Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

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

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

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

Unread postby GHung » Thu 09 Aug 2018, 09:15:36

I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

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

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 09 Aug 2018, 10:09:28

GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.

And let's not forget that the cost math for solar and wind are still improving rapidly. It seems like over time, with all the regulations, the math for nuclear gets worse (perhaps largely due to the risk).

Now, you add in battery backup to eliminate the intermittency issue, with the cost math for batteries also greatly improving over time, and it seems like we have a good trend here.

If the math keeps working, the green energy replacement will do the job with no pushing from government over the next 3 to 5 decades. If it doesn't, by then surely even the deniers will see how bad things have gotten re AGW and humanity will see the need to greatly reduce FF's whether it's more expensive or not.

In 3 to 5 decades, we might even get lucky and have workable fission. Then we get to deal with the Jevon's Paradox madness again, no doubt -- though what we SHOULD be doing if that happens is using all that extra energy (at least initially) to rapidly sequester vast amounts of CO2 to mitigate the AGW effects.

As for the ultimate results, my vote would be for humanity mostly screwing it up, over time.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9894
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

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

Unread postby Yonnipun » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 01:31:35

I wonder why even talk about nuclear when there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.
Yonnipun
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 04:29:19

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

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 12:24:37

Yonnipun wrote:I wonder why even talk about nuclear when there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.


There are several scientifically viable solutions to the nuclear waste problem but the politicians won't implement them.

The most basic solution is to bury the nuclear waste. In fact, the US spent billions on building a world-class nuclear waste disposal site in Nevada. But then Harry Reid (D) became Senate Leader and blocked the use of that site. Harry Reid single handedly stopped development of the largest huge source of carbon-free energy in the US, i.e. nuclear energy.

When they line up the evil people in hell who caused global warming, Harry Reid will have a special spot right next to the flames. Coal-fired flames.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

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

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 16:42:30

GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4693
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

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

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 16:57:08

kublikhan wrote: Nuclear ... has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.


Its not an either/or choice. The best way to go would be to use as much solar/wind/hydro as you can, but if need someing to supplement the grid when the wind don't blow and the sun isn't shining, consider using nuclear.

The important thing is to totally get rid of all the coal-fired and NG-fired power plants and all the gas and diesel powered vehicles as soon as possible. The planet is going to cook if we don't stop using fossil fuels like yesterday.

Cheers!
250 million thousand people have died of covid---Joe Biden
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama

-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 25070
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

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

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 17:00:35

kublikhan wrote:
GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

A nuclear power plant can be throttled up or down withing a range as needed by the grid and on a fairly quick response time. No it is not running 100 percent all the time but it is giving you the amount of power you need when you need it not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

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

Unread postby kublikhan » Fri 10 Aug 2018, 17:11:23

vtsnowedin wrote:
kublikhan wrote:
GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.

To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.

A nuclear power plant can be throttled up or down withing a range as needed by the grid and on a fairly quick response time. No it is not running 100 percent all the time but it is giving you the amount of power you need when you need it not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.
Umm, that is what dispatchable means vtsnowedin:

Because load must be balanced on a continuous basis, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or than units using intermittent resource to operate. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because comparing them must be done carefully.
Levelized Costs
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4693
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

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

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 12 Aug 2018, 16:24:17

P – “The best way to go would be to use as much solar/wind/hydro as you can, but if need someing to supplement the grid when the wind don't blow and the sun isn't shining, consider using nuclear.”. Exactly. Once again use Texas as a model. Thanks to our booming population and economy our electricity consumption has increased 27% in just the last 10 years. A big reason why we’re the largest consuming state with 2X as much as #2 FL.

And we use our nukes and wind power to cover the gap. And now we’re having solar increasing too. And maybe even short term grid storage if the E.ON pilot project proves commercial. Which is very fortunate since without them we would have built more NG and coal fired plants…guaranteed.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11332
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

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

Unread postby Navigator 1122 » Mon 23 Aug 2021, 11:32:44

???

Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels
Report Serial Number: 42/2021
ISBN number: ISBN 978-952-217-414-7
https://tupa.gtk.fi/raportti/arkisto/42_2021.pdf
Navigator 1122
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon 10 May 2021, 06:49:29

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

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 23 Aug 2021, 16:35:41

Navigator,

Welcome aboard and to the discussions.

Sorry I missed welcoming you in your initial post.

This concluding paragraph of the opening summary is very much in line with what my thing has become in recent years.

In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.

User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16512
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

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

Unread postby theluckycountry » Mon 23 Aug 2021, 19:39:12

this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system... will not be possible for the entire global human population... What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today.

In other words
The corona virus shutdowns of society
And a one world government.
theluckycountry
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

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

Unread postby Pops » Tue 24 Aug 2021, 09:58:36

In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.


This is probably the most lucid paragraph on the topic I've read in many years of reading.

Most people cling to one absolute or the other and argue it for years because that makes them feel in control. We all want to believe we have the inside track so we keep plucking the same tropes over and over: "there are untold giga-barrels left", "we'll drive away from the peak in EVs", "it's all a one-world plot", "we're dead".

The biggest mistake we make is looking at the future through the lens of the present. Say, thinking that since the average rich-worlder today drives 15,000 miles a year to choose from 57 varieties of deodorant that the success or failure of our society is gauged by the preservation if not increase of such statistics.

The post-fossil world will be as different from today as today is from the pre-fossil world: that is my trope. I hope we can ride the fossils down to a soft, renewable landing. I would be happy to know that my great grandkids (not to mention myself) will have lights and some radio, if not refrigeration.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19401
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

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

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sat 28 Aug 2021, 14:34:22

Pops wrote:The biggest mistake we make is looking at the future through the lens of the present. Say, thinking that since the average rich-worlder today drives 15,000 miles a year to choose from 57 varieties of deodorant that the success or failure of our society is gauged by the preservation if not increase of such statistics.

The post-fossil world will be as different from today as today is from the pre-fossil world: that is my trope. I hope we can ride the fossils down to a soft, renewable landing. I would be happy to know that my great grandkids (not to mention myself) will have lights and some radio, if not refrigeration.

That could be right. It would be consistent with a slow crash scenario vs. the fast crash scenario.

But of course, predicting the future is VERY hard. Between, say, EV's and safer nuclear and perhaps safe hot fusion within the next 50 years, society might do rather well, despite using far less fossil fuels.

For example, if 99% of the energy supplied is green and quite safe, that would help quite a bit.

Or if an information intensive society is fine with traveling far less, for shopping, entertainment, etc, but doesn't feel deprived by that. If our communications devices and the grids are clean and reliable, our NEEDS could be far less, if people can stop the insane need to pile up endless assets (like giant houses, multiple cars, and filling their huge garage, attic, basement, etc. with consumer goods they rarely even look at).

OTOH, if a huge proportion of the third world moves to a middle class first world lifestyle and the population continues to grow a lot, we could be MUCH worse off by the time fossil fuels truly become relatively scarce.

I'm not smart enough to predict things like commodity or stock prices next week or next year (same as 99.99+% of people, except I freely admit it). Given that, I don't have the hubris to think I can predict the future decades or centuries from now, especially with ANY level of detail.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9894
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

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

Unread postby Gmark » Tue 31 Aug 2021, 08:49:55

Mustard wrote:Wind energy fails because Betz's law. Engines only work by damaging themselves. Engines require external energy or pressure to work, and wind is uncompressed, so it can never work.

Pretend a gas turbine has a eroi of 10 at 30x pressure. A wind turbine has a eroi of 1:3 because it's doing the same thing without pressure. If you accept fossil fuel eroi you must accept renewable eroi, because it's doing the same thing just worse.

That's why all the arguments for renewables are self defeating because your proposing the same thing but lower pressure. It's air pushing on air. The air pushing on the turbine is the same as the air causing friction. There is no pressure to rescue this relationship. In a gas turbine all the gas is pressurized to go in the same direction so no drag. In a wind turbine there's no pressure. It's air pushing on air.

Solar has the same problem. The very act of collecting solar energy is due to weakening the bonds that hold the panel together. The reason photosynthesis works in nature is that it doesn't actually matter. It's just nutrients (eg phosphate, nitrate) being supplied as external energy so their bond energy can be used. These nutrients form on their own non-deterministically, ie, you can't force their production.

The mass of fertilizer in a plant root system, about 10kg or 1% volume, is greater than the dry mass of a plant. The plant is merely a product of chemical bond energy transfer at a 10/1 loss to the original mass. It doesn't generate any energy, it consumes it from the chemical bonds of the surrounding area. Photosynthesis is merely a way to consume the provided energy.

Engines require a gradient to work. You can't just use disorganized natural energy to create energy. It's air pushing on air or electrons pushing on electrons. It has no structure and can't result in anything.

Solar panels break chemical bonds to form other ones and are therefore a perpetual motion machine


Ha! Ha! Mustang (now posting as Mustard), you still don't understand Betz's Law and you don't understand biology or agriculture either! Do you read? You need to learn about physics and energy.

I don't think you've found anyone in the whole world who agrees with your confused ramblings! That's an accomplishment in itself.

You claim to work in IT, and i hope you have more education in that subject than you do in these others.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08

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

Unread postby theluckycountry » Tue 31 Aug 2021, 18:49:08

All scientific mumbo jumbo aside, my roof is covered in renewable solar, built in China with cheap oil and coal, shipped across the ocean with cheap bunker fuel. What will happen in 25 years when they wear out, who knows? But I probably wont be around to see the manufacturing and supply chain that is "supposed" to run on renewables by then. I have yet to see a D9 earthmover running on anything other than diesel. Or an Aluminum plant on other than coal fired electricity. Solar panels incorporate a lot of Aluminum.

According to Alcoa, the world’s largest producer of aluminium, the best smelters use about 13 kilowatt hours (46.8 megajoules) of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium; the worldwide average is closer to 15 kWh/kg (54 MJ/kg).
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2011/07/15/ ... aluminium/

But that's just the intermediate step, there is the mining, refining, and latter fabrication and distribution to be factored in too.

Reserves of bauxite in China are depleting rapidly, opening up a massive new hunt for resources.

https://www.mining-technology.com/featu ... e-4171637/
theluckycountry
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

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

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 31 Aug 2021, 20:00:49

theluckycountry wrote:A
According to Alcoa, the world’s largest producer of aluminium, the best smelters use about 13 kilowatt hours (46.8 megajoules) of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium; the worldwide average is closer to 15 kWh/kg (54 MJ/kg).
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2011/07/15/ ... aluminium/

That is why many of the biggest aluminum smelters are in Quebec where hydro power cost just two cents per KWH.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 12409
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron