Page 1 of 3

100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Rpt

Unread postPosted: Tue 11 Oct 2011, 16:50:15
by Graeme
100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN Report

Renewable energy sources are expected to contribute up to 80 percent of global energy supply by 2050, according to a new report published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).



Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

“The report clearly demonstrates that renewable technologies could supply the world with more energy than it would ever need, and at a highly competitive cost,” said Steve Sawyer, secretary general of the Global Wind Energy Council. “The IPCC report will be a key reference for policy makers and industry alike, as it represents the most comprehensive high level review of renewable energy to date.”

The 1,000-page report, which was adopted by 194 governments after marathon negotiations on May 9, considers the potential contribution from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, and ocean energy, as well as their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their integration into the energy networks, their contribution to sustainable development, and the policies which are needed to put them in place. Following a review of 164 scenarios, the IPCC found that renewables will play a key role in any successful plan to combat climate change.

An increasing number of technologies are already economically competitive, the report noted, and that trend will continue as further cost reductions and technology improvements are made, the report said.


renewableenergyworld

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Tue 11 Oct 2011, 17:47:36
by MD
80% sounds about right.

except that it will be 80% of the total at the time which will be 80% of what we are using today.

and that is a good thing!

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Tue 11 Oct 2011, 21:07:54
by kiwichick
100% no sweat

New Zealand already @ 80% electricity from renewables

and aiming for 100%

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Tue 11 Oct 2011, 22:55:19
by prajeshbhat
New Zealand has a small population and a huge hydroelectric capacity. Not sure if all countries can pull it off. Especially China and India. They have already maxed out hydroelectric. So, they have both committed to coal as the fuel for their 10% growth.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Wed 12 Oct 2011, 19:56:14
by kiwichick
i'm not sure if every country can either

however china and india could both develop wave and geothermal power

china and india are also working to stabilize their population

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 08:31:09
by Pops
Graeme wrote:Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."

TOD talked about the Nation Sized Battery recently, and even recent-er was Got Storage, How Hard Can It Be? talking about how hard home power storage can be. Of course there are all sorts of schemes but I'm not sure where they are headed.

I think renewables will be the future, simple because non-renewables for some reason aren't renewing, but that future isn't going to spring forth fully formed and ironically the progress towards a non-fossil fueled economy depends in large part on the current FFed one. The recession pretty well collapsed wind installations in 2010.

And of course we all know how large is the ideological resistance against the very idea of renewable energy. I'm not sure exactly the root cause of the distaste for conservation, stewardship, "green energy", etc - it is counter intuitive but it is pretty obvious.

And finally, the reason for investing in a business is to earn a return. I'm going to guess that if there is a prolonged fall in energy consumption like the 7.6 drop 2008-2009 as a result of the recession, investors are going to shy away from building new capacity of any kind.

Still, as Gail Tverberg says, renewables are great fossil fuel "extenders" - sorta Hamburger Helper for Petro-Based Society.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 12:10:28
by highlander
Living in a region where our electricity comes mainly from hydropower, I don't see the upside.
Yes, we can generate a lot of electricity from solar, wind and hydropower. But It will take an economic miracle to convert the current transportation fleet away from oil and on to electricity.
Got coal?

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 12:43:34
by Alan Cain
Pops wrote:
Graeme wrote:Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."



Perhaps the UN is assuming that the global population will be around 1 gigapeople (Gp) around 2050...

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 17:54:32
by dolanbaker
The simple solution to energy storage is wind powered water pumps and reservoirs attached to hydroelectric generators.

The wind pumps continually (when windy) pump water from a lower lake into a higher lake and the hydro plant generates electricity on demand. Simples!

If there are no suitable valleys around, then river estuaries or artificial "sea lakes" could be built.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 18:35:45
by Pops
The water pumping idea was exactly what made me think of the term "scheme". It sounds good but is expensive to build and really expensive if it is a dedicated use and of course uses more power to pump than it generates. Not that we won't do more of it.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 18:43:02
by dolanbaker
Pops wrote:The water pumping idea was exactly what made me think of the term "scheme". It sounds good but is expensive to build and really expensive if it is a dedicated use and of course uses more power to pump than it generates. Not that we won't do more of it.


Of course it does, but so do batteries and all other electricity storage techniques!
The thing is this uses readily available resources (unless you live in a desert) and technology and can be built now! May not be possible when there is a real shortage of energy to deal with.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Oct 2011, 20:23:40
by kiwichick
geothermal and wave power are base load sources

it's hot inside our planet

in the us there is a huge geothermal resource in the yellowstone park area

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Fri 14 Oct 2011, 22:49:37
by no_wuckin_ferries_mate
As has been said further up the thread wave power might be suitable for India and China. I don't know much about those countries, but for Japan wave power is certainlay very suitable. It could replace all of Japan's nuclear power stations.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Tue 18 Oct 2011, 17:34:33
by Graeme
Pops wrote:
Graeme wrote:Among the report’s points of emphasis: wind power alone is capable of supplying more than 100 percent of future demand.

The big problem I can't see around is intermitency. That little puff piece didn't really have any details, just the same old "They'll figure it out, resume cruise control."

TOD talked about the Nation Sized Battery recently, and even recent-er was Got Storage, How Hard Can It Be? talking about how hard home power storage can be. Of course there are all sorts of schemes but I'm not sure where they are headed.

I think renewables will be the future, simple because non-renewables for some reason aren't renewing, but that future isn't going to spring forth fully formed and ironically the progress towards a non-fossil fueled economy depends in large part on the current FFed one. The recession pretty well collapsed wind installations in 2010.

And of course we all know how large is the ideological resistance against the very idea of renewable energy. I'm not sure exactly the root cause of the distaste for conservation, stewardship, "green energy", etc - it is counter intuitive but it is pretty obvious.

And finally, the reason for investing in a business is to earn a return. I'm going to guess that if there is a prolonged fall in energy consumption like the 7.6 drop 2008-2009 as a result of the recession, investors are going to shy away from building new capacity of any kind.

Still, as Gail Tverberg says, renewables are great fossil fuel "extenders" - sorta Hamburger Helper for Petro-Based Society.


I don't think there will be a problem with intermittency because wind farms will be linked by a smart grid - not an original idea I might add. This has been mentioned before on this board. Wind is doing pretty well in the developing world. In the US, renewable energy development will be spearheaded by the military.

$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Mar 2018, 15:23:33
by AdamB


At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Re: $1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Mar 2018, 18:10:09
by Tanada
AdamB wrote:


At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030


With a Trillion dollars I could build 50: 1,500MWe nuclear power stations at a grossly inflated price tag of 20 Billion each. These 50 power stations would then be capable of generating 75 GWe 24/7/365 for 60+ years each. Meanwhile those solar PV systems with an expected what is it, 30 year lifetime, would be generating for about 6 hours a day on average if they are in a good location (25% capacity factor) so your nameplate 1 TWe is 250 GWe if everything goes swimmingly. Sounds like a winner right? but wait, you have to replace them half way through the life of the Nuclear systems so that 250 is actually 125 GWe, Still sounds like a winner?

Well sure, if it really costs you 20 Billion a pop for a fission power station you still get almost double the energy from solar (ignoring the costs of batteries and what not) the solar advocates are claiming $1/Watt in nameplate capacity so how much does nuclear actually cost? Well in South Korea they build a lot of nuclear and the 'overnight costs' are about $2.02/Watt while in China the newest plants cost $1.81/Watt. But we already know that Solar PV system is at best 25% efficient over 24 hours because of you know, sunset and stuff so the real cost of that solar PV system might not be $1/Watt claimed for nameplate, it is more likely $4/Watt, and you have to replace the system in 30 years instead of in 60.

So say we let South Korea set up the factory to mass produce nuclear reactors of a standard design (much as France did in the 1970-80 period when they build almost all of their current plants to three standardized designs). Lets go further and say that instead of duplication reducing costs they actually cost a little more, say $3.00/Watt for a nice 50% fudge factor. Okay how much fission capacity will 1 trillion buy us at $3? Easy math there fellas that would be 334 GWe in cookie cutter stations with a 1.5 GWe capacity each. AKA 334 GWe 24/7/365 for $1trillion for 60 years vs 250 GWe (net) for 30 years. Yeah Solar PV is a wonderful dream, mostly because you have to be asleep to think it is the better option.

Re: $1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postPosted: Sun 11 Mar 2018, 19:43:08
by vtsnowedin
Tanada wrote:
AdamB wrote:


At the International Solar Alliance, Emmanuel Macron said the government, private sector and civil society need to work together to overcome hurdles French President Emmanuel Macron on Sunday said USD 1 trillion will be needed to achieve one terawatt (TW) of solar power capacity by 2030. Speaking alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the founding conference of the International Solar Alliance (ISA), he said there are financing and regulation hurdles for achieving the target which need to be cleared by government, private sector and civil society coming together. Without any names, he referred to countries quitting the historic Paris Climate agreement and said ISA nations came together to “deliver complete results”. The oblique reference was to US President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement, which was signed by nearly 200 countries in December 2015 in an effort to curb


$1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030


With a Trillion dollars I could build 50: 1,500MWe nuclear power stations at a grossly inflated price tag of 20 Billion each. These 50 power stations would then be capable of generating 75 GWe 24/7/365 for 60+ years each. Meanwhile those solar PV systems with an expected what is it, 30 year lifetime, would be generating for about 6 hours a day on average if they are in a good location (25% capacity factor) so your nameplate 1 TWe is 250 GWe if everything goes swimmingly. Sounds like a winner right? but wait, you have to replace them half way through the life of the Nuclear systems so that 250 is actually 125 GWe, Still sounds like a winner?

Well sure, if it really costs you 20 Billion a pop for a fission power station you still get almost double the energy from solar (ignoring the costs of batteries and what not) the solar advocates are claiming $1/Watt in nameplate capacity so how much does nuclear actually cost? Well in South Korea they build a lot of nuclear and the 'overnight costs' are about $2.02/Watt while in China the newest plants cost $1.81/Watt. But we already know that Solar PV system is at best 25% efficient over 24 hours because of you know, sunset and stuff so the real cost of that solar PV system might not be $1/Watt claimed for nameplate, it is more likely $4/Watt, and you have to replace the system in 30 years instead of in 60.

So say we let South Korea set up the factory to mass produce nuclear reactors of a standard design (much as France did in the 1970-80 period when they build almost all of their current plants to three standardized designs). Lets go further and say that instead of duplication reducing costs they actually cost a little more, say $3.00/Watt for a nice 50% fudge factor. Okay how much fission capacity will 1 trillion buy us at $3? Easy math there fellas that would be 334 GWe in cookie cutter stations with a 1.5 GWe capacity each. AKA 334 GWe 24/7/365 for $1trillion for 60 years vs 250 GWe (net) for 30 years. Yeah Solar PV is a wonderful dream, mostly because you have to be asleep to think it is the better option.

Being mister quibble here let me start with I know of no nuclear power plant that lasted sixty years without major plumbing or repair issues. Then I have to add in that I cannot recall or imagine an evacuation from a solar panel disaster. You can't say the same about nuclear power.

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Mar 2018, 04:19:54
by kiwichick

Re: 100 Percent Renewables: The Resources are There, Says UN

Unread postPosted: Mon 12 Mar 2018, 08:48:33
by KaiserJeep
I'm not going to quibble about whether nuclear energy or renewables are more appropriate replacements for FF energy. The facts are that all other forms of energy production even taken collectively will still be producing less overall energy at higher costs than do FF's today.

People are already dying from lack of food and clean water because energy costs too much to save them. Things are not improving.

Re: $1 tn needed to achieve 1TW solar power capacity by 2030

Unread postPosted: Thu 09 Aug 2018, 01:19:31
by Zarquon
vtsnowedin wrote:
Tanada wrote:
With a Trillion dollars I could build 50: 1,500MWe nuclear power stations at a grossly inflated price tag of 20 Billion each. These 50 power stations would then be capable of generating 75 GWe 24/7/365 for 60+ years each. Meanwhile those solar PV systems with an expected what is it, 30 year lifetime, would be generating for about 6 hours a day on average if they are in a good location (25% capacity factor) so your nameplate 1 TWe is 250 GWe if everything goes swimmingly. Sounds like a winner right? but wait, you have to replace them half way through the life of the Nuclear systems so that 250 is actually 125 GWe, Still sounds like a winner?

Well sure, if it really costs you 20 Billion a pop for a fission power station you still get almost double the energy from solar (ignoring the costs of batteries and what not) the solar advocates are claiming $1/Watt in nameplate capacity so how much does nuclear actually cost? Well in South Korea they build a lot of nuclear and the 'overnight costs' are about $2.02/Watt while in China the newest plants cost $1.81/Watt. But we already know that Solar PV system is at best 25% efficient over 24 hours because of you know, sunset and stuff so the real cost of that solar PV system might not be $1/Watt claimed for nameplate, it is more likely $4/Watt, and you have to replace the system in 30 years instead of in 60.

So say we let South Korea set up the factory to mass produce nuclear reactors of a standard design (much as France did in the 1970-80 period when they build almost all of their current plants to three standardized designs). Lets go further and say that instead of duplication reducing costs they actually cost a little more, say $3.00/Watt for a nice 50% fudge factor. Okay how much fission capacity will 1 trillion buy us at $3? Easy math there fellas that would be 334 GWe in cookie cutter stations with a 1.5 GWe capacity each. AKA 334 GWe 24/7/365 for $1trillion for 60 years vs 250 GWe (net) for 30 years. Yeah Solar PV is a wonderful dream, mostly because you have to be asleep to think it is the better option.


Being mister quibble here let me start with I know of no nuclear power plant that lasted sixty years without major plumbing or repair issues. Then I have to add in that I cannot recall or imagine an evacuation from a solar panel disaster. You can't say the same about nuclear power.


It's an old thread, but I can't resist nitpicking either. First, PV manufacturers today give a 25/80 warranty, i.e. at least 80% output after 25 years. I suppose they wouldn't do that if the panels turned to junk after 30 years. In fact, there are cells installed in the early 1980s that still do better than that. Estimated degradation of moderns PV cells is about 0,1% per year. So many, if not most, will continue to long operate past the 30-year mark, with the cost written off long before that. And you might have to change the inverter twice in that time. Also, wipe them regularly with a soft cloth.

Nuclear plants, OTOH, don't age that well. A 100% load factor (capacity factor) is of course impossible, for any kind of power-generating plant. But according to EIA data, even a 90% average is achieved only if you don't include the lemons:

https://thebulletin.org/2013/06/nuclear ... -graceful/

"Late-life troubles in the life cycle of complex nuclear technologies have implications for decisions relating to new nuclear construction. It took the nuclear industry more than 20 years to get its average load factor up to 90 percent (average load factor being the number of hours a facility is on line producing power each year divided by the total number of hours in a year). For the US fleet, that high average load factor lasted less than a decade. In fact, if one counts the reactors that were retired early and suffered long-term outages, which tend to be excluded in the calculation of load factors, the industry’s average load factor was less than 70 percent.
...
The current analysis of new nuclear reactor construction proposals tends to assume a long plant life—often up to 60 years. Yet almost one-sixth of US reactors brought on line have been retired before their original 40-year licenses expired. It is unrealistic to assume that complex new technologies will have a significantly better experience."

And of course one halfway serious accident would make the whole discussion moot.