I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.” It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments so often that I feel compelled to promote a more careful thinking out of them, or at least, how they are presented. Roberts’ argument is not malconstructed, but the assumptions leading up to his key points include falsehoods.
I’m not going to explicitly disagree with the various elements of the solutions part of this article (the last parts). But the run-up to that discussion, in my opinion, reifies and supports a number of falsehoods, mainly the dramatic (and untrue) dichotomy between the perfect and wonderful large-plant mostly coal and petroleum sources of energy on one hand with alternatives fraught with All The Problems on the other. Since this VOX piece is a “beginner’s guide” I would hope we can stick a little more nuance into beginner’s thinking.
I choose to Fisk. Thusly:
“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “
It decreases the demand for power, overall. Internal combustion engines are inefficient compared to electric, to such a degree that burning huge amounts of petroleum or coal in one place to ultimately power electric vehicles in a reasonable size region is more efficient than distributing burnable material to all those vehicles to run them. Electrification is inherently more efficient and lower maintenance.
“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”
Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened. Globally, maybe. That depends on if a “big grid” is the best way to deliver power everywhere. It probably isn’t.
[The grid must become] “more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing. ”
This contrasts the improvement of the grid with decarbonizing as though they were opposites, but for most of the expected improvements of the grid, improvements of the grid and decarbonizing are the same actions. They are not in opposition to each other.
“On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.”
This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is uncertainty here, of course. But let’s try this. Let’s try decarbonizing 50% of our current power without nuclear. At that point we will know whether or not to invest trillions into an unpopular solution (and nuclear is unpopular). If we need to, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we won’t. Maybe something in between. But worrying about this now, and using uncertainty to argue one way or another, is a waste of conversational energy.
“(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)”
LOL. But no. Rather, I’m thinking that it is too early to know and, in contrast, you are hiding a pro-nuclear argument in a blanket of uncertainty! Maybe you are not, but this is what such arguments almost always look like. Beware the nuclear argument wearing sheep’s clothing. A greenish tinged sheep, yes, but still a sheep.
“The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.”
Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.
It does vary in intensity and by region. So does nuclear, by the way. Nuclear plants have to be shut down or slowed down regularly for refueling. When severe storms threaten, nuclear plants are often shut down, and that is not on a schedule. When any big power plant suffers a catastrophe there is a long term and catastrophic break in the grid, as compared to a cloudy day, or even, a broken windmill.
The sun is up during the day, and in may places and for many times, generally everywhere, the demand for power is greater during the day.
Overall, this is a falsehood because it attributes perfection to the traditional sources, especially to Nuclear, and great imperfection to the non-Carbon and non-Nuclear alternatives. That distinction is not nearly as clear and complete as generally stated.
“The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed.”
Another falsehood. First, you can’t turn a major traditional power plant on or off as needed. Indeed, there are already major storage technologies and variation methodologies at work. There are high demand industries that are asked to increase or decrease their use, on the fly, to meet production variation on large grids. There are pumped storage systems. Etc. The fact is that there is variation and unpredictability in the current big-plant system, it is a problem, and it is a problem that has been quietly addressed. Quietly to the extent that people making comparisons between traditional big-plant electricity and clean energy systems often don’t even know about it.
“As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. “
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
“And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.”
Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.
The article mentions the economic problems. I don’t see those as difficult to solve but they are important, but I’ve got no comments on that at the moment. Read the article.
“The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest”
Absolutely. And, know what? The first 25% will be the easiest. Do that now, and we’ll know a LOT more about the next 25% and maybe it won’t seem so hard after all. Maybe a major technological solution will come along before we get to that last 10%, maybe society will change enough that people will simply agree to having occasional reductions in energy availability. But certainly, the greatest difficulty and uncertainty is linked to that last 10%.
Our goal should be to have that problem soon.
“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”
Yes, if by “a great deal” you mean the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Before extolling the virtues of methane, do check into it further. I once thought methane as a bridge was a good idea too, until I learned about what it involves, about leaking methane, etc. No, not really a good idea for the most part.
“Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel.”
My impression is that every time we learn something new about leakage, it is that the leakage is worse than we previously thought.
“If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.”
Well put.
Do read the article, but please, keep in mind that it is unfair (in the context of an argument) to attribute undue perfection to one option while emphasizing uncertain problems with the other. We need to forge ahead into that uncertainty and speed up this whole process. Everybody get to work on this please!
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
That second generation should have been storage.
#597 #598
Read the link I provided at #596. There, you can learn about what is going on in the real world as opposed to the fact-free fantasy land you inhabit.
The person here who is *wrong* is you. But not only do you have no idea what you are talking about, you refuse to learn. and you deny evidence clearly showing you that you are *wrong*.
Li D, heads up.
So where’s the error I asked you to demonstrate at #582?
You are a liar and a bullshitter.
No, I want decarbonisation to work. As *always*, your attempt at framing is blatantly dishonest.
As for letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, this glibly assumes that what is going on now is good. But it not good. In fact it’s a fucking shambles and heading for a brick wall. Just adding more and more W&S to a largely unmodified grid will not deliver an energy transition because turbines and panels are only a small part of the system necessary for W&S to work at scale. But that’s what is going on right now because it is cheap and relatively easy and governments do like their greenwash. Meanwhile, the hard problems are being glossed over with misleading industry PR perfectly exemplified by guff like that ‘85% renewables’ piece.
And vociferous idiots like you do not help. It’s unpleasant watching you, so absolutely convinced of your rectitude, spouting embarrassing bollocks and outright lies, virtue-signalling fit to bust, convinced that you are doing the right thing and actually making the situation that tiny little bit worse.
” WRONG
Read the link I provided at #596. ”
I did. That is why I can claim you were wrong. Your link did not disprove the assertion.
“fact-free fantasy land you inhabit. ”
And another idiotic and fantasist-built claim from you, dumbass.
“you refuse to learn. ”
Yup, I prefer to learn from truth and facts, not bullshit and idiocy. You, clearly, prefer otherwise.
“snd you deny evidence clearly showing you that you are *wrong*. ”
LOL! See beginning of your idiotic rant.
“So where’s the error I asked you to demonstrate at #582?”
Since you cannot comprehend a post beyond a couple of sentences, it is your claim it must be storage, fuckwit.
“No, I want decarbonisation to work. ”
But only if it uses nukes. Because you want the cash to go to nukes and not renewables, you have to continually trash renewables.
look at all the problems with decarbonising with nukes questions that you have ignored.
When you only look at problems with one solution, EVERYONE can tell you’re a partisan biased hack. It’s just that some morons want big business to be the only player and ignore your idiotic claims’ idiocy.
“this glibly assumes that what is going on now is good. ”
Hell, you’ve ignored every problem you claim is already here. YOU are the one glibly assuming what is going on now is good.
“only a small part of the system necessary for W&S to work at scale.”
They are working at scale today. Germany for example.
And Switzerland is going renewables too.
“But that’s what is going on right now because it is cheap”
You insisted it wasn’t. Now you;re admitting it was. Care to withdraw your asinine complaint that it is misrepresenting things to call it cheap?
“guff like that ‘85% renewables’ piece. ”
Yes, you hate reality therefore it is misleading.
Govenrments love their big business, they pay lots of cash and have non-voting executives boards, which is why they keep trying to kill off renewables, despite the fact that the people who have to pay the taxes that subsidise the nukes and don’t get the executive board positions to profit from it are all clamouring for renewables not nukes.
And what’s wrong with going for cheap renewables now? IF there is a problem it will occur as we build out and we can look at what needs doing then. Because, unlike nukes and the other big thermal plants, there’s no huge time lag and investment in rolling out a new plant and then operate to find out how it breaks, and unlike nukes, no requirement for them to operate for two generations to become only one of the most expensive ways to produce electricity.
And, unlike nukes, if we decide we put the in the wrong place, we can move them and repurpose the ground right afterward.
We already know what to do with carbon fibre and silicon panels when they reach end of life. We don’t know how to deal with radioactive waste when the nuke plant reaches end of life. The only reason why nukes can be considered less radioactive than coal (fly ash) is if we spend a lot of money on cleaning up.
We could have cleaned coal up too. But that costs money now and was fought against.
Nukes only turn out to be a nightmare when most of the money is already invested, and it’s too late to ask for a refund of that pig in a poke then.
Indeed it is one of the reasons why Switzerland is voting to drop nukes and go renewables: the oldest nuke facility is being abandoned by the owners with the excuse they can’t afford to close it down as promised, so the taxpayer is having to pay to close it down safely. Taxpayers are pissed off and don’t want to build any more and get shot of the current stations before those businesses can sell off to some other company which is just a shell to go bankrupt if asked to close down the nuke plant at the end of its life.
Before anyone complains about the number of posts, the problem is dumdum seems to miss comments made inside a longer post, hence his repeats of “what was my error in the maths?” question, despite it being answered twice.
And if dumdum demands proof again, I’ll just say “already done several times, look upthread”. If someone else wants to know and asks, then I’ll post them the information, but both dumdum and myself know what he’s doing and why he’s so busy gaslighting.
I think most people here have worked out that what you do is thread bomb to try and cover up your lies, mistakes and evasions – as you are doing here.
Then you will repeat a falsehood such as the ‘I answered that’ – which refers only to some irrelevant crap or evasion or word salad – and hope that everyone is too exhausted or confused to be bothered to check.
Nobody is fooled by you Wow. Not by now.
# 610
But I *didn’t* claim that it ‘must’ be storage. That was an example to give LiD a feel for the scale of the backup that will be needed (*). What’s more, in my first comment on this thread at #7 – since repeated because of your persistent mendacity (#413; #589) – I clearly stated that:
Stop. Lying. Wow.
(*) LiD responded by linking to a blog post entitled World’s biggest-ever pumped storage hydro scheme for Scotland which is nothing if not ambitious in scale, even for a blog post:
The Strathdearn Power Canal proposal would be ~170m wide.
LiD seems to get the bit about scale. Hopefully he too realises that – blog posts aside – no serious engineering proposals to do this exist. Nor are there any serious, advancing engineering proposals that I am aware of to build any of the huge pumped hydro reserve that will fairly soon be needed.
This is, or should be, worrying.
” to try and cover up your lies, mistakes and evasions”
And another bullshit claim from you dumdum. What lies, mistakes and evasions am I covering up?
PS what about “85% wind and solar”, hmm????
“Then you will repeat a falsehood such as the ‘I answered that'”
Which I did, twice upthread.
“But I *didn’t* claim that it ‘must’ be storage.”
Yes you did. #557
“Stop. Lying. Wow. ”
No. A. Lie. Dumbass
“in my first comment on this thread at #7”
And that is irrelevant, dumdum. You made more posts than that and the one quoted showed you lied when you claimed you always made it clear you were for nuclear being in the mix.
“LiD seems to get the bit about scale.”
It’s a bullshit claim, though. It’s at scale now. It’s working now. Your cries about how it won’t work at scale are bullshit to scare people off doing what we can now and put a waste of money into nuclear to keep your pet project alive.
Lid also gets the bit about it doesn’t have to be a shortfall covered by storage.
Funny how you only acknowledge what they post when you can claim it “supports” you.
Even when you don’t say how.
It’s at scale now. Working now. Working well now.
Germany’s renewables produced 22% of generation (which was less than demand) at your cherry pick of minimum and 85% at maximum (which you whined about being misleading), from a nominal 35% of generation. A little over 2/3rds.
Yet YOU claim it goes from 85% to 2%, ergo “DISASTER!!!!!!”.
You claim that if we go renewables we need more storage. Yet we need more storage if we add nuclear (if we go “use storage to cover unexpected outages” route). And nukes are more expensive and riskier today, and set only to get even more expensive in the future, even if it gets less riskier.
But you ignore nukes needing storage to operate.
So your option “needs more storage”, and 100% renewables “needs more storage”.
But all you can whine about is how renewables “need more storage”.
Then project and insist I’m biased….
LOL.
Lid,
I read that there are 1.8 million boats in Australia (1 for every 13 people)…
Why do these Australians go out of their way to destroy the Great Barrier Reef? And why do they hate Polar Bears?
I also read that New Zealand has more boats per capita than any country in the world….
Isn’t it about time you start a campaign to have these people “beaten in the streets”, to help ease that feeling of bitterness you are forced to endure?
And why not “thread bomb”, dumdum?
There’s no information when you’re busy ignoring it and pretending it never appeared, so any lack of utility is moot.
Moreover, since the same points are covered, why does it matter? If all the posts we made were rolled up into one, it would be unreadable even more than “thread bombed”.
Your whinge is nothing more than tone trolling, inserting format complaints in the place of actual logical issues and fallacies because, frankly, you have nothing other than FUD to play, and ignorance to protect your bigotries.
Just quickly, yes i get the drift about scale.
Quite daunting.
Not as daunting remotly as dealing with the
raising temps on an already very compromised
biosphere. Thats daunting!
Why dont you fuck off batty ya cockhead.
“Why dont you fuck off batty ya cockhead”
Strange, you sound bitter…and I don’t even own a boat.
I really think part of the solution is
stopping energy being wasted on manufacturing bullshit.
The only biosphere in the universe that we know about is
fucking up in front of our eyes.
But what scale?
China has 149GW in 2016. Is that scale? If not, why? If it is, how about in 2012 when it was 75GW?
Without anything about what the hell it means, “scale” is meaningless babble.
Yeah, a lot of demand is merely because it’s supplied.
Look at food waste.
Which is one reason why dumdum’s claims are bullshit. We don’t necessaraily have to use the same amount of power. Scandanavian countries use less than the UK despite having less sunlight and more cold and less warmth. And the UK use less than the USA or Australia. Who in turn use less than Saudi Arabia. Why the Saudis? Oil power is cheap, even compared to USA.
The USA has reduced power demand because people are using LED lights instead of incandescents. Norway uses less than the UK on heating because they build better insulated homes.
Port Talbot cut their power use in the steel factory by 80% merely by changing their factory layout to reduce the cooling of the steel in manufacture.
EVs will use a quarter of the power of ICEs when widespread and there’s power charging as frequently as petrol stations exist.
And currently there’s no need to avoid using pumped storage or a different mix of power because it’s not profit efficient to do so. The UK imports its power because it can’t get anything built: nukes aren’t wanted by the populace and wind/solar isn’t wanted by government. Germany exports its power because it can benefit the balance of payments to do so, so optimising for demand is irrelevant. That’s why the south imports power while the north exports it. It’s more profitable to export the power than sell it internally. Exactly that reason is why Iran wanted nuke power: so they can sell the oil rather than burn it at the opportunity cost of selling at peak prices.
http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featuretransmitting-power-4943271/
Only dumdum avoids admitting that HVDC is part of the future of any national grid.
Wow – “The UK imports its power because it can’t get anything built: nukes aren’t wanted by the populace and wind/solar isn’t wanted by government’
Yet, the government helped subsidize Westmill Solar, of which you are a shareholder and profit from.
Oh, the irony…
Wow, i cant speak for anyone else, but when
i think of scale, i think of my place ( Australia ) needing
perhaps 5 times as much high water storage than we
have now, as a battery. Thats alot.
Im fully confident of a complex network made of wind, solar hydro, pumped hydro, hamsters on wheels whatever can be done and managed .
We need to crank up solar farms and wind .
Crank down coal very fast.
But we gotta have some backup or fuckwit australians will
crack the shits if the power stops and they cant watch
Home and Away.
We need batteries of some sort right now being planned.
Pumped hydro makes sense to me.
We DONT need fucking nuke, thats for damn sure.
Typically hypocritical, we will sell uranium to any bastard though!
Really, only one thing matters, and thats coal disappearing quick quick. Or we are all fucked.
“i think of my place ( Australia ) needing
perhaps 5 times as much high water storage than we
have now, as a battery. ”
Under what plan?
Because here’s the thing dumdum doesn’t get and you don’t seem to have arrived at: you don’t have to just multiply what you have currently.
Lets say you cut power usage by 80%. You don’t need any batteries.
Lets say you pave Australia with 10x the amount needed to run your country. You’ll throw away nearly 90% of your power, but you won’t need batteries.
Lets say you build out 100% of the amount with renewables and solely solar PV. You see all those coal power stations? Who said to knock them down? Mothball them. No need for batteries OR any new build-out apart from the solar panels.
Lets say you build out 25% wind, 25% solarPV, 10% thermal solar, 10% biomass and 5% tidal and 25% molten sodium solar generation. How much battery will you need?
Especially since you still have those coal generators if your plan turns out to have a problem.
Doubly so if you cut waste.
If you mothball coal, you’ll need to face off the coal so that you can stop fires starting under there. But you’d need to do that if you never consider digging up and burning any coal ever in the future. Fires still happen.
“But we gotta have some backup or fuckwit australians will
crack the shits if the power stops and they cant watch
Home and Away.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_South_Australian_blackout
Of course, the failures were stated by the government were the result of renewables because dumdum knows that governments LOVE A greenwashing….
But it looks like blackouts have happened and rioting in the streets was not the result.
Hell, if you’re operating a private for-profit business, you won’t oversupply because that wastes cash, you’re better off oversupplying only as much as is necessary to keep you from being sued for a huge amount.
Businesses have to look for profit. It’s government that doesn’t have to care about profit, only cost.
Li D must have been ecstatic when the South Australian blackout occurred….the people were finally living like Queen Victoria!
Wow – “Businesses have to look for profit”
Speaking of profit, what sort of profit distribution will you be receiving from Wetsmill Solar this quarter Wow? The more the better, correct?
Lid, look at deltoid in January to see batshit betty and StuPid pretending to be “honest brokers” and not caring. The moron has a serious mancrush on Jeff too.
For some reason, Wow (Adam) doesn’t like it when people point out his hypocrisies and lies…
Anyway Lid, that would be Deltoid January 2107 in case you are confused….the dead blog that Hardley refused to believe was dying…
Ah yes, Poor Hardley, it’s all he had to boost his ego….at least he still has the memory of his spider to keep him going.
See what I mean about the mancrush?
Oh, and this is probably kai aka boris aka freddie from over at illconsidered posting too.
Wow – “See what I mean about the mancrush?”
Using your own logic, you obviously have a “mancrush” on BBD….you seem to have a thing for the “fuckwit”.
Now, back to the topic you would like to go away…
What came from the Westmill Solar meeting Saturday regarding the distribution of profits?
Are you making a good return on your “corrupt” investment?
How much did they have to overcharge that you could receive some of that profit?
And I think he’s from your neighbourhood, Lid. Australia.
We’ve got Mad Monckton, Australia has Batshit Betty.
USA has a gaggle…
Adam – “And I think he’s from your neighbourhood, Lid. Australia”
Never been there, though I hear there are 1.8 million boaters there that could care less about The Great Barrier Reef. Lid taught me that…
Westmill Solar Profit?
Yeah, Brisbane it was.
> I’ll just say “already done several times, look upthread”.
In other words, you’ll continue to not answer and make up stuff. Like you did with actual malice before, when the lawyer came in to correct you for all to see, you just kept pretending you were right.
BBD, no need to respond to EVERYTHING wow says. People reading understand.
I have watched amusingly as the unemployed tree pruner has wormed his way into this blog. I could ignore him without a problem until he dropped this howler, ‘Ah yes, poor Hardley, it’s all he had to boost his ego’.
Good heavens you sad loser, get a life. How on Earth some poor woman decided to settle down with an insignificant little wimpy twerp like you is one of life’s great mysteries. If anyone has an ego problem, it’s you, probably because your life has been such a vacuous waste. Me? I have a PhD, 182 (and counting) publications in the peer-reviewed literature, almost 5,500 career citations, an h-factor of 43, I have attained a Professorship and I am on the editorial boards of several journals. So whether or not Deltoid is a dead blog really doesn’t really leave a mark on me or my ego. You seem to think that you played a role in its demise. If this boosts what little self-esteem you possess, then by all means revel in this myth. The truth is that Tim Lambert really didn’t want to invest much effort in it anymore, for whatever reason. But if you honestly think that I place that much importance on the life and death of a blog, then you really are in serious need of medical attention.
”In other words, you’ll continue to not answer”
In other words you read post #578 and are bullshitting like deniers do.
It’s down here again for you, you can’t claim you didn’t read it without showing how vacant your head is.
PS did you reconsider your idiotic stance when I pointed out in #441?
Of course not, you’re fine with the build out of nukes because that will delay actually dropping coal and so on, and also give another big business a method to scalp taxpayers and customers.
“How on Earth some poor woman decided to settle down ”
We have no proof any woman did. And plenty of proof no woman would have that low a standard.
Poor old mike.
Heart as big as the whole outdoors, but he don’t have one brain in his poor old head
Hell you even pointed out to dumdum his problem.
Germany for example, didn’t use all the power and exported 10GW. If they fell short abruptly by 10GW, they would not brown-out, only not be able to export, since the domestic demand was 100% of generation.
Lastly, “mike”, what about when dingeoness went out for 4.5months? That was 1800TWh loss.
What do you think happened? 200,000 Dinworigs were emptied?
Hardley – “If anyone has an ego problem, it’s you”
And then follows it with this precious gem…
Hardley – “Me? I have a PhD, 182 (and counting) publications in the peer-reviewed literature, almost 5,500 career citations, an h-factor of 43, I have attained a Professorship and I am on the editorial boards of several journals”
Thanks Hardley, for keeping the Deltoid comedy alive..
Hey Wow,
I just read that Westmill Solar may generate up to 13 million in profits over the next 20 years.
According to your own beliefs (as stated on this blog), can only be the result of corruption…
So why would you be a shareholder in something you deem to be so corrupt?
Please explain…help us to understand your genius.
Thanks.
Socialists tend to be wealthy industrialists. Weird phenomenon.
Well that was a load of unsubstantiated bollocks.
Dismissed.
Somewhat off topic. Jeeeezuz.Oh man.
The denialist organ Quadrant has lost the plot
massivly and obscenly.
Check your own news sources for info.