[Newfie]

As I understand what happens when thermal generation capacity becomes overloaded the turbines start to slow, just like your ICE does when taking a hill in too high a gear. The effect is the frequency of the alternating current falls as well. This is a bad thing for sensitive equipment but really bad if different generators fall out of sync with each other or a cascade of breakers trip.

On the one hand there is a flywheel effect from those huge thermal turbines' inertia, the is a great benefit as that effect can smooth small fluctuations in load to keep the frequency very close to 50 or 60 htz (depending on the where). But on the other hand there can be hours / days / weeks pass from start-up to power flowing as the water begins to boil and the rotation of the turbine/generator is matched to the frequency of the grid.
So, there is a thing called "spinning reserve" where the water is hot, the wheel is turning, and the plant is in sync and on grid but contributing only a minimal amount of power. It is actually paid just to spin and be ready to dispatch, even though it is contributing little. I assume all types of base generation (except maybe nukes) operate at less than max power as a rule in order to maintain some level of reserve capacity to be dispatched at a few moment's notice, just by applying more beans.

The difference is more or less smoke coming out of a coal-fired plant chimney isn't as obvious or easily counted as idle wind turbines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/en ... ng-reserve

PS, the momentum of spinning generators thing is a whole nother problem with RE, because they don't have any. OTOH if they are connected to storage that can serve as a "flywheel" of sorts. If they are AC (I think most all wind is) but go through a DC phase, they don't need time consuming synchronization because, it can also be done through the distribution electronics.

I think that is mostly correct...

I think that is a good description.

Some of the problem could be alleviated by switching to HVDC for transmission.

[theluckycountry]

Another possible cause of non-spin... if the grid has no place for the electricity to go, either to current oversupply or inadequate grid capacity.

Bitcoin can fix that.

A shill by any other name.

[Tanada]

DAVID BLACKMON: The Green Energy Breakthrough Is Always Just Around The Corner

The road towards this current, faltering energy transition has been filled with myriad lofty promises of technological miracles to come. Those predicted quantum leaps are always just around the corner, but too often that corner never ends up being turned. When that happens, one of two options present themselves: Either a change in direction, or another promise of another unproven miracle solution to come. Again, it’s just around the corner.

Nowhere has this oft-repeated cycle of failed promises been more prominent than in the space needed to solve the problem of scalable storage for electricity generated by intermittent renewable power sources, i.e., wind and solar. In my own career, I have frequently written about developing technologies in the battery space for more than a decade now, and none of the promised solutions I’ve detailed have come to fruition. The technologies that were just around the corner in 2012 remain just around that same corner today despite billions of dollars in subsidized investments.

Most often, those stories have involved one form or another of stationary battery technologies designed to become needed upgrades to current lithium-ion tech, a great deal of which has now been installed across the globe. The biggest problems with lithium-ion batteries are 1) they discharge rapidly even in ideal weather conditions, and 2) like wind and solar, their performance is also greatly diminished when the weather conditions become less than ideal. The average cycle time for stationary batteries installed in Texas, for example, is roughly 3 hours, leaving them of little value in a major winter storm that lasts for the better part of a week like Texas experienced in February 2021.

New technologies designed to mitigate these issues like solid state, liquid metal, and vanadium batteries have been the focus of major investments and have advanced in feasibility as time has gone on. But none have turned that crucial corner that would allow them to become the magic bullet the power industry still seeks.

A new report from the UK Royal Society at Cambridge University advances a finding that that particular corner may never be turned, at least as it applies to the UK’s power grid. While this study claims it is still feasible for renewable energy sources to fulfill all of the UK’s electricity needs by 2050 at sustainable costs, the authors contend that the storage needs for such a grid cannot be met by stationary battery technology.

As an alternative, the researchers turn to a largely unproven technology that also amounts to a magic bullet that lies just around the proverbial corner. “Meeting the need for long-duration storage will require very low cost per unit energy stored,” the report says. “In GB [Great Britain], the leading candidate is storage of hydrogen in solution-mined salt caverns, for which GB has a more than adequate potential, albeit not widely distributed.”

It is key to note those final qualifiers the authors admit: This is an experimental technology that has potential, but no one really knows right now if it can be scaled up to meet society-changing needs.

In case this experimental hydrogen thing won’t actually work, the researchers point to a second, even less proven magic bullet, that of ammonia, in the very next sentence: “The fall-back option, which would be significantly more expensive, is ammonia.”

Going into this brave new power storage world equipped only with these two unproven options for renewable storage is akin to going into a gunfight armed with a Star Trek phaser set on stun with a Star Wars light sabre in your hip pocket for backup.

This study presents a perfect microcosm of what is happening all over the world in the green energy space as the harsh reality sets in about the futility of trying to replace 80% of the current sources of global primary energy with unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent wind and solar power generation and EVs. There is no truly feasible way yet discovered to achieve this, mainly because the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and supply and demand are immutable laws, and not mere guidelines or suggestions that can be waived away by a combination of hope and fantasy solutions that are always just around the corner.

Daily Caller

[theluckycountry]

Is The UK Giving Up On Solar Power?

As expected, Government's everywhere continue backing away from the rebuildables scam.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's policy changes, including delays in transitioning to electric vehicles and restrictions on solar energy, have raised concerns about the UK's commitment to climate action.
The Conservative government in the U.K. has been accused of backtracking on several of its climate pledges over the last few months and the solar energy industry is the latest to be affected. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is following in his predecessor’s footsteps by imposing restrictions on new solar energy developments in the U.K., which could lead the country to rely on foreign energy imports to meet its growing demand for renewable energy and ensure its energy security.

In September, Sunak confirmed the massive rollback of several of the U.K.’s climate policies during a speech. This came after a government plan on updated climate action was leaked.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Power.html

When faced with a doubling of energy costs to install the stuff (Germany), and having to do that every 2 decades, since that's as long as the junk lasts, they are finally surrendering to reality. Even household solar is a scam. I never would have bought into it hadn't the government paid half the cost and the chinese been selling the panels near true cost. (look up "china price")

But I do have it, and it's great!
après moi le déluge

[theluckycountry]

Another shoe drops.

"No One Will Want Solar": California Cuts Rooftop Solar Subsidies In Blow To 'Green' Industry
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/n ... n-industry
https://www.solar.com/learn/nem-3-0-pro ... omeowners/

Updates regarding legal action seeking to overturn NEM 3.0: On May 4, 2023, three environmental groups filed a lawsuit claiming the CPUC failed to consider the full benefits of rooftop solar ...NEM 3.0 features a 75% reduction in export rates

Solar can't pay for itself and like the ukrainian war, governments are giving up on it. But on a bright note those that could afford to install it are now cash cows to support the aging grids.

SunPower Corp., Sunnova Energy International Inc., Enphase Energy Inc., and SolarEdge Technologies Inc. are some of the largest solar companies operating in California. Shares in these companies have crashed this year.

And just how does California plan to eradicate fossil fuels with 'green energy' to meet 100% carbon-free electricity targets by 2045 if it disincentivized new solar development?

[Shaved Monkey]

You need a mix,you cant rely on one source that only creates energy during the day
There needs to be wind solar thermal and storage be it batteries or pumped hydro.

I too have solar panels and I am very happy especially with my government guaranteed high feed in tariff and my government hand out to buy them.
My last power bill was zero

[theluckycountry]

Rebuildables have two issues going forward, 1/ they are made from oil and always will be 2/ they are expensive and will be increasingly so, because of 1/

German electricity is 3 times as expensive as US power, this year the Germans shut down their last two nuclear reactors, in response to, Stupidity. One of the components of German power generation, 7%, is the burning of American woodchip. They may as well burn coal for all the difference it makes.

[Pops]

Rebuildables have two issues going forward, 1/ they are made from oil and always will be 2/ they are expensive and will be increasingly so, because of 1/

To tie in with the other thread,
by your estimate, new RE costs 2-3% of the value of the $6T total energy market
And, RE (excluding hydro) is producing 7% of total primary energy already,
Since 7% is greater than 3%, isn't RE effectively producing all new RE, and more?

Obviously electricity isn't diesel. But then again these are early days and the diesel's been around 140 years.. OIl's first use was lighting, after all, the Boss 429 came after.

Sound Check...
.

[Plantagenet]

Renewables are a great idea, but even though the US is building a lot of renewable energy, the US is also drilling a lot of oil wells and pumping huge amounts of oil.

In fact, the US just hit its all-time high in oil production.

us-oil-output-hits-record-

Joe Biden made all kinds of promises about reducing US dependence on fossil fuels, but in reality he is presiding over the greatest boom yet in US oil production.


Joe Biden is quietly carrying out the "drill baby drill" strategy and boosting US oil production to record levels.

Cheers!

[theluckycountry]

by your estimate, new RE costs 2-3% of the value of the $6T total energy market
And, RE (excluding hydro) is producing 7% of total primary energy already,
Since 7% is greater than 3%, isn't RE effectively producing all new RE, and more?

News Break jan 2023
Coal has been making headlines for the past few weeks with a 38 percent gain in prices last month. Over the last six months, the commodity’s price has seen a 160 percent gain and more than 200 percent in the current year itself. The price has gone up to an all-time high of $270 a tonne

https://www.cnbctv18.com/market/commodi ... l%20prices. Today's price $50 . Price volatility

isn't RE effectively producing all new RE, and more?

No, because those are $$$ values for energy, which are underwritten by the current low cost of fossil fuels used to produce the RE units in the first place. It's like when they conduct studies on the energy payback time of a solar panels. They take the electricity generated by the panel at today's electricity price in $$$ and compare that to the $$$ cost of the panel from the retailer.

Now remove all oil and coal and start mining Bauxite with electricity alone. Transporting the ore across land and ocean by electricity alone. Make the glass without it, run an arc furnace on the solar panel output. Things like arc furnaces for steel etc run at 3,000 °F and consume vast amounts of electricity, Producing aluminium (frames for solar PV) use mega amounts too.

Typically, 13 to 15 megawatt hours (DC) is required to produce one metric tonne of molten aluminium. Aluminium smelters therefore tend to be located close to sources of economical, reliable and plentiful long term power.

https://primary.world-aluminium.org/pro ... eneration/

Now try doing all that with solar panels and the equation changes dramatically. Solar powered D9s? Solar powered long haul trucks? Hydro is great, but if you do a little research your discover that all of the hydro dams have been built in the last 80 odd years. And that the average lifespan of a Dam is about 100 years, then it becomes unusable because of the silt buildup behind the dam wall. You can't remove this silt in any practical way either and you can't build another Dam on the same site.

There are only certain geographical sites suitable for Dams and many of these have already been utilized. So while Hydro is fine now, it's unsustainable in the future. Hoover Dam's Lake Mead lifespan was greatly extended by the construction of Glen Canyon Dam. it's lake, Lake Powell, will of course silt up at a rate as fast as Mead was before, and when it's full, all the silt will pass again into Mead. The politically correct report for Mead gives a new figure of a 1000 year lifespan, based on current inflows. But that will have to change when Powell is full of silt. In any event hydro power is not always near mines or other big industrial users so it's of limited value.

In the end the production of RE power systems cannot, from my studies on the subject, be feasibly powered by the energy they produce alone. Certainly not on a scale that can light our cities, power our industry and charge a billion EVs, most of which is the unproductive us of electricity. Look at my microcosm. I'm sitting here at home with a few lights on, the A/C unit running, the H/W system heating, the fridges cooling, computer powered up. And outside street lights glare all over town, refrigerators keep the supermarkets food cold, the pumps at the sewage transfer system are pushing the poo along, other pumps push water up into the reservoirs. All that is unproductive, it isn't making solar panels, all it does is make my personal life comfortable. Now multiply that for a few Billion people. If it wasn't for coal I'd be sitting in the dark!

We've had a 100 years of opulence powered by fossil fuels and everyone wants that to continue for ever. Is it any wonder so many people are claiming we can? All those claimants are living in luxury today and most can afford that luxury because they are being paid to find ways for it to continue. They have a vested interest in selling rebuildable technology but I assume many of them are like those highly paid Silicon valley programmers working on creating addictive kids games. They do the work, they get their salaries, but they in no way allow their children to play the games. They pointedly restrict their children's screen time.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs raised their kids with limited tech — and it should have been a red flag about our own smartphone use. ...Even elite Silicon Valley schools are noticeably low-tech.

https://www.businessinsider.com/screen- ... ching-tv-4
You don't get smart kids from putting them in front of a computer, studies have proved that old fashioned reading and writing stimulates the creative centers of the brain. Especially writing in cursive believe it or not.

The benefit of cursive writing has been examined in numerous studies and has been shown to improve brain development, significantly for critical thinking...

https://www.smithbrooktuition.co.uk/how ... the-brain/
When I discovered that I switched from writing printed txt to cursive. No easy task, it took me weeks just to remaster it in an untidy manner.

We are not citizens Pops, we are a commodity, we are Human Capital, we are consumers in the eyes of these people. I tried to live a decent life, I did a productive job that didn't exploit people, I offered value for money and treated my clients as I would myself. I did not exploit for commissions or grants or extra profit over and above a decent income. But who is promoting rebuildable technologies. Fat-cats, corrupt politicians, entrepreneurs out to make big money. It doesn't matter. All the truth is coming out now.

US Clean Energy Stocks Have Lost $30 Billion In Value In The Last 6 Months https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/us-cl ... t-6-months

[Pops]

No, because those are $$$ values for energy

Seems to me they then cancel each other.

Now remove all oil and coal..

Well, no, that's not how things work. New technology does not start at conception in it's final form. Nor replace the established technology overnight.

Even fossils didn't take over in a decade or two. Oil wells were being drilled in China in the 4th century. The first coal mine was opened in the 16th century. Yet fossils did not displace animal power and biofuel until well into the 19th & 20th century. There was no instant transition even though concentrated fossil energy is the far superior technology.

Is RE a replacement for fossils? No. Society will need to adapt to more localized supply lines and adopt a lower standard of living simply because fossils are highly concentrated energy available effectively free. Most studies show RE to be energy positive, either a lot or a little. The more efficient they become the fewer people will die. After all 6-7 Billion people are the offspring of fossils.

Of course the world still runs on fossils, that's why to start transitioning now

.

[mousepad]

The first coal mine was opened in the 16th century. Yet fossils did not displace animal power and biofuel until well into the 19th & 20th century. There was no instant transition even though concentrated fossil energy is the far superior technology.
.

exactly. That's the scary part. It took centuries to transition from an inferior to a superior source. And now we try to transition from superior to inferior within a few decades. Good thing we have plenty of money to force-subsidize the transition. So no sweat. It's Saul Goodman.

[theluckycountry]

The first coal mine was opened in the 16th century. Yet fossils did not displace animal power and biofuel until well into the 19th & 20th century. There was no instant transition even though concentrated fossil energy is the far superior technology.
.

exactly. That's the scary part. It took centuries to transition from an inferior to a superior source. And now we try to transition from superior to inferior within a few decades. Good thing we have plenty of money to force-subsidize the transition. So no sweat. It's Saul Goodman.

Yes, those first coal mines were used for heating homes, there was no technology in place for anything else, the steam pump hadn't even been invented. There is definitely a connection between having technology and creating new technology. The more advanced your are, the more control or power you can exert over natural resources and the faster you can transition. The transition to oil was a lot faster than from wood to coal for example. Look how quickly nuclear got off the ground under a mature oil based economy.

In each transition we were moving to a superior source as you say. But now we're going backwards to sunlight? Sure, we have the immense technology base of the entire planet to do it, but what then? We have lost our energy advantage, we have no more bountiful 20:1, 50:1 returns on our investments. The shale plays are 1:1 or 1:2, that's why they never generated excess profits even though oceans of it was extracted. There was no excess to raise the living standards of the nation, just those of a few oil-patch workers and Wall street types peddling the paper.

Every time a house or factory gets covered in solar panels or a mountain in wind turbines that's typically wealth flowing offshore to places like China. The only reason they are successful at home is because the coal and nuclear power grid is supporting them, there is no abundant excess profits to build out new grids, or even to repair and maintain the old grids. In the end you could possibly do it, possibly convert a large fraction over to these rebuildables, but there will be no excess wealth created to fund society as a whole. No flow on effect where a factory using cheap coal power can employ thousands of workers, where a large quarry transitioned from diesel to electric can afford to pay for the rebuilding of the local roads it's trucks destroy.

It just doesn't add up except in the heads of economists and politicians who are detached from the real world. Never any discussion in these "papers" about the replacement of the worn out units in the decades to come. They behave as though these alternate energy systems, once paid for, last forever.

[theluckycountry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg
Energy expert Mark Mills speaks at SKAGEN Funds New Years Conference 2023

[Pops]

It just doesn't add up

So back of the envelope... (see links for cite)

If a 400w panel produces 36¢ worth of energy per day and runs for 20 years it returns $2,628.

Call it $2,500. now subtract the original cost, say $1,200. with install on a typical suburban roof ($3/watt —the panel itself is $200-400)

The cost to recycle here in the early days is $15-40 ... call it $50

Recyclables value is negligible at $5@ but in the millions it add up so recycling will be a thing. Point is panels are recyclable now (see the vid below) and by the time they start being replaced in the millions the process will be refined and brough to scale.

Replacements built from recycled material will account for a fraction of the embodied energy of the originals. IOW, most of the new materials required will be for additions, not replacements. So say the EROEI is only 2:1, if the materials are recyclable indefinitely at say 10% of the energy input of the original, every generation increases the energy return.

A far cry from fossils that might have theoretically been 50 or 100:1 return but at the wheels only gave a fraction of that. And honestly, when was an oil reservoir ever rebuilt?

So in the end you've invested $1,250 to get $2,500 in power ... at today's price for power and still early days cost structure.

And don't we think relative manufacturing costs will continue to decrease as standardization and competition grow?
And won't power be more expensive in the future, if available at all?

I keep hearing "rebuildables" as if that is the mic-drop thread-killer argument.

LOL, it is the thread killer. Because panels will be recycled and rebuilt at a fraction of the energy cost and an increasing return on investment monetarily.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCtEWveySsA
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/sto ... anels-cost
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/how-m ... el-produce

[ralfy]

Should probably consider something other than dollars, and factor in things like batteries, charge controllers, inverters, etc.

https://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting- ... -solar-pv/

https://energyskeptic.com/2017/tilting- ... pv-part-2/

[theluckycountry]

Should probably consider something other than dollars, and factor in things like batteries, charge controllers, inverters, etc.

https://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting- ... -solar-pv/

https://energyskeptic.com/2017/tilting- ... pv-part-2/

So first the solar thermal debarcle now a PV one.

Spain currently has 2,300 MW of solar thermal power distributed over 50 plants , while the goal for 2025 is to have 4,803 MW ...The last auction was deserted, but not because industrial projects did not come, but because the price they offered was much higher than the limit calculated by the Government.

https://www.solarpaces.org/auction-fail ... ransition/

Build it and they will come is a typical meme, but if people can't afford it, they won't come. Home solar is expensive but if works with generous subsidies but in a future where governments can't print their way to prosperity and have to come back to reality all this stuff is just too expensive for the majority of people to afford.

Spain’s Solar Energy Crisis: 62,000 People Bankrupt After Investing in Solar Panels https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/21/ ... ar-panels/

The naysayers will blame it on politics and whatever but the simple fact remains, no one ever had a problem affording electricity 30 years ago, 20 or ten even. But you go from coal to rebuildables and you go from cheap energy to expensive energy.

Spain's solar thermal was a failure back in 2013. Here is a good analysis on it where one large Australian coal plant is seen to generate four times as much electricity all the Spanish solar thermals plants combined.

...Spain now has 24 of these plants, and while we could look at an individual plant, what I have done here is to collate all 24 of these plants and make a chart with all the relevant details ...When you add up the Nameplate Capacity for all those solar plants, that total comes in at 1781MW, a seemingly quite large amount. By comparison, the Bayswater plant has a Nameplate Capacity of 2640MW, a total that is 48% larger than all those 24 solar plants.

https://papundits.wordpress.com/2013/11 ... -at-spain/

[Pops]

... you go from cheap energy to expensive energy.

So you're just now realizing this? It is kind of the whole point of this site and peak oil in general.

If it were easy or cheap we'd have done it back in the 60s when you couldn't see down the block for the smog.

[Pops]

Should probably consider something other than dollars, and factor in things like batteries, charge controllers, inverters, etc.

https://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting- ... -solar-pv/

https://energyskeptic.com/2017/tilting- ... pv-part-2/

I really like Friedmann.

The same cost questions can be asked about drill rigs, frack spreads, supertankers, refineries and on and on. None of that is free either. However it is sunk cost. Expanding the renewable sector is all new cost and not so easy to noodle.

Even here (with some exceptions) we tend to think of replacing the energy system, rarely about replacing OUR system. Our way of life is absolutely negotiable. You say the sun only shines during the day so you need batteries to run everything at night just like we do now?

Well for pete's sake, put your shit on a timer! Your clothes don't need to be washed in the dark, nor your dishes, nor you water heated, nor your space heated, just use some cheap sink, like the ground below your house.

I have 3 great grandkids so far. By the time they are my age, 2075 or so, they will likely have seen as many changes as my grandparents did, just in the opposite direction. Their energy use per capita will likely be closer to my grandparents. Interestingly, electricity use per capita peaked in the US back in 2005! The reason? LED bulbs.


https://www.freeingenergy.com/facts/us- ... king-g101/

In a related note... changing us will likely be much harder than simply inventing a better system

.

[kublikhan]

Even here (with some exceptions) we tend to think of replacing the energy system, rarely about replacing OUR system. Our way of life is absolutely negotiable. You say the sun only shines during the day so you need batteries to run everything at night just like we do now?

Well for pete's sake, put your shit on a timer! Your clothes don't need to be washed in the dark, nor your dishes, nor you water heated, nor your space heated, just use some cheap sink, like the ground below your house.

changing us will likely be much harder than simply inventing a better system.

There are ways to encourage people to change their wasteful habits, even when still grid tied. For example, with time of day pricing. For now, such programs are optional and many of them are pilot programs. However if necessary, they can always make them mandatory. Nothing like a little sticker shock to get people to change their wasteful ways.

Balancing extreme swings in supply and demand of electricity has become a huge challenge for utility companies. Net electricity demand plummets when solar production is at its peak. Then net demand spikes in the evening when solar is unavailable. To incentivize customers to change their energy habits, utilities are now offering TOU (Time of Use) billing plans to reflect hourly, daily, and seasonal fluctuations in electricity supply and demand. This means consumers pay a higher rate at times when demand is high, typically between 4PM to 9PM, and a lower rate when demand drops and power is more prevalent from about 7PM to 4PM.

New Energy Billing Structures
Fixed rate plans: Fixed rate, or single rate, plans — the traditional way of billing for electricity — are based on a flat rate per each kWh of energy either bought from or exported to the grid. Consumers don’t need to consider peak or off-peak hours, as rates are all the same. These plans typically offer peace of mind, knowing exactly how much one will pay per kWh consumed or exported. To incentivize consumers to change their behavior, some utility companies are offering newer types of billing contracts to replace fixed rate plans.

Time of Use (TOU) plans: TOU plans are a new-ish type of energy plan being introduced by utilities. They include preset energy prices for different times throughout the day, generally including an evening on-peak period, overnight off-peak hours, and two “shoulder” periods in between.

Time of Use Electricity Rate Plans

I image if such programs became mandatory, it would cut down on energy waste and shift some peak energy demand to off peak hours, reducing the stress on the grid. Kind of like how variable pricing for garbage or 'pay as you throw' programs have reduced garbage generation in communities that implemented such a program:

Pay-as-you-throw is a policy that charges people for the amount of trash they toss out. It’s also sometimes called variable-rate pricing or pay-as-you-waste. Many cities and towns around the world, including over 7,000 in the U.S., have pay-as-you-throw waste policies. Examples include Seattle, Berkeley, Austin and Portland, Maine.

"Massachusetts towns with pay-as-you-throw systems generated an average of 1,239 lbs. of trash per household in 2020, compared with 1,756 lbs. per household in towns that didn’t — a 30% reduction."

'Pay-as-you-throw' is one of cities’ most effective tools for reducing waste