Posted on 12/14/2022 4:18:08 AM PST by MtnClimber
It occurs to me that before moving on from my obsession with energy storage and and its manifest limitations, I should address the policy implications of this situation. I apologize if these implications may seem terribly obvious to regular readers, or for that matter to people who have just thought about these issues for, say, five minutes. Unfortunately, our powers-that-be don’t seem to have those five minutes to figure out the obvious, so we’ll just have to bash them over the head with it.
Here are the three most obvious policy implications that nobody in power seems to have figured out:
(1) More and more wind turbines and solar panels are essentially useless because they can never fully supply an electrical grid or provide energy security without full dispatchable backup.
Here in the U.S. the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022 provides some hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies and tax credits to build more wind turbines and solar panels. Simultaneously, the Biden Administration, directed by a series of Executive Orders from the President, proceeds with an all-of-government effort to suppress the dispatchable backup known as fossil fuels. Does somebody think this can actually work? It can’t.
And then there’s the December 6 press release from the UN’s International Energy Agency, touting how renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are being “turbocharged” to provide countries with “energy security.” The headline is: “Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security.” Excerpt:
The global energy crisis is driving a sharp acceleration in installations of renewable power, with total capacity growth worldwide set to almost double in the next five years. . . . “Renewables were already expanding quickly, but the global energy crisis has kicked them into an extraordinary new phase of even faster growth as countries seek to capitalise on their energy security benefits. The world is set to add as much renewable power in the next 5 years as it did in the previous 20 years,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.
Completely ridiculous. Wind and solar power provide the opposite of energy security. Back in the real world, just a few days after the IEA issued that nonsense, on December 11 the UK got a taste of the kind of “energy security” provided by wind and solar power, when a cold snap at the darkest part of the year came along with a prolonged period of calm in the winds — a typical winter occurrence. From the Guardian, December 11:
Live data from the National Grid's Electricity System Operator showed that wind power was providing just 3% of Great Britain's electricity generation on Sunday [December 11]. Gas-fired power stations provided 59%, while nuclear power and electricity imports both accounted for about 15%.
And what was the inevitable consequence of the wind conking out just when it was needed most?
UK power prices have hit record levels as an icy cold snap and a fall in supplies of electricity generated by wind power have combined to push up wholesale costs. The day-ahead price for power for delivery on Monday reached a record £675 a megawatt-hour on the Epex Spot SE exchange. The price for power at 5-6pm, typically around the time of peak power demand each day, passed an all-time high of £2,586 a megawatt-hour.
2,586 pounds/MWh would be equivalent to about $3 per kWh (wholesale), compared to a typical U.S. price for electricity of around 12-15 cents per kWh retail. Congratulations to the UK on achieving this level of “energy security.”
(2) The so-called “all of the above” energy strategy is equally disastrous.
In the U.S., Republicans sensibly looking to blunt the disastrous energy policies of the Democrats and the Biden Administration have somehow come up with something they call the “all of the above” strategy is their proposed alternative. For example, here is the webpage of the Republicans on the House Committee on Natural Resources, led by one Bruce Westerman of Arkansas. Excerpt:
Republicans support an all-of the-above energy approach that includes development of alternative energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, nuclear, geothermal and biomass, along with clean coal and American-made oil and natural gas. A comprehensive plan will help protect the environment and improve our economic and natural security.
No, no, no and no. Because of the impracticability and cost of energy storage, building more and more wind and solar facilities cannot lead to any reduction, let alone elimination, of the fossil fuel infrastructure. You will inevitably end up with two fully redundant energy systems, both of which must be paid for even though each supplies only about half of the power to the grid. Thus at the minimum you have doubled the cost of electricity to consumers. But the worst case is far worse than that, where the government suppresses the fossil fuel backup (as in the UK). In that case, when the fossil fuel backup has been reduced but is suddenly needed, the consumer may have to pay 10 or 20 or 30 or more times a reasonable price for electricity. All due entirely to government folly. Can the U.S. Republicans avoid the disastrous blind alley into which the UK Tories have driven their country? That remains to be seen.
(3) A carbon tax is a terrible idea.
Over at the GWPF (where I am the President of the American Friends affiliate), they are in the process of sponsoring a back-and-forth debate on the subject of carbon taxes as a way to address the issue of climate change. Professor Peter Hartley of Rice University has taken the side of advocating for a carbon tax. William Happer of Princeton and energy analyst Bruce Everett have taken the negative.
The gist of the Happer/Everett piece is that CO2 is not a pollutant and poses no danger to humanity, and therefore a tax designed to suppress it is unjustified. I agree with that argument. But an equally valid and independent line of reasoning is that, because of impracticability of energy storage and the consequent futility of trying to make wind and solar generation work without fossil fuels, a carbon tax can only serve to drive up the price of energy to consumers without meaningfully changing the use of carbon fuels.
As much as all three of these policy prescriptions are manifestly terrible and destructive ideas, they seem to reign supreme today, with virtually no push back anywhere. Maybe a few bouts of $3/kWh electricity this winter in the UK and Germany might start to wake people up.
It seems clear that the “green energy” push is from those who hate western civilization and want to create the weak link that will cause it to collapse.
And this post is typed from someone who likes my solar. I wouldn't have solar at all if the Dims weren't making dependable energy too expensive and, in some cases, less available.
Renewable energy will only be useful when we have an easy way to store the information and when we can switch back between nuclear, hydrocarbons and renewables with a switch.
small modular nuclear fission reactors...
To fully implement Wind/Solar requires a 3 hour battery backup. That is the time it takes to start up a Coal or Natural Gas power plant. Currently, the State of California has 60 seconds worth of battery backup.
There is not enough lithium on the planet.
You can switch back and forth from Wind/Solar and Coal or Natural Gas. Those plants to 3 hours to start up.
You cannot backup Wind/Solar with Nuclear energy because those plants to 3 days to start up.
Which supports my point as to why renewables arent yet ready. We cant turn off the others to make use of renewables.
If I lived in California I'd have probably a half a day's worth of battery storage to help put up with their intermittent power.
In its simplest form, it is using what works and is proven.
So I don't know why the "all of the above" approach is condemned by the author.
We should use any source of energy that, first used on a small scale, is proven to work and be efficient.
This was the existing policy since 1000 AD and before.
As each different source came online, it flew or didn't based on its feasibility (economic).
The crazy error the left is making is mandating things that have not been proven and accepted by the free market, and ordering huge amounts of money be spent on ideas that ultimately fail.
The craziest idea yet is electric cars, although the bird-Cuisinarts are a close second.
But the great thing about conservatism and freedom is that the efficient and feasible things grow and are developed and the bad ideas die out, all at the expense of the willing entrepreneur and his supporters.
Conservatism and freedom make the process as loss-free and efficient as possible.
People on the right need to emphasize this point more in discussions with the left.
Captain Obvious signing off.
True that. And true that on a natural gas plant being more scalable (turn on in hours) than a nuclear plant (turn on in days). But even if we had a perfectly scalable fossil fueled plant (I guess a natural gas fueled plant is the closest), there's still the matter of cost.
It's simply too costly to build a fossil fueled plant to be used only half the time. If the fossil fueled plant has to be powerful enough to provide all the power needed at any moment the sun is down and/or wind is calm, it's a costly investment for something to be used maybe half the time (turned off or way down when the sun is out). Why build two plants: one solar plant and one natural gas plant, when you can build just one?
Keep in mind that I'm not anti-solar. I like my solar system at my property. It works well for me in a decentralized manner. But to be honest, the only reason it's paying for itself is because the Dims make power and natural gas too expensive from the utility companies.
I’m not anti-renewable either. However, I want an assessment of its potential and ideal locations. Maybe it can never be made for mainstream use, but maybe it be used in hard to reach locations like ranger towers or something.
As the author points out, the whole idea of having two or more fully redundant power systems when one would be sufficient is idiotic on its face … unless you’re in the business of manufacturing and installing power grid components.
This is the natural consequence of living in a modern, highly advanced society where 99% of the problems that plagued the human race for thousands of years have been solved. When you run out of things to sell to people, you have to sell them sh!t they don’t need, and would never buy voluntarily.
There may be others who know more about renewables potential, but i find it to be fairly decent for somebody’s, if you are building a house. Install a solar unit on the roof and build a wind tower to charge a two-day battery in case your power goes out. Other than that, I dont know how to optimize it more than that.
There are cases of solar being used for range towers and cell towers. There's also cases of solar being used for a remote fishing house on a lake (with a small battery pack and small generator for a weekend getaway).
For what it's worth, one reason my solar works so well for our home is it's custom for mine and my wife's specific power consumption habits. Because it's not my intention to go off-grid, I was able to define a line where I met the law of diminishing returns. Basically, any more solar and/or battery storage beyond what I have now is cost prohibitive -- why pay the expense for a larger system when I can get what I need from the grid. (Speaking like a software engineer.)
It's analogous to my choice in pickup trucks. I have a small used pickup because 99% of the time a small one is all I need. On the few times I need a larger truck I just rent one. Thus, the availability of larger trucks to rent allowed me to choose to get a cheaper small pickup that's not only cheaper to buy upfront, but also cheaper to drive (better gas mileage) than a larger truck.
If someone were to get solar to save money, it works only because a dependable grid power is there when we need it. Otherwise we'd have to really lower our lifestyles, power consumption-wise, to be off-grid completely. That's the case even here in Alabama where we get lots of sun. The plan to make utilities "net zero" is hogwash. It can't be done. The power company doesn't have a grid to lean on when solar and/or wind go down. The power company has to be the dependable grid we all lean on.
If my upgrade implemented last August works as well as I think it will (so far it has, and I was able to predict my original solar system's throughput a year ago, so I'll count my estimate as probably right), then in a year's time it will produce 85% to 95% of all the power I need. Obviously lower in the winter and more in the summer. And that's with no natural gas bill (all-electric, two-story house) and charging our EV for all local driving (we do most of our driving in the EV for obvious reasons). That's great throughput and will pay for itself a decade from now with my equipment having 25 year and 19 year warranties to get me free power after they've paid for themselves. But with all that it's still not enough to be off-grid.
That. And a money laundering scam.
Like CoupFlu policy, it has, in fact, zero to do with the stated purpose.
True that. And I'm familiar with climate in the south (lots of sun). I can't speak for solar and/or wind elsewhere. Of course, there are tons of other energy saving things to do wiser at construction time like better insulation, sealing cracks, install a variable-speed heat pump, a hybrid water heater. When I installed solar a year and a half ago, I also did these kinds of improvements to my existing house. They get a better return on investment than the solar. I liked the throughput so much I added onto my solar and battery storage this year (like I planned long term from day 1, but only after studying the telemetry for a year from a Phase I trial run before going all in on the full project).
IMHO, it's too cost prohibitive to get enough battery storage to last 2 whole days (at least without rationing power consumption) when you can get a generator. Of course, I don't live in an area with 3rd world power experiences like California. It's rare that grid power is down here, so for me battery storage is about pulling less power from the grid (lower power bill), not about keeping the lights on. I have 90kWh of battery storage, and on average we consume about 65kWh per day (that includes charging the EV, which we've had only half a year). The solar and battery storage is enough so that we're about 85% energy independent (I buy 15% of my power from the grid because the solar charges the batteries enough to almost always, but not quite always be what we need after the sun goes down). I've done the math ten ways to Sunday and any more battery storage from here would increase the payback period beyond the 10 years it already is (assuming a 3% inflation rate from here on the energy costs I'm avoiding).
Plenty of sodium though. Not good enough for transportation (yet), but plenty good enough for stationary usage.
Or lead sulfate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.