Renewable Energy: The Vision And A Dose Of Reality
This topic contains 111 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Editorial note. And it’s fixed.
Thanks JOT, taken care of.
I just saw the following article and it got me thinking.
“Ice-breaker plea for trapped killer whales”
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/whale-watch/icebreaker-plea-for-trapped-killer-whales-20130110-2ci2b.htmlIt is particularly pertinent since Australian newspapers are currently indulging in a bit of manufactured hysteria – because of some wild fires and a bit of seasonal hot weather. The weather bureau is obligingly coming up with forecasts that Australia will have it hottest day ever – by averaging a selected number of sites – but the weather repeatedly fails to oblige.
The sad thing is that the records were set over 100 years ago and as we seem to be unable to get there we are now being told that our great-grandparents were using faulty thermometers and so on. It is really quite remarkable since the trains in those days were running faster than today and pretty well all the heavy infrastructure of places like Melbourne and Sydney were in place generations ago. We have been coasting off the work that was done a long time ago.
“‘Exceptional’ heatwave challenges records”
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/exceptional-heatwave-challenges-records-20130108-2cdn9.html“Now you see it, now you don’t: weather bureau backtracks from 50-plus forecast”
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/now-you-see-it-now-you-dont-weather-bureau-backtracks-from-50plus-forecast-20130109-2cfm5.html“Weather watchers look to red-hot outback town to predict temperatures”
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/weather-watchers-look-to-redhot-outback-town-to-predict-temperatures-20130109-2cgv4.html (by Peter Hannam – Carbon economy editor)“Mercury to climb again as hot cell hovers”
https://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/mercury-to-climb-again-as-hot-cell-hovers-20130110-2ci5d.htmlFunnily enough, yesterday’s maximum for Melbourne was a very pleasant 21C (70F). I cannot make up this stuff. 🙂
Anyway, the interesting thing about the first article is how people seem to be unable to accept that nature is pretty cruel and unpredictable. If some whales get it wrong, why do people have to send an ice-breaker to rescue them? I mean, whales have been around for a long time and the lucky and smart ones survived and that is how it goes. They will probably be around a long time after we are not.
BTW, in Russia they have been having what they call an “old-fashioned winter” with snow meters deep in places.
“Russia suffers its coldest winter ever”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/russia-suffers-its-coldest-winter-ever-1289248.htmlalan2102 post=6027 wrote:
The solar PV industry is a victim of its own success and efficiency in grinding out ever-more panels at ever-lower prices….
The market is now glutted with cheap panels, and no one is making any money, for the time being.Below: an amusing further addendum to this conversation.
The market is not only glutted with cheap panels, but in places is beginning to be glutted with cheap energy, which is a big threat to established energy interests.
The problem with solar PV is not its non-scalability, its expense, its low EROI, or any other such rubbish. The problem with solar PV is that it is too cheap, too efficient, and therefore too disruptive to existing entrenched interests. We can’t be allowed to have anything THIS good. Governments have now done an about-face: from subsidizing solar, to trying to obstruct it, in order to protect Big Energy! This really is a hoot!
“[T]he scalability and low prices of PV may mean that this transition is now inevitable. But the growth of solar power clashes with the traditional market structures and concepts of our society in such a way that make the end result rather uncertain.”
https://www.theoildrum.com/node/9841#more
The Price of Solar Power
Posted by Luis de Sousa on February 26, 2013 – 5:05am
snip
Summary
The actions recently taken in Europe against solar power are not a sign of failure but rather a consequence of the highly successful progress of PV technologies. Governments are simply trying to defend large electricity suppliers and the electricity markets they created in the last decade. With marginal generation costs close to zero, technologies like solar power wreck havoc on the open market once they reach a critical volume and threaten to steal away revenues from traditional base load suppliers.
The actual prices of electricity generated with PV have fallen relentlessly in recent years and are now on par with the gas fired generation at about 40º North in Europe. Even in more northern member states like Germany the cost of solar electricity is now about half of what consumers pay to the grid. At these prices the installation of solar panels can only grow, either on or off grid, unless installation is outlawed.
Present strategies by governments to keep these technologies away from the electricity market can at most delay the process. A fundamental shift in the way the grid is managed and prices are set is required, otherwise the electricity generation and distribution complex is left subject to major disruptions, both physical and financial.
In great measure the technology required to perform the Energiewende is already here. In fact, the scalability and low prices of PV may mean that this transition is now inevitable. But the growth of solar power clashes with the traditional market structures and concepts of our society in such a way that make the end result rather uncertain. The remaining obstacles to the Energiewende are now of a social and economic nature, and these may not be exactly the easiest to overcome.
“At these prices the installation of solar panels can only grow, either on or off grid, unless installation is outlawed.”
Now THERE’S an idea! OUTLAW solar PV installation! :cheer:
This is a very realistic assessment of our predicament with implementing renewables. We’re not going to succeed in transitioning off fossil fuels as long as we keep looking at renewables with rose colored glasses. I have 40 years experience in planning power systems and I did not see anything in this article I would disagree with. We should take this article very seriously and act accordingly in planning our energy future.
I note that there have been over 60,000 “views” of this article. Quite remarkable. Congratulations Nicole. 🙂
Here, in Victoria, Australia, quite a lot of PV installations have gone in – despite the feed-in tariff dropping from 60 to 8 cents per KWh.
“Rising cost prompts solar purchase”
https://www.theage.com.au/business/carbon-economy/rising-cost-prompts-solar-purchase-20130404-2h9oh.htmlPart of the reason for this enthusiasm is because mains electricity has gone up enormously in price – because of the closure of coal-fired plants and the cost-plus investment in network improvements. The power companies are making a mint out of all these changes.
“Electricity bills to increase 14 per cent”
https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/electricity-bills-to-increase-14-per-cent-20130322-2gk94.html
Despite all these gung ho articles, PV only represents some 2% of total power generation on a really hot day – when its performance is at its best. You have to do your own research because this journalist is hiding it in the totals for “renewable energy”
“Coal-fired power drops despite heatwave”
“Solar power in Australia”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia
Sadly, Stoneleigh is correct
Here’s another dose of renewable energy reality — an interesting story about Germany’s energy transition. Interesting for several reasons — among them, the fact that high-latitude Germany was not supposed to be able to benefit so much from solar. Another, that the U.S. is so ignorant of what is going on over there; see the section on “Propaganda and energy illiteracy”. Methinks the fossil fuel propagandists over here have done their job well. B)
https://www.theeuropean-magazine.com/chris-nelder–2/6747-germanys-energy-transition
31.05.2013
A Secret Success Story
Germany’s energy transition is already a success story. If
only the rest of the world paid attention.
Germany has become the world leader in solar power generation
in just 12 years, while phasing out its nuclear power, yet few
people in the United States seem to be aware of its success….
The growth of Germany’s solar capacity has been nothing short
of astonishing, adding as much PV in the first half of 2012 as
the US has in total cumulative installed capacity….Hi Alan,
Here’s another dose of renewable energy reality — an interesting story about Germany’s energy transition. Interesting for several reasons — among them, the fact that high-latitude Germany was not supposed to be able to benefit so much from solar. Another, that the U.S. is so ignorant of what is going on over there; see the section on “Propaganda and energy illiteracy”. Methinks the fossil fuel propagandists over here have done their job well.
Oh really? You think?
Share of Primary energy consumption % (Germany) for 2011:
Hydro = 0.5
Wind = 1.3
Photovoltaics = 0.5
Biomass = 7.6Total all renewables (including others such as solarthermal & geothermal) = 11%
(I know startling facts eh? I had to dig into those figures to double check but that is how ‘small’ PV is, as a total of all energy consumed, its a bit more if you take it as a percentage of energy produced in Germany, as they import roughly half of their energy requirements according to the data, and if you then boosted it further by taking it as a percentage of electricity – which is an energy ‘carrier’ you can get close to the nuclear contribution for all renewables, but certainly not PV on its own)That source is here, table 6 the same source used by the article that you posted that states:
Talk about propaganda… :dry:
Maybe they ought to buy up some of the glut of Chinese panels but they had better watch out for the ‘defective’ ones failing after two years instead of twenty five… :ohmy:
I’m not against PV if used as a standalone system with battery (large submarine type) storage, but grid tied systems just don’t work – especially at night at about 6pm in winter. 😆
L,
Sid.alan, sid
I haven’t talked to my old friend Chris for a few years (he talks about me in one of his books, I think it’s about my “Law of Receding Horizons”). And though when it comes to energy (and just about anything else, too) between the two of us, Nicole is about 826 times more knowledgeable than I am, there are a few things “even” I notice.
I understand – and applaud- that a grid can be better operated, allowing for the inclusion of more power from intermittent sources. But that can’t be endless, and so 100% renewable remains a strange dream, as far as I can see, molten salt and all. Base load is not a side issue; large grids are very vulnerable. I would for instance like to see data on how stability in Germany is enhanced by French nukes. It’s a bit like how Denmark can run so much wind; it can do so only because the trans-European grid is there to step in when wind is not there. I don’t see German solar do this well without France. In general, talk about “the German grid” or “the French grid” is not very useful, and maybe a bit misleading. It’s like talking about the Kansas grid and then try and include Enron in the story.
I don’t see a huge grid run on renewables, never seen a way to do it. More than 15% renewables for an isolated grid becomes shaky, I think.
Hi Illarghi,
Ha! I was just about to add this when I saw your reply:
Alexander Neubacher of Der Spiegel
Solar Subsidy Sinkhole: Re-Evaluating Germany’s Blind Faith in the Sun
…The only thing that’s missing at the moment is sunshine. For weeks now, the 1.1 million solar power systems in Germany have generated almost no electricity. The days are short, the weather is bad and the sky is overcast.
As is so often the case in winter, all solar panels more or less stopped generating electricity at the same time. To avert power shortages, Germany currently has to import large amounts of electricity generated at nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. To offset the temporary loss of solar power, grid operator Tennet resorted to an emergency backup plan, powering up an old oil-fired plant in the Austrian city of Graz.
Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope, to an impediment, to a reliable energy supply. Solar farm operators and homeowners with solar panels on their roofs collected more than €8 billion ($10.2 billion) in subsidies in 2011, but the electricity they generated made up only about 3 percent of the total power supply, and that at unpredictable times.
(bold added)
And from Frank Dohmen and Alexander Jung also at the Spiegel:
Stress on the High Seas: Germany’s Wind Power Revolution in the DoldrumsThe generation of electricity from wind is usually a completely odorless affair. After all, the avoidance of emissions is one of the unique charms of this particular energy source.
But when work is completed on the Nordsee Ost wind farm, some 30 kilometers (19 miles) north of the island of Helgoland in the North Sea, the sea air will be filled with a strong smell of fumes: diesel fumes.
The reason is as simple as it is surprising. The wind farm operator, German utility RWE, has to keep the sensitive equipment — the drives, hubs and rotor blades — in constant motion, and for now that requires diesel-powered generators. Because although the wind farm will soon be ready to generate electricity, it won’t be able to start doing so because of a lack of infrastructure to transport the electricity to the mainland and feed it into the grid. The necessary connections and cabling won’t be ready on time and the delay could last up to a year.
In other words, before Germany can launch itself into the renewable energy era Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen so frequently hails, the country must first burn massive amounts of fossil fuels out in the middle of the North Sea — a paradox as the country embarks on its energy revolution.
One of the central projects of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right coalition government, the scrapping of atomic energy and the switch to renewable energy, has hit a major obstacle. Nine months after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan, Berlin’s multi-billion-euro project is facing increasing difficulties. And the expansion of the country’s offshore wind farms in particular, which Minister Röttgen considers of paramount importance, is constantly beset by new problems.
Problems of which the biggest is the unpredictability; ‘grid’ tied systems must match the voltage and frequency of that system, which itself must keep up that voltage and frequency depending upon demand, which is a miraculous technical feat never talked of in its own right. Wiki does a good job in describing it here). Its a bit like getting a very large orchestra to all play in tune at the right time – anyone goes out of tune and you could crash the whole band! This is difficult enough with predictable on-demand (it delivers when asked) power stations such as fossil fuel, nuclear and hydro plants, but becomes very difficult with unpredictable (oops there’s cloud/wind gust) solar/wind plants. They only currently work exactly because they are a relatively small component of the overall generating capacity mix compared with the grid supply as a whole, meaning that they can be accommodated within current margins of normal grid power fluctuations. Make them a much larger part of the supply mix and you will have serious problems keeping everything singing form the same song sheet let alone in tune.
The reason that the absence of nuclear has made such a difference to the stability mentioned in the original article that Alan referenced, was because of its size, most nukes are ‘old’ plants, and I guess fail pretty regularly, for example as does Sizewell ‘B’ in the UK with over 2% of grid supply. But at least when that fails it is a complete failure and not a half failure or a sudden drop to half capacity or 3/4 or 4/5 or what ever the weather decides to do at that moment. Predictable unpredictable failure is well predictable; non-predictable unpredictable failure is unworkable. What are you going do? Have a 100% back up supply for the long winter nights without any wind?
That’s why I said they are great for stand alone supply, where voltage and frequency fluctuations are less critical and you have (hopefully) adequate local storage capacity to cover ‘brown outs’ and non-generating hours (black outs).
At the end of the day, it is going to be a case of understanding the problem of using less (a lot less) and not generating more that needs to be addressed.
L,
Sid.Sid,
It depends on where you live. Horses for courses.
and
BTW, in the Australian map, the highest scale is over 6.50 KWh/m2/day whereas in the highest reading for Europe, the scale only goes up to 1.90 KWh/m2/day.
Even Melbourne – which is pretty cold right now (10C-17C) gets annually 4 times as much solar energy as London. I guess one will have to adjust to a slower pace of life during the winter – or send the stuff in overland. Germany is a pretty daft place to put these panels.
gurusid post=7375 wrote: Hi Alan,
Share of Primary energy consumption % (Germany) for 2011:
Hydro = 0.5
Wind = 1.3
Photovoltaics = 0.5
Biomass = 7.6Total all renewables (including others such as solarthermal & geothermal) = 11%
(I know startling facts eh? I had to dig into those figures to double check but that is how ‘small’ PV is, as a total of all energy consumed, its a bit more if you take it as a percentage of energy produced in Germany, as they import roughly half of their energy requirements according to the data, and if you then boosted it further by taking it as a percentage of electricity – which is an energy ‘carrier’ you can get close to the nuclear contribution for all renewables, but certainly not PV on its own)That source is here, table 6 the same source used by the article that you posted that states:
Talk about propaganda… :dry:
Sorry, Sid, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Yes, of course solar PV is a small percentage of the renewable total. It always is, except maybe on the equator.
Yes, Germany has an ambitious plan to get rid of nuclear by 2022, and to get 100% of electricity from renewables by 2030. That IS ambitious. But what is “propaganda” about it? The statistics that you quoted don’t mean much. That’s where things start. What counts is the trajectory and commitment to the goal.
It is quite possible for things to start slow and multiply. In fact they often do. That is exactly what happened with solar PVs. In the 1980s they were a rare curiosity, at very low production levels. In the 1990s production had picked up and they began to be used more commonly but were still quite expensive. In the 2000s production finally exploded and prices began collapsing. This is still underway. It is unlikely that we’ve seen the bottom. The same will be likely be true of other renewable energy technologies.
Anyway, I can’t make much sense of your “reply”.
gurusid post=7377 wrote:
Alexander Neubacher of Der Spiegel[url=https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html] Solar Subsidy Sinkhole: Re-Evaluating Germany’s Blind Faith in the Sun
Hmmm. Interesting!
We seem to have a case of dueling alleged facts!
Who’s got the Real Scoop? Der Spiegel? Or The European magazine?
Methinks some deeper research is needed!
It appears that this fellow Neubacher — author of the Der Spiegel article — is a fringe right-wing anti-environmentalism crank with a vendetta against renewable energy in general and solar in particular. He also appears to be a liar. I knew I smelled something.
https://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=7918
Alexander Neubacher’s Fringe Minority Loser Position
Oct 23 2012 Published by Karl-Friedrich Lenz under European and German energy law
I have read some of the articles of SPIEGEL journalist Alexander Neubacher on energy issues. I already had the impression that he is strongly opposed to renewable energy, and even stronger to solar.
Since he unfortunately has a big platform at SPIEGEL, he is probably the most important anti-renewable propaganda cheerleader in Germany.
Now I just watched him in a television discussion round with several other journalists. My impression on his positions was confirmed.
Of course he was trying to make hay of the recent decision to increase the surcharges, pretending to be worried about poor people’s ability to pay for them, just as anyone else in the anti-renewable propaganda brigade.
The nice thing about his position is that it is a fringe minority loser position in Germany. People outside of the country who read him on his SPIEGEL platform would be well advised to take note of that fact.
Neubacher himself said at one point in the discussion (around 12:35 in the recording) that all political parties agree on being opposed to his position. He complained that the opposition (the Social Democrats and the Greens) are not doing their job because they agree with the governing coalition on that point and refuse to agree with his opposition to the Law on Priority for Renewable Energy, the EEG.
There is a super great coalition between all parties that tries to give ever more sweet deals to owners of renewable energy installations, and squeezing rate payers for that, in Neubacher’s opinion. He is the lone voice of reason.
It is difficult to imagine a more clueless remark on German energy policy.
[snip]
https://k.lenz.name/LB/?p=7146
Who is Alexander Neubacher?
Jul 05 2012 Published by Karl-Friedrich Lenz under European and German energy law
Mark Lynas mentions in this tweet the latest anti-solar propaganda article by Alexander Neubacher.
Alexander Neubacher is a German journalist who has won the “Helmut-Schmidt journalist prize”, named after a former German chancellor for work about health insurance, as is explained at his author biography page here. That page also tells us that Neubacher is born in 1968, has studied economics and journalism, and is working since 1999 for the economic section of SPIEGEL magazine.
I have not read his recently published book “Ökofimmel”, but from descriptions I understand that it is a critical look at verious German environmental policies that Neubacher thinks are failures.
Neubacher has a Twitter feed here.
His latest anti-solar propaganda piece recycles the same old talking points. Solar is expensive. The sun doesn’t shine at night. Exactly what one would expect from anything with the byline Alexander Neubacher.
It does contain some remarkably easily refuted errors, though. For one, there is this:
Photovoltaic power plant operators and homeowners with solar panels on their rooftops are expected to pocket around €9 billion ($11.3 billion) this year, yet they contribute barely 4 percent of the country’s power supply, and only erratically at that.
Actually, the latest reports say that solar contributed 4.5% of all electricity in the first six months, with generation at 14.7 TWh, up 50% from the same period in 2011, when 19 TWh were generated over the whole year.
So the figure “barely 4 percent” is not factually correct, though it is at least close.
Neubacher then asserts:
For the same amount of money, wind power produces about five times more energy than solar power.
That can’t possibly be true. Solar feed-in tariffs even in the highest bracket are now at 18.92 cents. For wind to be five times as cheap it would need to be generated at 3.704 cents. But the tariffs for wind are at 8.93 cents in Article 29 of the law on the priority for renewable energy (EEG).
[snip]
A little further digging reveals the context in which this (this Neubacher/Spiegel vs. The European mag thing) is happening. It seems that there is a titanic political battle going on in Germany over energy issues and over this transition to renewables program.
Predictably, the conservative/reactionary forces, along with the oil and nuclear industries, oppose the move to renewables, while more enlightened minds wish to see humanity move forward.
Clearly, Neubacher represents the conservatives, and perhaps is even employed by some sort of right-wing political action group, charged with grinding out anti-renewables and anti-solar screeds.
All articles purporting to expose the “failure” of Germany’s renewables program should be held in high suspicion until VERY carefully vetted and proven to be from a non-reptilian source. Or to put it more plainly: such articles are very likely to be packs of lies.
https://cleantechnica.com/2012/06/28/sol-invictus-german-government-cuts-solar-fit/
Sol Invictus — German Government Cuts Solar FIT
June 28, 2012
[snip]
Attacks on the pro-solar policy framework of Germany are nothing new. They are actually more of a recurring event that happens every time the “Renewable Energy Act” gets reformed or whenever solar power installations break a record. All of this started with the stark opposition of the current government coalition against the “German Renewable Energy Act” back in the year 2000, when those parties weren’t in power. They especially disliked the concept of providing independent investors with a technology-specific feed-in tariff that was high enough to turn a profit if investors made wise choices when developing their project. Back then, Angela Merkel’s conservative party was basically fundamentally opposed to the the core principle behind the success of the “Renewable Energy Act.”
At the start and until 2003/04, this uncapped and guaranteed possibility to turn a profit with clean energy investments did not apply to solar power because it did still received subsidies in the form of a credit incentive program — the 100,000 roof program aiming for 350 MW of solar power. Disgruntled by the reality that the Renewable Energy Act has proven to be more successful and efficient than portfolio-standards/quota-systems, the opponents focused their criticism on the support of photovoltaic energy use in Germany… something that was a pure waste of money and would never accomplish anything according to their opinion. In 2009, the opposition parties of the early 2000s managed to win a majority in the federal election and form a government coalition. The parties are Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats and the free-market and business-friendly Liberal Democrats.
Here We Are Again
This February, things turned very ugly though, when the economics ministry (responsible for regulating conventional energy markets) and the environment ministry (responsible for renewable energy sources) proposed a rapidly drafted revision to the renewable energy act at a joint press conference. This draft was proposed just 6 weeks after another revision of the law went into force on January 1, 2012. The content of the proposal was so radical that it was soon dubbed “The Solar Phase-out Law,” or even the beginning of a rollback of the “Energiewende” and nuclear phase-out.
In the eyes of the economics minister Philipp Rösler (the head of the free-market oriented “Liberal Democratic Party” and the vice-chancellor), a rapid revision was necessary due to the “out of control” growth of solar power capacity in 2011. Soon the usual bunch of anti-renewable energy vultures within the conservative party joined the criticism and voiced their support for rapid cuts to “contain solar energy.” They are a relatively powerful group within Angela Merkel’s conservative party and have close ties to powerful industry groups and the conventional power and energy corporations. This anti-solar coalition of politicians within the government and vested economic interests in the private sector was also heavily disgruntled by the decision of its party leadership to speed up the phase-out of nuclear power a few months before. It’s safe to say that the situation was serious and more than dangerous for effective pro-renewable policy. Especially since pro-renewable supporters are a minority within the government, and the public was distracted by the looming European debt crisis.
The original “Solar Phase-Out Law” proposal included a wide range of changes that were officially focused on reducing incentives to install more solar power. In reality, it was the strongest attack on the fabric of the successful “German Renewable Energy Act” since it was passed into law in 2000. Among the gems of the ministries’ wish list were harsh 30-40% cuts to feed in tariff rates, the ability to further adjust feed-in-tariff rates by ministerial decree without consulting the parliament and exempting 10-20% of the generated electricity from receiving feed-in tariff payments. To make things even worse, the proposed changes should take effect retroactively* only 2 weeks after the proposal was made. (*Retroactively because it was obvious that the legislative process to pass the law would take longer than 2 weeks.)
From Proposal to Legislation
What followed was a legislative dispute that took more than 4 months and was accompanied by a massive anti-renewable/anti-solar campaign throughout many media outlets that aimed at reducing the popularity of solar power among the public. But there were also pro-renewable/pro-solar voices in the media and even mass demonstration by the solar industry together with unions and activists.
[snip]
One last thing about Neubacher: just because he’s a fringe right-wing crank and a liar does not mean that he is wrong about everything. He might be right, for example, about the idea that solar is getting disproportionate support — excessive subsidies — when the funds could be put to more efficient use. I suspect that he is right about that. All arguments should be addressed on their merits, regardless of who they come from.
gurusid post=7375 wrote:
Total all renewables (including others such as solarthermal & geothermal) = 11%
(I know startling facts eh?An addendum:
I spoke above of “trajectory”, by which I meant (I hope it was clear) the rate of growth. At this link you can see the rate of growth in Germany; click on “7 Renewable Energy Industry” in the table of contents, and note the bar chart, green bars, on the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_GermanyYou can see that the rate of growth from 1990 to 2000 amounted to a little better than doubling, while the rate of growth from 2000 to 2010 amounted to a little better than trebling. That would suggest, if that trend were to continue (as data for the last couple years indicates), at least a further trebling by 2020, to 33%.
Of course, the rate of growth might continue to grow, as it has in the past, making that figure too conservative. We don’t know, do we? But even without an increase in the rate of growth, just staying at that level of growth would allow Germany to reach its target of 100% electricity from renewables by 2030, as you can see (trebling of the 33% in 10 years from 2020).
Startling facts, eh Sid?
…………………………………
But of course targets are one thing, accomplishment another. Will Germany succeed? Who knows? It is a VERY ambitious plan. There are obviously (see clippings above) powerful reactionary forces arrayed against it. And, among the lesser but still mentionable forces against it, are all the natterers on fora around the world, arms akimbo, posting snippets from articles written by (probably) oil- and nuclear-industry-subsidized liars denouncing Germany’s renewables efforts, and snickering their derision. Germany has to overcome all that negative energy. And they probably will, but there is no guarantee. We’ll see.
The other factor in this is that such 100% targets are almost certainly unnecessary, if appropriate energy conservation techniques and practices were brought into play. A 50% target or even a 25% target may be all that is truly required, given a context of full resource conservation. See up thread, “factor 5”, in post 6009:
https://theautomaticearth.com/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=14&id=5865&Itemid=96#6009There are really no energy or resource problems. Only human and political problems.
In reply to Alan:
Sorry, Sid, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Yes, of course solar PV is a small percentage of the renewable total. It always is, except maybe on the equator.
I concur!
Predictably, the conservative/reactionary forces, along with the oil and nuclear industries, oppose the move to renewables, while more enlightened minds wish to see humanity move forward.
Clearly, Neubacher represents the conservatives, and perhaps is even employed by some sort of right-wing political action group, charged with grinding out anti-renewables and anti-solar screeds.
All articles purporting to expose the “failure” of Germany’s renewables program should be held in high suspicion until VERY carefully vetted and proven to be from a non-reptilian source. Or to put it more plainly: such articles are very likely to be packs of lies.
VERY carefully vetted and proven to be from a non-reptilian source Huh?
I’m sorry? I didn’t know you were an Ickian…?
At least we can agree on some things:
There are really no energy or resource problems. Only human and political problems.
… the only problems are human. The fact that we use so much energy (being human) is the problem. The fact that energy itself has become a political football obscuring the real problems which I mention above, along with peoples (humans) refusal for what ever reason to discuss them. Again, if solar was such a great bet for grid connectivity, then why with panel costs going throught the floor and a current glut of panels on the market is it not being adopted? Nothing to do with the fact that panel costs still have to fall:
From NYT (owned by lizards?):
the fact is that fossil fuels are also subsidized, as this article points out:
The Truth About Solar Energy
Like it?
by Rosana Francescato at the the energy collective (definitely no lizards)
Posted March 26, 2013
Coal also gets more subsidies than renewables. It can be hard to calculate the actual amounts coal and other fossil fuels benefit from when you consider all the tax credits, tax breaks, and indirect subsidies — not to mention externalities. When you add those, a 2011 Harvard study estimated the real cost of U.S. coal subsidies at $345 billion up to that time.
The U.S. trend is mirrored globally: in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil fuels received $557 billion in global subsidies, compared to $43 billion for renewable energy.
And if solar got the same treatment? Keeping in mind that One Block Off the Grid created this graphic in 2010 and by now more of the U.S. can support solar without subsidies, this is still a nice illustration of what we’d be looking at:
So why are we even asking if solar can thrive without subsidies? The fossil-fuel industry has been around for a long time and is still benefiting from that help. The newer renewables industries should be getting more of a boost, shouldn’t they? Whatever your opinion on that, they’re not. In fact, during the first 15 years of subsidies for the respective industries, oil and gas subsidies represented half a percent of the federal budget, about $1.8 billion a year, and all renewables only about a tenth of a percent, or $0.5 billion.
However, given that renewables contibuted 13.2% in the US in 2012 the $0.5 billion is 21.7% of the federal energy subsidy and so proves the ‘big subsidy’ argument, especially when about half (60.2% in 2010) came from Hydro, most of which is established plant and not new build)
But as this post from the same website points out, the economics of grid tied solar do not add up (he quotes the Neubacher article so maybe he’s a lizard infiltrator):
Germany and the Solar Energy Revolution
Michael Lind, Posted March 10, 2013.IMHO this is how the Realpolitik will play out, regardless of left/right/lizard ideaologies – you just cannot change the existing system. This is why I said, and say again if your going to go for solar (or for that matter wind or hydro), go for a standalone home based system with storage, BUT first reduce your electrical energy requirements to the absolute minimum as future grid reliability will get worse not better, exactly as Stoneleigh has said [url=https://www.theautomaticearth.com/Energy/india-power-outage-the-shape-of-things-to-come.html]here[/url and above in this very article.
Besides, for most right wing libertarians, surely your own ‘non public’ electricity supply (like private cars vs. public transport) should be right up their street; so why are they not arguing for it right now with panels as cheap as chips?
Idealism aside and above all else we need to reduce, by at least a factor of ten if not more, then as I think you point out Alan, renewables might stand a chance, albeit with sparing use of fossil fuels to build and implement them. Learn to live lightly upon the earth…L,
Sid.In reply to Alan:
Sorry, Sid, I don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Yes, of course solar PV is a small percentage of the renewable total. It always is, except maybe on the equator.
I concur!
Predictably, the conservative/reactionary forces, along with the oil and nuclear industries, oppose the move to renewables, while more enlightened minds wish to see humanity move forward.
Clearly, Neubacher represents the conservatives, and perhaps is even employed by some sort of right-wing political action group, charged with grinding out anti-renewables and anti-solar screeds.
All articles purporting to expose the “failure” of Germany’s renewables program should be held in high suspicion until VERY carefully vetted and proven to be from a non-reptilian source. Or to put it more plainly: such articles are very likely to be packs of lies.
VERY carefully vetted and proven to be from a non-reptilian source Huh?
I’m sorry? I didn’t know you were an Ickian…?
At least we can agree on some things:
There are really no energy or resource problems. Only human and political problems.
… the only problems are human. The fact that we use so much energy (being human) is the problem. The fact that energy itself has become a political football obscuring the real problems which I mention above, along with peoples (humans) refusal for what ever reason to discuss them. Again, if solar was such a great bet for grid connectivity, then why with panel costs going throught the floor and a current glut of panels on the market is it not being adopted? Nothing to do with the fact that panel costs still have to fall:
From NYT (owned by lizards?):
the fact is that fossil fuels are also subsidized, as this article points out:
The Truth About Solar Energy
by Rosana Francescato at the the energy collective (definitely no lizards)
Posted March 26, 2013Coal also gets more subsidies than renewables. It can be hard to calculate the actual amounts coal and other fossil fuels benefit from when you consider all the tax credits, tax breaks, and indirect subsidies — not to mention externalities. When you add those, a 2011 Harvard study estimated the real cost of U.S. coal subsidies at $345 billion up to that time.
The U.S. trend is mirrored globally: in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, fossil fuels received $557 billion in global subsidies, compared to $43 billion for renewable energy.
And if solar got the same treatment? Keeping in mind that One Block Off the Grid created this graphic in 2010 and by now more of the U.S. can support solar without subsidies, this is still a nice illustration of what we’d be looking at:So why are we even asking if solar can thrive without subsidies? The fossil-fuel industry has been around for a long time and is still benefiting from that help. The newer renewables industries should be getting more of a boost, shouldn’t they? Whatever your opinion on that, they’re not. In fact, during the first 15 years of subsidies for the respective industries, oil and gas subsidies represented half a percent of the federal budget, about $1.8 billion a year, and all renewables only about a tenth of a percent, or $0.5 billion.
However she argues the greater fossil fuel subsidy from a historical perspective note the dates. Also the fact that nuclear power plants wre ‘factories’ for nuclear weapons material adn so the ‘subsidy’ could be said to be for more than energy.
But given that renewables currently contibuted 13.2% in the US in 2012 while receiving $0.5 billion in subsidy that works out at 21.7% of the fed total energy subsidy proves the ‘big renewables subsidy’ argument (excluding other externalities which aren’t that great for PV manufacture either), especially when about half of the renewable energy (60.2% in 2010) came from Hydro, most of which is established plant and not new build).
But as this post from the same website points out, the economics of grid tied solar do not add up (he quotes the Neubacher article so maybe he’s a lizard infiltrator):
Germany and the Solar Energy Revolution
Michael Lind, Posted March 10, 2013.Until now, Merkel had consistently touted the environmental sector’s “opportunities for exports, development, technology and jobs.” But now even members of her own staff are calling it a massive money pit.
New numbers issued by the pro-industry Rhine-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research (RWI) will only add fuel to the fire. The experts calculated the additional costs to consumers after more solar systems were connected to the grid than in any other previous month in December. Under Germany’s Renewable Energy Law, each new system qualifies for 20 years of subsidies. A mountain of future payment obligations is beginning to take shape in front of consumers’ eyes….
The RWI also expects the green energy surcharge on electricity bills to go up again soon. It is currently 3.59 cents per kilowatt hour of electricity, a number the German government had actually pledged to cap at 3.5 cents. But because of the most recent developments, RWI expert Frondel predicts that the surcharge will soon increase to 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour. For the average family, this would amount to an additional charge of about €200 a year, in addition to the actual cost of electricity. Solar energy has the potential to become the most expensive mistake in German environmental policy.As of this writing, the euro:dollar exchange rate is 1:1.30. So if Frondel’s estimates are correct, German households would be paying more than $230 dollars extra a year in electricity bills to subsidize corporate solar power providers, who, like too-big-to-fail banks, would keep the profits while socializing the costs.
Another utopia turns out to have been a mirage. But true believers in a short-term, painless transition to a world run mostly by renewable energy will not be discouraged. No doubt Germany, the supposed center of the world solar power revolution, will soon be replaced by some other supposed national demonstration project for renewable energy—Brazil and biomass, maybe, or Britain and wind?IMHO this is how the Realpolitik will play out, regardless of left/right/lizard ideologies – you just cannot change the existing system. This is why I said, and say again if your going to go for solar (or for that matter wind or hydro), go for a standalone home based system with storage, BUT first reduce your electrical energy requirements to the absolute minimum as future grid reliability will get worse not better, exactly as Stoneleigh has said here and above in this very article.
Besides, for most right wing libertarians, surely your own ‘non public’ electricity supply (like private cars vs. public transport) should be right up their street; so why are they not arguing for it right now with panels as cheap as chips?
Idealism aside and above all else we need to reduce, by at least a factor of ten if not more, then as I think you point out Alan, renewables might stand a chance, albeit with sparing use of fossil fuels to build and implement them. Learn to live lightly upon the earth…
L,
Sid.Hi Folks,
Sadly you just can’t make this sh*t up:
“Recent price action amid the heavily shorted solar stocks has seemingly been predicated on hope that late May chatter of negotiated settlements in the industry would occur and everyone could go happily about their business. While hope remains for a settlement – and tariffs have been delayed 2 months, as the WSJ reports – the EU is set to announce drastic anti-dumping levies on Chinese solar panels in a move that could trigger a trade war between two of the world’s largest economies:
*EU SAYS SOLAR-PANEL DUTY TO START AT 11% ON JUNE 6
*EU SAYS SOLAR-PANEL DUTY TO RISE TO 47.6% IN AUGUST
*EU’S DE GUCHT SAYS NOT CLOSE TO SOLAR-PANEL PACT WITH CHINASadly this is playing out very similarly to the Great Depression period as tariffs and protectionism replaced domestic focused fiscal and monetary policy and escalated problems rapidly. China rejects the EU’s price-dumping allegations, but the problem is not new for Beijing. The U.S. last year imposed punitive tariffs on solar panel imports after finding that China’s government was subsidizing companies that were flooding the U.S. Market.”
Oh well, so much for cheap solar, now meet the Realpolitik…
L,
Sid.My, my Nicole! What a propaganda Tour De Force! The Breakthrough Institute or the Heartland institute or The Oil Drum (closing down at the end of July 2013 from lack of interest LOL) must be proud of you for dishing out so many of their pet talking points and using lots of “convincing” graphics too.
FIRST, this bit of news destroys your argument against wind turbines.
GE’s Brilliant Wind Turbine — Wind Power Cheaper Than Coal Or Natural Gas
Read more at https://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/01/ges-brilliant-wind-turbine-wind-power-cheaper-than-coal-or-natural-gas-part-3/#XflHmI0qZ3KjHlCG.99Here’s something else for you to chew on. Your entire premise on energy is flawed because you base it on Professor Hall’s (thoroughly gamed in favor of fossil fuels and AGAINST renewable energy) EROEI formula.
I point out the most obvious flaws below. But, as a rather successful pro-fossil fuel propagandists, I’m sure YOU know them all quite well and are very carful to make sure they aren’t mentioned. Have a nice day.
Professor Charles Hall lecture on EROEI, Fossil Fuels and Industrialized Civilization
Analysis of Charles Hall’s assumptions about the relationship of EROEI for fossil fuels on human society
By A. G. Gelbert
FIRST WRONG ASSUMPTION: We OWE our industrial wealth to fossil fuels BECAUSE they are CHEAP.
1) Our “wealth” is an illusion that denies massive biosphere COSTS manifested by environmental degradation.
2) Supposed corollary of this “wealth”, the population explosion, correlates with increased fossil use to industrialize human civilization. He ASSUMES this correlation equates to causation. He ignores the fact that scientific knowledge of germs (UNRELATED TO FOSSIL FUELS) resulted in elimination of the MAIN cause of low life expectancy (death in childbirth and before age 5!) averages in Homo SAP. 😮 ANYBODY that made it past 5 years of age BEFORE the industrial revolution had almost the same life expectancy of around 75 that we have now. GOOGLE IT!
3) He ASSUMES that the ONLY way the energetic processes in our current civilizational status quo can be maintained is with fossil fuels. He did say, “This is serious business” when showing a slide of a PV array that could provide for a human family’s EROEI but he, interestingly, did not elaborate. Why? Because HE isn’t interested in talking about renewable energy sources. PERIOD.
SECOND WRONG ASSUMPTION: Without “cheap” oil, mass starvation and civilizational collapse will occur.
1) Cuba went through that scenario and PROVED HIM WRONG. How did they do it? By going 100% organic so fossil fuel based fertilizers were no longer needed and by planting gardens in the cities so fossil fuel transport of food was minimized. Yes, they lost an average 20 lbs. per cuban but there was no mass starvation, panic, collapse or disease plagues from lack of fossil fuel supported health care. Everything limped along at a slightly lower level. They learned the lesson that fossil fuels are a CRUTCH, not a salvation. consequently they have been moving (slowly, hinderd by “cheap” oil from Venezuela) to renewables. (1)
vimeo.com/43261566
Watch his reaction when Cuba is mentioned to him in the above video.By the way, Cheetahs (from the discussion in the video) MUST be successful in the hunt 25% of the time in order to survive in the wild. Professor Hall is under the impression that they fail 90% of the time. Not true. They fail an average of 75% of the time. That’s on a video on Cheetahs and a study recently done posted on the Agelbert Newz Channel. https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=559.930
I guess the prof will have revise his Cheetah EROEI numbers. 😉SNIPPETS from a Working Paper entitled “Cuba’s Response to Energy Crisis”.
3.4. Agriculture Using Less Energy[size=14pt][color=red]Responding to severe energy deficit, Cuba has implemented an alternative agriculture.
Oppenheim (2001) has well summarized their efforts.
First, to reduce insecticide consumption that required large amount of energy from agro-chemistry, they have introduced biological control agents to protect crops against pests. Species from bacteria, fungi, parasites, ants, and nematodes were deployed.
Second, Cuban scientists have seen some success to find antagonist microorganism to biologically control plant diseases and Cuban farmers could avoid use of fungicides and other chemicals.
Third, reduction of pesticides was another imperative to use less energy. Crop rotation was effective. Competitive crops like corn were able to suppress small weeds for one year. The next year, beans could grow without significant threat of weeds.
Fourth, Cuban farmers used organic soil management to reduce fossil-fuel consuming fertilizer application. Introduction of microbes such as nitrogen-fixing bacteria, bacteria that make more phosphorous available and root-symbiotic fungi micorrhizae was successful. Green manure using a fast-growing legume, inter-cropping, large-scale production of earthworm humus, and sugarcane residue recycling also enriched Cuban soil without chemicals.
Urban agriculture is one of Cuban people’s efforts to solve energy shortage. Because vehicle fuels are not sufficient, it is not easy for urban residents to buy cheap vegetables from far-away farms. So they started to grow vegetables on their balconies, patios, and rooftops. To help the urban population, the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAGRI) has made a department exclusively for the capital city Havana in 1994. Since then, Cuban people made use of every small patch of land in urban area. (Bas, 2006) Thanks to this ‘urban agriculture’, half of the Havana’s vegetable consumption and 60% of the Cuba’s overall vegetable consumption are produced in urban gardens (Pfeiffer, 2006).
The result is remarkable. While Cuba’s population has increased from 10.7 million in 1990-1992 to 11.3 million in 2001-2003, the number of undernourished people fell from 0.7 million down to 0.2 million. In contrast, its energy-rich neighbor Venezuela’s undernourished population increased from 2.3 million to 4.5 million during the same period. (FAO, 2006)4. Cuba’s Sustainable Energy Future – Environmental Concerns
Cuba’s efforts to reduce energy dependency have been successful in many ways. Air pollution was improved. Emissions of CO2, N2O, NOX, CO, and VOC (volatile organic compounds) have been decreasing or flattened, although the concentrations of SO2, CO, VOC from the electricity generation sector have began to exceed the level before the Special Period. (Pérez, et al., 2003)
5. Conclusion – Lessons from Cuba
With the U.S. embargo that has been imposed on Cuba for almost half a century, Cuba has well survived. Although the collapse of U.S.S.R. brought a critical material shortage, Cuba has not lost its economic and political integrity. Especially in its energy sector, Cuba’s achievement is evident. While trying to develop domestic oil and natural gas reserve, the island country also have taken measures to save energy. Renewable energy sources contributed to Cuba’s efforts to make them more energy-independent. Organic agriculture and urban agriculture using much less energy than before were marvelously developed. Although there’re some environmental problems, Cuba’s energy future seems to be sustainable. The promising deep ocean oil and natural gas reserves are additional gift for this country.
Cuba’s experience can teach lessons for many countries. First, countries in energy famine like North Korea must learn from Cuba its energy savings and organic agriculture. Second, every country should learn how Cuba has changed their way of life in the Special Period. Any country can suffer from energy depletion whether it’s due to political instability in energy exporting countries or it’s due to irreversible global depletion of non-renewable energy resource.Working Paper
Cuba’s Response to Energy Crisis
Hun Park
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware. hunpark@udel.edu
Version: March 2010
[/color]
https://udel.edu/~hunpark/papers/Cuba_s%20Response%20to%20Energy%20Crisis.pdfHas Cuba done everything right? Nope. They have a lot of government idiots there as much in love with OIL as we do here. They are now at 70% reliance on fossil fuels and are doing all they can to drill for oil. So a lot of them, like Professor Hall, still don’t get it.
Cuba’s INCREASE in food production in crop quality and yield when they went full organic proves the fossil fuel fertilizer backed “Green Revolution” is another cooked up fossil fuel LIE. (1)
Cuba has ENVIABLE solar power resources (PV at around 19 degrees north latitude is far more productive than PV farther north) that mostly remain untapped. They just need more PV and wind power (the prevailing easterlies are constant in the tropics). Then they could go to EVs and dispense with fossil fuels altogether.
No, I don’t think, as Professor Hall does, that their population will explode if they have enough renewable energy. WHY?
Because the very definition of renewable energy links it to biosphere viability. Populations of ALL species in the biosphere are a consideration in determining whether an energy source is renewable or not. Sustainability is part of the package that leads to serious appraisal of population issues; something TOTALLY ABSENT in the world of fossil fuel piggery.
[embed=640,380]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUWces5TkCA#[/embed]
Video on the Cuban energy crisis and how Community Solutions enabled them to surviveExperience is the best teacher. Professor Hall is about to learn that while he watches slack jawed as renewable energy replaces fossil fuels AND improves the quality of life for Homo SAP WITHOUT leading to population increases or energy collapse. His pals in the petroluem industry won’t like it very much either.
THIRD WRONG ASSUMPTION: Oil EROEI is inversely proportional to price.
1) Engineered price hikes from derivatives and futures are unrelated to extraction technology or oil availability (i.e. EROEI). This price riggging has had much more to do with the price than his faulty oil EROEI price relation assumption.
2) Manipulated or contrived wars and war scares in oil producing countries are also contributing much more to price than the energy necessary to extract said oil. Remember, his EROEI math assumes THAT SUPPLY AND DEMAND is a function of the energy used to extract the oil, PERIOD. This IGNORES competing technologies from renewable energy that are contributing to DEMAND DESTRUCTION of oil.
The obvious proof that he is wrong is the simple fact that, as DEMAND for oil has dropped, the price has gone UP, not DOWN. ANYONE can look at the total oil storage in tanks in the USA and see that they are far above normal, yet the price is higher this year than last. WHY? Manipulation, NOT EROEI!
Petroleum reserve stocks in the USA
https://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp3) While claiming seriously that respiration in animals is part of THEIR EROEI (I fully agree!
) energy cost, he TOTALLY IGNORES the fact that the animal called Homo SAP has had his RESPIRATION COMPROMISED by atmospheric pollution from fossil fuels. While he lauds the HIGH EROEI of oil, he turns a blind eye to how oil was LOWERING the EROEI of Homo SAP through pollution related increase in respiratory illnesses, among other toxic effects of fossil fuels. That’s where his “Hey, the population went up so your health IMPROVED” fallacy comes in that totally ignores the actual demographic dynamics resulting from antiseptic procedures for birth and early child care. Our HEALTH was DEGRADED, not improved. Why doesn’t anyone ever asks him how bone cancer from breathing benzene fumes contributed to our population explosion? Benzene was originally favored by automobile engine manufacturers over gasoline (ethanol was/IS superior to both but manipulated out of the market – see Rockefeller funding drive for Prohibition). Gasoline makes us sick too. It just takes longer and is harder to prove as the only irritant. How convenient. :evil4:4) After going on and on about how much oil benefits mankind, he flips that on its head by claiming that in order to provide HEALTH CARE to a society (including those workers, that, you know, pull the oil out of the ground), you need to get above the 18:1 EROEI. WTF!!!? If the PURPOSE of using OIL in civilization is to make our life BETTER through a “high” EROEI, how can he ignore the equal and opposite effect fossil fuel pollution has on Homo SAP EROEI? ???
I mean, this learned professor and former ecologist studied fish and other animals’ EROEI. I’m sure he hasn’t forgotten that we are animals too, RIGHT? The whole point of OUR biochemical existence is to keep OUR EROEI high, not to keep OIL’s EROEI high, is it not? According to Professor Hall, health care is a benny we get when the oil EROEI is above 18:1 or so. Below 18:1 we just have to “go without” so the oil extracting corporate pig can get sufficient profit. What an AMAZING piece of flawed logic for a scientist.
I’m certain this makes sense to an asshole running a predatory capitalist corporation planning to externalize environmental costs but it is TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC for Professot Hall to take this view and then add insult to injury by claiming he is a “scientist” that views cities, people and energy resources as “systems”. BULLSHIT!
His EROEI formula, in order to be scientifically objective, HAD to include all downstream health effects on Homo SAP. For example, how would Professor Hall figure the change in EROEI of a WHALE if its breeding grounds were covered by an oil spill? Do you get the picture? Well, HE doesn’t seem to want to look in that direction, does he? Too bad for the whales but the oil EROEI has to be kept high, right?
But we aren’t whales, you might say. Think about the absurdity of a biological organism such as ourselves voicing that thought about a poison that kills other mammals.:iamwithstupid: We CANNOT “extenalize” poisons in the biosphere; we can only limit them by NOT spreading them around for the thrill of running internal combustion emgines. This is not hard.
I ACCUSE Professor Hall of the geatest sin a scientist can commit, namely, loss of scientific objectivity. His EROEI formulations are heavily slanted in favor of fossil fuels and against renewable energy sources.
I have written at length about how patently ridiculous the EROEI of various fuels in his SUNY study are here:“Hope For a Viable Biosphere of Renewables; Why they Work and Fossil and Nuclear Fuels Never Did”
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/
The article is found in the Energy section under “Waste Based Society Series”. There are over 30 pages of comments dealing with many aspects of energy use and waste in our society. I invite all readers to enjoy the many discussions from page 1 to, as of last posting, 37.
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.0If Professor Hall wishes to regain his objectivity so as to avoid foolish statements like corn ethanol having a low EROEI compared to gasoline (as if ethanol could ONLY be made from the fossil fuel fertilizer, machine plowing and harvesting PIG called corn and not sugar cane – Brazil – or Lemna minor – duckweed(3) – or algae, for that matter), then he should endorse my article and incorporate my suggestions into his EROEI formulation.
I am willling to provide consultation and will try to remain civil through EROEI discussions.
:icon_mrgreen:But remember, Professor Hall and Associates, friends colleagues and supporters of fossil fuels, I DON’T DANCE.
Questions for Professor Charles Hall of SUNY study on EROEI of various energy resources:
1) Where did he get the rationale of EROEI on a fuel source, given the fact that the fuel source produces zero mechanical energy until it is actually oxidized in an ICE? ALL the inefficiencies of the ICE SHOULD have been subtracted from the EROEI. Stopping at enthalpy is not a practical metric for fuels that must be run in an ICE to get usable energy.
2) Why did he ignore the inefficiencies of the ICE including the reductions caused by catalytic converters when figuring EROEI for fossil fuels? Stopping at the refinery product is useless. It would have been simple to burn all fuels in a high compression baseline ICE of a given horsepower that was average for the millions of car engines out there. ICE’s of the same size could have been adapted to propane, gasoline or ethanol (after removing the catalytic converter). A study with such wide ranging implications for energy users should NOT have had such happy numbers.
3) Why did he claim ethanol had a lower EROEI than gasoline when ethanol gets better mileage AND requires no catalytic converter on the ICE as long as you have a high compression ICE burning it.? U.S. Navy labs proved that ethanol was a superior fuel as far back as 1906. Why did he ignore their thorough research and experiments on gasoline and ethanol? (2) (3)
4) Why did he ignore the abysmal work conditions in coal mines when he made the statement that coal, like petroleum, had a much higher EROEI at first? Competing renewable energy technologies like geothermal and CSP (concentated solar power) can provide just as much power cleanly without compromising workers’ or society’s health yet he gives those technologies a LOW EROEI. (4) (5) WHY?
5) Why did he ignore the massive freebies in the fossil fuel subsidies and drilling rights when figuring the EROEI? By rights, these boosts unfairly facilitated fossil fuels so he should have REDUCED the EROEI to what extraction costs WITHOUT subsidies would have been.
6) Why did he not figure in the cost of manufacturing drilling rigs, support vehicles, ocean tankers and environmental impact from the common flushing of tanker oil compartments into the oceans all the way up to the 1990s?
7) Why did he ignore the cost of our military activity in preserving shipping routes for oil tankers and wars in oil producing countries to “safeguard” U.S. access to petroleum?
]NOTE: Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.“As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.
In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.
So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. “
Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.
8 ) How does he justify the claim that Renewable energy devices like wind turbines and PV panels have a low EROEI because of the energy required to manufacture them when no such criteria was applied by HIM and his colleagues in the SUNY study of EROEI for fossil fuels?
9) Why did he not subtract the energy required to safeguard used nuclear fuel rods for a few hundred years when making his high EROEI claims for nuclear power?
10) Why does he think the environmental damage caused by fossil and nuclear fuels for the last 100 years or so is an acceptable tradeoff for our industrialized civilization? If he says he never said that then I would counter that the instant he concocted an EROEI formula that excluded environmental costs, he was making the “it’s worth it regardless of the environmental costs” case. What’s more, he is acting as if those environmental costs are negligible. (6)
11) How much should fossil fuel corporations who got fabulously wealthy by ignoring climate externalities pay to bioremediate the atmosphere, oceans and land of the damage they have caused and subsidize health care for the Americans (for starters) with various respiratory illnesses and cancers caused by Volatile Organic compounds? If he says we ALL enjoyed the benefits so we should ALL pay equally, I would counter that ONLY the fossil fuel corporations got rich. They received EXACTLY the same conveniences as the rest of us PLUS the profit along with continuous subsidies paid by we-the-people. So ONLY the fossil fuel corporations should pay for the damage. It’s high time the losses were privatized; not just the profits.
12) Why does his Momma wear combat boots? Just kidding! :icon_mrgreen:
[move]But I’M NOT KIDDING with the other 11 questions! Pass this around, people. The planet you save may be your own.
[/move]REFERENCES:
(1) The “Green Revolution’ fossil fuel LIE
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg4313#msg4313(2) **”The gasoline engine became the preferred engine for the automobile because gasoline was cheaper than alcohol, not because it was a better fuel. And, because alcohol was not available at any price from 1920 to 1933, a period during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol was banned nationally as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In time to produce alcohol fuels during World War II.
By the time World War II ended, the gasoline engine had become “entrenched” because gasoline remained cheaper than Alcohol, and widely distributed – gas stations were everywhere.”
Hope for a viable biosphere
Renewables, why they work and fossil and nuclear fuels never did
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/07/17/hope-for-a-viable-biosphere-of-renewables/(3) Duckweed post
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5500#msg5500(4) Geothermal post
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5850#msg5850(5) CSP post:
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5852#msg5852(6) Gas fracking corruption posts
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
https://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923RENEWABLE ENERGY: yet another dose of reality…
This is snippets: go to the links for full text:
Solar’s Insane Cost Drop
[…snip…]
the cost of solar PV has come from – quite
literally – off the charts less than a decade ago to a point
where [investment bank Sanford] Bernstein says solar PV is now
cheaper than oil and Asian LNG (liquefied natural gas).
[…snip…]
“For these (developing Asian economies) solar is just cheap,
clean, convenient, reliable energy. And since it is a
technology, it will get even cheaper over time [while]
fossil fuel extraction costs will keep rising. There is a
massive global market for cheap energy and that market is
oblivious to policy changes” in China, Japan, the EU or the
US, it writes.
[…snip…]
And then Bernstein drops this bombshell – while solar has a
fractional share of the market now, within one decade, solar
PV (plus battery storage) may have such a share of the market
that it becomes a trigger for energy price deflation, with
huge consequences for the massive fossil fuel industry that
relies on continued growth.
[…snip…]
Sitting on oil and gas reserves for the benefit of
generations yet to come ceases to be a rational strategy if
that reserve represents a depreciating rather than an
appreciating asset.”
This, Bernstein says, is the hidden flaw with the idea that
solar is “too small to matter”. Ultimately, it says, what may
kill the energy market for equity investors is not the fact
that renewable technology and battery storage will turn into
behemoths, but the realisation of that future as inevitable.———————-
and:
Bernstein: Utilities Have 4 Choices In Solar Revolution (None Are Easy To Swallow)
Bernstein: Utilities Have 4 Choices In Solar Revolution (None
Are Easy To Swallow)Can electricity generation companies live off two hours of
demand a day? And what if utilities actually tried to slow
down the rollout of rooftop solar? If these are questions
energy utilities are asking themselves in the current market
environment, they may not like investment bank Bernstein’s
answers.
[…snip…]
“Instead of high-cost (and high-priced) gas-fired peaking
power plants being engaged in the middle of the afternoon when
all of the air-conditioners are operating and all of the
factories are running, solar addresses that load. California –
like Germany and Australia – is already seeing this effect,”
Bernstein writes.
[…snip…]
Bernstein points out that by 2020, the installed capacity of
solar will be so great that the demand profile will resemble
the green line and daytime power demand will have effectively
collapsed… “For companies selling electricity into merchant
or competitive markets like California, this is a disaster,”
the Bernstein analysts write.
“Demand during what was one of the most profitable times of
the day disappears. With it, the need for part of the merchant
fleet disappears too for all but the dinner hour. And that is
the issue competitive generators face globally in this
2020-scenario: how to live off demand of two hours a day.”
[…snip…]
“The response of simply raising prices per kWh is therefore
unsustainable,” the analysts note. And they are faced with
increasingly unattractive choices.
[…snip…]
“The behavior from here seems clear: the solar industry will
expand. Retaliatory steps from distribution utilities will
increase the market for cost-effective battery storage. This
becomes – initially – a secondary market for battery
technologies being developed for the auto sector. A failed
battery technology in the auto sector (too hot, too heavy, too
rigid a form factor) might well be perfect for the home energy
storage market… with an addressable end market of 2 billion
backyards.”
RENEWABLE ENERGY: yet another dose of reality…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef
Solar and Wind Just Passed Another Big Turning Point
It has never made less sense to build fossil fuel power plants.
Tom Randall
October 6, 2015 — 5:00 AM CDT
snip
For the first time, widespread adoption of renewables is effectively lowering the capacity factor for fossil fuels. That’s because once a solar or wind project is built, the marginal cost of the electricity it produces is pretty much zero—free electricity—while coal and gas plants require more fuel for every new watt produced. If you’re a power company with a choice, you choose the free stuff every time.
It’s a self-reinforcing cycle. As more renewables are installed, coal and natural gas plants are used less. As coal and gas are used less, the cost of using them to generate electricity goes up. As the cost of coal and gas power rises, more renewables will be installed.
The virtuous cycle has begun.Still more doses of reality:
Jon Porritt, post-Paris: “the renewables revolution is now unstoppable”
Naomi Oreskes: neo-denialists hype nukes, disparage renewableshttps://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/post-paris-scene-part-3-renewables-industry-festive-mood
snip
“The statistics speak for themselves. Renewable energy as a whole (electricity, heating and liquid fuels) has grown 85% over the last ten years – and now provides 30% of all installed power capacity. Investment in 2014 was $270bn – up from just over $50bn ten years ago. And 2015 is looking even better. And all that was before the Paris Agreement…. there was not one person at this year’s Summit who would contest today’s post-Paris reality: that the renewables revolution is now unstoppable, and that it could all go a great deal faster, everywhere in the world, than many of today’s mainstream pundits would seem to believe. (They clearly haven’t learned enough – if anything, from their erstwhile forecasting errors ten years ago!)”………………………..
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/16/new-form-climate-denialism-dont-celebrate-yet-cop-21
There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet
Naomi Oreskes
At the exact moment in which we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, we’re being told that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs
Wednesday 16 December 2015
snip
“There is…a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Oddly, some of these voices include climate scientists, who insist that we must now turn to wholesale expansion of nuclear power…. we probably won’t get very far if the alternatives to fossil fuel – such as renewable energy – are disparaged by a new generation of myths. If we want to see real solutions implemented, we need to be on the lookout for this new form of denial…. The key to decarbonizing our economy is to build a new energy system that does not rely on carbon-based fuels. Scientific studies show that that can be done, it can be done soon and it does not require nuclear power.”The German energy transition, four years along; report card:
https://www.gtai.de/GTAI/Navigation/EN/Meta/Press/press-releases,t=germanys-energy-transition-progresses,did=1598022.html
Dec 14, 2016
Germany’s energy transition progresses
Berlin (gtai) – The annual report on Germany’s Energiewende (energy transition) has given the process full marks for its progress in 2015. Most notably, renewable energy sources became Germany’s most important source of electricity, with a share of 31.6 percent, even allowing for a slight increase in energy consumption (an increase largely attributed to cooler overall weather).
Even more pleasing was the overall fall in energy bills, by 1.4 percent for households and 2.1 percent for industrial customers not eligible for tax relief on their energy usage.
Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Sigmar Gabriel was delighted with the scorecard, saying it confrimed a ‘near complete implementation’ of an ‘ambitious programme’.……………….
Nice!
And, on the China front:
https://thinkprogress.org/with-millions-of-jobs-up-for-grabs-china-seizes-clean-tech-leadership-from-u-s-a37154d02d0#.h73ri6svf
Feb 28, 2017
China smashes solar energy records, as coal use and CO2 emissions fall once again
We are witnessing a historic passing of the baton of global leadership on technology and climate from the United States to China.
snip
Beijing plans to invest a stunning $360 billion by 2020 in renewable generation alone…. In 2016, Chinese coal consumption fell for the third consecutive year, Beijing reports, while it installed almost twice as many solar panels as it had in 2015, which was also a record-setting year. Beijing projects both trends will continue in 2017. China’s solar installation target for 2020 is likely to be achieved in 2018, which as Greenpeace’s Energy Desk noted in January, is “a pretty impressive feat given that the target was set only a couple of months ago.”And, a year old, but worth a review:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-solar-singularity-is-getting-closer
The Solar Singularity Is Getting Closer
by Tam Hunt
January 06, 2016
One year ago, I wrote a piece here at GTM that argued the solar singularity is nigh. The “solar singularity” is the point where solar becomes so cheap in a majority of countries around the world that it is established as the default new power source. At this point, solar will very likely go vertical in its growth curve.
snip
My key assertion is that under current cost trends for solar and wind power, and (less certainly) for other renewables and electric vehicles, we are well on our way down a path to dramatically reduced emissions.
snip
I made the solar singularity concept the centerpiece of my 2015 book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright. I offer here an update on the topics covered in my book, showing that we are perhaps even closer to the solar singularity than I previously dared to suggest.
I’ll cover not only solar, but also battery storage, electric vehicles and automated driving, which are the parallel and intertwined revolutions that are set to transform our energy system worldwide. With these four technologies developing steadily, we can reasonably expect to see, by 2035 to 2040, a world powered predominantly with renewable electricity — not only for homes and businesses, but also for transportation and industrial processes.And, the U.S. is not doing shabbily, either. DOUBLING in ONE YEAR:
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-solar-market-grows-95-in-2016-smashes-records
US Solar Market Grows 95% in 2016, Smashes Records
by Mike Munsell
February 15, 2017
In its biggest year to date, the United States solar market nearly doubled its annual record, topping out at 14,626 megawatts of solar PV installed in 2016.
This represents a 95 percent increase over the previous record of 7,493 megawatts installed in 2015.…………………………….
what does this graph tell us?
… it tells us that the storm is gathering great momentum. The pattern of ~30% annual increases (very fast, and laudable) of the 2011-2015 interval has been smashed to the upside.
Nice!
Cheap, high-EROI renewables are a tsunami that cannot be stopped — as I wrote here years ago.
Still further doses of reality:
Renewables have WON. The debate is OVER. Officially.
https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/The-World-Nuclear-Industry-Status-Report-2017-HTML.html
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017 (HTML)
Tuesday 12 September 2017
Foreword by S. David Freeman
[snip]
“[T]his 2017 World Nuclear Industry Status Report is perhaps the most decisive document in the history of nuclear power. The report makes clear, in telling detail, that the debate is over. Nuclear power has been eclipsed by the sun and the wind. These renewable, free-fuel sources are no longer a dream or a projection — they are a reality that are replacing nuclear as the preferred choice for new power plants worldwide.
[snip]
The value of this report is that this conclusion no longer relies on hope or opinion but is what is actually happening. In country after country the facts are the same. Nuclear power is far from dead but it is in decline and renewable energy is growing by leaps and bounds…. nowhere in the world, where there is a competitive market for electricity, has even one single nuclear power plant been initiated. Only where the government or the consumer takes the risks of cost overruns and delays is nuclear power even being considered…. since 1997, worldwide, renewable energy has produced four times as many new kilowatt-hours of electricity than nuclear power. Maybe the Revolution has not been televised, but it is well underway.
Renewable energy is a lower cost and cleaner, safer alternative to fossil fuels [and] nuclear power. The world no longer needs to build nuclear power plants to avoid climate change and certainly not to save money. If you have any doubt about that fact please read the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2017.”Nice new presentations by Ramez Naam and Martin Katusa.
Renewables are a freight train that cannot be stopped.
‘Is the Electric Vehicle Revolution Real?’ with Marin Katusa of Katusa Research
[mistitled; it is about renewables in general]
Cambridge House
Published on Dec 20, 2017
Exponential Energy | Ramez Naam | SingularityU South Africa
Singularity University Summits
Published on Oct 20, 2017
Wonderful news: at 16:40 — “In January, China canceled 104
planned coal power plants, including 40 for which ground had
already been broken… in one month India canceled 14GW of
planned coal capacity, because solar PV price is in freefall.
THE WORLD’S COAL PIPELINE IS DRYING UP”. Thank God!Still more FUN doses of reality!
Excellent presentation here by Tony Seba, April 2018. Don’t miss the latter portion, starting around 55:00: collapse of demand for new vehicles, and collapse of oil industry, starting ~2020; large decline of CO2 emissions and energy requirements due to runaway electric autonomous vehicle adoption, starting ~2020. Wow!
Clean Disruption of Energy and Transportation – CWA –
Boulder, April 9, 2018
Tony Seba
Published on Apr 25, 2018Also, don’t miss the passage after 1:03:00 on solar power: an onrushing locomotive.
Good news!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar–battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/#425918e55971
Jul 1, 2019, 12:03am
New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear
Jeff McMahon
Los Angeles Power and Water officials have struck a deal on the largest and cheapest solar + battery-storage project in the world, at prices that leave fossil fuels in the dust and may relegate nuclear power to the dustbin…. It’s half the estimated cost of power from a new natural gas plant…. Mark Z. Jacobson, the Stanford professor who developed roadmaps for transitioning 139 countries to 100 percent renewables, hailed the development on Twitter Friday, saying, “Goodnight #naturalgas, goodnight #coal, goodnight #nuclear.”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.