Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 15, 2017
How (Not) to Run a Modern Society on Solar and Wind Power Alone
While the potential of wind and solar energy is more than sufficient to supply the electricity demand of industrial societies, these resources are only available intermittently. To ensure that supply always meets demand, a renewable power grid needs an oversized power generation and transmission capacity of up to ten times the peak demand. It also requires a balancing capacity of fossil fuel power plants, or its equivalent in energy storage.
Consequently, matching supply to demand at all times makes renewable power production a complex, slow, expensive and unsustainable undertaking. Yet, if we would adjust energy demand to the variable supply of solar and wind energy, a renewable power grid could be much more advantageous. Using wind and solar energy only when they’re available is a traditional concept that modern technology can improve upon significantly.
100% Renewable Energy
It is widely believed that in the future, renewable energy production will allow modern societies to become independent from fossil fuels, with wind and solar energy having the largest potential. An oft-stated fact is that there’s enough wind and solar power available to meet the energy needs of modern civilisation many times over.
For instance, in Europe, the practical wind energy potential for electricity production on- and off-shore is estimated to be at least 30,000 TWh per year, or ten times the annual electricity demand. [1] In the USA, the technical solar power potential is estimated to be 400,000 TWh, or 100 times the annual electricity demand. [2]
Such statements, although theoretically correct, are highly problematic in practice. This is because they are based on annual averages of renewable energy production, and do not address the highly variable and uncertain character of wind and solar energy.
Demand and supply of electricity need to be matched at all times, which is relatively easy to achieve with power plants that can be turned on and off at will. However, the output of wind turbines and solar panels is totally dependent on the whims of the weather.
Therefore, to find out if and how we can run a modern society on solar and wind power alone, we need to compare time-synchronised electricity demand with time-synchronised solar or wind power availability. [3][4] [5] In doing so, it becomes clear that supply correlates poorly with demand.
Above: a visualisation of 30 days of superimposed power demand time series data (red), wind energy generation data (blue), and solar insolation data (yellow). Average values are in colour-highlighted black lines. Data obtained from Bonneville Power Administration, April 2010. Source: [21]
The Intermittency of Solar Energy
Solar power is characterised by both predictable and unpredictable variations. There is a predictable diurnal and seasonal pattern, where peak output occurs in the middle of the day and in the summer, depending on the apparent motion of the sun in the sky. [6] [7]
When the sun is lower in the sky, its rays have to travel through a larger air mass, which reduces their strength because they are absorbed by particles in the atmosphere. The sun’s rays are also spread out over a larger horizontal surface, decreasing the energy transfer per unit of horizontal surface area.
When the sun is 60° above the horizon, the sun’s intensity is still 87% of its maximum when it reaches a horizontal surface. However, at lower angles, the sun’s intensity quickly decreases. At a solar angle of 15°, the radiation that strikes a horizontal surface is only 25% of its maximum.
On a seasonal scale, the solar elevation angle also correlates with the number of daylight hours, which reduces the amount of solar energy received over the course of a day at times of the year when the sun is already lower in the sky. And, last but not least, there’s no solar energy available at night.
Image: Average cloud cover 2002 – 2015. Source: NASA.
Likewise, the presence of clouds adds unpredictable variations to the solar energy supply. Clouds scatter and absorb solar radiation, reducing the amount of insolation that reaches the ground below. Solar output is roughly 80% of its maximum with a light cloud cover, but only 15% of its maximum on a heavy overcast day. [8][9][10]
Due to a lack of thermal or mechanical inertia in solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, the changes due to clouds can be dramatic. For example, under fluctuating cloud cover, the output of multi-megawatt PV power plants in the Southwest USA was reported to have variations of roughly 50% in a 30 to 90 second timeframe and around 70% in a timeframe of 5 to 10 minutes. [6]
The combination of these predictable and unpredictable variations in solar power makes it clear that the output of a solar power plant can vary enormously throughout time. In Phoenix, Arizona, the sunniest place in the USA, a solar panel produces on average 2.7 times less energy in December than in June. Comparing a sunny day at midday in June with a heavy overcast day at 10 am in December, the difference in solar output is almost twentyfold. [11]
In London, UK, which is a moderately suitable location for solar power, a solar panel produces on average 10 times less energy in December than in June. Comparing a sunny day in June at noon with a heavy overcast day in December at 10 am, the solar output differs by a factor of 65. [8][9]
The Intermittency of Wind Energy
Compared to solar energy, the variability of the wind is even more volatile. On the one hand, wind energy can be harvested both day and night, while on the other hand, it’s less predictable and less reliable than solar energy. During daylight hours, there’s always a minimum amount of solar power available, but this is not the case for wind, which can be absent or too weak for days or even weeks at a time. There can also be too much wind, and wind turbines then have to be shut down in order to avoid damage.
On average throughout the year, and depending on location, modern wind farms produce 10-45% of their rated maximum power capacity, roughly double the annual capacity factor of the average solar PV installation (5-30%). [6] [12][13][14] In practice, however, wind turbines can operate between 0 and 100% of their maximum power at any moment.
Hourly wind power output on 29 different days in April 2005 at a wind plant in California. Source: [6]
For many locations, only average wind speed data is available. However, the chart above shows the daily and hourly wind power output on 29 different days at a wind farm in California. At any given hour of the day and any given day of the month, wind power production can vary between zero and 600 megawatt, which is the maximum power production of the wind farm. [6]
Even relatively small changes in wind speed have a large effect on wind power production: if the wind speed decreases by half, power production decreases by a factor of eight. [15] Wind resources also vary throughout the years. Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark show a wind speed inter-annual variability of up to 30%. [1] Yearly differences in solar power can also be significant. [16] [17]
How to Match Supply with Demand?
To some extent, wind and solar energy can compensate for each other. For example, wind is usually twice as strong during the winter months, when there is less sun. [18] However, this concerns average values again. At any particular moment of the year, wind and solar energy may be weak or absent simultaneously, leaving us with little or no electricity at all.
Electricity demand also varies throughout the day and the seasons, but these changes are more predictable and much less extreme. Demand peaks in the morning and in the evening, and is at its lowest during the night. However, even at night, electricity use is still close to 60% of the maximum.
Consequently, if renewable power capacity is calculated based on the annual averages of solar and wind energy production and in tune with the average power demand, there would be huge electricity shortages for most of the time. To ensure that electricity supply always meets electricity demand, additional measures need to be taken.
First, we could count on a backup infrastructure of dispatchable fossil fuel power plants to supply electricity when there’s not enough renewable energy available. Second, we could oversize the renewable generation capacity, adjusting it to the worst case scenario. Third, we could connect geographically dispersed renewable energy sources to smooth out variations in power production. Fourth, we could store surplus electricity for use in times when solar and/or wind resources are low or absent.
As we shall see, all of these strategies are self-defeating on a large enough scale, even when they’re combined. If the energy used for building and maintaining the extra infrastructure is accounted for in a life cycle analysis of a renewable power grid, it would be just as CO2-intensive as the present-day power grid.
Strategy 1: Backup Power Plants
Up to now, the relatively small share of renewable power sources added to the grid has been balanced by dispatchable forms of electricity, mainly rapidly deployable gas power plants. Although this approach completely “solves” the problem of intermittency, it results in a paradox because the whole point of switching to renewable energy is to become independent of fossil fuels, including gas. [19]
Most scientific research focuses on Europe, which has the most ambitious plans for renewable power. For a power grid based on 100% solar and wind power, with no energy storage and assuming interconnection at the national European level only, the balancing capacity of fossil fuel power plants needs to be just as large as peak electricity demand. [12] In other words, there would be just as many non-renewable power plants as there are today.
Every power plant in the USA. Visualisation by The Washington Post.
Such a hybrid infrastructure would lower the use of carbon fuels for the generation of electricity, because renewable energy can replace them if there is sufficient sun or wind available. However, lots of energy and materials need to be invested into what is essentially a double infrastructure. The energy that’s saved on fuel is spent on the manufacturing, installation and interconnection of millions of solar panels and wind turbines.
Although the balancing of renewable power sources with fossil fuels is widely regarded as a temporary fix that’s not suited for larger shares of renewable energy, most other technological strategies (described below) can only partially reduce the need for balancing capacity.
Strategy 2: Oversizing Renewable Power Production
Another way to avoid energy shortages is to install more solar panels and wind turbines. If solar power capacity is tailored to match demand during even the shortest and darkest winter days, and wind power capacity is matched to the lowest wind speeds, the risk of electricity shortages could be reduced significantly. However, the obvious disadvantage of this approach is an oversupply of renewable energy for most of the year.
During periods of oversupply, the energy produced by solar panels and wind turbines is curtailed in order to avoid grid overloading. Problematically, curtailment has a detrimental effect on the sustainability of a renewable power grid. It reduces the electricity that a solar panel or wind turbine produces over its lifetime, while the energy required to manufacture, install, connect and maintain it remains the same. Consequently, the capacity factor and the energy returned for the energy invested in wind turbines and solar panels decrease. [20]
Curtailment rates increase spectacularly as wind and solar comprise a larger fraction of the generation mix, because the overproduction’s dependence on the share of renewables is exponential. Scientists calculated that a European grid comprised of 60% solar and wind power would require a generation capacity that’s double the peak load, resulting in 300 TWh of excess electricity every year (roughly 10% of the current annual electricity consumption in Europe).
In the case of a grid with 80% renewables, the generation capacity needs to be six times larger than the peak load, while the excess electricity would be equal to 60% of the EU’s current annual electricity consumption. Lastly, in a grid with 100% renewable power production, the generation capacity would need to be ten times larger than the peak load, and excess electricity would surpass the EU annual electricity consumption. [21] [22] [23]
This means that up to ten times more solar panels and wind turbines need to be manufactured. The energy that’s needed to create this infrastructure would make the switch to renewable energy self-defeating, because the energy payback times of solar panels and wind turbines would increase six- or ten-fold.
For solar panels, the energy payback would only occur in 12-24 years in a power grid with 80% renewables, and in 20-40 years in a power grid with 100% renewables. Because the life expectancy of a solar panel is roughly 30 years, a solar panel may never produce the energy that was needed to manufacture it. Wind turbines would remain net energy producers because they have shorter energy payback times, but their advantage compared to fossil fuels would decrease. [24]
Strategy 3: Supergrids
The variability of solar and wind power can also be reduced by interconnecting renewable power plants over a wider geographical region. For example, electricity can be overproduced where the wind is blowing but transmitted to meet demand in becalmed locations. [19]
Interconnection also allows the combination of technologies that utilise different variable power resources, such as wave and tidal energy. [3] Furthermore, connecting power grids over large geographical areas allows a wider sharing of backup fossil fuel power plants.
Wind map of Europe, September 2, 2017, 23h48. Source: Windy.
Although today’s power systems in Europe and the USA stretch out over a large enough area, these grids are currently not strong enough to allow interconnection of renewable energy sources. This can be solved with a powerful overlay high-voltage DC transmission grid. Such “supergrids” form the core of many ambitious plans for 100% renewable power production, especially in Europe. [25] The problem with this strategy is that transmission capacity needs to be overbuilt, over very long distances. [19]
For a European grid with a share of 60% renewable power (an optimal mix of wind and solar), grid capacity would need to be increased at least sevenfold. If individual European countries would disregard national concerns about security of supply, and backup balancing capacity would be optimally distributed throughout the continent, the necessary grid capacity extensions can be limited to about triple the existing European high-voltage grid. For a European power grid with a share of 100% renewables, grid capacity would need to be up to twelve times larger than it is today. [21] [26][27]
The problems with such grid extensions are threefold. Firstly, building infrastructure such as transmission towers and their foundations, power lines, substations, and so on, requires a significant amount of energy and other resources. This will need to be taken into account when making a life cycle analysis of a renewable power grid. As with oversizing renewable power generation, most of the oversized transmission infrastructure will not be used for most of the time, driving down the transmission capacity factor substantially.
Secondly, a supergrid involves transmission losses, which means that more wind turbines and solar panels will need to be installed to compensate for this loss. Thirdly, the acceptance of and building process for new transmission lines can take up to ten years. [20][25] This is not just bureaucratic hassle: transmission lines have a high impact on the land and often face local opposition, which makes them one of the main obstacles for the growth of renewable power production.
Even with a supergrid, low power days remain a possibility over areas as large as Europe. With a share of 100% renewable energy sources and 12 times the current grid capacity, the balancing capacity of fossil fuel power plants can be reduced to 15% of the total annual electricity consumption, which represents the maximum possible benefit of transmission for Europe. [28]
Even in the UK, which has one of the best renewable energy sources in the world, interconnecting wind, sun, wave and tidal power would still generate electricity shortages for 18% of the time (roughly 65 days per year). [29] [30][31]
Strategy 4: Energy Storage
A final strategy to match supply to demand is to store an oversupply of electricity for use when there is not enough renewable energy available. Energy storage avoids curtailment and it’s the only supply-side strategy that can make a balancing capacity of fossil fuel plants redundant, at least in theory. In practice, the storage of renewable energy runs into several problems.
First of all, while there’s no need to build and maintain a backup infrastructure of fossil fuel power plants, this advantage is negated by the need to build and maintain an energy storage infrastructure. Second, all storage technologies have charging and discharging losses, which results in the need for extra solar panels and wind turbines to compensate for this loss. Energy storage also assumes an oversizing of the renewable power capacity, otherwise there would never be a surplus of electricity that could be stored for later use.
The energy required to build and maintain the storage infrastructure and the extra renewable power plants need to be taken into account when conducting a life cycle analysis of a renewable power grid. In fact, research has shown that it can be more energy efficient to curtail renewable power from wind turbines than to store it, because the energy needed to manufacture storage and operate it (which involves charge-discharge losses) surpasses the energy that is lost through curtailment. [23]
It has been calculated that for a European power grid with 100% renewable power plants (670 GW wind power capacity and 810 GW solar power capacity) and no balancing capacity, the energy storage capacity needs to be 1.5 times the average monthly load and amounts to 400 TWh, not including charging and discharging losses. [32] [33] [34]
To give an idea of what this means: the most optimistic estimation of Europe’s total potential for pumped hydro-power energy storage is 80 TWh [35], while converting all 250 million passenger cars in Europe to electric drives with a 30 kWh battery would result in a total energy storage of 7.5 TWh. In other words, if we count on electric cars to store the surplus of renewable electricity, their batteries would need to be 60 times larger than they are today (and that’s without allowing for the fact that electric cars will substantially increase power consumption).
Taking into account a charging/discharging efficiency of 85%, manufacturing 460 TWh of lithium-ion batteries would require 644 million Terajoule of primary energy, which is equal to 15 times the annual primary energy use in Europe. [36] This energy investment would be required at minimum every twenty years, which is the most optimistic life expectancy of lithium-ion batteries. There are many other technologies for storing excess electricity from renewable power plants, but all have unique disadvantages that make them unattractive on a large scale. [37] [38]
Matching Supply to Demand = Overbuilding the Infrastructure
In conclusion, calculating only the energy payback times of individual solar panels or wind turbines greatly overestimates the sustainability of a renewable power grid. If we want to match supply to demand at all times, we also need to factor in the energy use for overbuilding the power generation and transmission capacity, and the energy use for building the backup generation capacity and/or the energy storage. The need to overbuild the system also increases the costs and the time required to switch to renewable energy.
Combining different strategies is a more synergistic approach which improves the sustainability of a renewable power grid, but these advantages are not large enough to provide a fundamental solution. [33] [39] [40]
Building solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, balancing capacity and energy storage using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels doesn’t solve the problem either, because it also assumes an overbuilding of the infrastructure: we would need to build an extra renewable energy infrastructure to build the renewable energy infrastructure.
Adjusting Demand to Supply
However, this doesn’t mean that a sustainable renewable power grid is impossible. There’s a fifth strategy, which does not try to match supply to demand, but instead aims to match demand to supply. In this scenario, renewable energy would ideally be used only when it’s available.
If we could manage to adjust all energy demand to variable solar and wind resources, there would be no need for grid extensions, balancing capacity or overbuilding renewable power plants. Likewise, all the energy produced by solar panels and wind turbines would be utilised, with no transmission losses and no need for curtailment or energy storage.
Windmill in Moulbaix, Belgium, 17th/18th century. Image: Jean-Pol GrandMont.
Of course, adjusting energy demand to energy supply at all times is impossible, because not all energy using activities can be postponed. However, the adjustment of energy demand to supply should take priority, while the other strategies should play a supportive role. If we let go of the need to match energy demand for 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, a renewable power grid could be built much faster and at a lower cost, making it more sustainable overall.
With regards to this adjustment, even small compromises yield very beneficial results. For example, if the UK would accept electricity shortages for 65 days a year, it could be powered by a 100% renewable power grid (solar, wind, wave & tidal power) without the need for energy storage, a backup capacity of fossil fuel power plants, or a large overcapacity of power generators. [29]
If demand management is discussed at all these days, it’s usually limited to so-called ‘smart’ household devices, like washing machines or dishwashers that automatically turn on when renewable energy supply is plentiful. However, these ideas are only scratching the surface of what’s possible.
Before the Industrial Revolution, both industry and transportation were largely dependent on intermittent renewable energy sources. The variability in the supply was almost entirely solved by adjusting energy demand. For example, windmills and sailing boats only operated when the wind was blowing. In the next article, I will explain how this historical approach could be successfully applied to modern industry and cargo transportation.
53 Comments on "How (Not) to Run a Modern Society on Solar and Wind Power Alone"
Outcast_Searcher on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 1:18 pm
Good ideas all.
Unfortunately, with our society so structured toward making things CHEAP instead of robust, I doubt we’ll easily get the massive overbuilding of capacity what would be advisable, much less ideal.
Individuals can have more robust solar roofs, more Powerwall-type batteries, a generator backup, etc., if they can afford those things.
But with a huge proportion of society buying all they can earn AND borrow, government debt massive and growing, etc. — I have my doubts about getting this done generally.
The exception might be if there is a good way for people to PROFIT if they have extra electricity they can sell on demand when the grid wants it. Kind of like extensions to the grid where individuals can provide power for profit on demand.
The same internet that makes centralized systems vulnerable might allow this system to be automatic, with people accepting different bids for their power to be tapped under different conditions. Also, the utility industry and their bought and paid for politicians will surely fight any such competition tooth and nail.
Of course, if THAT system is easily hacked, then real chaos could result, so it will be interesting to see what happens as green and storage technology continues to improve, get cheaper, and proliferate.
Anonymouse1 on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 2:53 pm
At least the author (sort of) addresses the real problem at the end of his article, namely, too many people, ‘demanding’ too much power.
Few projections of this type really address the root problem with trying to power the world with ‘renewables’. They are based on the power consumption patterns of societies(that would ours btw), that are criminally wasteful and inefficient. On top of this, we keep adding to our numbers all the time, because that is ‘good’ for the economy.
If this unsustainable treadmill of energy consumption is a problem for a coal-oil-nuclear powered world, it won’t be any less of a problem for a coal-oil-nuclear-renewable powered world either.
sunweb on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 3:31 pm
Many materials used in our industrial world require energy from mining to manufacturing for processing and transportation. The energy for some of these products is in the form of high temperatures – 2000° F (nearly 1100°C).
These processes run 24/7 365 days.
There are proposals that solar and wind energy collecting devices can provide the energy to maintain the industrial world. To look at this possibility, solar electric panels, wind turbines and concentrated solar installations in the form of parabolic trough collectors (PTC) have been assessed.
The energy requirements in 2010 for the following essential components of our industrial world are provided: steel, aluminum, chromium, copper, manganese, cement and glass. This energy would be mining, processing and transporting to name some. Other important components of the industrialized world such as nickel and cobalt are not considered because they are part of the high temperature processing of other ore metals.
The kWh output and area required for installations of solar electric panels, wind turbines and PTC has been researched. This then is divided into the energy (exajoules converted to kWh) required for global production of each material in 2010.
NEEDED
121,214.45 Square Miles of Solar Electric Collectors
257,472 square miles and 2,807,276 Wind Turbines
77183.4 square miles of PTCs
There are many other critical components of our global industrialized world that require industrial heat (lead, silver, tin, food processing) that are right at the top heating limit of solar devices. They must also be included in an all “renewable” future. If only half of important materials were provided, what would our world be like?
IN AN INDUSTRIALIZED SOCIETY, IT FALLS TO THE PROMOTERS OF A FUTURE FOR “RENEWABLE”
ENERGY TO SHOW HOW THESE ESSENTIAL
MATERIALS AND SO MUCH ELSE CAN BE PROVIDED.
See maps, images and calculations at:
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2017/08/heat-for-tomorrow-many-materials-used.html
sunweb on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 3:44 pm
ORE GRADES
This paper quantifies, on a global level, the relationship between ore grade and energy intensity. With the case of copper, the study has shown that the average copper ore grade is decreasing over time, while the energy consumption and the total material production in the mine increases. Analyzing only copper mines, the average ore grade has decreased approximately by 25% in just ten years. In that same period, the total energy consumption has increased at a higher rate than production (46% energy increase over 30% production increase).
Decreasing Ore Grades in Global Metallic Mining: A Theoretical Issue or a Global Reality?
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/36
rockman on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 3:52 pm
“For example, electricity can be overproduced where the wind is blowing but transmitted to meet demand in becalmed locations. ” They are not correct that all THREE of the US electric grids are unable to deliver power from the source to distant consumers. The Texas grid has that capability but it took our tax payers willing to spend the $7 BILLION required to do it.
And there comes the problem: Texas has one entity controlly the vast majority of the grid: ERCOT. It has no problem forcing all the different segments of the dynamic to cooperate: they either play nice or they are not allowed to do business in Texas. I can’t imagine all the individual states in the Western or eastern grids giving over such authority since the demands of individual states vary so much. Only the federal govt could try to take over the job. And I can’t imagine the political battles between the states killing that effort before it started.
As far as building overcapacity in the alts that also has no chance of working unless the govt funded such efforts. Texas wind power was built based on a profit motive. Companies are not going to invest many tens of $BILLIONS to let that infrastructure just sit there idle most if not all of its life.
But despite all the reasons given in the article for why the alts can’t progress wind (and now with solar coming on) is doing just fine: distributed thru out the grid (thanks to tax payer support), delivering some of the lowest priced electricity in the country, profitable for the companies that made the investments, no intermittency problems thanks to our fossil fuel fired plants (in fact with wind occasionally backing up NG fired plants when they were knowledge offline). And lastly greatly reducing the GHG emissions of the largest electricity and coal consuming state.
In 2016 Texas produced 4,800 MWh of electricity from wind alone. That’s more then half of all the states that produced electricity from ALL SOURCES. IOW Texas produced almost 5X as much electricity from wind as our friend Revi and his neighbors in Maine consumed from
all sources. How ever you measure wind has significantly reduced the Texas CO2 footprint because as sure as the sun rising tomorrow without wind we would have built more coal and NG plants as well as feeding them whatever amount of fossil fuels required to generate the same electricity output.
And now that grid has been upgraded and commercial solar has gotten less expensive Texas is beginning to buildout. And if/when large scale commercial storage is developed Texas will be able to take immediate advantage with a meaningful amount of alt sources already in place.
It can be done. But unfortunately it seems grid upgrades and a unified management needs to happen first in the rest of the country. And today that looks to be an insurmountable hurdle.
Alice Friedemann on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 4:06 pm
I think the premise that we could run a society on intermittent power, when the wind is blowing and sun is shining is false.
Heinberg & Fridley (2016), in their book “Our renewable future” mention that there are no ways to make many things in manufacturing with electricity. The most important are cement and steel, which requires blast furnaces that run around the clock for as long as 21 years non-stop because any interruption would cause the brick lining to cool and damage it. There are also continuous chemical and other processes that must run around the clock or the substance in the pipelines harden. It is not likely a 100% wind and solar electricity system would be up 24 x 7 x 365.
My book “When Trucks stop running: energy and the future of transportation” is about the Achilles heel of civilization: our dependency on trucks, ships, rail, and equipment that run on diesel. This is because diesel engines are far more powerful and durable than steam, gasoline, electric, battery-driven or any other motive power on earth (Smil 2010). Billions of vehicles and equipment and supporting infrastructure worth trillions of dollars are required to keep supply chains going over millions of miles of roads, rail, and waterways. Equally, if not more important, are off-road mining, agriculture, construction, logging, and other trucks. They travel on rough ground, often far from the electric grid, but meanwhile push, lift, dig and perform other tasks. That takes diesel, the most energy dense fuel next to uranium.
Yet trucks must eventually be electrified, because biomass doesn’t scale up and has negative or break-even energy return, coal and natural gas are finite, and hydrogen /hydrogen fuel cells are dependent on a non-existent distribution system and far from commercial.
Clearly renewable contraptions cannot outlast fossil fuels, because they are utterly dependent on them from birth to death to mining, ore crushing, smelting, fabrication, and delivery to the final site.
There are few locations to build hydropower or compressed air energy storage facilities, and even more unlikely is being able to build grid-scale energy storage batteries. The only kind of battery for which there are enough materials on earth are Sodium-sulfur NaS batteries (Barnhart 2013). To store just one day of U.S. electricity generation (and at least 6 to 8 weeks would be needed to cope with the seasonal nature of wind and solar), you would need a 923 square mile, 450 million ton, $40.77 trillion dollar NaS battery that needs replacement every 15 years (DOE/EPRI 2013).
Right now, the main way we balance wind and solar is natural gas. But natural gas is finite, and likely to peak in production about 2020 in the U.S. plus has equally important uses of making fertilizer, heating homes and buildings, and is the feedstock for half a million products.
EROI would be a more scientific way to nail this, but that would sure be challenging to calculate for a 923 square mile battery that needs to be replaced every 15 years.
The above was an excerpt from my post Big Fight: 21 top scientists show why Jacobson and Delucchi’s renewable scheme is a delusional fantasy and has a great deal more to say about why electricity is not a solution no matter how it is generated.
Alice Friedemann
sunweb on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 4:10 pm
There are multiple questions that a realistic assessment of the future of these devices requires. Each of these questions asks about the future of “renewable” devices.
First and foremost:
What do we need the energy for?
Not, why – what do we want this electricity for.
This must be one of the mantras for survival now and tomorrow.
When it comes time to replace these devices:
Where will the energy and resources come from?
To replace components of these systems:
Where will the energy and resources come from?
As we need to manufacture the tools and toys we want the electricity for:
Where will the energy and resources come from?
Will we sequester/store the energy to provide for these future needs?
How will we do that?
OR
Will dedicated devices be built simply to facilitate replacement of devices and their auxiliary parts (inverters, controllers, fans)?
Who will manage these dedicated devices?
What will stop society from using this sequestered energy?
Will the need to protect this sequestered energy create an even more constrained and draconian social environment?
How will this electricity be equally shared globally compared to the present unequal energy availability?
How will we mine and transport all these raw resources:
the basic material for fabrication, the actual devices, the various auxiliary equipment, the tools and the toys?
More at: http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-energy-in-our-future.html
Plantagenet on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 4:23 pm
This problem is easily solved by using nuclear energy. As a bonus nukes have zero CO2 emissions.
Cheers!
Davy on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 4:24 pm
A great article that surely will make techno optimist who want a 100% renewable status quo choke on reality. Demand management is a great idea but think about it and then consider modern economic reality. We are a 24/7/365 world with just in time manufacturing and consumption. Economies of scale operate in environments of quick business responses. Digital connectivity can’t go intermittent. Manufacturing processes are tightly controlled. We are a highly competitive world that is driven to high efficiency within constraints of price and profit. Costs and profits drive production decisions with little room for demand management. Redundancy and sustainability are only important as needed to cover a bare minimums of risk. Demand management is a critical variable in good redundancy and sustainability practices but in the as-is status quo it is too expensive. The demands of maintaining what we have and building out a new renewable world are far too great to demand manage it. Too many people needing to much too quick to demand manage it. Sure some demand management can and should be done it is called lifestyle management. Poor behaviors need to be eliminated but remember there is an economic cost to eliminating even poor behavior.
Going forward then behavioral changes are needed but behavioral changes will sink the economy. Another catch 22 situation. We can’t compromise our current system without compromising its functionality. This points to radical changes but we have a brittle system that can’t radically change. Maybe this demand managed renewable societies could have localized communities within the current global fabric. Maybe this could happen in some places. The entire global civilization is too big and there are too many people to reasonably do all that is needed. Behaviors are the hardest part of the equation after the scale of the changes needed. Maybe some areas should be asked to be in primitive arrangements with very little power and others 100% renewables in demand management zones. Can we find volunteers to live localized simple lives? Should we force people to do it? Should we permit behavior with a commanding Big Brother?
Demand management is not going to happen for a long time if ever in a 100% renewable world with as-is affluence. The status quo of affluence with choice cannot be made 100% renewable in my view. It can be made much more renewable and should be. Emergency services and basic needs should be made renewable. All homes should have some renewable basics for backup where the grid can’t be made renewable. Demand management is a great concept with iron wings. It could make renewable regions possible along with primitive and localized arrangements and all this within a global status quo world. All this is in the realm of theory and fantasy but we have no choice but to go to these places because our future is limited as-is. We have no choice but to push the envelope because soon survival will be tested by the shear amount of predicaments and problems before us. Energy is not the only issue
rockman on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 5:45 pm
Alice – All excellent points IMHO.
bobinget on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 5:58 pm
The Tesla storage “Wall” still in development stages seem to be a path worth taking.
Europeans, particularly Denmark and Norway
are making excellent progress with individual linked EV battery storage. Rather then huge ‘stand-by’
NG powered plants, a ‘smart grid’ linked to tens of thousands of auto, truck and bus batteries can easily provide ‘peak power’. Then, using timers,
after midnight the same grid recharges.
While EV’s are but 2% of sales, that ratio is soon the flip. At some point, (40%?), we will begin to see mass adoption.
Boat on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 6:13 pm
Because wind and solar are cheaper they are going to keep taking market share. As the size of turbines grows and tech gains for solar and wind advance, the amount of market share for FF like coal will dissipate. If nat gas spikes from today’s $3 to $5 for a year or two look for more transmission lines to spring up faster.
The speed of renewable growth relies on profit. With profit potential dangling like fat juicy fruit, companies and engineers are working to get a share.
Sissyfuss on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 6:59 pm
Davy, notice the quietude we experience when Alice and Sunny do the double bitch slap,( No offense Alice) on Clognobin. I can see him now on top of his roof with the rotating LED lighted Nazi insignia throwing renewable batteries at innocent passers-by. Oh the ignominy!
Davy on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 7:12 pm
yea, I expect him to hit his cloggen on the roof when he reads the article then after that he has all the comments to clog through. This article is the nail in the cloffin of techno cloggin.
dave thompson on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 7:52 pm
Wind and solar in the energy mix is doable. The idea of alt energy doing it all is pure myth. Thanks to SUNWEB and Alice Friedman for pointing this all out. OH and Rockman too for his pro insite.
Boat on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 9:26 pm
Alice Friedemann on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 4:06 pm
“I think the premise that we could run a society on intermittent power, when the wind is blowing and sun is shining is false”.
Yes Alice that is what comes out of the mouth of many doomer types. It’s true that today nat gas power plants that can ramp up and down are needed for intermittent renewables. That might also be true when renewables are at 80 percent of all power.
So who cares if total world energy off renewables reached even 70 percent. It would be a world changing event. Your right renewables can never be 100 percent. Kind of a childish claim, like water is wet.
GregT on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 10:14 pm
“So who cares if total world energy off renewables reached even 70 percent. It would be a world changing event. Your right renewables can never be 100 percent. Kind of a childish claim, like water is wet.”
The main world changing event that we as humans need to be concerned about, is whether or not we cause a runaway greenhouse event. Reducing FF usage to 30% in no way addresses this problem. It would merely continue to make the problem even worse.
Apneaman on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 10:21 pm
Sissyfuss, clog is the leader of the new Nazi Green Party. To pander to the younger generations, the clog-fuhrer has promised all their death camps will run on wind and solar by 2040 – cause they care N stuff.
Boat on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 10:43 pm
greggiet,
This is your usual bs. One topic at a time. We were discussing renewables. There are many topics at play that cause runaway greenhouse events. There are other discussions for them.
makati1 on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 11:00 pm
Renewables? Like eating plants and using the energy for muscle power? THAT is the only true “alternate” energy source. All else is techie bullshit and corporate propaganda.
GregT on Fri, 15th Sep 2017 11:46 pm
Boat,
“This is your usual bs. One topic at a time. We were discussing renewables.”
OK Kevin. Let’s stick to one topic at a time, shall we?
Please explain how alternate electric power generation is in any way ‘renewable’, in ten thousand words or less.
Once we get that minor little bit of confusion out of the way, perhaps we can progress towards “other discussions”?
Boat on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 12:51 am
greggiet,
Sun and wind power the tech silly. 6 words.
GregT on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 1:11 am
Boat,
“Sun and wind power the tech silly.” “6 words”
That would actually be seven words Boat, not six. 🙂
And in no way addresses my question above.
Shall we try again?
Please explain how alternate electric power generation is in any way ‘renewable’, in ten thousand words or less.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 2:03 am
“The main world changing event that we as humans need to be concerned about, is whether or not we cause a runaway greenhouse event. Reducing FF usage to 30% in no way addresses this problem. It would merely continue to make the problem even worse.”
The main world changing event humans need to be concerned about is whether or not we can avoid an immediate large loss of life from a breakdown of society. Since you are all cozy and safe up near Salmon Arm, BC you can talk about runaway climate events as the problem and the end of fossil fuels with a large loss of life as an acceptable byproduct. This is just like you find it acceptable a large amount of Americans can die to bring about the end of the American Empire. You are already prepped and ready you don’t care. Let the other people in the world that can’t run away to a refuge be starved to death what do you care you are safe. Many others don’t have that option of safety in the Mountains of BC. They didn’t get immediately wealthy through a macro money laundering scheme. A big chunk society is likely condemned to managing with fossil fuels and when that ends they die. Reducing fossil fuels with renewables is one avenue to extend life. The problem is going to get worse and all we can do is mitigate and adapt to it. Blaming and complaining is not going to make it better.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 2:05 am
“Renewables? Like eating plants and using the energy for muscle power? THAT is the only true “alternate” energy source. All else is techie bullshit and corporate propaganda.”
Says the guy in the Makati, Manila Condo in the western living part of Manila that is the financial and business part of Manila. Who goes to his fantasy farm once a year so he can say he is a farmer.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 2:13 am
“Please explain how alternate electric power generation is in any way ‘renewable’, in ten thousand words or less. Once we get that minor little bit of confusion out of the way, perhaps we can progress towards “other discussions”?
Alternative electric generation is renewable enough to be talk about as renewable. Your obsession with definitions just to hound boat is ridiculous. Renewables once installed are a source of resilience and sustainability relatively speaking. We may not create a 100% renewable society but we may create a more resilient society temporarily so we can navigate the dangers ahead. The relativity is in the immediate decade or two so they can contribute an alternative source of energy hopefully making the grid in question more resilient and sustainable.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 2:15 am
“Boat, “Sun and wind power the tech silly.” “6 words” That would actually be seven words Boat, not six. And in no way addresses my question above. Shall we try again?”
Ha Ha Ha, I am so clever I can count words
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:28 am
Davy, notice the quietude we experience when Alice and Sunny do the double bitch slap,( No offense Alice) on Clognobin. I can see him now on top of his roof with the rotating LED lighted Nazi insignia throwing renewable batteries at innocent passers-by. Oh the ignominy!
Yeah, yeah, that’s America alright and the oneliner-guy SissPuss in particular: impotent sneering and demonizing. After all we gotta be entertained all around the clock, right?
Boy, do I have good news for SissPuss and ghung!
I was amazed to learn that they have Lenin statues in NYC, LA and Seattle! Lenin the great chieftain of the organized mass-murder of the Russian people.
Yet in Dalles in the “Great State of Texas” (we all remember the robust J.R. Ewing) they have removed the statue of general Lee.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/robert-e-lee-statue-dallas-removed-park-n801536
Texas is rapidly turning into a blue state.
When Trump will be removed from office it will be open season on white America and white history. Apneaman and his minions like boat, Davy, SissPuss and ghung will all be mobilized to ram white America in minority status. Good boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EOXC7Go7A
“The US Is Becoming A 3rd World Nation As The Economy Breaks Down: Paul Craig Roberts”
And Davy, you are so correct with your doomerism regarding renewable energy. 3rd world America won’t be able to transition themselves away from fossil fuel without outside help.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:30 am
The Lenin statues:
https://twitter.com/HoffmanMichaelA/status/908795507522207744
#SovietAmerica
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:38 am
Sign of things to come. Lenin rises again in (((NYC))).
http://pix11.com/2017/06/13/vladimir-lenin-statue-rises-on-the-lower-east-side/
Seattle, OK for sale. But try that with Hitler, who did not kill his own people by the tens of millions and the foreigners he did kill, he did so in a war imposed upon him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin,_Seattle
Los Angeles:
https://la.curbed.com/2011/12/13/10416510/there-is-now-a-giant-bust-of-lenin-on-la-brea-1
Poor America.
deadlykillerbeaz on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:57 am
Won’t be needing any solar and wind on Barbuda, the people who were there are now evacuated.
That’s life!
Simon on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:59 am
Interesting points
1) The point that we cannot run a 24 hour society on a non 24 hour supply, is a bit self serving as the rest of the article is talking about power storage.
2) There is not a load more infrastructure to be built out, its pretty much all there.
3) Who cares if there are 6 billion unused FF plants …
4) There are grid level batteries (10Mw) coming on line this year.
5) There are multiple choices for storing leccy, my fav. is running little trains up hills (50Mw stored)
Given this, its 900w per Hp so a 100hp car is 90Kw so multiply by number of cars running (not in garages) and for me that’s the problem, although using the cars as batteries also presents as opportunities.
Where I am, they are starting to build out ‘ports’ in major cities where goods can be transferred between trucks and trains. Also small industrial units are starting to be built out (in negligible numbers admittedly) with train tracks running into them.
It will happen, because it has to .. end of, or we are all in for a shock
makati1 on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 4:09 am
Simon, we ARE all in for a shock. A serious one. We do not have the excess energy to build a new energy system to replace one that took a century, or more, to build. Those “batteries” do not just appear in the system. They begin in mines somewhere in the world and go thru many transportation and processing (energy) steps to get to the end product. Not going to happen. The ‘new’ system has to be built with the same limited FF energy as any other new system. There is no “excess” energy to do it. Certainly not in the quantities that would be necessary in the time left to accomplish it. We have a few years, maybe 5 to 10, at best, not a century.
sunweb on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 6:34 am
Cloggie – thank you, once again you have out spun yourself. It is such a joy. Satire at its best.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 7:05 am
I commented this article in this blog post:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/can-society-run-on-renewable-energy-alone/
Kris de Decker, the Flemish author of this article basically embraces a 100% renewable energy base (in contrast to what the doomers here are claiming), it is just that he is more modest by saying that we should learn to live to adapt our demand to supply on offer, instead of the other way around.
I think that is too pessimistic. In the blog post there is a detailed German (who else?) model for a 100% renewable energy supply that effectively combats intermittency and guarantees a stable supply that can meet (almost) all demand.
I’m especially interested in comments from Antius, Simon and Rockman, in that order.
rockman on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:14 am
Cloggie – “But try that with Hitler, who did not kill his own people by the tens of millions…” I gather you missed that day in history class when they discussed the millions of GERMAN JEWS that were killed. Yes, one can be a Jew and a German at the same time. Just as one can be Jewish and Polish at the same time.
Unless your of the opinion that one’s religeous faith can negate their nationality.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:31 am
I gather you missed that day in history class when they discussed the millions of GERMAN JEWS that were killed.
There were only 500k German Jews to being with, but there were indeed millions of deported Jews. If you don’t deport them they take over your country (Russia, USA) and you get Bolshevized (Russia) or every city turned into a third world hell hole (USA).
My opinion is that justice should be independent.
https://maaikezijm.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/15080920vrouwe20justitia202984366906_5808c34590_b.jpg
Nuremberg was essentially victors “justice”. The idea of accepting the outcome of a Anglo-Soviet show trial is insane. First they maneuvered Germany, France and Germany in a war…
http://tinyurl.com/y7uekfts
… using the services of useful idiot Poland…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/5445161/Russia-accuses-Poland-of-starting-Second-World-War.html
… next bombed every German city and next raped every woman they could find. And then they organized their little trial to create the justification for their acts.
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/9/3/4881
If you can give me the name and proof of a single Jew who was killed in a gas chamber, I will eat my hat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
Here you you have your “holocaust” numbers from the Red Cross based on German data:
http://www.holohoax101.org/102/RedCross.jpg
373k dead, perhaps half of them Jews, nobody gassed.
I’ll wipe my ass with “Nuremberg”.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 9:37 am
being = begin
Germany, France and Germany = Britain, France and Germany
“If you don’t deport them they take over your country” = “If you don’t deport them they take over countries inhabited by slower Europeans”
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 10:13 am
A radical new way to construct wind turbines, using the tower as a crane:
https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2017/09/16/lagerwey-l136-4-5mw-onshore-windturbine-construction/
Huge cranes are no longer necessary, wind towers construct themselves.
Kenz300 on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 11:14 am
Batteries are a game changer.
Wind and solar can provide base line power when coupled with battery storage.
Wind and solar are safer, cleaner and cheaper than other options.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 12:56 pm
Wow Dr Strangecloglove, no gassed Jews, no strained transition to renewables, and nothing beats whitey as a Nietzsche Superman. The fact that you’re never wrong is way beyond garden variety denial. It’s Hitleresque.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 1:10 pm
“Wow Dr Strangecloglove, no gassed Jews, no strained transition to renewables, and nothing beats whitey as a Nietzsche Superman. The fact that you’re never wrong is way beyond garden variety denial. It’s Hitleresque.”
More sisspuss sneers and ZERO substance. Never ever debate, regardless of how far I stick my neck out making falsifiable statements (I hope Sisspuss that you understand the difference between false and falsifiable).
I don’t give a damn if you call me Hitleresque; as long as you don’t call me American we will get along fine.
Sissyfuss on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 2:37 pm
You’re splitting hairs, Hairclog. But at least you’re making progress in admitting that most of your declamations are bullshist.
Anonymouse1 on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:03 pm
Oh, look, here comes cloggen-kike, derailing comment threads (again), with his tired, endless rehashing of WW2. It almost like he thinks this is a ww2, or history site, or…something.
Didn’t take you long did it cloggen-fraud?
Your
GregT on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:10 pm
“Ha Ha Ha, I am so clever I can count words”
Good for you Davy. Most people can count to 6. Apparently, Boat cannot. Maybe you could teach him.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:47 pm
“You’re splitting hairs, Hairclog. But at least you’re making progress in admitting that most of your declamations are bullshist.”
I should have known that the king of the oneliner doesn’t know the difference between false and falsifiable.
Sorry for overestimating you. My bad.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 3:54 pm
“This article is the nail in the cloffin of techno cloggin.”
Have you read my response in post 7:05?
I know that for you it is more important to have your doomer worldview confirmed, but perhap you read my post anyway… for the children’s sake.
Davy on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 4:58 pm
damn, clog, calm down we were just “playin with ya”. You are far too serious lately. I appreciate all your optimism. My doom envelope has shifted to more positive but it is still doom.
Cloggie on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 5:02 pm
No need for doomerism, Uncle Europe is going to take care of you all.
😉
Antius on Sat, 16th Sep 2017 6:06 pm
Excellent article. Demand management has a lot of potential for allowing human civilisation to adapt to intermittent power. It can also be done at a small scale, without the need for large grids or complex storage schemes. The article confirms what I have long suspected: that storage has limited potential for allowing supply side solutions because of the high embodied energy required (essentially and entire power plant plus store) and the energy losses in storage. This ruins the EROI and makes baseload electricity very expensive.
Demand management is in many cases another form of energy storage. But crucially, it minimizes energy transitions and thereby increases efficiency and lowers capital costs. For example, a large percentage of energy consumption is in the form of hot and cold; things like space heating, hot water, cooking, industrial heat, refrigerating, freezing, etc. Heat is easily and cheaply stored and we do not need to turn it back into electricity again.
Energy uses that cannot easily be delayed, such as electronic systems and transportation, should be minimized and made as energy efficient as possible. That means electric trams and trains rather than cars. More later.