Google gives up on renewables

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Nigel_S

No need to drill, Iceland already generates all it's power from geothermal energy without significant drilling, I'm sure they could export some to the USA

Actually, USA already has quite a few geothermal plants operating:




...notice how they're all mostly located along the Pacific "volcanic" mountain ranges.

[niky]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Hmmm ... somehow with 40 years of progress .. and 40 years of Fossil Fuel price increasing .. somehow we won't reach the point we are at already today ??

In your link:

"Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire"

Pleasantly surprised that Wind is so cheap, even without subsidies. But wind power is simply too intermittent to replace fossil or nuclear fueled base load. In the end:

Originally Posted by jamesqf

society in its present form is not sustainable

It's time for a global lifestyle check.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by P-hack

But it isn't anywhere what it needs to be to replace the current transportation/heating/industry demands, and it would be very very very costly to do that.

Isn't that what I said? That the problem is not with 'renewables', particularly solar, being viable (that is, if you install PV on your roof, over the expected life of the panels you will pay less than if you bought from the grid). The problem is that society in its current form is unsustainable, whether you run it on renewables, coal, nuclear, or magic.

Also "grid parity" is a strange metric, are you going to replace farmland with solar panels during the buildout to meet the energy demands?

No, not if you're sensible. (And of course not everyone is: see above.) You are going to put those panels on your roof. As for industry... Well, note that Tesla claims that its 'Gigafactory' battery plant will produce more energy than it consumes from solar, wind, and geothermal.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by niky

In the end:

I agree .. bold

But , I don't think anyone is claiming it already is sustainable in it's current form today.

The error those PHDs made .. was the claim about it not being financially viable even in 40 years ... Their claims , just don't agree with the actual data .. PHD or not .. If the actual numbers disagree with them .. they are wrong... and in this case they are.

It is financially viable today , for many applications ... and ALL evidence points to it being much much better 40 years from now.

Originally Posted by niky

Pleasantly surprised that Wind is so cheap, even without subsidies. But wind power is simply too intermittent to replace fossil or nuclear fueled base load.

Keep in mind the argument those PHDs were making , is that no type of RE can possibly be cheaper than coal not even 40 years from now ... reality is that ... Some RE already is today .. even without any subsidies ... much less what will be around 40 years from now... simply put , their wrong.

- - - - -

Intermittent does change the financial aspect for the amount you want to have 'on-demand' at any time ... day or night .. wind or no-wind ... but the PHDs were wrong there also .. because it is already possible with today's tech ... and it is already even financially viable in some context with today's tech.

Today's tech it is already cheaper for the electric grid in some places to start replacing those 'on-demand' power plants with large grid scale battery banks .. how's ~400 MWh battery storage for a start? ... And that Big Battery financially $ out performs (the old school method of ) putting a grid scale fossil fuel power plant there to perform the same function.

And that's with Today's tech ... again ... not even the better stuff that will be here in 40 years.

[Nigel_S]

Originally Posted by niky

In your link:



Pleasantly surprised that Wind is so cheap, even without subsidies. But wind power is simply too intermittent to replace fossil or nuclear fueled base load. In the end:



It's time for a global lifestyle check.

The UK uses wind along with Nuclear and Coal as the base load, if we have wind available then it is used first. Hydro pumped storage fills in the peaks and then a mixture of gas and imported Nuclear and wind power fills in the remaining variable demand.

The wind isn't intermittent unless you have a very small number of turbines in a very small number of locations. Having many thousands of turbines spread throughout our island and also access to power from turbines in other countries so that a single high pressure weather system cannot take out the whole lot, it is variable but those variations can be accurately predicted days in advance so giving a reliable supply, you don't need lots of non-renewable plants on immediate standby wasting power.

Originally Posted by IamIan

Keep in mind the argument those PHDs were making , is that no type of RE can possibly be cheaper than coal not even 40 years from now ... reality is that ... Some RE already is today .. even without any subsidies ... much less what will be around 40 years from now... simply put , their wrong.

I think they were looking at using 100% RE which would indeed be very difficult today but we don't need to replace our Nuclear plants with RE so 100% isn't necessary.

Some RE has always be financially viable, in the UK we have used sustainable hydropower since the very start of household electricity and some of our most important power plants today are the pump storage systems, not technically RE but with 30 GWh of power stored and retrievable at 70% efficiency they are very important for meeting peak demand, storing excess power and reducing the spare capacity requirement.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You are going to put those panels on your roof. As for industry...

Well I will have to remove all the trees for that to work.

[solarguy]

Lots of off-gridders have cut their consumption by 50-85% with no real sacrifices. It's different, but not worse. And possibly better in some ways.

Combined with aggressive conservation, renewables will be sufficient. OK, we do have to get the population under control, or Malthus will be laughing in the end.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Nigel_S

I think they were looking at using 100% RE

It would actually be significantly more difficult to be 100% fossil fuel.

Can you imagine how extremely difficult it would be to run communication and GPS satellites from fossil fuels ?... having to send supplies of O2 and fossil fuels into orbit for that on board fossil fuel to burn ... Or the light energy for all of our food sources (and wood we use to build with) .. to all come from fossil fuel light bulbs instead of RE solar ... RE is easier and cheaper to get to 100%.

Originally Posted by Nigel_S

which would indeed be very difficult today but we don't need to replace our Nuclear plants with RE so 100% isn't necessary.

I agree 100% RE isn't necessary.

Remember they went beyond the claim about what would be 'difficult' today ... they claimed any RE option can't be viable (financially) vs coal 40 years from now ... and that is just incorrect .. Real world data over-rules opinions .. even the opinions of those with a PHD.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by solarguy

Lots of off-gridders have cut their consumption by 50-85% with no real sacrifices. It's different, but not worse. And possibly better in some ways.

Don't even have to be off-grid. My electric bill is about half the average for the area, and (judging from casual conversations) about a third of what my immediate neighbors pay. Yet I certainly don't feel like I'm making any sort of sacrifice.

[P-hack]

There's a lot of apartment and condo dwellers in the city and surrounding areas. And there is a lot of farmland going to support these concentrations of people. There isn't really anything to discuss if population remains unchecked, it is all folly, a distraction to avoid an unpleasant (and politically suicidal) conversation. It is what it is. Conflict and famine are just the only things that work, we are collectively too ignorant to have nice things (but that is ok too because it is the stuff of evolution, of real progress).