Google Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’

[MSimon]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/s ... wont-work/

Most people around here knew it was snake oil. This should put the final nail to it.

The link is a discussion of an IEEE Spectrum article.

I discuss it some at: http://classicalvalues.com/2014/11/goog ... wont-work/

[paperburn1]

It does not say that renewable is impossible. It is instead stating that the economic viability to power Google is not possible. This is been a known fact of renewables by anybody that has ever studied or utilizes them. Renewable energy will never support heavy industry or high demand loads. Part of the large problem behind this is how we use energy in general. We literally generate the electricity we use the second we need it. With renewables this is not possible. It requires a distributed system for generation and a Storage Technology that were only barely able to meet at present.

Now let's talk about the small user, the individual. The dynamics change 180°. The small end-user can afford to run on renewables. The difficulty with this is quite literally every installation has to be custom made and designed for that usage. So there can be no dropping the cost by mass production and scale of production. How do I know? Not only do I talk the talk, I walk the walk. I have solar heating for my house, and currently working on an expandable solar power system to provide some power for my house. And have also increase the efficiency of energy use in my house through insulation and device management. I have achieved of the 50% drop of my overall energy usage by doing this. So it does work.

I am still tied to the grid. There are some things that the grid can supply more economically than I can generate myself. Today is an excellent example, we are going to have no sunshine or four days in a row due to the weather. For those four days I am 100% reliant upon grid power. I do not have the storage capacity nor could I afford the storage capacity to do this. The return on investment is just not economical.

So I will just look at my average of $50-$60 a month electric bill and chuckle quietly as people say renewables are impossible.
Note: I raise a large portion of my vegetables, have a hydroponic garden, and use solar. Why you may ask? It is because this will be the wave of the future. The more self-reliant you are the better off you will be. Why? Because those that control the food and control the power will eventually be controlling you.
here is the link so you can direct connect without clickbait
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewab ... ate-change

[kurt9]

I raise a large portion of my vegetables, have a hydroponic garden, and use solar. Why you may ask? It is because this will be the wave of the future. The more self-reliant you are the better off you will be. Why? Because those that control the food and control the power will eventually be controlling you.

Growing plants in soil, or even hydroponics, has always struck me as a terribly inefficient and labor intensive method of producing biomass, whether it be for food or any other purpose. If biotechnology could invent a superior replacement for agriculture, particularly one much less labor intensive, that could be scaled down to the individual users, then the future you describe would become much more popular. I've heard of efforts to develop meat production by cultivating stem cells in vats. I'm wondering if a similar technique can be developed for plant-based foods.

Perhaps LENR would lead to home generators that would supply 24/7 power in large enough amounts. The problem with solar and wind, as you point out, is that they are not 24/7 stable power supplies. Also they tend to be low density power as well.

[MSimon]

Nothing (well very little) is impossible if you have money to burn.

Lets see:

1. Raise the cost of energy
2. EROIE zero or negative
3. Add money
4. A miracle happens (that was #3)
5. Renewable energy

That is where we are today. Maybe in 20 or 30 years #1 and #2 will be different.

[MSimon]

So I will just look at my average of $50-$60 a month electric bill and chuckle quietly as people say renewables are impossible.

They are very possible if you can get other people to pay the cost.

[paperburn1]

So I will just look at my average of $50-$60 a month electric bill and chuckle quietly as people say renewables are impossible.

They are very possible if you can get other people to pay the cost.

Those effort were achieved though design and conservation.\
wait is this from the man that said he thinks it is ok to suck off the Tit because he said "I have decided that sucking at the government teat is my best alternative."
Huckster

[paperburn1]

Growing plants in soil, or even hydroponics, has always struck me as a terribly inefficient and labor intensive method of producing biomass, whether it be for food or any other purpose. If biotechnology could invent a superior replacement for agriculture, particularly one much less labor intensive, that could be scaled down to the individual users, then the future you describe would become much more popular. I've heard of efforts to develop meat production by cultivating stem cells in vats. I'm wondering if a similar technique can be developed for plant-based foods.

Perhaps LENR would lead to home generators that would supply 24/7 power in large enough amounts. The problem with solar and wind, as you point out, is that they are not 24/7 stable power supplies. Also they tend to be low density power as well.

With enough power can do anything. You're correct farming in soil and even hydroponics is somewhat labor-intensive. But because it is cheap it continues.. Were already eating a large amount of algae on a day-to-day basis. This in some of your cheeses, it is in ice cream, and a bunch of health drinks just the name a few places. But that green stuff has a bad side effect, it taste exactly like it looks. Hydroponics takes less labor and allows a higher planting density.

I would love it if Lenr proved itself out. But right now all I see is a few conmen out there saying they have a workable device and yet producing nothing. Right now I'd rather place my faith in fusion energy than in lenr. So far anything with scientific valid results has not shown the energy density needed to be useful in my humble opinion.

[D Tibbets]

Renewable energy- mostly wind ans solar panel has never been proposed for full replacement of electrical power. Often,~ 20%has been a target. This represents a significant decrease in fossel fuel use, or fission nuclear if you are Japan, but not total replacement. With improved batteries (or other storage methods), improved photoivoltaics and perhaps wildly optimistic predictions up to perhaps 50% of the base load might be argued. I don't think anyone has seriously considered renewables as a total replacement for other electricity generating methods, except for some niche markets.

Price for photovoltaics is not all that much now and if further improvements in efficiency and cost are made....

One exception where renewables can provide full base load is hydroelectric. In the Pacific Northwest I think it is the dominate electricity source, with some left over for sale to California. Geothermal is not renewable, but in selected locations provides very reliable base loads.

As for argicultural efficiency, I think the current efficiencies in dirt agriculture may be poorly understood by some. The costs and manpower needed has evolved stupendously over the last century, even as the yield per acre has also sky rocketed. Hydroponics may allow greater density of output, but cost and resource wise, I doubt it can compete with current irrigated, and in some instances non irrigated farming. Some specialty crops like some vegetables may be pushed to comparable costs via hydroponics (and greater convenience), but stable food crops like wheat, corn, grass, etc. are a long way from any substrate rather than dirt (fertilized) and sun shine.

Dan Tibbets

[Tom Ligon]

So I will just look at my average of $50-$60 a month electric bill and chuckle quietly as people say renewables are impossible.

They are very possible if you can get other people to pay the cost.

Also very possible if you don't use very much. Our bills at the cabin are typically $15 or less. It's not that we have all that much solar installed, but that we are only there 3 days a week and don't have much running when we're not. The hot water system is solar (including the pumps), with a point of use system providing backup hot water when needed (rarely, and the POU breaker is usually left off). Some of the heating is solar, the rest is from a wood stove.

So yeah, individuals can live that way perfectly happily. But as pointed out earlier, heavy industry can't do it (although some light industries probably could do OK). And the private homes trying to sell power back to the grid are a joke. They're using the grid as a storage device. This is OK as long as the joke is small, but it doesn't scale.

And finally, no big secret, while it is a fine hobby to live off the grid, and I've enjoyed the challenge, that kind of limited thinking doesn't get us off the planet.

Solar is a fine thing and a great hobby. Conservation is socially responsible and we all should do it. Fusion is a future without limits.

We can have all three, but just the first two is not enough to support modern civilization and its continued improvement.

[Tom Ligon]

Price for photovoltaics is not all that much now and if further improvements in efficiency and cost are made....

One exception where renewables can provide full base load is hydroelectric. In the Pacific Northwest I think it is the dominate electricity source, with some left over for sale to California. Geothermal is not renewable, but in selected locations provides very reliable base loads.

Dan Tibbets

Photovoltaic panels in the 300 W range are now down to about $1/W in pallet quantities. That's a pretty significant breakthrough. But they're selling to the grid-tie market. Storage is still a huge issue. As is the fact that they come from China. Another industry thrown away.

Mount Storm is a big, nasty coal-fired plant in WV, fed by strip mines. True to WV history, the power is not for WV ... the plant belongs to Virginia's Dominion Power. For tax credits, they've installed strings of wind turbines up and down local mountain ranges, and they're working on ours. AES was doing it ... they're presently unloading all their renewable capability, and sold it to some greenie-weenie outfit that hopes to get the stalled project on our mountain built. These particular wind turbines running off Mt. Storm are unique in that they do have some battery storage. But we're not talking about days of storage capacity. Not even hours. Minutes. Think Prius, not Tesla. They just level the load a little. We are so far off from decent storage on wind and solar that it is tragic.

Mount Storm is something like 1.6 GWE capacity. The total capacity of the wind turbine connected to it at present is maybe 10% of that, and you have to watch the ratings because actual output of wind farms is typically about 30% of "nameplate rating", due to utilization factor (the wind is not favorable most of the time). IIRC, the storage on this system has something like a 60 MW capacity, and the energy is down in the MW-minutes range.

I have some stock in a little outfit called BEP, that buys up bits and drabs of hydro power, including some in WV. I like their potential as possible pumped storage facilities. But hydro is pretty much tapped out. All the big sites are taken. Some small opportunities are out there, but at the moment, BEP is buying up existing projects, not building anything. The prospects for expanding hydro is about nil.

Dr. Bussard thought the one viable resource is geothermal, and I concur. The sooner we start cooling off the magma chambers under Yellowstone and Long Valley, the happier I'll be. But even geothermal is limited, and its really hard to power interplanetary spacecraft with it.

[mvanwink5]

As soon as the wind turbine blades ice up, and the solar panels get a small coating of snow and ice, then back to fossil fueled plants (hopefully not shut down by the EPA.)
Solar would be great in space, no clouds, or snow, but still have planetary bodies to obstruct the sun light. What happened to the Philae lander landing on the comet (yes, the one where the most important thing about it was the wardrobe choice malfunction)? Batteries died due to lack of solar panel charging?

[Tom Ligon]

As soon as the wind turbine blades ice up, and the solar panels get a small coating of snow and ice, then back to fossil fueled plants (hopefully not shut down by the EPA.)
Solar would be great in space, no clouds, or snow, but still have planetary bodies to obstruct the sun light. What happened to the Philae lander landing on the comet (yes, the one where the most important thing about it was the wardrobe choice malfunction)? Batteries died due to lack of solar panel charging?

The batteries died on Philae because they should have been using an RTG, and another one on Rosetta. They had to shut Rosetta down for 3 years as it got out to around Jupiter's orbit because of lack of power, and they were lucky they could get it turned back on. They've got a couple of solar panels hanging off Rosetta described as the size of semi trailers, and they've had trouble already with Rosetta getting blown around by the coma. That's going to get messy later.

All I can guess is that the ESA is very sensitive to the politics of using radioactive materials, especially plutonium, on a space probe, and this sensitivity may cost them the mission.

Nuclear! Especially if you're going where the sun don't shine.

[choff]

Where this is a problem is when you have people in power that no longer believe in renewables but also believe in global warming and that the way forward for fusion power is ITER.

[MSimon]

As soon as the wind turbine blades ice up, and the solar panels get a small coating of snow and ice, then back to fossil fueled plants (hopefully not shut down by the EPA.)
Solar would be great in space, no clouds, or snow, but still have planetary bodies to obstruct the sun light. What happened to the Philae lander landing on the comet (yes, the one where the most important thing about it was the wardrobe choice malfunction)? Batteries died due to lack of solar panel charging?

The batteries died on Philae because they should have been using an RTG, and another one on Rosetta. They had to shut Rosetta down for 3 years as it got out to around Jupiter's orbit because of lack of power, and they were lucky they could get it turned back on. They've got a couple of solar panels hanging off Rosetta described as the size of semi trailers, and they've had trouble already with Rosetta getting blown around by the coma. That's going to get messy later.

All I can guess is that the ESA is very sensitive to the politics of using radioactive materials, especially plutonium, on a space probe, and this sensitivity may cost them the mission.

Nuclear! Especially if you're going where the sun don't shine.

Did you know they are using a Forth processor on the mission? A Harris RTX2010 IIRC.

[MSimon]

Photovoltaic panels in the 300 W range are now down to about $1/W in pallet quantities.

That $/w cost does not take into account intermittency (which you discuss). The real cost to account for that is $4 to $6 a watt. And it gets worse. In the places where we have summer and winter - summer is different from winter. So you might get down to $4 a watt in summer and up to $10 (or more) a watt in winter.

Where solar makes some sense is in places with Air Conditioning to off set the cost. And it may not make sense for that if it isn't subsidized.