Comments on: Important lessons in handicapping clean energy

By: Obstreperous Applesauce

Obstreperous Applesauce — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:50:15 +0000

FWIW, while Washington is busy corrupting itself, this:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/24/tesla-makes-quick-work-of-puerto-rico-hospital-solar-power-relief-project/

By: BBD

BBD — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:43:34 +0000

In reply to MikeN.

Any comment, BBD?

Australia needs significant upgrades to its long-distance transmission capacity. It also needs large-scale pumped hydro:

Although PV and wind are variable energy resources, the approaches to support them to achieve a reliable 100% renewable electricity grid are straightforward: - Energy storage in the form of pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) and batteries, coupled with demand management; and - Strong interconnection of the electricity grid between states using high-voltage power lines spanning long distances (in the case of the National Electricity Market, from North Queensland to South Australia). This allows wind and PV generation to access a wide range of weather, climate and demand patterns, greatly reducing the amount of storage needed.

* * *

“This wind project would not be built without Facebook’s commitment and the energy requirements of our data center,” Facebook’s announcement said.

Because without adding long-distance transmission capacity to get the electricity to customers far away from Nebraska, the customers must come *to* Nebraska. A few will but most won't because it will not be practical for them to. So, as I have said before, in order to make the US energy transition actually work for the US as a whole not a few corporations chasing cheap power, it will be necessary to upgrade the US grid very significantly. This will involve significant costs and take decades, both factors that will handicap an energy transition that markets itself as cheap and fast. * * *

In fact, Nebraska wind farms in 2016 boasted an average capacity factor of 45 percent — higher than in any other state, according to the American Wind Energy Association. In other words, Nebraska wind farms generated electricity at 45 percent of their hypothetical maximum potential rate. The average capacity factor for the U.S. wind fleet in 2016 was 35 percent.

320MW nameplate x 45% cap fac = 144MW average output

Facebook will purchase 200 megawatts of the Rattlesnake Creek’s output and the remaining 120 megawatts will be sold to other buyers.

This will be interesting. Or maybe it's just the usual energy-illiterate industry PR bollocks we all know and love.

By: Li D

Li D — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:52:22 +0000

Oh, and may i say, the Carmichael proposal sucks dogs balls and is abhorrent. In case someone takes my last post as some sort of fossil fuel defence or government apologist stance.

By: Li D

Li D — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 01:49:10 +0000

Im not sure australia does take the renewable obstruction crown. Theres a shitload of panels out there.
We have had windmills for geez, a hundred years at least.
Almost an icon of farming. We have had hydro for well over a hundred years. Solar hot water is VERY common too
If genuine obstructionism was present, windmills, hydro and solar would be illegal.
Its not so much obstruction , as, the gov could do more.

By: Christopher Winter

Christopher Winter — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:57:29 +0000

I’ll concede that Australia takes the renewables-obstruction crown. But the U.S. remains a strong contender, thanks to its on-again, off-again production tax credits for wind energy, which I suspect are part of the reason for the temporary failure of the Tradewind Energy project.

See e.g. Harvest the Wind, a 2012 book by Philip Warburg.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:17:13 +0000

> the result of privatisation and over-investment in unnecessary transmission infrastructure,

Any comment, BBD?

Anyone else get a first impression of another definition of handicapping?

By: Bernard J.

Bernard J. — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 01:49:55 +0000

If one wants some important lessons in handicapping clean energy, one cannot go past the Australian conservative federal government and its energy policies. Just in the last week they’ve eschewed a clean energy target and supported coal as a “dispatchable” energy source that will lower household power prices, as if this is the over-riding imperative going into the long-term future.

And this, despite the fact that the rapidly-escalating price increases are the result of privatisation and over-investment in unnecessary transmission infrastructure, rather than of renewable energy.

Oh, and to rub salt into the would they are saying that renewable energy makes power prices higher, and yet they simultaneously argue that renewables should not be subsidised (as fossil fuels are) because renewables are becoming so cheap that they are taken up regardless. Yes, according to the rabid right-wing of the Australian LNP, cheap (and becoming even cheaper) renewables deliver expensive (and continuing to be ever more expensive) power. It’s Orwellian doublethink at it’s most extreme.