Posted on 09/18/2019 7:21:55 AM PDT by zeestephen
Costs for renewable power generation have dropped fast, but they will not improve 10-fold anymore - physical limits will be reached...Common comparisons of renewables vs. conventional power generation are misleading. One cannot compare marginal costs for intermittent power with costs for base power...[This is the best essay on this subject I have ever read]
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
I’ve been saying exactly this for probably a decade. Glad to see someone has backed it up better, but it was obvious to me from the beginning. The energy density is just not there with renewables.
But renewables can still make a major contribution.
Of course not. It’s obvious to even the less than casual observer.
(But not at all obvious to our modern “eddkashun” industry.)
You listenin’ there, NEA collection of clowns?
Remember, “environmentalism” is not about the environment. The Left is all about control. By throttling energy through chicanery, the Left controls and invalidates the actions of individuals, which is the entire point of the movement.
The cost for power should ALWAYS be figured as the sole source cost, meaning with no backup.
The cost of wind and solar should figure in powering a generator when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Otherwise it is worthless.
With solar, you can only get so much power per square foot, and there is only so much acreage that can be devoted to it. Same with just about every other form of renewable. At some point we must acknowledge that nuclear is the way of the future, if we want a future and not a return to the stone age.
Who says crude oil isn’t renewable? I believe it is made and secreted by the Earth, possibly a waste product, and we are being good stewards of the planet by disposing of it. The idea that it is made of decomposed dinosaurs is silly.
Bump
“But renewables can still make a major contribution.”
No it can’t. Any of the ‘renewable’ crap used is when there is a real source of energy spinning idle waiting. If you have to have a duplicate source it is worthless.
I think that the objective is not to have modern civilization. at least not for the peons.
Really? How much is “major” in your view?
Maybe I have misread you and you are being realistically sarcastic?
Contribution is fine, but that perspective overlooks the fact that 100% non-renewable capability must be available and online 24/7 ... at which point renewables is an ADDITIONAL cost, not a replacement cost (implied by “contribution”).
When renewables stop (hence “intermittent”, like this cloud over my head now), there must be instant full-power sourcing - be it battery backup or nuclear or whatever. That’s nowhere close to cheap.
People, including renewables advocates, don’t grasp how very close to blackout they are at any moment. The correct perspective on renewables is grid independence: sustain the reliable power sourcing at scale & cost, configure renewables as a backup.
First, let’s reclaim the language a bit. The term “renewable’ is a manipulation and a lie. Neither wind mills nor solar panels “renew” themselves. The better term is “alternative energy”.
Second, solar and wind are laughably bad at large scale utility company use. Their best use is as a way to get a single structure less dependent on a utility, based completely on that structures location and most applicable alternative. Solar panels are fine as a supplement in some warmer climates but stupid in colder climates where the panels are covered in snow and ice for months. Wind is OK in some areas but horrible in others.
“With solar, you can only get so much power per square foot”
10W/m^2
Impinging sunlight is 1300W/m^2.
Once you apply attenuating factors (night, clouds, efficiency, etc) you’re down to about ten watts per square meter. Were the panels 100% efficient (can’t be) you’d still only increase that by maybe 10x.
Nuclear, in comparison, is around 1000W/m^2 (support equipment included).
How do you generate the energy needed to mine the minerals necessary to make solar panels and Electric Car batteries?
Yes; methinks the correct perspective on “renewables” should be “local grid independence/backup”. It should be a social norm that new homes be built with integrated solar roofs & low-profile wind turbines, such that most homes don’t rely on grid power 24/7. At scale, normalizing that would provide the necessary economics to actually “get there” incrementally (yay capitalism!), rather than throwing taxpayer money at “incentives” at a scale that incentivizes harvesting incentives.
If you want a culture that isn’t going to instantly devolve into Lord Of The Flies chaos in a matter of hours come some major crisis or critical breakdown (”society is just 9 meals away from total destruction”), every single home should have enough self-generating power/water/food to get by on a survivable level, rather than crashing to 0% independence overnight. As someone LARPing home power/water production (grew up with 50% home food production), this deeply concerns me.
Yes, we can do better as science progresses. The mass>energy>capture sequence has enormous room for improvement.
I ignore fusion because it’s been “just 10 years away!” for the last 60 years.
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.