Energy/Power Generation News and Debate

Despite all the hype, renewables are almost meaningless in the energy mix:

www.iea.org

Europe – Countries & Regions - IEA

Explore and compare energy data, analysis, news and events for Europe
www.iea.org www.iea.org

Here in the Netherlands 11% of the energy came from renewables in 2020. Most of it from biofuels or biomass (i.e. wood) which need gas, or to be mixed with convention fuels to be viable. Once again, despite the increase in windfarms on land and a massive offshore windfarm coming on line, wind proves to more of a blot on the landscape.
 
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com...te-scare?format=amp&__twitter_impression=true

It’s easy to get discouraged about the “climate” scare, otherwise known as the socialist takeover of everything under the cover story of a faux moral crusade to “save the planet.” Sometimes it seems that all you can hear are preening politicians and academics and journalists and “scientists” shouting about the immediate “existential crisis” that requires the prompt end of fossil fuels and that your energy use (but not theirs) must be severely restricted.
Just today, UN Secretary-General António Guterres issued a statement warning that the next ten years are our “final chance” to avert a “climate catastrophe”:
We are rapidly reaching the point of no return for the planet. We face a triple environmental emergency — biodiversity loss, climate disruption and escalating pollution. . . . Science tells us these next 10 years are our final chance to avert a climate catastrophe. . . .
The few people pushing back get shouted down and drowned out. How could this possibly end well?
When I discuss this subject with my climate skeptic friends, most are amazed that I remain an optimist. But good reasons are on my side. While we realists may not have the megaphone at the moment, I am very confident that energy realism will ultimately win out, and much sooner than you might think. The reasons are simple: the magical “renewables” don’t work and are ridiculously expensive. And when the people figure this out, as they inevitably will, the anti-fossil-fuel jihad can quickly turn toxic for the left.
As background, recall a story from my own New York State that I covered a little over a year ago. Economic growth in certain regions of the state — particularly Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island — had led the local gas utility, National Grid, to propose a new pipeline under New York Harbor to provide needed additional capacity; but the pipeline got blocked by the Governor’s minions at the behest of anti-fossil-fuel zealots. By the fall of 2019 the utility had run out of pipeline capacity and started refusing natural gas hookups to new customers. Quickly 3000 customers had been refused, and a political outcry had begun. If the Governor actually believed his own climate rhetoric, at that point he would have stood up and admitted that he was the one who had blocked the pipeline and told the people that they needed to do without the gas and must get far-more-expensive electric heat and stoves for the good of the planet. But no. Instead, the Governor quickly caved to the homeowners and businesses who wanted the gas, and cynically issued statements placing the blame on the utility. The utility responded by implementing a program of sending the gas in compressed form in thousands of trucks. As far as I can determine, that temporary non-solution remains in place today. Meanwhile, the state is supposedly doubling down with a new plan to ban all new natural gas heating by 2025. Do you believe it will actually occur?
The fact is that fossil fuels are cheap and they work and, when confronted with the reality of what doing without them actually means, the people are not going to give them up. Recent days have brought a number of new data points that deserve noting:
  • Over in the UK, the nominally Conservative governments of Theresa May and now Boris Johnson have supposedly committed the country to achieving “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050. It may sound nice, but only little by little do the people get to find out the practical effects. During the month of May the government let it drop that there would be a ban on gas boilers by 2035, and everyone using gas for heat would need to switch to electric — at a cost estimated at tens of thousands of dollars per home. At the moment, the UK has nearly 24 million homes with gas heat, compared to fewer than 2 million with electric heat. The political blowback was immediate. From the Spectator, May 25: “t is steadily becoming apparent just how politically costly the net zero commitment could be. . . . A government threat to ban gas boilers in existing homes by 2035, and to fine homeowners if they failed to meet the deadline, seems to have lasted less than a day. It was reported on Tuesday morning that ministers were considering including such a ban in a new heat and buildings strategy to be published next month – but by the afternoon the government appeared to have backtracked, and said there wouldn’t be any fines.”
    [*]In the U.S., a very similar story as to natural gas is beginning to play out politically. The Wall Street Journal reports on May 31 that “[m]ajor cities including San Francisco, Seattle, Denver and New York have either enacted or proposed measures to ban or discourage the use of the fossil fuel [natural gas] in new homes and buildings.” So far those proposed bans have proceeded without major political blowback; but then, the effective dates remain several years in the future, and as I reported a few days ago, here in New York there has been little press coverage of the practical consequences, and I think that very few people yet know what their masters are planning for them. But meanwhile, some Republicans are smart enough that they are starting to figure out that this could be a great political issue. Per the Journal: “The bans in turn have led Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kansas and Louisiana to enact laws outlawing such municipal prohibitions in their states before they can spread, arguing that they are overly restrictive and costly. Ohio is considering a similar measure.”
    [*]Climate crusaders think they are making serious headway in forcing the big, evil Western-based oil majors to reduce their “carbon footprints” and back away from the oil extraction industry. The International Energy Agency said in May that all new oil and gas production must stop by 2022 in order for the world to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. And companies like Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell seem to be making at least some noises about complying with demands to back away from fossil fuels. But does that mean that oil will not be produced to fulfill consumer demand? Get real. This kind of nonsense just gives an opening for the Russians, and other such unsavory characters, to step in to fill the void. Gizmodo reports on May 28 about a truly enormous new oil project from Russian oil giant Rosneft that has recently begun construction in the Arctic: “The project, called Vostok Oil, is owned by Rosneft, which is controlled by the Russian government. . . . The proposed project is dauntingly huge. Rosneft said that it anticipates exporting 25 million tons of oil a year by 2024, 50 million tons by 2027, and 115 million tons by 2030. [115 million tons is around 850 million barrels.] (The company plans to make 15 entirely new towns for the estimated 400,000 workers needed.)”.
    [*]The crusaders against fossil fuels mainly talk about the electricity sector, where replacing coal and natural gas with wind and solar can at least seem plausible to the poorly informed. But the electricity sector only accounts for about 25% of energy use in the U.S., and plenty of other major sectors like agriculture, industry, airplanes and shipping — using in the aggregate far more energy than the electricity sector — have no realistic strategies for getting rid of fossil fuels. On June 3 the New York Times reports on the ocean shipping industry, which on the whole emits as much CO2 as all U.S. coal power plants combined, in a piece headlined “Tasked to Fight Climate Change, a Secretive U.N. Agency Does the Opposite.” The bottom line is that the shipping industry, under the auspices of the UN’s International Maritime Organization, is doing absolutely nothing to reduce carbon emissions. “The organization has repeatedly delayed and watered down climate regulations, even as emissions from commercial shipping continue to rise, a trend that threatens to undermine the goals of the 2016 Paris climate accord. . . . Next week, the organization is scheduled to enact its first greenhouse gas rules since Paris — regulations that do not cut emissions, have no enforcement mechanism and leave key details shrouded in secrecy.” Well, guess what — The ocean shipping industry is never going to cut carbon emissions. Get used to it. The only remotely plausible way for ocean shipping to get rid of the use of fossil fuels is by going back to sailing ships and wind power. It’s not going to happen. Big sailing ships carrying large amounts of freight can take a month or sometimes two to cross the Atlantic — you never know which, depending on weather — and it could be double that to cross the Pacific. Also, sailing ships cannot be nearly as large as fossil-fuel-powered ships, require hugely more staff, and can pose major risks to both cargo and crew. For these reasons, no sailing ship can be anything close to competitive in the ocean cargo business. Trust me, this won’t happen. And how about nuclear? The same people demanding to get rid of fossil fuels will never allow that to happen either.
    [*]And finally, getting rid of fossil fuels will require vast amounts of land to be turned over to wind and solar facilities. A big study from Princeton University in December 2020 estimated some hundreds of thousands of square miles of land would be required for the U.S. to get to a fully “net-zero” situation. But when facilities of a small fraction of this amount get proposed, the enormity of the construction becomes clear to local residents and environmentalists, who then rise up to block the projects. The Wall Street Journal has a front-page piece on June 4: “Solar Power’s Land Grab Hits a Snag: Environmentalists.” The piece focuses on a big new solar facility planned in Nevada, covering some 14 square miles — a tiny, tiny fraction of the multiple hundred thousand square miles that would be needed to get the U.S. to “net-zero.” But here is the reaction: “[M]any here [in Nevada] are dead set against a planned solar plant atop the Mormon Mesa, which overlooks this valley 50 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Slated to be the biggest solar plant in the U.S., the Battle Born Solar Project by California-based Arevia Power would carpet 14 square miles—the equivalent of 7,000 football fields—with more than a million solar panels 10 to 20 feet tall. It would be capable of producing 850 megawatts of electricity, or roughly one-tenth of Nevada’s current capacity. ‘It will destroy this land forever,’ Ms. Rebich, 33, said after riding her bicycle on the 600-foot high mesa.” Here is a picture of the proposed site:

Nevada+Desert.jpg

So far, the program to eliminate fossil fuels has been mostly gauzy happy talk about something far in the future. But as any of these plans actually proceed toward implementation, reality intrudes. Yes, the intrusion of reality is happening slowly. But there is no way they can keep it from happening
 
Rambo said:
gotta start using your basic reading skills arny



literally all you need to know about this article is in the 2nd paragraph.
Click to expand...
Your first comment makes no sense.

And secondly, so what? This thread is supposed to be about discussing energy and you are not adding to it in any useful way whatsoever.
 
Arnathor said:
Your first comment makes no sense.

And secondly, so what? This thread is supposed to be about discussing energy and you are not adding to it in any useful way whatsoever.
Click to expand...
well the first sentence directly relates to the second. lets go through it quickly. you're premise here is that nuclear is a good bet bet for the future because billy gates says so. i responded saying that you didn't read the article critically and quoted the reason WHY billy gates thinks nuclear is a good bet - because he'll make money off it if we continue with nuclear. you counter that my comment about you not reading critically makes no sense and then follow that doozy up with an even bigger whopper about how it doesn't matter that billy gates is invested in nuclear.

let me ask you this - if billy gates wasn't invested in nuclear do you think he'd still be coming out in favor of it over other forms of energy which he may or may not be invested in?
 
Arnathor said:
The Dark Side of Solar Power

Worth a read from Harvard Business Report.
Big trash problem incoming for solar and other renewables, hopefully capacity for recycling this stuff is built up quickly.

View attachment 39141


Why Everything They Said About Solar Was Wrong - Analysis by Michael Shellenberger

Solar Panels Will Create 50 Times More Waste & Cost 4 Times More Than Predicted, New Harvard Business Review Study Finds​

Click to expand...
one day you and your nuclear power humpers will finally read one of these fucking articles. the money shot in the final paragraph:

None of this should raise serious doubts about the future or necessity of renewables. The science is indisputable: Continuing to rely on fossil fuels to the extent we currently do will bequeath a damaged if not dying planet to future generations.
Click to expand...
 
Rambo said:
one day you and your nuclear power humpers will finally read one of these fucking articles. the money shot in the final paragraph:
Click to expand...
No Grand Potentate Grand Potentate , true believers only have to focus on the key information that they choose to quote. Key messages that the study has to offer are optional.
 
...because we're not in a planned economy. In a market economy price matters?
 
Rambo said:
Oh god. That article was getting dunked on by all sides on Twitter.

Mostly because of responses like this by the business weirdos.
Click to expand...

That just means the majority of the world are capitalists trained in the concept of market economy.
 
Dropbear said:
How is this a problem?

View attachment 39885
Click to expand...
The problem there is, if that energy can't be stored for use when the energy grid actually needs it e.g. during the evening, then it's completely wasted. The statement about driving costs into ''negative territory'' is pure BS, certainly here in the Netherlands and much of Europe, as renewables are guaranteed priority access to the grid and guaranteed (along with subsidies) prices.

This is why all the hydrogen projects are important, because without that technology delivering and there's many if's and but's then net zero cannot be delivered other than by sleight of hand.

Biomass and biofuels are being used at present to cover up the limitations of wind farms and solar renewables. The overall renewable power contribution is starting to look viable, but takeaway biomass and biofuels, it's still in the very low percentage taken over a year. And let's be clear biomass burns wood pellets and is a big C02 emitter more so than modern coal power stations and needs a hefty dose of gas to get the fuel to burn, but gets a free pass as being not a fossil fuel and biofuels are mixed with hydrocarbons.

Fwiffo said:
...because we're not in a planned economy. In a market economy price matters?
Click to expand...
The problem is that we are moving to a planned economy with an energy policy not based on cost effectiveness and reliability, quite the opposite. That's why the likes of Mark Carney are so adamant that the middle and working classes must make lifestyle and wealth sacrifices and have diet, opportunities to travel and have their aspirations limited, managed and curtailed.

The only way to achieve this will be in a highly controlled dictatorship of the technocratic elite, which appears to be the agenda of the Great Reset that is currently in play.
 
Pimpernel Smith said:
The problem there is, if that energy can't be stored for use when the energy grid actually needs it e.g. during the evening, then it's completely wasted.
Click to expand...
that's not true. the energy generated could be sold back to the utility for repurposing.

Pimpernel Smith said:
The statement about driving costs into ''negative territory'' is pure BS, certainly here in the Netherlands and much of Europe, as renewables are guaranteed priority access to the grid and guaranteed (along with subsidies) prices.
Click to expand...
one day you'll actually read one of these fucking articles. from the piece:

A new report finds that California, which produces one of the largest shares of solar power in the world, is already acutely experiencing this phenomenon, known as solar value deflation.

The state’s average solar wholesale prices have fallen 37% relative to the average electricity prices for other sources since 2014, according to the Breakthrough Institute analysis, which will be published on July 14. In other words, utilities are increasingly paying solar plants less than other sources overall, due to their fluctuating generation patterns.

Wholesale prices are basically the amount that utilities pay power plants for the electricity they deliver to households and businesses. They shift throughout the day and year, edging back up for solar operators during the mornings, afternoons and other times when there isn’t excess supply. But as more solar plants come online, the periods of excess supply that drive down those costs will become more frequent and more pronounced.

Lower prices may sound great for consumers. But it presents troubling implications for the world’s hopes of rapidly expanding solar capacity and meeting climate goals.

It could become difficult to convince developers and investors to continue building ever more solar plants if they stand to make less money or even lose it. In fact, California construction has already been flat since 2018, the study notes. But the state will need the industry to significantly ramp up development if it hopes to pull off its ambitious clean energy targets.
Click to expand...
Pimpernel Smith said:
This is why all the hydrogen projects are important, because without that technology delivering and there's many if's and but's then net zero cannot be delivered other than by sleight of hand.
Click to expand...
yay for hydrogen batteries but why can't net zero be achieved with solar and wind?

Pimpernel Smith said:
Biomass and biofuels are being used at present to cover up the limitations of wind farms and solar renewables. The overall renewable power contribution is starting to look viable, but takeaway biomass and biofuels, it's still in the very low percentage taken over a year. And let's be clear biomass burns wood pellets and is a big C02 emitter more so than modern coal power stations and needs a hefty dose of gas to get the fuel to burn, but gets a free pass as being not a fossil fuel and biofuels are mixed with hydrocarbons.
Click to expand...
the article talks about why solar is struggling. hint: its not because of a lack of sun at night (emphasis mine)

So far, heavy solar subsidies and the rapidly declining cost of solar power has offset the falling value of solar in California. So long as it gets ever cheaper to build and operate solar power plants, value deflation is less of a problem.

But it’s likely to get harder and harder to pull off that trick, as the state’s share of solar generation continues to climb. If the cost declines for building and installing solar panels tapers off, California’s solar deflation could pull ahead in the race against falling costs as soon as 2022 and climb upward from there, the report finds. At that point, wholesale pricing would be below the subsidized costs of solar in California, undermining the pure economic rationale for building more plants, Hausfather notes.
Click to expand...
Pimpernel Smith said:
The problem is that we are moving to a planned economy with an energy policy not based on cost effectiveness and reliability, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
whats it based on then?

Pimpernel Smith said:
hat's why the likes of Mark Carney are so adamant that the middle and working classes must make lifestyle and wealth sacrifices and have diet, opportunities to travel and have their aspirations limited, managed and curtailed.
Click to expand...
yes everyone is going to have to make lifestyle and wealth sacrifices. especially the rich. which won't happen with people of your political bent in charge of the globe.

Pimpernel Smith said:
The only way to achieve this will be in a highly controlled dictatorship of the technocratic elite, which appears to be the agenda of the Great Reset that is currently in play.
Click to expand...
one thing we can agree on is that these cocksuckers should all be shot
 
Rambo said:
yes everyone is going to have to make lifestyle and wealth sacrifices. especially the rich. which won't happen with people of your political bent in charge of the globe.


one thing we can agree on is that these cocksuckers should all be shot
Click to expand...
The very rich have no intention of giving up anything. They will be pontificating and wagging fingers at the rest of us about our carbon foot print and how we must make further sacrifices to appease the vengeful climate gods.
 
Rambo said:
Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith Arnathor Arnathor for when he comes back

arstechnica.com

Nuclear power’s reliability is dropping as extreme weather increases

A comprehensive analysis shows that warmer temperatures aren't the only threat.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

nothing says power of the future like a technology that can be felled by jellyfish...
Click to expand...
Do you know what temperatures are reached in nuclear reactors and the superheated steam systems? Depending on the technology it can be 300-700C. They're hardly going to be go into meltdown because the summer or winter is hotter than the seasonal norm.

Meanwhile, ditching energy security for so called energy sustainability is exposed:
www.spiked-online.com

Our eco-obsessed government is sleepwalking into an energy crisis

We could be facing a hard winter of higher energy bills and even blackouts.
www.spiked-online.com www.spiked-online.com
 
Content from the Renewable Hydrogen Summit 2021:




As an executive summary: Green hydrogen is very far away from being commercially viable and without subsidized public funding, regulations, financial instruments and targets from the EU Commission it’s never going to be doable for private investors, nor able to compete against fossil fuels.

If we think we have problems with the cost of gas now, we need to brace ourselves for the renewable energy costs as we move towards the EU Fit for 55 targets by 2030.
 
Pimpernel Smith said:
Content from the Renewable Hydrogen Summit 2021:




As an executive summary: Green hydrogen is very far away from being commercially viable and without subsidized public funding, regulations, financial instruments and targets from the EU Commission it’s never going to be doable for private investors, nor able to compete against fossil fuels.

If we think we have problems with the cost of gas now, we need to brace ourselves for the renewable energy costs as we move towards the EU Fit for 55 targets by 2030.
Click to expand...

So why can’t we heavily subsidize it like we do gas?
 
Rambo said:
So why can’t we heavily subsidize it like we do gas?
Click to expand...
We are subsidizing it, as we do windfarms and all the other renewables.

If you watch it all, as I did in real time on the day, it's very light on technology and all about financial instruments to funnel money into technology that may or may not be viable over several decades. They even mention target for hydrogen technology for the air industry. We tried that with airships previously with tragic results.

I was surprised at the lack of substance in all of the content on the day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom