The Energy Transition and technologies

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They do show the massive scale of how difficult it is. I didn't realize there were chapters after the summary, I've been looking through. Chapter 3 shows graphs with yearly spending indicated, over what we spend now. The increases are staggering. For instance, solar needs to go from yearly spending of 115 to 237 billion a year for 30 years. So you can spend all that, but where do you put them? At some point you run out of places to build massive solar farms.

Same with wind Offshore spending needs to increase 10 fold, every year. Surely opportunity for offshore wind locations will be exhausted long before 30 years at a pace of 10x what we do now. Storage needs to increase 33x. Biofuel production by 43x. Sorry, but where are you growing these? Remember, that's per year additions for 30 years.

I'd be interested to see these numbers re-worked with the massive increase in nuclear. Nothing in this report feels achievable due to limits on space and reality. The dollar value is the most realistic part of it.

I think solar is great, but given how slow the efficiency of the panels is improving, one does wonder how cost effective it really is.

Maybe to replace peaker plants on a small scale, etc....but large scale power production? I dunno.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

Maybe to replace peaker plants on a small scale, etc....but large scale power production? I dunno.

Solar can't replace peaker plants because peak demand in warm areas is late afternoon to mid-evening, and in areas that get cold, the peak demand periods are morning and late afternoon to late-evening.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think solar is great, but given how slow the efficiency of the panels is improving, one does wonder how cost effective it really is.

Maybe to replace peaker plants on a small scale, etc....but large scale power production? I dunno.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915




It might work OK for some parts of the southern US when peak energy use is around early to mid afternoon, through you'd probably be relying a bit on batteries to get you throguh the following 2 hours. Looking at northern US the peak is so late in the day you would have to store that power for a few hours. But designing an electricity system this way, with solar handling your peak, is a recipe for disaster if clouds roll in. You'd still need contingency for that, like, uh, a real peaker pant.


Really anything you do with solar has to be supplemental to reliable baseload that you can dial down if solar is working well at that particular moment.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Solar with the right battery system (salt water) can meet the need. It just needs to be mandated with every installation of solar, that a storage system (salt water battery pack) is part of the installation. That won't happen, because the utilities demand that all power generation goes into their system rather than making each domicile self sufficient. Why can't I have a battery bank that stores my needs? Because the utilities, and the fossil fuel companies you work for, have a massive lobby that dictates energy policy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Solar can't replace peaker plants because peak demand in warm areas is late afternoon to mid-evening, and in areas that get cold, the peak demand periods are morning and late afternoon to late-evening.

Solar + battery.

Sorry, should have clarified.

It has been shown to work on small scales.

[Azure]

Yup, and even on a smaller scale home owner solar is structured in such a way that it is not in the home owners favor at all to do battery storage, etc.

Kinda dumb.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yup, and even on a smaller scale home owner solar is structured in such a way that it is not in the home owners favor at all to do battery storage, etc.

But that has a lot to do with overly generous net-metering, where the grid effectively becomes a cheap and virtually unlimited battery. Kill off net-metering and home storage becomes a lot more beneficial, but kill off net-metering and home solar probably dies too as the economics no longer work compared to paying 13-15c/kWh for all you can use in Calgary.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Solar with the right battery system (salt water) can meet the need. It just needs to be mandated with every installation of solar, that a storage system (salt water battery pack) is part of the installation. That won't happen, because the utilities demand that all power generation goes into their system rather than making each domicile self sufficient. Why can't I have a battery bank that stores my needs? Because the utilities, and the fossil fuel companies you work for, have a massive lobby that dictates energy policy.

Mandate a battery that hasn't really been proven? I think the last company doing them went bankrupt. It mgiht be a good solution(pun!), but you don't mandate something that is still fairly experimental.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Pick any battery storage solution, I don't give a ####. Just make a storage solution available for the masses. Why is it that I can't legally have a storage solution without the permission of the utility, regardless of battery type?

And sure, salt water batteries are as experimental as liquid salt nuclear reactors. Both have been proven to be effective but have been locked out by the interests in more traditional processes. Thorium reactors could change the game over night. Salt water batteries could do the same in a commercial and residential application. But they are both #### blocked by the established techs and their lobbies. Which just proves that all solutions are not being looked at, and "the market economy" is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world since Christ was established as he foundation for western religions.

:-)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Pick any battery storage solution, I don't give a ####. Just make a storage solution available for the masses. Why is it that I can't legally have a storage solution without the permission of the utility, regardless of battery type?

And sure, salt water batteries are as experimental as liquid salt nuclear reactors. Both have been proven to be effective but have been locked out by the interests in more traditional processes. Thorium reactors could change the game over night. Salt water batteries could do the same in a commercial and residential application. But they are both #### blocked by the established techs and their lobbies. Which just proves that all solutions are not being looked at, and "the market economy" is the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world since Christ was established as he foundation for western religions.

:-)

I presume they don't want random batteries all over the place, connected to the grid, that could pose a hazard to workers. Now, I know some utilities are dicks about it. But you really do need the proper disconnects, and even then I assume utilities would want to be aware for safety reasons.


I also don't really think we should be having a grid so unreliable people need to take matters like that into their own hands. It's discriminatory against those who can't afford it, and it's inefficient, in that grid scale storage is a lot more cost effective.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I presume they don't want random batteries all over the place, connected to the grid, that could pose a hazard to workers. Now, I know some utilities are dicks about it. But you really do need the proper disconnects, and even then I assume utilities would want to be aware for safety reasons.

Why do they care? I'm a customer of theirs. All they should care about is selling me their product, which is electricity. Oh wait, there's the catch. They just want to make sure they can sell me electricity and not have me self sufficient! That's the problem. They shouldn't care what type of storage system I have in place, as long as it is isolated from their system. But they do. They care because it prevents them from accessing my source of energy generation and also means I will have energy and not have them selling me energy.

I also don't really think we should be having a grid so unreliable people need to take matters like that into their own hands. It's discriminatory against those who can't afford it, and it's inefficient, in that grid scale storage is a lot more cost effective.

Who gets to determine reliability? This is a utility. Does your ISP give a flying #### about your home network? Nope. It's isolated from their systems. They are just selling you bandwidth and couldn't care less what type of system you run at home and what bad things you introduce to the larger eco system. Why is it that the utility gets to determine what I do as far as energy generation and consumption? They shouldn't. They should only care that I am connected and am a customer to by watts when my consumption exceeds my ability to produce my own energy.

And discriminatory? Now I've heard everything.

[DoubleK]

Lanny you can do whatever the hell you want so long as you aren't connected to the grid.

If you want to connect to the grid you need to follow the rules and pay your fair share. That means paying for power in and paying for power out.

[opendoor]

I don't think battery-backed renewables are as hopeless as people seem to suggest. This study suggests that while having enough solar/wind to meet 100% of demand with batteries is basically impossible in a cost effective manner (at least with current technology), it is viable to meet the vast majority. Based on this analysis, dropping it to meeting demand even just 95% of the time means that solar/wind with batteries could match the cost of nuclear at about $150/kWh for storage costs (about what Li-ion batteries are now) in many areas of the US.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by opendoor

I don't think battery-backed renewables are as hopeless as people seem to suggest. This study suggests that while having enough solar/wind to meet 100% of demand with batteries is basically impossible in a cost effective manner (at least with current technology), it is viable to meet the vast majority. Based on this analysis, dropping it to meeting demand even just 95% of the time means that solar/wind with batteries could match the cost of nuclear at about $150/kWh for storage costs (about what Li-ion batteries are now) in many areas of the US.

I'm sure there are places it can work. I'm more thinking Alberta, where in January you go with basically no solar, and the wind can pretty much stop for weeks at a time. No battery is getting you throguh that. So you still need base load to cover the full demand.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GGG

The 131 trillion is to keep the lights on

https://www.irena.org/publications/2...itions-Outlook

I believe the above report is where the number comes from. It’s the investment required to go from today to Carbon Neutral.

You can’t transition from fossil fuels without nuclear energy AND keep the 21st century modern societies that we’ve become accustomed to and are not giving up intact.

It smacks of ideological folly.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I had previously read that another downfall of hydro is that it can ruin river ecosystem downstream. Basically the study was claiming that the water being returned from hydro plants was warmer, to a pretty small degree, but it was enough to impact fish and aquatic plants.

That would make more sense of an issue than the one in the article. Unless you are building new hydro dams, the flooding loss would have already occurred the first time it floods wouldn't it? Don't see how it would be an issue with existing systems,

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Lanny you can do whatever the hell you want so long as you aren't connected to the grid.

If you want to connect to the grid you need to follow the rules and pay your fair share. That means paying for power in and paying for power out.

Actually, I can't. It's against the law. Unless I am on rural unimproved land I am NOT allowed to do whatever the hell I want. I am not allowed to disconnect from the grid and run under my own solar installation, because of the laws that protect the monopoly owned by the electric companies. I'm sure the same applies to you in Alberta. Once connected, they own you. They can arbitrarily disconnect you from the grid at their liking, but you are not allowed to disconnect and be self sufficient.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Actually, I can't. It's against the law. Unless I am on rural unimproved land I am NOT allowed to do whatever the hell I want. I am not allowed to disconnect from the grid and run under my own solar installation, because of the laws that protect the monopoly owned by the electric companies. I'm sure the same applies to you in Alberta. Once connected, they own you. They can arbitrarily disconnect you from the grid at their liking, but you are not allowed to disconnect and be self sufficient.

That doesn't apply in Alberta, maybe your jurisdiction just has crappy rules. I've inquired about disconnecting a property from the grid - you just call the wires company (separate from the retailer) and they disconnect you. You can either pay a monthly fee to maintain the option connect in the future OR they remove your meter/wires and you don't pay at all. My father-in-law has a seasonal property and we helped him do the temporary option in the past.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That doesn't apply in Alberta, maybe your jurisdiction just has crappy rules. I've inquired about disconnecting a property from the grid - you just call the wires company (separate from the retailer) and they disconnect you. You can either pay a monthly fee to maintain the option connect in the future OR they remove your meter/wires and you don't pay at all. My father-in-law has a seasonal property and we helped him do the temporary option in the past.

You guys are lucky! That's not the way things work down here in the US. There is some variance by state, but once you are connected to the grid you're not disconnecting. The laws are written to protect the utilities, not to protect the rights of the individual and their choice of how they wish to live in their own home.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You guys are lucky! That's not the way things work down here in the US. There is some variance by state, but once you are connected to the grid you're not disconnecting. The laws are written to protect the utilities, not to protect the rights of the individual and their choice of how they wish to live in their own home.

Its definitely state by state at least partially. I have a friend in California who is a huge Tesla fan and has a power wall. He has it set to turn on do he doesn't buy any power from the grid during the "peak" pricing time.