Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

100 % of Energy From Wind, Water, and Solar

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Tazz T
    Registered Users Posts: 3,202 ✭✭✭Tazz T


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Renewables are a scientific and economic cul-de-sac.
    Sooner or later we will have to go nuclear.
    I would prefer if we went sooner!

    Fossil fuels is a economic cul-de-sac.
    Nuclear power is a mathematical dead-end in every sense of the word.


  • Options
    #33
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    Macha wrote: »
    Discussion of your scenario is something of a red herring, Curly Judge.

    If you're so critical of the reports, can you comment specifically on what's wrong with the risk assessment that has been applied in any of them?

    Tell you what I'll do!
    I'll withdraw from the argument for a day or two and study the reports in as great detail as my education and IQ will allow.
    I'll then come back to you with my response.
    Who knows?
    Maybe I'll have a Pauline conversion.:)
    I wouldn't hold my breath though if I was you.


  • Options
    #34
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Tazz T wrote: »
    Ireland could easily supply all of its power needs by renewables. It's a complete no-brainer,

    Your are correct that it's a complete no brainer, insofar as your statement is just the sort of woolly thinking which gives renewables a bad name.

    Renewables have a part to play, but our current technologies mean they are unreliable and/or intermittent. To be wholly dependent on unreliable and/or intermittent sources of power is, obviously, foolish.


  • Options
    #35
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    djpbarry wrote: »
    How is such a scenario in any way relevant to the current discussion?

    It was my poor attempt at an analogy.
    The point being, that if you are stuck waiting for wind, knowing when the wind will arrive is of little use if it is to come too late to be of any use.
    To put it another way, if you are waiting for your boiled egg before you rush out the door, knowing that the wind generator will not kick in for another two hours won't make you feel any less hungry.


  • Options
    #36
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    easychair wrote: »
    Renewables have a part to play, but our current technologies mean they are unreliable and/or intermittent.
    It’s not so much the technologies that are the problem, it’s the implementation. Lack of interconnection, for example.
    Curly Judge wrote: »
    It was my poor attempt at an analogy.
    The point being, that if you are stuck waiting for wind, knowing when the wind will arrive is of little use if it is to come too late to be of any use.
    It would have been a better analogy if your boat had alternative modes of propulsion. And possibly some back-up storage. Although it still fails as an analogy because your boat is not connected to a grid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    [
    QUOTE=djpbarry;75000596]
    It would have been a better analogy if your boat had alternative modes of propulsion.
    And possibly some back-up storage.

    Like tidal power and wave power and back up storage that haven't been invented yet?
    It's a sail boat, not the Starship Enterprise


  • Options
    #38
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Like tidal power and wave power and...
    ...solar, hydroelectric and geothermal power?
    Curly Judge wrote: »
    ...back up storage that haven't been invented yet?
    Batteries haven't been invented yet? Hydrolysis? Storage heaters?


  • Options
    #39
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    djpbarry wrote: »
    It’s not so much the technologies that are the problem, it’s the implementation. Lack of interconnection, for example.

    Interconnection between virtually all the wind generators at the coldest time of the year last winter (when demand was at a peak for electricity), would have been useless as there was no virtually power from the wind generators to be connected.

    Interconnection is important, agreed, but the point I was making was to the poster who said that "Ireland could easily supply all of its power needs by renewables". That would be lovely, but is woolly thinking and is, currently, not possible.


  • Options
    #40
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    djpbarry wrote: »
    ...solar, hydroelectric and geothermal power?
    Batteries haven't been invented yet? Hydrolysis? Storage heaters?

    I have to admit that I was unaware of any potential contribution hydrolysis was making to energy substitution. You live and learn I suppose!
    On electrolysis, I did some back of the envelope calculations many years ago and came to the conclusion that it would take about 74 KW of electricity to produce the hydrogen equivalent of one gallon of diesel. Hardly a great return, you'll have to agree?
    Let me know when some factory is selling grid capable storage batteries at a reasonable rate as I would be interested in buying shares in such a company.


  • Options
    #41
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,570 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    My problem with most of this is that the cost in money and materials to acheive any meaningful level of substitution of current power sources with those listed at levels listed will be so high as to make even a small level of use unlikely.

    I've have taken issue with the figures quoted for tidal energy, as it is unlikely that enough sites exist on a global scale to acheive even a fraction of the levels quoted.

    The arguement against photovoltaic cells is that they have a limited lifespan and it is unlikely that they will have a payback time less than the lifespan. If that is true, there goes another source.

    Wind is not very useful unless it has a backup as a static anticyclone in winter brings calm weather (no wind) and deep frosts (very low temperatures). When you need the energy most, it is not there, so another source of energy must be available.

    The possibility of using these sources for transport other than trains is going to rely on energy transfer which will lose significant energy in conversion. No jet engines, and no internal combustion engines. Batteries suffer from the same problem as PV cells mentioned above - short lives and high cost.

    All in all, not much chance of even approaching 100% of energy requirements. More success would be achieved by cutting consumption of energy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    pljudge321
    Registered Users Posts: 1,129 ✭✭✭pljudge321


    Tazz T wrote: »
    Ireland could easily supply all of its power needs by renewables. It's a complete no-brainer, taking a huge chunk out of unemployment, cutting energy costs for people and businesses and selling the surplus to Britain. We've doubled our wind capacity since 2005. It now stands at 1400MW. That's a third of all our energy at peak usage.

    By investing just €1billion in sea/tidal generators, less that 5000 platforms, we'd have all our power needs covered and that's without further wind or solar installations. In my opinion, no new homes should be built without solar power generation capacities.

    The only thing that stands in the way is a short-sighted inept government.

    That and the laws of physics.


  • Options
    #43
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    That and the laws of physics.

    [mod]Please try and be a little more constructive in your comments.[/mod]


  • Options
    #44
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    pljudge321 wrote: »
    That and the laws of physics.

    I tend to agree. It has always been thus, and there will always be those who can't see any reason why the perpetual motion machine can't work.

    It's always been obvious from these sorts of threads that there is a copnsiderable number of people who don't understand how, for example, wind power actually works in practice.

    I've had conversations with people who I know to be intelligent who have told me they are going to disconnect from the ESB and put up a wind turbine to provide all their electricity needs. When one asks what they will do when the wind doesn't blow, they tell me they will have backup in batteries. They simply haven't thought it through.

    For some people, wind power appears to be the new perpetual motion machine, and so fanatical they are about wind turbines that they overlook the obvious and practical questions.

    Wind turbines are interesting and useful things, but they are not reliable as a constant source of power.


  • Options
    #45
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Tazz T wrote: »
    We've doubled our wind capacity since 2005. It now stands at 1400MW. That's a third of all our energy at peak usage.
    Indeed it is but will the wind turbines be producing their maximum output (1400MW) at the same time as the occurrences of peak demand?
    And also significant in your comparison is that over a year, they will only produce about 30% of their installed capacity; that's about 370MW.


  • Options
    #46
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    On electrolysis, I did some back of the envelope calculations many years ago and came to the conclusion that it would take about 74 KW of electricity to produce the hydrogen equivalent of one gallon of diesel. Hardly a great return, you'll have to agree?
    Efficiencies associated with the electrolysis of water vary widely and there is certainly room for improvement. But a means of storing even 30-40% of energy that would otherwise be ‘dumped’ is surely worth investigating.
    Curly Judge wrote: »
    Let me know when some factory is selling grid capable storage batteries at a reasonable rate...
    What do you mean by “grid capable”?


  • Options
    #47
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    My problem with most of this is that the cost in money and materials to acheive any meaningful level of substitution of current power sources with those listed at levels listed will be so high as to make even a small level of use unlikely.
    Read the OP please.
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The arguement against photovoltaic cells is that they have a limited lifespan and it is unlikely that they will have a payback time less than the lifespan.
    A financial payback or an energy payback?
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Wind is not very useful unless it has a backup as a static anticyclone in winter brings calm weather (no wind) and deep frosts (very low temperatures). When you need the energy most, it is not there, so another source of energy must be available.
    Why do people insist on considering wind over a particular geographic area in isolation?
    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The possibility of using these sources for transport other than trains is going to rely on energy transfer which will lose significant energy in conversion.
    I believe that authors are only considering non-grid connected transport in the context of using excess generated power (in the form of hydrogen, for example).


  • Options
    #48
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    easychair wrote: »
    Interconnection between virtually all the wind generators at the coldest time of the year last winter (when demand was at a peak for electricity), would have been useless as there was no virtually power from the wind generators to be connected.
    Why are you considering wind power in isolation?
    easychair wrote: »
    Interconnection is important, agreed, but the point I was making was to the poster who said that "Ireland could easily supply all of its power needs by renewables". That would be lovely, but is woolly thinking and is, currently, not possible.
    The key word there is “currently”.
    easychair wrote: »
    I tend to agree. It has always been thus, and there will always be those who can't see any reason why the perpetual motion machine can't work.
    Likewise, there will always be those who will dismiss evidence that contradicts their own world view. For example, one of the most frequently raised arguments against renewable forms of electricity generation is cost. Well, here is a pretty in-depth study of the economics of renewable energy generation which shows that providing 100% of electricity through renewable means is cost-effective. Yet people are still insisting that the costs are excessive, simply because they believe this to be the case.
    easychair wrote: »
    I've had conversations with people who I know to be intelligent who have told me they are going to disconnect from the ESB and put up a wind turbine to provide all their electricity needs. When one asks what they will do when the wind doesn't blow, they tell me they will have backup in batteries. They simply haven't thought it through.
    Would you care to point out what they have missed?


  • Options
    #49
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    Macha wrote: »
    Discussion of your scenario is something of a red herring, Curly Judge.

    If you're so critical of the reports, can you comment specifically on what's wrong with the risk assessment that has been applied in any of them?

    Not so much a comment on the risk assessment itself but on the documents on which this thread is based:

    Typing “delucchi jacobson 100%” into google brings up loads of references to the WWS 100% document from these guys.
    Nearly all of theses references have an associated set of comments; unfortunately many are not complimentary.

    For me, the observation that demonstrates the biggest flaw in Delucchi's and Jacobson's analysis is at this link:
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/#comment-34404

    Brookes has criticised the work and Jacobson has responded – scroll down the comments to “Mark Z. Jacobson on behalf of the authors, on 9 November 2009 at 3:25 PM” .
    Point 6 and response 6 are about whether the WWS suggestion can provide energy in line with demand and in sufficient quantity.
    Jacobson's response 6:
    “Response 6. The figure gives the monthly-averaged hourly power demand and output of each renewable, based on real data, extrapolated to the future. If wind and solar are both zero at a given hour (day or night), hydro fills in the void. The solution is constrained so that the total hydro used over the month is no greater than the current hydro used in California. As such, the figure accounts for the actual variability as well as worst-case scenarios. No backup energy beyond hydro is needed in this system. Winter demand is lower than summer demand, and scenarios have been done for winter as well. Please see
    http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/HosteFinalDraft.pdf
    for more details.”

    This matter is taken further in a comment from Sovietologist - scroll down a little bit more to “Sovietologist, on 10 November 2009 at 1:01 AM”

    Sovietologist quotes assumption 3 from the document Jacobson cites: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/HosteFinalDraft.pdf

    “Assumption 3: Our analysis is performed only for the average day in each month. By averaging demands, wind speeds, and insolations over the month, we are removing much of the fine variability in output that worries grid operators the most.”

    Sovietologist comments:
    “Doesn’t this mean that the analysis did not actually show that the proposed generation portfolio could actually keep the grid balanced on a minute-to-minute basis, which is what actually matters in the real world?”

    And I agree, does this not represent rather a flaw in the document and suggest that at this stage it should not be taken on face value.
    Even Jacobson and fellow authors state in www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/HosteFinalDraft.pdf
    “7. Summary and Discussion
    Our model, however, is only a first step. It relies on several simplifying assumptions and does not reflect many issues that would be faced in real-world design of an 80% or 100% renewable electricity supply."

    In other words, this document is a vision but not a proven possibility. Visionaries are important in bringing ideas/visions forwards and critics are important in determining whether the vision can be a practical reality.


  • Options
    #50
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    “7. Summary and Discussion
    Our model, however, is only a first step. It relies on several simplifying assumptions and does not reflect many issues that would be faced in real-world design of an 80% or 100% renewable electricity supply."
    What model doesn't rely on simplifying assumptions?


  • Options
    #51
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    What model doesn't rely on simplifying assumptions?

    It is not that there are assumptions or even simplifying assumptions in the model, that is problematic; it is the nature of assumption 3) because it does more than simplify the SWW scenario, it profoundly changes the possible use of 51% of the electricity generated in the SWW scenario i.e. wind and wave generated electricity.

    “Assumption 3: Our analysis is performed only for the average day in each month. By averaging demands, wind speeds, and insolations over the month, we are removing much of the fine variability in output that worries grid operators the most.”


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    It is not that there are assumptions or even simplifying assumptions in the model, that is problematic; it is the nature of assumption 3) because it does more than simplify the SWW scenario, it profoundly changes the possible use of 51% of the electricity generated in the SWW scenario i.e. wind and wave generated electricity.
    Well, no, it doesn't. This argument repeatedly comes up in discussion of renewables. A hypothetical global scale renewables network has been proposed and costed, incorporating wind, solar, wave, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, storage where possible and masses of interconnection. This analysis is being dismissed because the wind might not be blowing at some specified location at a particular time - that does not make sense.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    “Assumption 3: Our analysis is performed only for the average day in each month. By averaging demands, wind speeds, and insolations over the month, we are removing much of the fine variability in output that worries grid operators the most.”
    That looks to me like a perfectly reasonable assumption.


  • Options
    #53
    zod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭zod


    The European Energy grid will change everything


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YtQJod0WDk


  • Options
    #54
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    A hypothetical global scale renewables network has been proposed and costed, incorporating wind, solar, wave, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, storage where possible and masses of interconnection. This analysis is being dismissed because the wind might not be blowing at some specified location at a particular time - that does not make sense.
    zod wrote:
    The European Energy grid will change everything

    Is the WWS vision being dismissed or is it being challenged?
    There is no doubt that ensuring that intermittent energy supplies deliver an “on demand” supply is challenging especially when 51% of it relies on the wind.
    It is not sufficient to say 'well the wind will be blowing somewhere in the world'.
    Indeed it will be but as we know, the Poyry study looked at a geographical spread of wind (and solar) supported by a supergrid and found that it would not resolve the problems of intermittency because similar weather patterns can extend across much of the continent of Europe and the UK and Ireland.
    Quote from the summary of the Pöyry report which can be down loaded from here: http://www.poyry.com/media/media_2.h...301471113.html
    "This heavy reinforcement of interconnection doesn’t appear to offset the need for very much backup plant, however. This surprising observation comes from the fact that weather systems – in particular high pressure ‘cold and calm’ periods in winter – can extend for 1000 miles, so that periods of low wind generation are often correlated across Europe."

    Can the WWS vision fill this void – in the WWS vision, can the rest of the world provide this backup – it's cold and calm across Europe; it's night time; it's been like this for a few days; storage reserves are depleted; it's peak demand.
    It's not just a case of whether somewhere in the world has sufficient renewable energy to supply Europe but whether they've got the generators to capture this supply and whether they can do so whilst meeting their own demands; and whether they have the political inclination to do so; and whether they will do so at an affordable price.
    The degree of “over capacity” needed in the WWS vision is huge.

    Much more work is needed before this vision can be held up as a way forward.


  • Options
    #55
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Quote from the summary of the Pöyry report which can be down loaded from here: http://www.poyry.com/media/media_2.h...301471113.html
    That link doesn’t work.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Can the WWS vision fill this void – in the WWS vision, can the rest of the world provide this backup – it's cold and calm across Europe; it's night time; it's been like this for a few days...
    It’s been night time for a few days?
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    ...storage reserves are depleted; it's peak demand.
    Ok, how likely is such a scenario? No solar and no wind across the whole of Europe for several days? Seems a pretty remote possibility to me considering that anticyclones are associated with clear, dry weather.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    It's not just a case of whether somewhere in the world has sufficient renewable energy to supply Europe but whether they've got the generators to capture this supply and whether they can do so whilst meeting their own demands; and whether they have the political inclination to do so; and whether they will do so at an affordable price.
    I fail to see how this is less preferable to the current situation where Europe imports most of its energy from Russia and the Middle East.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    The degree of “over capacity” needed in the WWS vision is huge.
    Well yes, it is. The authors state as much in the above publications.


  • Options
    #56
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid
    allow wide sharing of the total European hydro power resource which is about 6 weeks of full load European output.
    Interesting if could find reference to validate claim.

    6 weeks without wind or wave ?


    we've taken their fish , we want their solar, let's take their wind too
    http://www.saharawind.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=43


  • Options
    #57
    EI_Flyboy
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    Japan is very serious about going the route of renewable energy and that will bring down the cost for the rest of us.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-takes-a-shine-to-renewable-energy/2011/05/26/AGm8wuCH_story.html

    Household appliances are getting more power efficient all the time, LED lightbulbs will soon drop in price the way CFLs did, there are LCD TVs out there that use less than 100W. Solar power might be more than 10 times as expensive to generate compared to nuclear today, 20 years from now? Japan hopes less than twice. Renewables are far safer than nuclear, if they go wrong, the consequences aren't global.


  • Options
    #58
    maddragon
    Registered Users Posts: 590 ✭✭✭maddragon


    The sun comes up everyday and has done for as long as I can remember. The tide comes in and goes out everyday even on Sunday. RE is not intermittent. Check out my energy site [MODEDIT] Don't be pushing websites please. [/MODEDIT]


  • Options
    #59
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    That link doesn’t work.
    My apologies:
    http://www.poyry.com/Sectors_and_Services/Management_Consulting/Energy/Groundbreaking_study_into_the_impact_of_wind_and_solar_generation_on_electricity_markets_in_North_West_Europe.html

    The public report is on the right.
    It might address some of your points such as the fact that solar generation has been considered in the study.

    djpbarry wrote: »
    I fail to see how this is less preferable to the current situation where Europe imports most of its energy from Russia and the Middle East.
    Was it presented as such?


  • Options
    #60
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭djpbarry


    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    My apologies:
    http://www.poyry.com/Sectors_and_Services/Management_Consulting/Energy/Groundbreaking_study_into_the_impact_of_wind_and_solar_generation_on_electricity_markets_in_North_West_Europe.html

    The public report is on the right.
    It might address some of your points such as the fact that solar generation has been considered in the study.
    But the point that you’ve picked out is that large regions of Europe can experience little wind simultaneously (although “extending right across Europe is pushing it”). The question is, how probable are such events, how long are they likely to last and how unlikely is it that other forms of generation (such as solar) will be unavailable simultaneously? Because if such a scenario is extremely unlikely (which I suspect it is), then it doesn’t really make sense to factor it into an objective analysis.
    Chloe Pink wrote: »
    Was it presented as such?
    Seems to me that yes, it was.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Chloe Pink
    Registered Users Posts: 804 ✭✭✭Chloe Pink


    djpbarry wrote: »
    But the point that you’ve picked out is that large regions of Europe can experience little wind simultaneously (although “extending right across Europe is pushing it”). The question is, how probable are such events, how long are they likely to last and how unlikely is it that other forms of generation (such as solar) will be unavailable simultaneously? Because if such a scenario is extremely unlikely (which I suspect it is), then it doesn’t really make sense to factor it into an objective analysis.
    The scenario occurs to the extent that Poyry write, "The creation of an offshore 'super grid' and a major upgrade of energy interconnections are not the silver bullet solutions to Europe's energy needs, an independent study published by Pöyry has found. The report has found that the introduction of improved connectivity would only partially alleviate the volatility of increased renewable energy generation."
    (Their report considered solar generation alongside the wind.)
    Which brings me back to my point in post 54 - Can the WWS vision fill this void – in the WWS vision, can/will the rest of the world provide this backup – I haven't yet seen the research to show the feasibility and practicality of this; if you have I would be interested to see it also.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Seems to me that yes, it was.
    That's fine but it wasn't.


Advertisement