators, space heaters, electric water heaters, dishwashers which usually have a heating element, and so on). It would be entirely possible to "move around" that 60% of household electricity usage based upon current electricity supply, and thereby mitigate the intermittency of renewables.

-Tom S

All of that is possible but requires a lot of expensive retrofit or equipment upgrades. Quite a project all in itself. We may well get there but I wouldn't want to be the first that ran a factory only when the wind was blowing out at the wind farm. Very hard to compete with those working without such restraints.
Imagine getting into your Telsa and having the onboard computer tell you "Sorry Boss the wind didn't blow last night, we have to stay home".

[kiwichick]

geothermal; 100%....( alright only 95%???) baseload


wavepower; where available; 80%?? baseload

[tom_s2]

vtsnowedin:

All of that is possible but requires a lot of expensive retrofit or equipment upgrades. Quite a project all in itself. We may well get there but I wouldn't want to be the first that ran a factory only when the wind was blowing out at the wind farm. Very hard to compete with those working without such restraints.

The economy optimizes that sort of thing. If there were time-of-use pricing, it could be cheaper to run (for example) an aluminum plant only when the wind is blowing, in which case you would want to be the first to do it. Also, take the example of the heater which heats a thermal mass when electricity is cheapest. That could easily pay for itself since the cost of a resistance heater is fairly low relative to the cost of the electricity it uses.

Also, it's not even necessary to retrofit things. Equipment turns over every 30 years anyway. By just purchasing new equipment with those features, the old equipment will all eventually be replaced without retrofitting.

-Tom S

[vtsnowedin]

Also, it's not even necessary to retrofit things. Equipment turns over every 30 years anyway. By just purchasing new equipment with those features, the old equipment will all eventually be replaced without retrofitting.

-Tom S

I'd hate to be the guy with a ten year old plant that had to scrap it twenty years early because it could not compete on a catch as catch can basis.

[tom_s2]

I'd hate to be the guy with a ten year old plant that had to scrap it twenty years early because it could not compete on a catch as catch can basis.

Me too, but it happens. For example, only a few ocean shipping companies anticipated the financial crisis around 2008. The others got caught with their pants down and took a big hit because of it. There were all kinds of ships just floating outside my window, going nowhere...

These guys try to anticipate the price of fuel but it turns out that's hard to do more than a few years in advance.

I think peak oil would be a complete non-event if all economic decision-makers knew exactly when it was going to occur 20 years in advance. In that case it would be like the Y2K bug, except with gradually higher costs for some things. Since people can't predict it, an adjustment will be required.

The original container ship company, Sea-Land, was run by a guy named Malcolm McLean. He was one of the many people who thought oil prices would go gradually upwards forever starting in the late 1970s, when we were having that oil crisis. He placed big bets on super-efficient ships, but the price of oil plummeted. He was WAY too early, and lost in a big way. That was the end of Sea-Land corp.

-Tom S

[ralfy]

From what I remember, the IEA argues that in order to deal with peak oil and global warming, we will need strong government policies that will involve cooperation between governments and between economies, at least 70 pct of annual oil demand increase replaced by renewable energy, and crude oil production flatlining, which implies oil and gas producers going for maximum depletion rates.

Following several decades of economic growth and oil demand increase, the demand to be met is equivalent to one Saudi Arabia in new oil produced every seven years. If the new oil will involve low energy returns, some of it will be used for renewable energy, and more returns on investment that is part of a large credit market will have to be met, then the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every three or four years will be needed. If the global middle class continues to grow as part of economic growth, then probably more Saudi Arabias will be needed.

Ultimately, one realizes that oil, minerals, etc., will be used not only for renewable energy components but all sorts of consumer goods, that more of all of them will be needed to back up increasing credit, and that more will be needed to transition to renewable energy, all the while assuming that governments and economies will cooperate with each other. That means no more military spending, conflict, disagreement over policies, and many other problems that took place during the last few decades.

[vtsnowedin]

That means no more military spending, conflict, disagreement over policies, and many other problems that took place during the last few decades.

And you were doing so good right up to that point.

[Tanada]

Even Google gave up on Renewable years ago, and they have the war chest to make things happen if they think they will work.

Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known as RE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do. The company announced that Google would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and conducting its own internal R&D. Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades.

Unfortunately, not every Google moon shot leaves Earth orbit. In 2011, the company decided that RE<C was not on track to meet its target and shut down the initiative. The two of us, who worked as engineers on the internal RE<C projects, were then forced to reexamine our assumptions.

At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.

Very long article at the link,

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewab ... ate-change

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Dear Tanada:

The article reads more like a proposal. As always the market won't save us because the market can't account for the costs of global warming without government help. I mean these people want renewable technologies that are so much cheaper than coal, the market would drop fossil fuels in a second and invest in that technology. In other words we need fairy dust to save us.

Meanwhile, once again, the people at the IPCC come up with very low costs to stop global warming although the costs would still be real. The market however, can't account for the costs of not stopping global warming.

[Zanstel]

The economy optimizes that sort of thing.

Yes. It works in other ways too.

For example, if air conditioning is more expensive than better insulation, then people will spend their money in insulation. Insulation works on materials, that could be produced more where energy is cheap.

Other example. Transport is expensive. Use lighter vehicles are cheaper by travel, but more expensive on production.
Production could benefit on cheap intermittent energy. So if energy storage cost raises prices than (or lower less than) new production based on intermittent energy, the costs will benefit to invest more in production.

Storage is a solution. Adapt the production to the new intermittent conditions is another.

[Graeme]

How to convert US to 100 percent renewable energy

One potential way to combat ongoing climate change, eliminate air pollution mortality, create jobs and stabilize energy prices involves converting the world's entire energy infrastructure to run on clean, renewable energy.

This is a daunting challenge. But now, in a new study, Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, and colleagues, including U.C. Berkeley researcher Mark Delucchi, are the first to outline how each of the 50 states can achieve such a transition by 2050. The 50 individual state plans call for aggressive changes to both infrastructure and the ways we currently consume energy, but indicate that the conversion is technically and economically possible through the wide-scale implementation of existing technologies.

"The main barriers are social, political and getting industries to change. One way to overcome the barriers is to inform people about what is possible," said Jacobson, who is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. "By showing that it's technologically and economically possible, this study could reduce the barriers to a large scale transformation."

The study is published in the online edition of Energy and Environmental Sciences.

sciencedaily

[Subjectivist]

The response to how all we have to do s go RE all the time.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us- ... ble-energy

[Graeme]

World Moves Toward 100 Percent Renewable Energy – First Electricity, Then Heating/Cooling, and Finally Transportation

The exclusive use of energy from renewable resources in at least one sector has now become a feasible goal for 8 countries. Diane Moss, Founding Director of Renewables 100 Policy Institute, discussed this remarkable development at one of the conference sessions at Intersolar North America 2015.

Denmark, Scotland, and Aruba are among the nations with 100 percent renewable energy targets. Besides the 8 nations, the Institute has so far mapped 55 cities, 60 regions and 9 utilities across the world that have officially established 100 percent RE goals, and Moss points out that there may be more and that those numbers are steadily increasing.


“Numerous experts agree that the biggest challenge is not technical or financial, but gathering political will. This requires leadership at every level of government and business governance, as well as building momentum at the grassroots level. While we still have far to go, we've come a long way in recent years with hundreds of cities and regions now formally committed to 100 percent renewable energy targets in at least one sector, along with 8 countries, dozens of major corporations and thousands of businesses and several non-profit and institutional campaigns for 100 percent renewable energy. We need to massively build on that, gleaning best practices along the way to avoid repeating mistakes and reinventing the wheel,” said Moss.

renewableenergyworld

[Plantagenet]

Denmark, Scotland, and Aruba are among the nations with 100 percent renewable energy targets.

The US and the whole G-12 also set a 100% renewable energy target. Who could ever forget the political courage Obama and the other G-12 leaders showed in issuing a joint statement announcing their intent to phase out the use of all fossil fuels in 100 years.


And you're sure that delaying action on cutting carbon emissions for 100 years won't hurt the climate?

[StarvingLion]

You'all can have your stupid solar panels and other mindless science tripe.

This time next year, I'm a mountain man with fish, water, fruit trees, and lots and lots of wood. Cleanest stuff on earth. Only a few humans in the village.

Have fun with the rest of the hordes in the suburban ghetto.

[vtsnowedin]

You'all can have your stupid solar panels and other mindless science tripe.

This time next year, I'm a mountain man with fish, water, fruit trees, and lots and lots of wood. Cleanest stuff on earth. Only a few humans in the village.

Have fun with the rest of the hordes in the suburban ghetto.

Pretty limited diet there with just fish and fruit. Or are you planning on eating those few humans in the village?

[KaiserJeep]

In the interest of full disclosure, this is a complex topic. It is not clear to me whether the numbers work or not. Although the arithmatic is fairly simple, there are assumptions to be examined and questioned. This is however an important subject - if we could succeed at this, with sufficient safety margin to allow for the grid disruptions of droughts and hurricanes and so forth, it would be a dramatic accomplishment. The implications for individual US power grid customers would be that they could continue to occupy the existing cities and suburbs, and not have to own a complete off-the-grid self-sufficient "doomstead".

Without further ado, I offer this IEEE Spectrum article as a kicking off point:

Can the U.S. Grid Work With 100% Renewables? There's a Scientific Fight Brewing

By Peter Fairley
Posted 19 Jun 2017 | 19:00 GMT

A battle royal between competing visions for the future of energy blew open today on the pages of a venerable science journal. The conflict pits 21 climate and power-system experts against Stanford University civil and environmental engineer Mark Jacobson and his vision of a world fueled 100 percent by renewable solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy(1). The criticism of his “wind, water, and sun” solution(2) and an unapologetic rebuttal from Jacobson and three Stanford colleagues(3) appear today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The critics enumerate what they view as invalid modeling tools, modeling errors, and “implausible and inadequately supported assumptions” in a projection of the midcentury U.S. energy supply that Jacobson and his coauthors published in PNAS in 2015. “The scenarios of [that paper] can, at best, be described as a poorly executed exploration of an interesting hypothesis,” write the experts, led by Christopher Clack, CEO of power-grid-modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy(4).

Clack says their primary goal is accurate science, the better to equip policymakers for critical decisions: “We’re trying to be scientific about the process and honest about how difficult it could be to move forward.”
.
.
.

Remainder of article is at http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-the-us-grid-work-with-100-renewables

The first four links embedded in the quoted text above for your convenience:

(1) National Geographic's "A Blueprint for a Carbon-Free World" (A rather well-done interactive browser application.)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/carbon-free-world/#
(2) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) "Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar" http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1610381114
(3) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) "The United States can keep the grid stable at low cost with 100% clean, renewable energy in all sectors despite inaccurate claims" http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/16/1708069114
(4) "Vibrant Clean Energy" (The typical and very slick corporate web page.)

Comments: This IMHO could be done, but it's simply not enough. We would also have to reduce the demand for grid power via re-implementation of residential and commercial buildings for energy efficiency (i.e. PassivHaus and LEED Platinum and like standards.) We would also need to transition the private vehicle fleet to modern BEVs, and add carbon-free baseline power generation grid capacity for such loads. (I favor modern 4th generation nuclear power plants.) Finally we need yet another FF alternative for long distance heavy trucking and railroads - hydrogen fuel, whatever else.

Most of all, we need the courage to begin the transition.

[KaiserJeep]

Let me make this part clear: the power grid is a national asset in the same way the Interstate highway system is a national asset. It allows us to move massive amounts of energy from where it is generated to where it is consumed. In the event of a disaster or drought or even widespread destruction due to civil disobedience or warfare, it is still needed.

The microgrids of which you speak are a technique used to harden the grid against cyber attacks and other outages. They are not intended to replace the grid itself and if used for such a purpose, the grid's most usefull characteristic of wholesale power transport "as needed" would be lost. Microgrids are a detail in the grid design itself, not a means to an end. Local grid management - using SmartGrid infrastructure and automation- replaces national management, temporarily and less efficiently, and compromising power availability not enhancing it for the consumers.

In fact, the grid losses today are a few percentage points using high voltage AC transmission, only a tiny fraction of the losses you find in the loads themselves. Power transmission via high voltage DC will even eliminate most of the remaining losses, as well as reducing the maintenance expenses, since the replacement of main AC feeds with DC feeds can and should include the replacement of high tension towers with underground coaxial power feeds.

The big win, and something that is needed irregardless of whether or not we retire carbon-spewing FF power plants with green power plants is the renewal of the consumption side of the power grid. Take for example the Passivehaus standard. That requires in most of the USA that residential walls be 18" to 24" in thickness, free from thermal conductivity paths and with a well thought out scheme for vapor/moisture management that will preserve the structure from rot. The superinsulation, along with orientation for passive solar gains and heat recovery ventilation actually does reduce the power consumption of an existing house built to most local building codes to 10%, and to 25% of a new and current Energy Star compliant structure.

I know, for example, that you have put considerable thought into reducing your space heating costs with added insulation and HVAC equipment re-design. But Passivhaus requires a ground-up approach, and relatively few existing structures can be brought up to those standards. I doubt for example that you imported windows and doors from Europe - but there are ZERO Passivhaus-compliant window suppliers in the USA. Likewise I doubt that you lifted your house off the foundation, and added thermal breaks in the foundation, and layers of insulation under the floor slab. Nor did you make blower door tests at critical points during construction to minimize air infiltration.

Whatever the details, my point would be that structures which cannot pass the new National standards for energy efficiency should be torn down and replaced 50 years from the original construction date. You have to put this requirement in place so that the power consumers have a motive to build in energy efficiency, in both original construction and renewal/remodelling. No exceptions - you are either serious about energy efficiency, or your home can't be sold or inherited, it can only be destroyed.

In a similar way, ICE vehicles which do not run on green fuels would have to be destroyed versus being sold. All existing vehicles would have to meet current national operating and passive evaporative emission standards before they could be traded in or privately sold.

IOW, we have to be serious about everything we are doing in order to completely replace FF's in America. Eventually, even that will not be enough. (I am getting ahead of myself here.) Once your own country has met the ZCE goal (zero carbon emissions) you must be prepared to put in place first economic sanctions, and then to engage in warfare with those countries that do not. THAT is what I mean by serious. THAT is the level of commitment needed to eliminate carbon emissions from residences and businesses and transportation.