Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought(economist.com)
economist.com
Wind and solar power are even more expensive than is commonly thought
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and
10 comments
One of the comments points to this response from the American Wind Energy Association:
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-cos...
They suggest his biggest distortions are using a) a historical figure for wind costs averaged over a decade even though it's got much cheaper over that time span and b) counting each year in that decade equally even though the amount of wind energy produced grew rapidly, c) using a figure from a press release for gas capacity rather than actual figures which would be 50% lower.
http://aweablog.org/blog/post/fact-check-wind-power-is-a-cos...
They suggest his biggest distortions are using a) a historical figure for wind costs averaged over a decade even though it's got much cheaper over that time span and b) counting each year in that decade equally even though the amount of wind energy produced grew rapidly, c) using a figure from a press release for gas capacity rather than actual figures which would be 50% lower.
Can you give a citation of how much methane leakage occurs?
Exactly how much? No, because unlike CO2, methane leakage is not being continuously measured.
The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government is not forcing them to do so.
Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source though:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...
The fracking industry is not interested in measuring (duh) and the government is not forcing them to do so.
Here's a study that tries to hazard an estimate in leakage from one source though:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/20/fracking-...
> [...] global warming effect of methane leakage [...]
What? So we're sure all of sudden that human activity does actually have any visible impact on global warming? O_o
What? So we're sure all of sudden that human activity does actually have any visible impact on global warming? O_o
The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood and methane is a potent greenhouse gas. We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm. The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming.
> The greenhouse effect is reasonably well understood
Except that it doesn't stand even basic scrutiny. 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation.
> and methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
Water is even more potent, as I know. We don't emit much water to the atmosphere. And guess what? It's there, even more than CO_2 and methane combined together.
And now quick question: how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change?
And a hint: four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally, so people could even build inns on it. Now there's little ice on Baltic since mid-1800's. The climate changed drastically, was it industry's fault as well? 19th century industry was not developed enough yet to affect whole climate.
> We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm.
We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though. It is basic logic. Then, we do not know that greenhouse gasses cause the global warm. It is merely a hypothesis, and given the historical facts, it doesn't stand the Occam's razor principle.
> The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming.
No. The first thing we don't know is whether the hypothesis is actually true. It's unverifiable at best. There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect. We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place, all the argument about it revolves around some mental model, which nobody tell is correct.
Except that it doesn't stand even basic scrutiny. 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation.
> and methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
Water is even more potent, as I know. We don't emit much water to the atmosphere. And guess what? It's there, even more than CO_2 and methane combined together.
And now quick question: how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change?
And a hint: four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally, so people could even build inns on it. Now there's little ice on Baltic since mid-1800's. The climate changed drastically, was it industry's fault as well? 19th century industry was not developed enough yet to affect whole climate.
> We know that man made pollution is highly correlated with global warming and we know that greenhouse gasses cause the globe to warm.
We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though. It is basic logic. Then, we do not know that greenhouse gasses cause the global warm. It is merely a hypothesis, and given the historical facts, it doesn't stand the Occam's razor principle.
> The only thing we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming.
No. The first thing we don't know is whether the hypothesis is actually true. It's unverifiable at best. There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect. We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place, all the argument about it revolves around some mental model, which nobody tell is correct.
> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation.
Do you have a source for this?
>Water is even more potent
Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky.
>how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change?
This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked.
>four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally
You are referring to the little ice age which was primarily a localized event and therefore not caused by changes in the greenhouse effect or solar radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though.
I completely agree. The fact that they are correlated does not give us a causal link. The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does. The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions and how much is caused by other unidentified forces.
>There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect.
I completely agree. When I said there could be an unknown effect, I did not mean to imply such an effect would be outside of "possible effects in thermodynamics".
>We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place
Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses. We don't have a perfect understanding of the green house effect, but we can observe it in action.
Do you have a source for this?
>Water is even more potent
Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky.
>how are you sure that Sun's increasing activity is not the reason of climate change?
This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked.
>four centuries ago Batic Sea was freezing seasonally
You are referring to the little ice age which was primarily a localized event and therefore not caused by changes in the greenhouse effect or solar radiation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
>We know it is highly correlated, true. Correlation is not causation, though.
I completely agree. The fact that they are correlated does not give us a causal link. The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does. The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions and how much is caused by other unidentified forces.
>There are plenty of possible effects in thermodynamics that would easily make the noise in measurements above the level of changes that are announced for greenhouse effect.
I completely agree. When I said there could be an unknown effect, I did not mean to imply such an effect would be outside of "possible effects in thermodynamics".
>We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place
Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses. We don't have a perfect understanding of the green house effect, but we can observe it in action.
>> 10 meters high layer of CO_2 with current concentration already absorbs 99,94% of IR radiation, so whatever made it above fourth floor would be swallowed by next floors. Any change to the concentration of CO_2 makes no difference on Earth's radiation.
> Do you have a source for this?
"The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere", Jack Barrett. Maybe there's not the number (99.94%), but it says about absorption saturation on the first 100 meters above the ground.
The 99.94% number is here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html
>> Water is even more potent
> Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky.
It would be not. Maybe you don't know it, but water is already present in the atmosphere at the level of ground. Moreover, while some of water "falls out of the sky", some other part of it vaporizes at the same time. It doesn't disappear from the air.
> This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked.
At this point it doesn't matter whether this particular theory has been debunked or not. You say that "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming". So we don't know if the global warming is actually caused by greenhouse effect. There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect.
> The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does [give causation].
It would, if it was fact. It's merely a hypothesis that these gasses increase the temperature of Earth. And again, it doesn't stand direct measurement with calculations (i.e. absorption saturation).
> The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions
...if affected by these emissions in any way over measurement error...
> and how much is caused by other unidentified forces.
So basically, we don't know if there are any other forces, but it must me human emission that causes global warming. So we focus on CO_2 and methane, which is nowhere near what water can absorb.
>> We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place
> Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses.
You know that this doesn't tell whether the greenhouse effect takes place? It only shows how much radiation is absorbed before entering the atmosphere and after leaving it. We have no way of checking if increasing CO_2 or methane concentration affects the radiation absorption. Sorry, but there are too many variables to make this a realiable experiment, and having effectively only one data point is too little to draw any conclusions.
> Do you have a source for this?
"The roles of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warming and cooling the earth's troposphere", Jack Barrett. Maybe there's not the number (99.94%), but it says about absorption saturation on the first 100 meters above the ground.
The 99.94% number is here: http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html
>> Water is even more potent
> Yes and that would be a huge problem if it built up instead of falling out of the sky.
It would be not. Maybe you don't know it, but water is already present in the atmosphere at the level of ground. Moreover, while some of water "falls out of the sky", some other part of it vaporizes at the same time. It doesn't disappear from the air.
> This is actually what I was thinking of when I said "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming" though I believe this particular theory has been debunked.
At this point it doesn't matter whether this particular theory has been debunked or not. You say that "we don't know for certain is if there is another currently unknown cause with a larger contribution to global warming". So we don't know if the global warming is actually caused by greenhouse effect. There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect.
> The fact that green house gasses increase temperature does [give causation].
It would, if it was fact. It's merely a hypothesis that these gasses increase the temperature of Earth. And again, it doesn't stand direct measurement with calculations (i.e. absorption saturation).
> The only missing piece here is how much of the increased temperature is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions
...if affected by these emissions in any way over measurement error...
> and how much is caused by other unidentified forces.
So basically, we don't know if there are any other forces, but it must me human emission that causes global warming. So we focus on CO_2 and methane, which is nowhere near what water can absorb.
>> We have no way to verify the claim the greenhouse effect takes the place
> Actually we can. We can measure the radiation before it hits earth, when it hits the ground and when it leaves the atmosphere as well as measure what radiation is absorbed and emitted by various gasses.
You know that this doesn't tell whether the greenhouse effect takes place? It only shows how much radiation is absorbed before entering the atmosphere and after leaving it. We have no way of checking if increasing CO_2 or methane concentration affects the radiation absorption. Sorry, but there are too many variables to make this a realiable experiment, and having effectively only one data point is too little to draw any conclusions.
Thank you for the source. It seems to claim that so little heat makes it through the atmosphere that more insulation won't make a difference. Given the fact that IR cameras in orbit can measure surface temperature, I think a significant amount of heat must be escaping. This seeming contradiction may simply be my misunderstanding. Can you clarify the point you are making with that article?
>water is already present in the atmosphere
Yes water in the atmosphere is at an equilibrium. Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. That's why it is so important that water falls out of the sky. CO2 on the other hand is not at an equilibrium thus its effect can build up over time.
>It would, if it was fact
It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. That theory, because it is based on flawed human understanding is fallible. Our conclusions about man made global warming are less than 100% certain.
>There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect.
I am of course not recommending panic. If the greenhouse effect were proven unimportant (and either I understood said proof, or some reasonable portion of the scientific community agreed with it) then I would stop worrying about CO2 emissions. Given that theory explains why we should expect green house emissions to increase temperature, the strong correlation between the two and the lack of other credible explanations, I come to the obvious (though not completely certain) conclusion.
>water is already present in the atmosphere
Yes water in the atmosphere is at an equilibrium. Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium. Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder. If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead. That's why it is so important that water falls out of the sky. CO2 on the other hand is not at an equilibrium thus its effect can build up over time.
>It would, if it was fact
It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening. That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory. That theory, because it is based on flawed human understanding is fallible. Our conclusions about man made global warming are less than 100% certain.
>There's no magic in greenhouse effect that would cause it important when proven unimportant. Having this, it's way, way too early to panic about the greenhouse effect.
I am of course not recommending panic. If the greenhouse effect were proven unimportant (and either I understood said proof, or some reasonable portion of the scientific community agreed with it) then I would stop worrying about CO2 emissions. Given that theory explains why we should expect green house emissions to increase temperature, the strong correlation between the two and the lack of other credible explanations, I come to the obvious (though not completely certain) conclusion.
>> water is already present in the atmosphere
> Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium.
It doesn't matter. The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation. Add anything and you won't get bigger greenhouse effect, assuming it actually works.
> Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder.
Or not. We don't know it. You said yourself that we don't know if there is any bigger effect taking place. And the greenhouse effect is mainly accepted among climatologists. Physicists who work on thermodynamics don't quite agree the very reasoning about energy balance done by climatologists is credible at all.
> If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead.
Really? What "excess" do you mean? You know that it's not only the "excess" which causes IR absorption? And if there's little radiation left to be absorbed, adding more greenhouse gases doesn't make the temperature grow.
>> It would, if it was fact
> It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening.
No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. We do not have enough data to confirm the effect.
> That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory.
And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.
> Adding more water has only a short term effect unless it somehow changes that equilibrium.
It doesn't matter. The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation. Add anything and you won't get bigger greenhouse effect, assuming it actually works.
> Water has a large greenhouse effect and without that effect Earth would be much colder.
Or not. We don't know it. You said yourself that we don't know if there is any bigger effect taking place. And the greenhouse effect is mainly accepted among climatologists. Physicists who work on thermodynamics don't quite agree the very reasoning about energy balance done by climatologists is credible at all.
> If that effect were to increase Earth would get hotter, but fortunately the excess water simply falls out of the sky instead.
Really? What "excess" do you mean? You know that it's not only the "excess" which causes IR absorption? And if there's little radiation left to be absorbed, adding more greenhouse gases doesn't make the temperature grow.
>> It would, if it was fact
> It is an observation. We can literally observe it happening.
No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. We do not have enough data to confirm the effect.
> That does not tell us precisely how it would function under different conditions (such as increased CO2), so for that we must rely on theory.
And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.
> The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation
This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. Since temperature is at an equilibrium we can assume it is losing a very similar amount of energy. We know that the earth gives off less (visible) light than it receives so the obvious explanation is that the earth is giving off a significant amount of heat. We can also directly observe heat leaving the earth from IR cameras in orbit.
> No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. > And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.
You misunderstand me. It is a fact that the green house effect is happening. You yourself continue to insist that is is happening with statements like "The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation". Observing it happening is not the same as knowing how it would change in different conditions. That part is theory.
Let me give a similar example: We can observe that the sun heats the earth. That is a fact. We have a theory that if the sun were to go out, the earth would get colder. Since the sun is still shining we cannot observe what would happen if the sun went out, so we deploy reason instead of direct observation. You could insist that the earth would stay the same temperature without the sun shinning and point out that we can't know for sure because it hasn't happened yet. Any statement we make about the future is not an observed fact because the future has not happened yet, but e can draw reasonable conclusions about the future.
This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. Since temperature is at an equilibrium we can assume it is losing a very similar amount of energy. We know that the earth gives off less (visible) light than it receives so the obvious explanation is that the earth is giving off a significant amount of heat. We can also directly observe heat leaving the earth from IR cameras in orbit.
> No. It's just a hypothesis that greenhouse effect takes place. > And there goes f*ck your claim that it was a fact.
You misunderstand me. It is a fact that the green house effect is happening. You yourself continue to insist that is is happening with statements like "The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation". Observing it happening is not the same as knowing how it would change in different conditions. That part is theory.
Let me give a similar example: We can observe that the sun heats the earth. That is a fact. We have a theory that if the sun were to go out, the earth would get colder. Since the sun is still shining we cannot observe what would happen if the sun went out, so we deploy reason instead of direct observation. You could insist that the earth would stay the same temperature without the sun shinning and point out that we can't know for sure because it hasn't happened yet. Any statement we make about the future is not an observed fact because the future has not happened yet, but e can draw reasonable conclusions about the future.
>> The water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation
> This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. [...]
Right. It should be: "the water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation on wavelengths for CO_2, methane and water itself".
Adding more methane or CO_2 will not cause more radiation be absorbed, because there is nothing left to be absorbed.
> This does not seem to be correct. The earth's is gaining a significant amount of energy from the sun. [...]
Right. It should be: "the water already present in the atmosphere absorbs almost all IR radiation on wavelengths for CO_2, methane and water itself".
Adding more methane or CO_2 will not cause more radiation be absorbed, because there is nothing left to be absorbed.
That is a reasonable sounding argument, much more reasonable than I expected before looking into it. I also came across explanations such as this one: http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 which explains why increased CO2 will still increase the greenhouse effect.
An appeal to authority is not the strongest argument, but there is a near universal consensus among the scientific community that increased CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.
An appeal to authority is not the strongest argument, but there is a near universal consensus among the scientific community that increased CO2 will increase the greenhouse effect.
The research is provided by the Brookings institution which is more public relations agency than a research institution. The only thing you can take away from this "research" is that someone paid to get this result.
For solar and wind to make sense it is all about the storage in the short term and global interconnects in the long term, rather than the current system of trying to balance against a baseload.
And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price per watt is.
And nuclear is great in many ways, but you cannot have a global energy solution that you couldn't happily give to your enemies, whatever the price per watt is.
Until the nuclear energy liability cap gets pushed into at LEAST the hundreds of billions range rather than the paltry $375 million per plant it is now, I'm not gonna believe all of the claims that it's completely safe either.
If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?
If the risk of disaster/need for cleanup truly is infinitesimal as the industry and its cheerleaders keep saying, why is the taxpayer still shouldering basically all of the insurance costs?
I think it's because insurance models stop working once the probability of an accident gets extremely small and the possible damages of any accident get extremely large. An insurance claim of hundereds of billions would wipe out any and all insurance companies instantly.
Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense.
There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance stops working and politics has to kick in.
Insurance companies have to make statistics based rational decisions, but society as a whole is always forced to make decisions that cannot be statistically proven to be rational in an economic sense.
There is no way to take out insurance against some virus strain escaping a lab and killing 90% of the world's population. There is no way to insure against the effects of a worldwide bank run. There is simply a point where insurance stops working and politics has to kick in.
This is the reason there has to be a cap for nuclear power to exist, but not the reason the cap has to be so small. $375 mil is nothing in the context of cleanup costs.
On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out.
That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent moral hazard somewhat.
This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental catastrophe.
BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk.
Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that pattern disturbingly familiar.
But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy - just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.
On the whole I would find the advocates of nuclear energy safety a lot more convincing if they put their entire fortunes on the line. I would like to see guaranteed financial ruin for any of the executives involved in a potential Fukushima and shareholders totally wiped out.
That still wouldn't put much of a dent in cleanup costs, but it would prevent moral hazard somewhat.
This subsidy also never shows up on any models comparing solar, coal and nuclear. Similarly neither does global warming induced environmental catastrophe.
BECAUSE you simply can't put a $ price on the likelihood of these events occurring or their cost they (the OP modelers) just ignore the tail risk.
Anybody who remembers the events of the financial crisis should find that pattern disturbingly familiar.
But, doing so is useful if you're shilling for natural gas/nuclear energy - just as assuming away financial tail risk was useful for executives at AIG.
The issue of intermittency is in my opinion vastly undercommunicated in public debate about renewable energy, at least in Europe. A diagram like this [1] can be used to illustrate the issue. Although this diagram is from a hypothetical UK modeling exercise for 2020, the broader point it makes is valid. On the diagram we see how daily electricity demand follow a predictable daily curve, and the different sources of electricity that are used to meet that demand. We see that electricity from nuclear and coal provide the most stable component, whereas power from wind (green) varies hugely in time. Gas power, which can be turned on and off quickly, is used to fill the gaps in demand. At times, there is almost enough wind that no generation from fossil fuels is necessary, but at other times most of the electricity has to come from burning gas (I've seen similar scenario graphs where wind occasionally fills more than 100% of the demand, but still gas power will be needed for a large component of the energy mix when integrating over time).
The point is that without some incredible advance in energy storage capability on a scale that is not on the radar today, we are stuck with an energy system where a significant component needs to be non-solar and non-wind. From a climate perspective, the best options would then be nuclear electricity or electricity from fossil fuel plans equipped with CCS technology (which is now belatedly emerging).
(Disclaimer: I work with CCS-related technology development).
[1] http://www.timera-energy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hour...
(link to page from which picture is taken: http://www.timera-energy.com/uk-power/getting-to-grips-with-...
The point is that without some incredible advance in energy storage capability on a scale that is not on the radar today, we are stuck with an energy system where a significant component needs to be non-solar and non-wind. From a climate perspective, the best options would then be nuclear electricity or electricity from fossil fuel plans equipped with CCS technology (which is now belatedly emerging).
(Disclaimer: I work with CCS-related technology development).
[1] http://www.timera-energy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Hour...
(link to page from which picture is taken: http://www.timera-energy.com/uk-power/getting-to-grips-with-...
It is worth noting that demand is highest during the day and higher still on bright sunny days. This means that solar can provide a significant portion of our power before intermittency becomes a problem. Your point is still correct that without massive grid storage we will still need some other (not solar or wind) power source.
Wind and solar power are commonly thought to be very expensive -- more expensive than conventional thermal fuel sources for generating electricity.
And that's true in areas where there is little sun, or little wind. Though, in windy areas (the US great plains) or sunny areas (Atacama Desert in Chile, much of Africa, Australia (outside the coasts), and Southwestern US), these are the least expensive source of new capacity and that's reflected in the free market -- what is getting built.
Until governments quit subsidizing _all_ source of energy at _all) points in the value chain, the market can't really respond efficiently.
And that's true in areas where there is little sun, or little wind. Though, in windy areas (the US great plains) or sunny areas (Atacama Desert in Chile, much of Africa, Australia (outside the coasts), and Southwestern US), these are the least expensive source of new capacity and that's reflected in the free market -- what is getting built.
Until governments quit subsidizing _all_ source of energy at _all) points in the value chain, the market can't really respond efficiently.
"Wind power is not generated on a calm day, nor solar power at night, so conventional power plants must be kept on standby—but are not included in the levelised cost of renewables."
Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power stations to be built and kept in standby.
Solar not generating power at night is a good thing. Demand for electricity is lower at night, and turning on and off conventional power stations is not ideal. Solar helps level things out, meaning you need fewer conventional power stations to be built and kept in standby.
> Demand for electricity is lower at night
Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. http://www.solstats.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chart1...
Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.
Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it. http://www.solstats.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/chart1...
Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.
>Not really much lower as you'd like to portray it.
A LOT of the higher usage at night is due to the fact that night-time electricity is cheaper.
If you're going to run an aluminum smelting plant, for instance (uses TONS of electricity), it currently makes sense to run it full bore when electricity is cheapest - at night.
If daytime electricity were cheaper or even the same price, that graph would certainly look differently to how you're portraying it.
>Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.
Much like with every other form of energy. Surplus solar gets exported right now - Germany sends it to France.
A LOT of the higher usage at night is due to the fact that night-time electricity is cheaper.
If you're going to run an aluminum smelting plant, for instance (uses TONS of electricity), it currently makes sense to run it full bore when electricity is cheapest - at night.
If daytime electricity were cheaper or even the same price, that graph would certainly look differently to how you're portraying it.
>Solar only works if you can produce energy and use it locally. As distance increases the energy loss is significant.
Much like with every other form of energy. Surplus solar gets exported right now - Germany sends it to France.
Calling bullshit on this one. Smelters do not work this way, they buy electricity in bulk and is a 24/7 operation.
Every time I have seen someone "buy electricity in bulk" that meant that they had time of day pricing (payed more during the day and less at night). Perhaps smelters don't take advantage of the cheaper nighttime rates but I would expect that many industries do.
I read that Germany is importing French nuclear power.
Mind you, both could be perfectly possible in the messed-up EEC energy market.
Mind you, both could be perfectly possible in the messed-up EEC energy market.
Both happen. It depends upon demand/output conditions at the time. France tends to use a lot of electric heaters during winter, for instance, which burns through most of their nuclear power output (which is nearly constant throughout the year). On sunny winter days, they import extra from German renewable sources.
I think during summer they might import more too. During overcast and wind-free days, Germany is probably a net importer of France's excess nuclear power.
I think during summer they might import more too. During overcast and wind-free days, Germany is probably a net importer of France's excess nuclear power.
Did you look at your own graph?!
Demand is reduced almost by half at night.
Demand is reduced almost by half at night.
...so you pretty much have to rely on non-solar energy at 50% rate, at minimum.
One a really stormy day I want to be able to hide under my electric blanket, with a cup of tea, in front of the tv/computer.
That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy.
Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?
That requires electricity, but those solar panels aren't going to be very effective when it is overcast and rainy.
Why not just go for getting a thorium reactor to work and then use them instead?
Solar panels still generate power when it is overcast. Not as much as on sunny days, obviously, but a lot more than most people give them credit for.
On stormy days, also, wind generators will be generating a lot more power than usual. They are more than likely capable of heating your blanket.
Although less efficient, power on days when intermittency is high can also be transferred from pumped water storage and from hundreds of miles away where it might be sunny and windy.
On stormy days, also, wind generators will be generating a lot more power than usual. They are more than likely capable of heating your blanket.
Although less efficient, power on days when intermittency is high can also be transferred from pumped water storage and from hundreds of miles away where it might be sunny and windy.
Depends on how stormy, Many wind turbines have a max wind speed rating, above which they will be shutdown in some way.
Are there figures on the actual effects of this? How often it happens/the level by which electricity output is reduced?
I would imagine it is highly dependent on the model of wind turbine. The window of operation like varies widely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61400
I would imagine that high wind rating turbines are more expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_61400
I would imagine that high wind rating turbines are more expensive.
>I would imagine it is highly dependent on the model of wind turbine.
This is why I asked for figures on the overall effect - covering all models. I'm not seeing anything so far to convince me that its effect is more than negligible.
This is why I asked for figures on the overall effect - covering all models. I'm not seeing anything so far to convince me that its effect is more than negligible.
"On a really stormy day [..] but those solar panels [..]"
Good thing that wind turbine is going to be cranking. :-)
Good thing that wind turbine is going to be cranking. :-)
Or disabled due to wind speeds being too high.
Because thorium reactors don't exist?
I'm not sure why wind and solar power are always mentioned together, other than they both are forms of "alt energy."
From a U.S. perspective, solar power is less productive in the eastern half of the U.S., so I'm not sure why we haven't just concentrated on blanketing stretches of desert in the U.S. West with solar farms. This is the highest-reward area, not attaching solar panels to someone's roof in Wisconsin. I think that focusing on high-yield areas with lots of sunlight might be one way to make costs fall. Done right, it might fairly well take care of much of our energy needs.
Source: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
Conversely, I don't think wind power can come close to taking care of large percentages of our energy needs. It's subsidized, so it happens, but it's not The Answer (imho).
From a U.S. perspective, solar power is less productive in the eastern half of the U.S., so I'm not sure why we haven't just concentrated on blanketing stretches of desert in the U.S. West with solar farms. This is the highest-reward area, not attaching solar panels to someone's roof in Wisconsin. I think that focusing on high-yield areas with lots of sunlight might be one way to make costs fall. Done right, it might fairly well take care of much of our energy needs.
Source: http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
Conversely, I don't think wind power can come close to taking care of large percentages of our energy needs. It's subsidized, so it happens, but it's not The Answer (imho).
Solar and wind are the two most abundant, additionally scalable, and efficiently utilizeable forms of renewable/sustainable energy available.
Solar is the most abundant, but on a density/device basis is somewhat less cost-effective than wind, which is preferable locations (not all) provides a high return for investment. Overall, wind energy is less abundant than solar (it's effectively a byproduct of solar insolation).
Other renewables: geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and wave power generally have issues with scalability, costs, or both. Geo, hydro, and biomass actually do already contribute significantly to energy budgets, and costs are fairly good, but their growth potential is limited. Tidal and wave power are limited and require large capital and operational expenses to be effectively utilized.
Nuclear's a wildcard, though I'm generally skeptical.
There are a number of sources which give detailed breakouts of renewable energy potential or possible scenarios.
David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, and Jacobson & Delucchi's "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power" give a pretty good overview.
Turns out that with solar + wind and some form(s) of storage, you can approach a pretty good overall budget.
Solar is the most abundant, but on a density/device basis is somewhat less cost-effective than wind, which is preferable locations (not all) provides a high return for investment. Overall, wind energy is less abundant than solar (it's effectively a byproduct of solar insolation).
Other renewables: geothermal, hydro, biomass, tidal, and wave power generally have issues with scalability, costs, or both. Geo, hydro, and biomass actually do already contribute significantly to energy budgets, and costs are fairly good, but their growth potential is limited. Tidal and wave power are limited and require large capital and operational expenses to be effectively utilized.
Nuclear's a wildcard, though I'm generally skeptical.
There are a number of sources which give detailed breakouts of renewable energy potential or possible scenarios.
David MacKay's Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, and Jacobson & Delucchi's "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power" give a pretty good overview.
Turns out that with solar + wind and some form(s) of storage, you can approach a pretty good overall budget.
I have enough photovoltaic solar on my roof to provide all the electricity I need over the course of a year. I remain grid connected because the power from the roof rarely matches the demand during any given hour. Intermittency is a real issue that any realistic grid will need to take into account. Rather than the political posturing driven approach we seem to have today, what we really need is sober, clear eyed engineering and financing to solve this.
It was heartening to read about the VC funded fusion projects the other day.
It was heartening to read about the VC funded fusion projects the other day.
You can be 100% assured that if anybody wants to talk to you about "the costs of solar power" then it is a rep of the Neandertalers-Industry in full smokescreen operation mode.
These discussions are a great example for how propaganda works.
It does not make sense to calculate the "costs" of freedom, independence and the health of your family.
Also the real costs of unresolved nuclear waste problems, huge wars for securing oil supply and the contamination of our ground water by primitive fracking techniques are... titanic.
We need more young people in the US to take over the general political and economic discussion. Old and greedy neandertalers are destroying the living environment of young people, not ok, must change.
Homo sapiens, sapiens (!), take over please...
These discussions are a great example for how propaganda works.
It does not make sense to calculate the "costs" of freedom, independence and the health of your family.
Also the real costs of unresolved nuclear waste problems, huge wars for securing oil supply and the contamination of our ground water by primitive fracking techniques are... titanic.
We need more young people in the US to take over the general political and economic discussion. Old and greedy neandertalers are destroying the living environment of young people, not ok, must change.
Homo sapiens, sapiens (!), take over please...
ad hominid attack?
[deleted]
Bearing that in mind, it's worth pointing out that Exxon-Mobil is a major donor to the brookings institute - they're also part of the group ALEC that has been leading a massive attack on rooftop solar in the last 18 months.
One of those attacks, for instance, has been to increase the price by slapping up to 35% tariffs on Chinese panels through (mostly false) accusations of dumping. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if this were counted in the cost model, but subsidies were discounted.
Another thing they've been doing recently is to try to 'greenwash' natural gas - to make it look like the cleaner alternative to coal to capitalize on the fracking boom. One of the assumptions I can virtually guarantee that they've made here, for instance, is that global warming effect of methane leakage (which is very significant) has been entirely discounted.