Comments
pinkfootthegoose t1_janiv9u wrote
also surface could include being on top of already existing structures. like homes, parking lots, warehouses etc.
Tech_AllBodies t1_janjdi4 wrote
Yes, another good point, they did mention this and say that wasn't accounted for either.
altmorty t1_janjxjb wrote
And even waste lands like landfills unfit for other purposes. Not all land is equal, after all.
pinkfootthegoose t1_jankuh9 wrote
true. you can even put them on coal ash pits.
SandAndAlum t1_japl9hy wrote
Or unremediated uranium mines. Lowers the water use to keep from poisoning everything downwind too.
Carl_The_Sagan t1_janh56q wrote
Weirdly one of the biggest roadblocks is overcoming nimbyism and local control. Look at why the potentially biggest solar far was cancelled.
altmorty t1_jankae9 wrote
There was a study that showed providing financial incentives can effectively cut down nimbyism. For example, providing locals with cheaper electricity.
Carl_The_Sagan t1_jankp2d wrote
I love this idea. just give locals an appropriate financial benefit, plenty of stuff will get built
H2ONFCR t1_jaodh2f wrote
Agree. Old, half abandoned neighborhoods in places like Detroit, LA, and NY would be a great place to start. Most of those folks need more financial incentive than rural people.
dangflo t1_jb7quzx wrote
Bad neighborhoods people will destroy/steal equipment
rigobueno t1_japbjhj wrote
Simply provide a property tax benefit in the surrounding area
Carl_The_Sagan t1_japcxuw wrote
I like it. A critique might be it doesn't apply to renters. Just mailing checks is dumber, but it may have a more direct psychological influence.
rigobueno t1_japg0sf wrote
It indirectly applies to renters, because it incentivizes new construction (given that the mess of zoning regulations is patched)
SandAndAlum t1_japl46k wrote
NIMBY is a stretch. More like Not In The Back Yard Of The Town I Was Paid To Crisis Act In.
Carl_The_Sagan t1_japw5gj wrote
Not ruling this out, but you may be underestimating true nimbyism
SandAndAlum t1_japywoa wrote
Even the locals are usually just responding to scare campaigns.
Carl_The_Sagan t1_jaq65q7 wrote
I dunno, the appeal of localism is that getting angry and showing up to meetings actually works, unlike other politics
mrtouchybum t1_jaskykx wrote
Lol I live in a small town. It has fought wind and solar. Both were going to be like 10 miles away. They were offering incentives. Lower electrical bills and helping bring fiber internet to the area. Nope, cause it’s evil liberal stuff. People had signs that said keep your commie fans out of my backyard. I like the town because it’s quiet, but it’s backwards in so many ways. I don’t really see eye to eye with people in my area and have to stay quiet or I’ll get harassed.
RedCascadian t1_janida6 wrote
Same problem with fixing our housing shortage and moving away from inefficient single-family homes.
VincentGrinn t1_jaqc5e3 wrote
dunno why youre being downvoted, youre entirely correct
RedCascadian t1_jaqkkut wrote
People get weird when you point out how objectively bad American suburbs are
VincentGrinn t1_jaqccyc wrote
bruh how tf you going claim a solar farm is an eyesore
do they commute to work in a helicopter or something?
its not even at ground level or anything! it was suppose to be ontop of a mesa with a setback from the edge that made it out of line of sight
[deleted] t1_jaqxl2s wrote
[removed]
Tricky-Engineering59 t1_jaqymd6 wrote
I’ve driven across Nevada. They should be stoked to have something to look at.
Carl_The_Sagan t1_jaru9lr wrote
I can’t if it’s serious but it the article they say it would have blocked access to art, which is really just a few holes in the ground
M4err0w t1_jar7dln wrote
it's so insane that stuff like that is even taken into consideration.
just let them whine, jesus.
build giant cubes that can house anyone who'd care to live there and build giant energy farms. people will deal with it
Carl_The_Sagan t1_jaruh2c wrote
I agree, gotta end local control though
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jan3xar wrote
It has always been cheaper overall to switch to renewables. The problem was and still is that what will be cheaper and better overall for everyone will not be better for the small handful of people who control the world's oil and who are incredibly wealthy because of it.
ajmmsr t1_jap9h3c wrote
Interesting
Do you have evidence of any country that has completely switched over to renewables?
I think southern Australia is pretty close.
All the papers on completely switching to renewables have been rather disappointing. Thinking of Jacobsen.
This proposal should be peer reviewed.
DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_jaryg79 wrote
> country that has completely switched over to renewables
In predicting the future of renewable electricity generation it is very important to base our predictions on future renewable prices, not on historic prices, because renewables are getting much cheaper relative to other sources, such as coal, gas and nuclear. Existing installed generating capacity was all purchased at historic prices when renewables were more expensive.
Looking into the future we can see the US is switching to a fully renewable electricity grid. This transition is happening even with current renewable prices. The 2023 planned additions and retirements according to the EIA are
| Planned 2023 Capacity | New | Retirement | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Solar | 29.1 GW | 0 | +29.1 GW |
| Batteries | 9.4 GW | 0 | +9.4 GW |
| Wind | 6.0 GW | 0 | +6.0 GW |
| Nuclear | 2.2 GW | 0 | +2.2 GW |
| Natural Gas | 7.5 GW | 6.2 GW | +1.3 GW |
| Coal | 0 | 8.9 GW | -8.9 GW |
A massive increase in solar pv, wind and batteries, and a massive decrease in coal. Not much change in natural gas, but we know from Swanson's law the volume manufacture of solar pv will continue to bring down the price and lead to a spiral of increasing manufacturing capacity and reducing price. Similarly, wind turbines are getting cheaper but at a slower rate. These bite into the profitablility of natural gas electricity generation by making the gas plants into peaker plants, which are approximately twice as expensive per kWh as continuously operating plants. The gas peaker plants are then more expensive than, and have difficulty competing with, grid-connected batteries. Batteries are also increasing in volume and falling in price partly because the auto industry is going all-in with BEVs which already have 14% of the global market in 2022. BEV sales are increasing at a conservative estimate of 30% per year which means they also represent a second significant threat to the oil and gas industry by reducing gasoline consumption - gasoline being the major component of crude oil.
The wikipedia list of countries by renewable electricity generation needs updating from mostly historic 2016 numbers, but may give sources for its country-related renewable electricity data. The changes since 2016 might be similar to Australia which has significantly increased solar and wind generation in the last 10 years. (The chart of total energy consumption by Australian state shows a less optimistic picture of the transition from fossil fuels - the need to electrify more of the world's energy usage.)
ajmmsr t1_javjq2b wrote
Speaking to the future one could also argue that there will be fusion someday and because of its energy density it will be economically much cheaper than any other form of power generation.
Helion Energy is already 95% net electric and their upcoming 7th generation reactor should be slightly net positive, if all goes well in 2024 then commercialization will proceed. They have estimated they could initially produce 20 50W reactors a year.
Exciting times
SandAndAlum t1_japlf1v wrote
Uruguay, Brazil (including one of their grids serving a largerpopulation than france being majority wind), and a fewother smaller nations.
VincentGrinn t1_jaqbzg9 wrote
south australia is somewhere around 15-25% renewables from what i can see
iceland is 25% geothermal 75% hydro
paraguay is 99.8% hydro and 0.2% biofuel which is honestly incredible, they use like 3x as much power as iceland
also apparently albania and the DRC are 100% hydro but that seems odd
ajmmsr t1_jaqt5nq wrote
Interesting, I wonder if they have always been like that or made the switch
Alpha3031 t1_jb01px1 wrote
> south australia is somewhere around 15-25% renewables from what i can see
More like 70% (slightly under that), source. 25% (well, 29% as of 2021) is closer to the figure for the whole of Australia.
Scoobz1961 t1_jar2o50 wrote
Yeah, no, stop spreading your pseudo conspiracy theories. People like you focus solely on the ecology of the renewables, not the economy and more importantly the power engineering. And make no mistake, this is an issue of power engineering, not ecology.
The problem was, is and for a long time will continue being the transmission and storage of electricity. The price of generation is an issue, but in the opposite direction than you would expect. Low electricity prices are harmful for the grid at the moment as conventional "dirty" powerplants are being closed due to not being economically viable. However we need these powerplants for now to stabilize the grid.
But people who only care about renewable energy dont talk about that. Not only because it goes against their claims, but also because they simply dont know or care about that.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jargw2e wrote
> Yeah, no, stop spreading your pseudo conspiracy theories.
It's not a theory, it's documented fact.
> People like you focus solely on the ecology of the renewables, not the economy and more importantly the power engineering.
Tell me more about "people like me" and especially how you know this based on a two-sentence comment on reddit.
> And make no mistake, this is an issue of power engineering, not ecology.
Why would it not be an issue of both? And why wouldn't it include economic factors, public health, public convenience, transportation networks, defense, geopolitics, etc? Why is it just a single issue that you decided is different from the single issue you wrongly assumed that I was focusing on?
> The problem was, is and for a long time will continue being the transmission and storage of electricity.
That's (one of) the engineering problems, yes. There are other problems too.
> The price of generation is an issue, but in the opposite direction than you would expect. Low electricity prices are harmful for the grid at the moment as conventional "dirty" powerplants are being closed due to not being economically viable. However we need these powerplants for now to stabilize the grid.
That's a resource allocation problem.
> But people who only care about renewable energy dont talk about that. Not only because it goes against their claims, but also because they simply dont know or care about that.
Lots more assumptions that are also incorrect.
Anyway, here's the deal: I said "cheaper overall." Draw a big box around the whole problem. Government problems, transportation, engineering, everything. Ask the question: what costs more? Switching to renewables, or not switching? The answer is not switching. The economic costs due to what you are hand-waving away as "ecology" are going to be orders of magnitude greater than all the engineering problems you are fixated on - and we're going to still have to solve those engineering problems, as well as solve a whole bunch of new ones.
This has been true the whole time. It has been true since we first started using fire to lift water. The only thing that has changed over time is our awareness. We couldn't work to solve the problem more efficiently until we understood it. We first started understanding it more than one hundred years ago, and became able to do something about it in the last few decades. Oil companies and those who profit the most from them intentionally worked to reduce the public understanding of the problems specifically because solving them would cause them to be less rich. Not poor - just less rich.
Call that a pseudo conspiracy theory if you want, but it's documented. They did it on purpose.
Scoobz1961 t1_jarkl35 wrote
>Tell me more about "people like me" and especially how you know this based on a two-sentence comment on reddit.
You are making it sound like I am projecting things onto you instead of stating the obvious fact that you dont care about the economic or power engineering factor. How do I know that? Because you ignored both in your post.
>Why would it not be an issue of both?
Because the way we generate, transmit and store power is literally what power engineering is. The main pillars of power engineering industry has been tasked by the state to ensure the maintenance, development and the stability of the grid. If the grid fails and people die, its their head, not any other departments.
>That's (one of) the engineering problems, yes. There are other problems too.
You just destroyed your previous post here. You went from "its the fault of big corporations" to "oh yeah, there are some engineering issues that prevent it too".
>That's a resource allocation problem.
The economy is resource allocation problem, yes. A very huge obstacle.
>Lots more assumptions that are also incorrect.
I met so many people that share their opinion on renewable energy without knowing anything about power engineering. You among them. I am not assuming. I am certain. You dont know anything about power engineering, if you did you would consider basic engineering challenges and restrictions. And you dont care. If you did, you would learn the basics.
>Draw a big box around the whole problem. Government problems, transportation, engineering, everything. Ask the question: what costs more? Switching to renewables, or not switching? The answer is not switching. The economic costs due to what you are hand-waving away as "ecology" are going to be orders of magnitude greater than all the engineering problems you are fixated on - and we're going to still have to solve those engineering problems, as well as solve a whole bunch of new ones.
No, that is not the answer. You have been fed propaganda from people that are just like you. People who ignore partial problems and make assumptions to make the math look like its works out in favor of renewables. However the main problem is that is not even the question.
Also let me specifically point out your attitude of "there will be problems, but other people can figure those out". This is the problem. The people you want to figure those out are constantly telling you its not viable, but you dont care about that either.
>This has been true the whole time...
That just dumb. But lets focus on the conspiracy theory. You know who likes money? Everybody. If renewable energy were profitable, the people who own oil companies would invest in them. They dont care about oil, the planet or anything. Its about profit.
This is exactly what happened in my country. My government gave solar energy large subsidy. The math was that if few take advantage of that, it wont matter and we will get more renewable sources. For few years nothing happened. Then huge amount of solar powerplants were build in just two years before the state was able to change the subsidy plan. Many of those that owned dirty powerplants went for it. It was free money if you had the capital.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jarnmlj wrote
Amazing how much you can infer from what's not there, while ignoring what is there.
Scoobz1961 t1_jartdul wrote
Thats because nothing is there. You have no idea about how any of this work.
I am absolutely certain that you have a field where you are very knowledgeable and immediately see though BS. But in this case you are the BS in power engineering.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jas630m wrote
Mm hmm. What was the BS again?
Scoobz1961 t1_jasah16 wrote
Everything you claimed about power engineering industry. Most importantly that its cheaper to go renewable and that the reason why we dont is because a conspiracy of presumably oil industry.
The cost to force renewables is astronomical and the reason why we dont go full renewable is because the power engineering industry is not even remotely ready and its economically unviable.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jaun26f wrote
Cheaper overall, as in "big picture," including environmental, political, social, health, etc. As I said, and as you apparently missed.
> The cost to force renewables is astronomical
Yes, it is. And the cost of not doing so is even more astronomical.
> and its economically unviable.
Only if you don't look at the big picture. Which you don't.
Scoobz1961 t1_jav6owg wrote
>As I said, and as you apparently missed.
You didnt say.
>And the cost of not doing so is even more astronomical.
You arent wrong, but its such a childishly naive thing to say. You are pretending the world is united in shared vision and shared responsibility. Power engineering is extremely fractured.
Let me give you the basic problem. The power generation is a private sector. Corporation that build power plants do so for profit. They dont care about earth, health, politics and whatnot. How exactly do you plan on getting them to lose money on their investment? Same thing apply to commercial batteries that we would have to build tons to support renewable power plants. To stress my point further. You are not paying for power plants right now and you dont get a say.
To look at the "big picture" as you say, you had to take a few steps back and your head ended up in clouds. Let me try it. Crime cost us a lot. All the damages, the cost of justice system and police. And above all, the priceless cost of lives. But I think I have a solution. How about we all just stop committing crimes. Wow, that was easy. And its absolutely free. Hurray for the big picture!
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jay859e wrote
Well you convinced me! I humbly apologize for being so very wrong about everything. Thanks for correcting me, sir!
Scoobz1961 t1_jb00do0 wrote
I think I actually did. I applaud your idealistic passion, but its met with cold chaotic reality of our society. We could go 100% renewable in a decade or two. There is no doubt about that. Just like we could end wars forever. We just dont have the motivation to do so. Its not just few people. Its all of us.
What we can do and what we are doing is using resources we have available to make the transition possible bit by bit. The renewables are going to win, its almost inevitable. But we have to make sure we are ready for it. An example of what we are doing to rely less on the dirty power plants is we share them with other countries. We are maximizing the utility of those remaining power plants. This is happening right now.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jb0vp4z wrote
Wow I never thought about it that way. Fascinating!
[deleted] t1_jb0vsti wrote
[removed]
Ok_Hope_8507 t1_jaofv9j wrote
So you're suggesting a global conspiracy to slowly produce renewables?
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jaorhde wrote
No, I'm suggesting a semi-global organized effort to delay or sabotage anything that leads to less reliance on fossil fuels. Semi-global in the sense that the people involved are from many different countries, not in the sense that everyone is in on it. It's probably the governments/royal families of a few petro-states (Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc), along with the people who own the big oil and coal companies, along with people who are heavily invested in those companies. It's not a conspiracy in the "secret criminal plot" sense, and more like an alignment along common interests that leads to some illegal behavior and a lot of unethical/anti-free-market/imperialist behavior. It's also not a conspiracy in the "nobody knows but us" sense, because some of the groups involved are pretty open about a lot of it (e.g. Koch Industries and the Heritage Foundation).
Radulescu1999 t1_jaq4k6a wrote
>It has always been cheaper overall to switch to renewables.
If that was true, China would already be 100% renewable. They are not.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jarht9p wrote
Think bigger picture. If you can externalize the costs of the ecological damage we are doing, the public health costs, the costs of wars to control resources, etc., then it looks cheaper to use them.
If you include all of the true costs, for everyone, then it would have been much, much cheaper to move to renewables as quickly as possible decades ago.
That's the fundamental problem - the negative effects can always be pushed off onto someone else, somewhere else, until suddenly they can't anymore. It leads to people making decisions that are good for them now, but are worse for everyone, later.
Radulescu1999 t1_jarya84 wrote
Renewables wouldn’t have worked decades ago. Battery capacity was terrible, and wind and solar was extremely inefficient.
Though I agree that we still should have invested more into renewables (the US), an overall switch to renewables wouldn’t have been possible (as in 100%).
Though if we invested more into nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal (for specific areas), and invested in solar/wind (for their development/research), that would have been most ideal.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jas5hs2 wrote
> Renewables wouldn’t have worked decades ago. Battery capacity was terrible, and wind and solar was extremely inefficient.
Yes they would have. It would have cost more to implement them without more R&D, but that wasn't the only choice. We could have invested heavily in R&D and gotten there much sooner. Despite the extra cost, it would still have been cheaper overall.
The thing people seem to not be getting from my posts is "overall." Big Picture. Total spend. Everything accounted for.
If you draw a circle around a piece of it, then yes, you can argue about costs. That's exactly why they do it.
TopicRepulsive7936 t1_jaoid0n wrote
Nice cup o' demoralization, thanx.
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jaoqs7q wrote
Once you understand the problem, you can more effectively solve it.
VincentGrinn t1_jaqbf65 wrote
not exactly hard to be cheaper than fossil fuels, i mean the global fossil fuel industry is subsidized 16 billion dollars PER DAY, and is still more expensive than renewables
on an entirely unrelated note the global fossil fuel industry makes a profit of 6 billion dollars per day, way to go guys
6thReplacementMonkey t1_jarhem9 wrote
This is true, but in the past it was cheaper to produce electric energy from fossil fuels. I'm talking about overall costs, including economic damage from climate change, the wars that are fought over scarce resources, wars that will be fought over scarcer resources, costs due to mass migration, collapse of ecosystems, etc. If you look at the big picture, it's going to be incredibly, unbelievably expensive to deal with our long term dependence on fossil fuels. But it's all externalized costs that someone else will have to pay in the future, until that someone is us, now.
VincentGrinn t1_jat8xlr wrote
oh geez when you include that stuff it just becomes obscenely cheaper, now days its already cheaper just in a direct cost standpoint to use renewables
even without long term damage fossil fuels currently account for 20% of all deaths world wide(both directly and indirectly)
MLS_Analyst t1_jan8ur3 wrote
Toss in advanced geothermal and the land usage drops even more, as will the costs:
SandAndAlum t1_japlk2i wrote
We don't need scifi. Current tech is enough.
Scifi would be cool though.
Also 30TW of thermal generation is borderline in terms of sustainable waste heat levels.
dbx999 t1_jaq3pzf wrote
The switch from incandescent bulbs to LED/CFL bulbs also cut a great deal of energy needs. 60W down to 8-12W per bulb
DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_jamu86e wrote
This economic case for solar PV and wind turbines now makes the transition from fossil fuels inevitable, and as manufacturing capacity for solar pv and renewables is built the transition will become increasingly rapid.
"If you look at the total world economy, it’s just under $US100 trillion. So if this was spread out, say over 10 years, it would be 1 per cent of the global economy."
BernieEcclestoned t1_jan350f wrote
Plus storage
Tech_AllBodies t1_jan63d4 wrote
Yes, that was included in the figures, but omitted from the headline.
240 TWh of storage estimated.
Scoobz1961 t1_jar4gy4 wrote
You left out the most important part of this plan, OP. Everybody knows that we have the capability to create huge amount of cheap energy. That hasnt been an issue for decades.
The problem is the grid stability and Elon's plan is for everybody to buy a tesla car and use that as a huge virtual battery to balance the grid. Now this is a logistic nightmare, economically unviable and maybe even plain impossible.
However if there is anything I want people to take away from this "plan". Its that Tesla is to profit big. As in BIG. As in becoming part of indispensable state infrastructure. The guy who owns Tesla came with a plan that will not only financially skyrocket Tesla, but make our civilization actually depend on it. That is the plan here.
Phssthp0kThePak t1_jas1abd wrote
Go further. Subsidizing putting batteries in cars, charged at night by natural gas, instead of on the grid to support solar, is completely stupid. If we are trying to avoid ecological catastrophe on a short timescale, how can such nonsensical, inefficient policies be not only tolerated, but even applauded?
ajmmsr t1_japf8d9 wrote
The USA uses about 100 Quad of energy per year, that’s 29PWh (peta Wh)
30TW 8760 hr/year = 26.2PWh per year at 100% capacity factor
What am I getting wrong here?
SandAndAlum t1_japly12 wrote
Order of magnitude error and a factor of 2-3 on topof that for work vs heat (if TW is net generation rather than peak). 30TW net is ten USAs of final energy, not one USA of primary energy.
ajmmsr t1_jaqr4hs wrote
TW is power so multiply by a time to get energy
Here’s my reference to USA energy https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/Energy_2021_United-States_0.png
Don’t know what you mean by ‘net’
SandAndAlum t1_jaqrcr1 wrote
30 * 8.760 is 260 not 26.
Net implying average output over the year. Ie. A 3.3kW nameplate tilting solar system in California is 1kW net. Primary energy is input, final energy is what is achieved. A 25% efficient gas engine running on tar sand oil with an EROI of 3 needs about 6kW of primary energy for 1kW of output. The 500GW or so of primary energy powering US transport can be replaced by 100GW of electricity. Similarly 200GW of gas heating can be 50GW of electric heat pump.
If the 30TW is nameplate then the capacity factor cancels some of the waste heat, so it's merely 10x what the US uses not 30x.
ajmmsr t1_jaqs9iv wrote
Arrrgh
Yeah 262PWh at 100% capacity factor
Since wind cf is about 30% That’s 78.8PWh of energy, so 2.7 times the USA energy.
No where in that article does it mention nameplate
SandAndAlum t1_jaqsy07 wrote
It's ambiguous then as to what cf they mean.
New western offshore wind is in the 40-50% cf range. EU solar is 13% so there's a big range there.
10TW net final energy to replace existing 18TW of world wide primary energy and cover some growth sounds pretty close to most ballparks so 30TW of 30% cf sounds reasonable.
epSos-DE t1_jaoaz4a wrote
In 20 years by this rate.
The event was ling and detailed.
Mineral extraction is the limiting factor at this point.
The new modular architecture of Tesla car assembly is a technological step for the car industry. The electric cars will beat any gasoline car with such a modular body.
The issue again are minerals for the batteries. Their processing needs investments into new mining operations and refineries.
sparrowclaw1 t1_japghou wrote
Per their presentation, the limiting factor is not mineral extraction, but rather mineral refining.
Delicious_Summer7839 t1_jaqn4oz wrote
COLTAN mining by children in Congo.
FuturologyBot t1_jamybze wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/DisasterousGiraffe:
This economic case for solar PV and wind turbines now makes the transition from fossil fuels inevitable, and as manufacturing capacity for solar pv and renewables is built the transition will become increasingly rapid.
"If you look at the total world economy, it’s just under $US100 trillion. So if this was spread out, say over 10 years, it would be 1 per cent of the global economy."
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11g5tfb/electric_world_that_kicks_out_fossil_fuels_will/jamu86e/
sharksnut t1_jaoqiei wrote
0.2% of the earth's surface is 394,000 square miles or 252 million acres.
theWunderknabe t1_jaqvqaf wrote
If they meant land surface though, and in proper units, then it would be 298800 km², roughly the size of the Phillipines or Italy.
If they meant the whole surface of earth it would be 1019795 km², or the size of Egypt.
dat3010 t1_jappmxo wrote
0,015% of this planet is golf courses. Great garbage Pacific patch is the size of a Texas. Also, there are empty dead deserts, landfills, and much unused or poorly used space.
Plus much wind power comes from offshore plants, the surface that no use to humans. So 0,2% is actually much smaller number.
theWunderknabe t1_jaqv34m wrote
Energy production is one thing, but storage another and also energy density of that storage. Especially when talking about transportation.
Airplanes need to be light; powering them with liquid fuels is great because they are very energy dense and also the airplane gets lighter as it goes. Not the case with batteries.
Similar issue for ships like cargo ships - space is valueable there, you can not waste 50x the amount of space for batteries compared to fuel.
In the transportation sector liquid fuels will be there for a long time. Perhaps we manage to make them non-fossil though.
Ok-Water5348 t1_jaqw4bz wrote
I argue that for an electricity world that is phasing out fossil fuels and moving to renewables, a less-than-burning economy presupposes that the cost of renewable technologies continues to fall, while also requiring innovation and investment in energy storage and networks. Only in this way can the stability and reliability of renewable energy sources be ensured, as well as the demand elasticity to meet energy demand.
cryptosupercar t1_jaq08dp wrote
The current petroleum product mix being consumed is 130,000 TWh of coal, oil, and gas. It’s growing at a rate of 1000 TWh per year.
Where does he get 30 TWh?
Radulescu1999 t1_jaq5yy1 wrote
>The current petroleum product mix being consumed is 130,000 TWh of coal, oil, and gas. It’s growing at a rate of 1000 TWh per year.
>
>Where does he get 30 TWh?
"Normally the consumption is given in TWh, which is an energy unit. One TW corresponds to 8,760 TWh per year."
130,000TWh/8760TWh = 14.84TW
30TW > 14.84 TW
cryptosupercar t1_jarcz09 wrote
Thanks for the correction.
[deleted] t1_jaq5j2r wrote
[deleted]
OriginalCompetitive t1_jaq2s2j wrote
Isn’t anybody in this thread gonna say something mean about Musk?
BenjaminHamnett t1_jaqdkh0 wrote
Where are we getting these? How come I never see a wind turbine or solar panel factory run on alternative energy? I hope we can build these all next to hydro dams and geothermal plants, tidal etc but something tells me those are expensive exceptions and not the norm
Until then, these are batteries that we probably don’t want to see how they’re made
ExtensionInformal911 t1_jaquc9f wrote
30TW of nuclear could use even less land and be more reliable. And the next generation of nuclear will be far cheaper.
AssRug47 t1_jaoh846 wrote
The real problem is losses in power lines getting electricity to where it needs to be from where solar is viable. Also lots and lots of batteries on the grid for night time
DonQuixBalls t1_jappyuq wrote
There are HVDC lines already that are over 1,000 miles. There's even one connecting Washington state with Los Angeles. Transmission losses are under 3%.
bloonail t1_japh88r wrote
Meanwhile in imagination land one party politics is also highly efficient. Welcome our ant lords.
DKOS0 t1_jannl4c wrote
One thing that always gets me is carbon emissions in manufacturing. I’m not by any means against electric, but I feel like too many people look at the end product of an electric future but don’t look at the damage that can be done manufacturing it. I’m not against anything, and petrol cars have disadvantages in manufacturing too, but we should be trying to shift more focus on environmental factors and methods of production in literally anything
disembodied_voice t1_janodvx wrote
> One thing that always gets me is carbon emissions in manufacturing. I’m not by any means against electric, but I feel like too many people look at the end product of an electric future but don’t look at the damage that can be done manufacturing it
Even if you look at manufacturing emissions, EVs still have a lower overal carbon footprint than gas cars.
DKOS0 t1_janotq5 wrote
That’s good, like I said I have no clue about any metrics, but I do still feel like we could cut carbon emissions from manufacturing are not as looked upon as end product metrics
R0ckMachin3 t1_jaor8kl wrote
If you don’t include the manufacturing of the batteries. If you include both the vehicle itself and the batteries, ICE vehicles take less emissions to produce.
disembodied_voice t1_jaoupxt wrote
I said "overall" carbon footprint. The operational carbon footprint reduction of EVs over gas cars vastly outweighs any increase in manufacturing emissions, leading EVs to have a lower net carbon footprint. It's the total carbon footprint that matters, not the footprint at any one stage.
Knackered_lot t1_jao4qzv wrote
Solar doesn't create enough KVARs to power a grid sustainably. And forget about when, you know, night time.
Wind farms produce enough KVARs, but highly variable amounts of wind makes for an unreliable power plant.
I would love for us to be able to do all this, but it is not realistic.
NickBarksWith t1_jao97nq wrote
Battery storage solves these problems as far as I know. You're welcome to explain why that's wrong.
x16x0r t1_jaods0s wrote
Batteries cost a lot, require re-charging as they don't produce any energy and overall do not hold much capacity. Even Hydro has significantly higher energy output, but natural gas is used for most of the grid besides peak solar times.
Surur t1_jaoft0s wrote
But when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.
Scoobz1961 t1_jar3q79 wrote
>when it comes to stabilising the grid, those disadvantages are irrelevant.
Run that by me again? The stabilizing happens by charging/discharging those batteries. If you discharge the whole capacity of the battery, it will not stabilize anything. So how do you reckon that the capacity is irrelevant to grid stabilization?
Also to claim that cost is irrelevant to anything, ever, is just the dumbest thing. Cost is the ever present all important enabler. If the battery is not economically viable, it wont be there to stabilize the grid in the first place.
Surur t1_jar95zw wrote
I am talking about voltage stabilization lol.
Scoobz1961 t1_jarbfga wrote
First off, you should have said so then. Second, why are you talking about Voltage stabilization when the frequency stability is the more pressing issue? Finally Voltage stability is tied to electricity demand/production just like frequency stability. The way you stabilize both the frequency nad Voltage on the gird level is by controlling the generation.
Unless you are talking about Voltage stability at local levels of end consumers. Which again, why would you do that? Then it is question of the actual wires.
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Surur t1_jardrbd wrote
> KVARs
I am talking about it because OP was talking about KVARs.
Now next time read the whole thread if you are missing context.
Scoobz1961 t1_jarha7p wrote
VAR is a unit of reactive power as opposed to Apparent and Real power. You want to limit the reactive power as much as you can during transmission, to minimize natural loses.
How should I know that when you replied to somebody else who did not talk about reactive power. But alright, while this topic is not very important, you are still wrong on the price. Which is not a big deal, but just so its clear.
Jesus, time wasted because you couldnt provide simple information. You could have cleared this misunderstanding right away.
Surur t1_jarhtin wrote
a) you inserted yourself into the conversation without knowing the context.
b) you need a much smaller battery for reactive power than powering the grid for hours on end.
Stop wasting your own time lol.
x16x0r t1_jaogyjz wrote
They're made to help the grid during peak hours (4-8 PM), not the entire night. Take a look at the chart.. It charges most of the day and outputs all of it's capacity by 8-9PM with peaks at most 3000 MW.
Surur t1_jaoiv86 wrote
I am talking about voltage regulation, not supplying amps.
x16x0r t1_jaojai0 wrote
I'm talking about energy production, not voltage regulation. As more people own EV's and charge them at night, what do you think will be used at midnight for energy?
Surur t1_jaojg44 wrote
> what do you think will be used at midnight for energy?
Not much energy as we will be sleeping?
If you are talking about charging cars, you would know they typically charge in the evening, not night, and that if our energy is mainly generated in the day, we could easily incentivise charging in the day also (e.g. by requiring chargers at parking spots).
x16x0r t1_jaojnu1 wrote
People charge their EV's after midnight for better TOU rates. Just look at the graph and tell me batteries can supply energy for EV's after midnight.
>you would know they typically charge in the evening, not night
I don't know about you, but in California utility rates are at least double during the evening compared to off peak hours (after midnight).
Surur t1_jaonsfw wrote
> People charge their EV's after midnight for better TOU rates.
And that will obviously follow the availability of energy. If electricity is scarce at midnight then it will be expensive, and if it's most abundant in the day the incentive time will change.
[deleted] t1_jaouyim wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_jarzjnr wrote
Do you know the power loss of inverters that large of size? It would be completely unfeasible.
Grid Batteries provide 1KW for every 3KW stored, large in part because of the power loss of inverters.
[deleted] t1_jas7ji1 wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_jaun5j6 wrote
I work in the power industry and gain nothing from lying, I just point out the energy hypocrisies when I see them. 🤷🏻♂️
[deleted] t1_javatnw wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_javutfs wrote
UPS systems are highly efficient when powering a designated load. The problem is the grid, it's far from a designated load. This is because the grid power is highly variable, and the UPS system must constantly adjust its output voltage and frequency to match it. This can result in additional losses and reduced efficiency. Additionally, the reactive power necessary to push out KVARs can also contribute to losses, especially when there are extra reactive elements in the mix.
Another challenge that can affect the efficiency of grid-connected UPS systems is the overall power demand on the grid. If the UPS system is connected to a heavily loaded grid, it may not be able to provide sufficient power to its designated load, which can result in decreased efficiency or even failure of the UPS system.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but with our current grid demands, it's unrealistic to think that we can power the world by solar and wind alone. That's what I'm saying.
[deleted] t1_jax2gsj wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_jb2uhm0 wrote
"The grid is far more stable in voltage and frequency than an isolated system"
You show clear indication of not knowing anything about this subject 🙂
[deleted] t1_jb4avcj wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_jb5fr2c wrote
Doesn't matter your profession. To say the grid is more stable than a dedicated system of components is... very wrong. Please, do us all a favor and correct this deficiency.
[deleted] t1_jb5j6w6 wrote
[deleted]
Knackered_lot t1_jawj2cs wrote
Using Ad hominems isn't the best argument. Do some research.
[deleted] t1_jax2lzn wrote
[deleted]
AngrySteelyDanFan t1_jana2ep wrote
.2% is a lot. Especially considering what percentage of the earth is ocean. .2% is a ginormous number.
Cum_on_doorknob t1_jang41a wrote
It’s only talking about land, it’s 1/60th of the amount of land used for agriculture.
altmorty t1_jank3bp wrote
For saving ourselves from destruction? We probably waste more land on cattle ranching.
pinkfootthegoose t1_janj6zk wrote
you can put solar on already existing buildings and parking lots. it would greatly reduce that .2%.
just wish articles would integrate that into their infotainment.
ckwhere t1_janyjey wrote
Who's mining the poison? That's right ! Black and Briwn children. It's snowboarder.
Tech_AllBodies t1_jan6jam wrote
Headline is incorrect, it was 0.2% of the land surface required, not 0.2% of the total surface (i.e. including ocean).
Added context was also given, that currently 12.5% of the land surface is used for farming.
So, only ~1/60th the amount of land used for farming is needed to power 100% of the world on renewables plus storage.
On top of that, it was pointed out this is a pessimistic estimate, as it didn't account for offshore wind, or using the land of the wind/solar farm for any dual-use purpose (e.g. agrivoltaics).
EDIT: Thought I should also add that Tesla said they will be publishing a full white paper on this soon, and all the articles written right now are just based on the overview presentation, not the fine detail.
So, these articles may lack detail, speculate, and/or get things wrong.