First blackout of the wind power heavy system

silverwhistle

joefizz wrote: »

Y Now it was a conversation point but its an interesting one and one that a lot of the green lobby skip over, we cant (yet) make renewables from renewables so its a case of least worst option.

I'm sure we can, just not enough! The converse of that 'skipping over' is that a lot of objectors to RE seem to use that need for older technologies as a reason not to change at all. The "RE can't.." school of argument.


As you say the recent events have put some much needed focus on the area. I've seen quite a number of comments from CEOs and the like for battery firms. They have a point, of course, but there's going to be a bit of an argument between all the vested interests. This is where we need disinterested political leadership, and that's something that seems severely missing at the moment.

GreatApe

silverwhistle wrote: »

I'm sure we can, just not enough! The converse of that 'skipping over' is that a lot of objectors to RE seem to use that need for older technologies as a reason not to change at all. The "RE can't.." school of argument.

As you say the recent events have put some much needed focus on the area. I've seen quite a number of comments from CEOs and the like for battery firms. They have a point, of course, but there's going to be a bit of an argument between all the vested interests. This is where we need disinterested political leadership, and that's something that seems severely missing at the moment.

Wind and PV can achieve a deep decarb but nothing close to 100% (75% in the UK might be possible)
Fossil fuels are both energy and storage in one and their cost represents both
Wind power is just energy without storage

On a purely calorific basis a unit of wind energy costs 5-10p a unit of natural gas costs 1p a significant difference

While some will argue this is not equivalent, and I would agree, I would say it is almost equivalent in heating

1 unit of natural gas costs 1 penny and is piped to your door for another 2 penny to give you energy for 3p in a 90% efficient boiler. Or even 2p natural gas in a high temperature industrial process

1 unit of offshore wind costs 5+ pennies and costs 11+ pennies to transmit to your home to give you energy for 16+ pennies in a 100% efficient resistance heater

More or less a 5x cost difference

Now costs don't matter to many on the green fringe because it's an abstract notion to them unless of course they themselves have to put their hands in their own pockets in which case they opt to stick with !!!!!! for their own use. Do as I say not as I do!

pile-o-stone

silverwhistle wrote: »

I'm sure we can, just not enough! The converse of that 'skipping over' is that a lot of objectors to RE seem to use that need for older technologies as a reason not to change at all. The "RE can't.." school of argument.

That's been the case since time immemorial. Eventually the arguments put forward by the naysayers will fall by the wayside (they already are to a certain extent) and we will move forward.

From the luddites to the Wapping type setters, people with vested interest have always tried to resist change, they have always failed when market forces change in favour of the new technology. You can see the writing on the wall for fossil fuel with the number of oil companies and oil infrastructure companies investing in renewables that they, at least , know where the future lies.

The people who argue on forums like this against the adoption of renewables are the same sort of people who argued against Copernicus when he first said that the earth revolved around the sun. They will go the same way, the only thing in question is the time scale

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

That's been the case since time immemorial. Eventually the arguments put forward by the naysayers will fall by the wayside (they already are to a certain extent) and we will move forward.

From the luddites to the Wapping type setters, people with vested interest have always tried to resist change, they have always failed when market forces change in favour of the new technology. You can see the writing on the wall for fossil fuel with the number of oil companies and oil infrastructure companies investing in renewables that they, at least , know where the future lies.

The people who argue on forums like this against the adoption of renewables are the same sort of people who argued against Copernicus when he first said that the earth revolved around the sun. They will go the same way, the only thing in question is the time scale

No one doubts fossil fuels will come to an end, the only question is timing and that's a very important question

For now we are still in the fossil fuel era with production and consumption of !!!!!! growing globally
I think it will be around 2040 when fossil fuel useage will peak (not because of wind or PV but just because that is roughly when India and Africa finally develop)

From 2040 onwards fossil fuel useage will decline as wind PV nuclear efficiency all displace slowly !!!!!!

The one wild card being near AI
If that arrives then the transition can be much more rapid
Without AI we are probably looking at a 30+ year timeframe
With AI less than 10 years

But this fossil fuel nonsense is a triviality this is the century humans become god's or go instinct either of which means global claimitchange is irrelevant

Solarchaser

So to sum up, gas is bad as it caused the shutdown.
Wind is good as it disconnected so as not to damage the network.

So we should have more wind, preferably attached to batteries, and get rid of all nukes and dinosaur burners.

Oh yes, and software solves all.
Cos software is super stable stuff right??

Why wouldn't the trains just restart by pressing a button.... software??

ed110220

pile-o-stone wrote: »

That's been the case since time immemorial. Eventually the arguments put forward by the naysayers will fall by the wayside (they already are to a certain extent) and we will move forward.

From the luddites to the Wapping type setters, people with vested interest have always tried to resist change, they have always failed when market forces change in favour of the new technology. You can see the writing on the wall for fossil fuel with the number of oil companies and oil infrastructure companies investing in renewables that they, at least , know where the future lies.

The people who argue on forums like this against the adoption of renewables are the same sort of people who argued against Copernicus when he first said that the earth revolved around the sun. They will go the same way, the only thing in question is the time scale

To quote Max Planck "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".

The arguments against renewables have got noticeably fewer over the last few years, so it seems their proponents are steadily dying out...

Martyn1981

Solarchaser wrote: »

So to sum up, gas is bad as it caused the shutdown.
Wind is good as it disconnected so as not to damage the network.

So we should have more wind, preferably attached to batteries, and get rid of all nukes and dinosaur burners.

Oh yes, and software solves all.
Cos software is super stable stuff right??

Why wouldn't the trains just restart by pressing a button.... software??

Long way to go obviously, but there's loads of good news. There have been quite a lot of studies concluding that 100% RE energy supply is both possible and affordable, one study even concluded this based on today's tech.

But my very favourite is an odd one, as it shows how times can change and catch you out fast.

It's this one from Euan Mearns

UK Electricity Part 3: Wind and Solar

I like this one because he's not a fan of RE, he prefers nuclear, and I think this was supposed to undermine RE.

However, a quick read and a few years of change and it actually proves RE.

Basically the figures show that with (just) wind and solar, we'd have to overproduce, spill 34%, and still use 13% gas (it now says gas and bio-fuels), and we'd also need 500GWh of battery storage for this to work (that's intra-day storage).

But what jumped out at me, was:-
1. Why just wind and solar (later tidal gets a mention), as the more tools in teh RE toolbox the better.
2. 34% spill even at a very inefficient 40% would provide the bio-gas to meet the 13%.
3. With V2G 500GWh of storage is just 1/3rd of a UK car fleet with BEV's, then there's commercial vehicles too that may be parked up for the evening demand peak, stationary storage in homes and businesses for economic benefits, and so on.

Basically, I think he kinda proves that the solution is almost easy, by accident.

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

The arguments against renewables have got noticeably fewer over the last few years, so it seems their proponents are steadily dying out...

But some hard of thinking individuals will always remain, plus of course,as the saying goes:-

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

― Upton Sinclair

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Long way to go obviously, but there's loads of good news. There have been quite a lot of studies concluding that 100% RE energy supply is both possible and affordable, one study even concluded this based on today's tech.

But my very favourite is an odd one, as it shows how times can change and catch you out fast.

It's this one from Euan Mearns

UK Electricity Part 3: Wind and Solar

I like this one because he's not a fan of RE, he prefers nuclear, and I think this was supposed to undermine RE.

However, a quick read and a few years of change and it actually proves RE.

Basically the figures show that with (just) wind and solar, we'd have to overproduce, spill 34%, and still use 13% gas (it now says gas and bio-fuels), and we'd also need 500GWh of battery storage for this to work (that's intra-day storage).

But what jumped out at me, was:-
1. Why just wind and solar (later tidal gets a mention), as the more tools in teh RE toolbox the better.
2. 34% spill even at a very inefficient 40% would provide the bio-gas to meet the 13%.
3. With V2G 500GWh of storage is just 1/3rd of a UK car fleet with BEV's, then there's commercial vehicles too that may be parked up for the evening demand peak, stationary storage in homes and businesses for economic benefits, and so on.

Basically, I think he kinda proves that the solution is almost easy, by accident.

If things are so easy why are wind and PV deployments so slow?

One can argue Germany started its renewables program in 1995 (the year it exceeded 1TWh wind production) fast forward to 2030 and it plans to still have 35% of its grid as fossil fuels and about 10% as dirty biomass. So 35 years of really trying and it only gets to 55% Wind/PV

Bad that's just electricity still leaving transport and heating as vast majority from !!!!!!

Despite all your protests to the contrary wind and PV are not yet economic so require sacrifice, sacrifice that you personally don't want to make but want to force upon others.

Solarchaser

Maybe I'm being daft.... it's always possible.
Why are solar and wind putting out mega tons of co2 in the graph?