Viability Of Solar Power As Grid Baseline

[D.Turtle]

More unrealistic blathering

Look, you are constantly attacking strawmen.

Nobody is proposing 100% wind.
Nobody is proposing 100% solar.

What people are proposing is (in a few decades) 100% renewables.

This includes solar.
This includes wind.
This includes hydro.
This includes pumped-storage.
This includes salt storage.
This includes bio-gas.
This includes bio-mass.
This includes methane/hydrogen/compressed air/whatever.

Not any one of them. All of them.

Get it?

[D.Turtle]

Oh, hey, I've found something even better:

This study (pdf) for the Federal Environment Ministry includes - among others - a scenario for 100% renewables by 2050. It includes an english summary (starting at page 33 of the pdf).

They expect installed capacity (in 2050) of:
Wind onshore: 58 GW
Wind offshore: 57.7 GW
Solar: 94 GW
Biomass: 10.6 GW
Hydro: 5.2 GW
Geothermal: 6.25 GW
EU-Electricity (solarthermal, wind, others): 32.2 GW

[Formless]

Look, you are constantly attacking strawmen.

Nobody is proposing 100% wind.
Nobody is proposing 100% solar.

What people are proposing is (in a few decades) 100% renewables.

This includes solar.
This includes wind.
This includes hydro.
This includes pumped-storage.
This includes salt storage.
This includes bio-gas.
This includes bio-mass.
This includes methane/hydrogen/compressed air/whatever.

Not any one of them. All of them.

Get it?

*shrugs* I think I've made my position clear that solar power is going to quickly (relatively) and easily meet the entire planet's energy needs.

Learn to read, asshole.

[K. A. Pital]

Nobody is proposing 100% solar.

A poster in this thread is proposing solar to be baseline source of power. That study of yours proposes a 50% reduction in energy consumption to 2050. No need to explain how crazy this is. You can read "The myth of efficiency" to understand that more efficient technologies do not mean a reduced energy consumption; historical trends have refuted this time and again.

[madd0ct0r]

where'd you get the 50% energy reduction from Stas? (page 34, paragraph 2.3?)
there's a graph on page 35 showing the different scenarios, only one has the energy reduce by half.
(the other ones include increasing amounts of hydrogen or electric vehicles, so a 50% decrease in households might be hidden there).

A link to your 'myth of efficiency' would be good, although i'd also point out that this is germany, home to 100% passively heated homes. If they think they can halve energy consumption, i'd be half inclined to believe them.


oooh. what do we have here?
(all only current up to 2008, sadly. the figures i give already include distribution losses)

Canada


consumption in 2008: 549.48 Billion Kilowatt hours

Germany


consumption in 2008: 544.47 Billion Kilowatt hours

Vietnam


consumption in 2008: 62.60 Billion Kilowatt hours.

I'm trying to find data on baseload vs peak load for these countries, but nothing yet.

[madd0ct0r]

Ghetto edit:

map of solar potential in germany.



from here: http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com ... countries/

no better source i'm afraid.

also found this: http://www.exportinitiative.bmwi.de/EEE ... b=true.pdf

which is a brilliant summary of PV in germany and potential for vietnam.

can't find anything for canada yet. maybe tomorrow

[D.Turtle]

*shrugs* I think I've made my position clear that solar power is going to quickly (relatively) and easily meet the entire planet's energy needs.

Learn to read, asshole.

If you look at some other posts in this thread, here and there Singular Intellect does mention wind. In a PM, he described wind power as also being solar-derived by global thermal dynamics.

Now, I disagree that this makes it reasonable to describe wind power as solar energy. Which is why I use the term renewable energy sources.

A poster in this thread is proposing solar to be baseline source of power.

And it will be. It just will not be the sole baseline source of power. But it will be one baseline source of power, along with wind and others.

That study of yours proposes a 50% reduction in energy consumption to 2050. No need to explain how crazy this is. You can read "The myth of efficiency" to understand that more efficient technologies do not mean a reduced energy consumption; historical trends have refuted this time and again.

Just in case it wasn't clear - they differ between energy production/consumption and electricity production/consumption.

Final energy consumption is expected to fall by roughly 40% (the 50% is production). The largest decrease in energy consumption is made by decreases in energy conversion losses, in transportation, and in households. For electricity consumption, they expect a much smaller reduction (roughly 15%) or even an increase if hydrogen is adopted as a widespread storage technology.

I don't know if those are realistic reductions or not. One thing that differs this time - in comparison to the past - is that reducing energy consumption (by increasing energy efficiency) is a specific policy goal with billions being invested to improve that area. I don't think that this was the case in the past. In the study itself, the authors point out that the required increase in energy efficiency (2.7% per year, in comparison to the 1.8% per year achieved in the past) will require a lot of investment in order to achieve.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm. I agree that some of the points are valid. As to "myth of efficiency", here's the article. I don't think the rule described there is universal, but historical practice until now has been overwhelmingly in favor of the observed trend.

But it will be one baseline source of power, along with wind and others.

I'd be glad if that happened. Renewable power sources are better than fossil fuels and even uranium. However, the issues at hand are quite complex. Even a massive increase in the share of renewables is not enough to fuel our current consumption or future worst-case consumption ("plan for the worst" should be a maxim of energy planners, in my view). The idea of a renewable-powered nation (I'm not talking about the world at large, that's probably a century if not more away from now) relies on a massive decrease in energy and electricity consumption.

That study above has been overquoted and falsely turned up into a right-wing anti-green bogeyman (by none other than the Economist) that incandecent bulbs are actually cool. Ignoring that crazy lie from libertarian mouthpieces for a moment, the study itself remains quite worthwhile.

[aerius]

So, lets compare the real numbers. According to this study (german pdf) the needed electricity production would be roughly 595 TWh in 2020. Dividing that by 8760 (the hours in a 365 day year), we get 68 GWh. Dividing that by 0.16 - your extremely low balled capacity factor - would mean a required installed capacity of 425GW to cover all electricity production with just wind. Using a more realistic capacity factor of 20% (based on total installed capacity vs actual output - from here) would yield a required installed capacity of 340GW. If we assume that the capacity factor will increase to 25% - which seems quite possible as offshore wind power is expected to expand rapidly and is obviously more efficient than onshore due to steadier winds - we get a total required installed capacity of 272 GW. Taking the numbers from the study cited above, they expected a capacity factor of roughly 0.25 for wind onshore and 0.37 for wind offshore. This means that the total required installed capacity can be figured even lower as the wind power offshore is increased. This to cover all electricity generation purely by wind power.

Is that a wikipedia link? How about we go to a better source. That gives a capacity factor of 16.8% which is only slightly better than the numbers I just worked out. That's the average for all onshore and offshore wind power. You're telling me that you can somehow improve this figure by about 50% in the next 9 years, given that most of your wind turbines will remain onshore according to the study. I'm not seeing how that's going to happen unless there's a ton of great onshore sites which are currently off-limits for whatever reason. Either that or a breakthrough in wind turbine design that allows them to work in low & high wind conditions which would shut down current wind turbines.

I'd be glad if that happened. Renewable power sources are better than fossil fuels and even uranium. However, the issues at hand are quite complex. Even a massive increase in the share of renewables is not enough to fuel our current consumption or future worst-case consumption ("plan for the worst" should be a maxim of energy planners, in my view). The idea of a renewable-powered nation (I'm not talking about the world at large, that's probably a century if not more away from now) relies on a massive decrease in energy and electricity consumption.

Personally I think the goal should be renewables where we can and nuclear for everything else. In the province of Quebec for example they can easily build another 15GW of clean hydropower (James Bay II), the plans were already drawn up and construction didn't start only because of economic reasons at the time and pressure from native groups. Here in Ontario we don't have nearly as much potential for renewables so we'd have to go nuclear and/or carry out joint projects with Quebec and import their surplus energy.

[D.Turtle]

Hmm. I agree that some of the points are valid. As to "myth of efficiency", here's the article. I don't think the rule described there is universal, but historical practice until now has been overwhelmingly in favor of the observed trend.

Thanks for the article - an interesting concept.

Looking at the report of the ethics commission put together by the government, they do mention that the avoidance of rebound effects is a large task. They suggest a combination of smart electricity meters, energy efficient default settings, the display of energy consumption on devices, and increasing the focus on energy efficiency in product development and design.

[D.Turtle]

Is that a wikipedia link? How about we go to a better source. That gives a capacity factor of 16.8% which is only slightly better than the numbers I just worked out. That's the average for all onshore and offshore wind power. You're telling me that you can somehow improve this figure by about 50% in the next 9 years, given that most of your wind turbines will remain onshore according to the study. I'm not seeing how that's going to happen unless there's a ton of great onshore sites which are currently off-limits for whatever reason. Either that or a breakthrough in wind turbine design that allows them to work in low & high wind conditions which would shut down current wind turbines.

I'll take your ignoring me pointing out that the whole comparison of capacity factor vs peak load is completely, utterly idiotic as a concession and admittance of gross stupidity on your part.

Now, about where the capacity factor comes from. Let me quote the numbers from your source:
25.8 GW in 21164 wind turbines outputting 38 TWh of electricity.
My source (for 2009): 25.8 GW in 21164 wind turbines outputting 38.6 TWh of electricity.

Wow, thats like, EXACTLY THE FUCKING SAME.

Now, why do I use a capacity factor of 20%?

Because that was the capacity factor of the two years before that. 2009 was an extremely bad year for wind.

Now, why do people expect the capacity factor to increase? Because older, smaller, less efficient ones are being replaced with newer, larger, more efficient ones.

For example, in the study I cited, they find that while on average wind turbines achieved a capacity factor of 17.5%, looking at only new turbines, they achieve - in normal areas - a capacity factor of 25% and more - today.

So, no achieving 25% does not involve stark improvements in technology, but simply using the already available technology in replacing older wind turbines.

[Formless]

If you look at some other posts in this thread, here and there Singular Intellect does mention wind. In a PM, he described wind power as also being solar-derived by global thermal dynamics.

Now, I disagree that this makes it reasonable to describe wind power as solar energy. Which is why I use the term renewable energy sources.

And he was called out for shifting the goalposts by PeZook. I've had this discussion with him before, he really does believe solar will cure all ills in a short timeframe thanks to Singularitan Exponential Growth magic. I'm not letting you off the hook for attributing your agenda to other posters in this thread. For starters, your post explicitly excluded nuclear, which I know many if not most of the people advocating renewable energy would consider a significant omission, especially when you factor in which thread this was split from and the context of the split. Don't presume you speak for anyone but yourself, it makes you look like a demagogic asshole with an axe to grind.

[Sky Captain]

Oh, hey, I've found something even better:

This study (pdf) for the Federal Environment Ministry includes - among others - a scenario for 100% renewables by 2050. It includes an english summary (starting at page 33 of the pdf).

They expect installed capacity (in 2050) of:
Wind onshore: 58 GW
Wind offshore: 57.7 GW
Solar: 94 GW
Biomass: 10.6 GW
Hydro: 5.2 GW
Geothermal: 6.25 GW
EU-Electricity (solarthermal, wind, others): 32.2 GW

Do the 5.2 GW hydro also include pumped storage? From those numbers there is only 22 GW of generation that is guaranteed to be available at any time. During winter you can count the solar out because it will generate very little and only few hours per day. That leaves only wind as major source however if there is persistent calm weather over large area wind output also will drop. That leaves only biomass, hydro and geothermal that can be counted on during calm winter days. Then there is 32 GW from other countries hovewer if most of that generation capacity also come from intermittent sources it can't be counted as reliable source. It seems that during winter there could easily develop a major power shortage if there is not adequate energy storage capacity that can cover most of a demand for at least a week.

[D.Turtle]

No it does not include pumped storage - of which there is currently roughly 7 GW with the amount expected to expand by at least 2 GW by 2020.

Obviously there is quite a lot of guess-work and potential for large changes over a time frame of 40 years. However there is a lot of thought going into things like Desertec, using hydro storage in Austria or Norway, using the natural gas network to store energy, using cars to store energy, using hydrogen to store energy, etc.

Since at any one time we can choose to dismantle (or not) conventional power plants, its not like we are committed to a doomed path if absolutely none of the potential pathways turns out to work out. So power shortages are not really a problem.

[madd0ct0r]

i quite like the idea of this thread - can we do it on just solar (and associated storage)?

it's clearly not the optimum solution, nor the economic one but it's an interesting problem, and lets us look at one renewable in detail.

It also helps I think solar has the best long term potential, even if i'd hesitate to make SI's claims.

[Sky Captain]

If you build solar plants in tropical deserts where you can expect sun to reliably shine every day and build massive pumped storage plants wherewer possible and build the continent sized power grid capable of moving hundreds of GW around then it is certainly possible to run world mostly on solar energy.

[D.Turtle]

Thats essentially Desertec.

A very ambitious project, though it is somewhat longer term and it is still mostly a theoretical project (though with prominent industrial and political backup).

[Zaune]

If you build solar plants in tropical deserts where you can expect sun to reliably shine every day and build massive pumped storage plants wherewer possible and build the continent sized power grid capable of moving hundreds of GW around then it is certainly possible to run world mostly on solar energy.

You wouldn't even need much pumped storage if you could build the line of panels in as many time-zones as possible.

It's the last "if" that's the problem, though. Nothing short of room-temperature superconductors is going to make it practical to deliver a useful quantity of current more than a few hundred miles.

[D.Turtle]

Thats not true. Even using current technology energy losses of 3.5% per 1000km are achievable.

Siemens is constructing two 1200+ km lines in China with expected transmission losses of 3.5% and 6.6% per 1000km.

[Sea Skimmer]

800Kv isn't nearly as high as is possible with power lines either 1.5-2Mv lines could be built before you hit diminishing returns on increased voltage. Distance isn't that crushing a deal for power transmission losses, but it does greatly increase construction and maintenance costs and these would be very expensive power lines to start with. The real deal killer with powering Europe from the northern Sahara is simply politics, that would create a huge new energy security problem no one is going to accept. Libyan oil being cut off by civil war for example is a pain, but at least you can physically move oil around the world by tanker at higher prices. If a civil war or similar problem cuts off electrical power Europe would be up shit creek. The US could think about mass solar because it has its own deserts, so could China but not many others in the world who have really big economies.