The future of energy generation and storage

SirRumpole · 25 June 2020

Chronos-Plutus said:
but powering our large cities of Melbourne and Sydney with 100% renewables is just nonsense.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting 100% renewables, but what would you call renewables + storage ? Maybe 50% renewables ?

Anyway I think that there will always be a need for a "baseload" backup (hydro could obviously fill some of that gap, but like batteries it eventually runs dry) . It's pretty clear that coal will become less important and gas turbines using whatever fuel you like whether it's gas , kerosene, hydrogen, ethanol or whatever will take over that role, due to their fast startup times.

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

sptrawler said:
I guess the only evidence I can put forward, is by a world leading authority, you.
It was in this very thread, that you were stating that we should be following the U.K lead, as they were leading the world and showing the way toward renewables.
They are building nuclear power stations.

HAHAH; there is no way that the UK are going use their small geographical landmass and seas to build windmills all over their kingdom, which occupy valuable land and which block their maritime commercial trade; all in the name of going 100% renewable. It is fantastical and incredibly stupid.

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

SirRumpole said:
I don't believe anyone is suggesting 100% renewables, but what would you call renewables + storage ? Maybe 50% renewables ?

Anyway I think that there will always be a need for a "baseload" backup (hydro could obviously fill some of that gap, but like batteries it eventually runs dry) . It's pretty clear that coal will become less important and gas turbines using whatever fuel you like whether it's gas , kerosene, hydrogen, ethanol or whatever will take over that role, due to their fast startup times.

How are you going to produce the hydrogen? More windmills

rederob · 25 June 2020

sptrawler said:
That is the issue a lot of the renewable cheer squad fail to comprehend, the actual physical quantity of renewable plant required to supply that sort of load is impossible, due to the low energy density/ area.
As I've said over and over, in Australia it may be possible unlikely but maybe, most highly populated countries it will be impossible.

So, just another baseless opinion.
The maths is here, and the solar pv footprint for Australia is as shown below:

The already miniscule solar footprint above could be reduced by a third, on the basis of US assumptions.
Wind however, exclusive of solar pv, is more than capable of meeting many times Australia's electricity needs and, with hydrogen electrolysis, could also more than satisfy total energy demands.

sptrawler · 25 June 2020

Yes I thought it was a baseless opinion, using you as a reference.

By the way I don't know why you are using Australia as a reference, I've already stated it is possible here, what about Japan and Indonesia?

basilio · 25 June 2020

Renewable energy sources are quite viable for many countries. The mix will vary depending location, geography.
Indonesia for example has an excellent range of renewable energy options that would easily power the country. And on top of that the closure of coal fired power stations would reduce the horrendous pollution around the major cities.
Indonesia should put more energy into renewable power
Kate Walton
Blackouts and chronic air pollution in a nation with
abundant sources of clean energy makes no economic sense.

....In fact, Indonesia has the potential to generate 788,000 megawatts (MW) of power from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. This is more than 14 times the country’s current electricity consumption. Thanks to magma, hot rocks, and hot water beneath its surface, Indonesia has 40% of the world’s geothermal energy stores, enough for 29,000 MW of energy. Meanwhile, its huge maritime area could provide 75,760 MW of power through projects such as the Larantuka Straits Tidal Bridge, a US$550 million project that will power 250,000 homes in East Flores. When completed, it will be the world’s largest tidal power plant.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-s-should-put-more-energy-renewable-power

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

rederob said:
So, just another baseless opinion.
The maths is here, and the solar pv footprint for Australia is as shown below:

The already miniscule solar footprint above could be reduced by a third, on the basis of US assumptions.
Wind however, exclusive of solar pv, is more than capable of meeting many times Australia's electricity needs and, with hydrogen electrolysis, could also more than satisfy total energy demands.

So you want Australia to go 100% renewable including 100% electric vehicles; and you think it can be done with solar and wind energy. Good luck with that.

The only hope for a rapid change to a clean energy future is to embrace nuclear. With nuclear we can even produce enormous quantities of hydrogen. To transport clean fuel around the nation, if need be.

I did the math for the USA, on a scenario where all the road vehicles switched to EVs. A rough back of the envelope calculation is that the USA would need to build an additional 500GW of additional nuclear capacity. That would be 1.5TW of renewables just for the electric vehicles.

Wake up please!

rederob · 25 June 2020

Chronos-Plutus said:
Lazard are a private enterprise that possible have significant interests to push the renewable narrative. I will take the US DOE data any day of the week over Lazard; just as I would take the USDA data for agriculture investment and trading, any day of the week over the data/publications of a private enterprise.

Lazard has no agenda. They were doing their business well before renewables were even invented. Again, you cannot show how the IEA data is valid whereas Lazard uses real word data for their conclusions.

Chronos-Plutus said:
As for the UK; it is impractical for them to litter their small geographical landmass and seas with windmills; as they will be a major impediment for real estate, industry, commercial business and international trade.

More opinion without facts. Wind capacity in the UK in less than 15 years has accounted for 20% of total electricity needs.

Chronos-Plutus said:
In Australia we have the space to litter our landmass with windmills and solar panels, then we have build transmission networks and lines from the middle of nowhere that crisscross our country, then we have to build large scale battery capacity. You clearly haven't considered the associated cost for all the support infrastructure for solar and wind. As I said, rooftop solar for homes and buildings is fine, the utopia of 100% solar and wind, to power Australia, is borderline fantasy.

In fact I have considered these issues and read the many papers put out by AEMO including their current draft ISP.

Chronos-Plutus said:
Wake up please!

Back at you.

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

sptrawler said:
Yes I thought it was a baseless opinion, using you as a reference.

By the way I don't know why you are using Australia as a reference, I've already stated it is possible here, what about Japan and Indonesia?

It is possible, but the economics don't stack up when considering all the associated costs of transmission infrastructure and storage. Then looking at powering all the electric or hydrogen vehicles, forget it; we should just go nuclear.

Small rural and regional towns can build their own renewable microgrids. Our cities need nuclear for a clean energy future where all our road transportation is electric vehicle and/or hydrogen based.

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

rederob said:
Lazard has no agenda. They were doing their business well before renewables were even invented. Again, you cannot show how the IEA data is valid whereas Lazard uses real word data for their conclusions.
More opinion without facts. Wind capacity in the UK in less than 15 years has accounted for 20% of total electricity needs.
In fact I have considered these issues and read the many papers put out by AEMO including their current draft ISP.
Back at you.

It is the US Department of Energy! And you just ignore it, because it runs against your renewable utopia.

How are you going to run all the electric vehicles? More windmills

basilio · 25 June 2020

Japan has decided to substantially improve its use of renewable energy. Another option for Japan is importing Green Hydrogen from a future energy superpower like Australia that goes full bore with solar and uses the surplus to create hydrogen for export. Which in fact is what has been proposed as part of a green COVID 19 recovery platform.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/new-laws-and-new-targets-renewable-power-in-japan/
https://theconversation.com/making-australia-a-renewable-energy-exporting-superpower-107285
https://theconversation.com/enough-...-get-australia-to-200-renewable-energy-127117
https://bze.org.au/research/renewable-energy-superpower/

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

basilio said:
Renewable energy sources are quite viable for many countries. The mix will vary depending location, geography.
Indonesia for example has an excellent range of renewable energy options that would easily power the country. And on top of that the closure of coal fired power stations would reduce the horrendous pollution around the major cities.
Indonesia should put more energy into renewable power
Kate Walton
Blackouts and chronic air pollution in a nation with
abundant sources of clean energy makes no economic sense.

....In fact, Indonesia has the potential to generate 788,000 megawatts (MW) of power from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal. This is more than 14 times the country’s current electricity consumption. Thanks to magma, hot rocks, and hot water beneath its surface, Indonesia has 40% of the world’s geothermal energy stores, enough for 29,000 MW of energy. Meanwhile, its huge maritime area could provide 75,760 MW of power through projects such as the Larantuka Straits Tidal Bridge, a US$550 million project that will power 250,000 homes in East Flores. When completed, it will be the world’s largest tidal power plant.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/indonesia-s-should-put-more-energy-renewable-power

LOL; easily power the nation? Don't know about easy.

However if I worked for the Singaporean Government, I would be looking at exploring the option to extract the geothermal energy in Indonesia, running a transmission cable to Singapore from Indonesia. Much smarter than the silly Sun Cable project that Twiggy and Cannon-Brookes are supporting.

rederob · 25 June 2020

sptrawler said:
I guess the only evidence I can put forward, is by a world leading authority, you.
It was in this very thread, that you were stating that we should be following the U.K lead, as they were leading the world and showing the way toward renewables.
They are building nuclear power stations.

In regard to the UK, by the time their nuclear power plants are operational they will additionally have installed more than triple the generating capacity from wind. The UK remains on the right track and there are no energy economists that will support the UK's present nuclear foray.
If we followed the UK's lead, by the time Snowy 2.0 was operational we would have added instead in wind energy no less than 10MW capacity, negating the need for Snowy 2.0.
Try using data or some other form of evidence if you are going to bandy around your ideas.

rederob · 25 June 2020

Chronos-Plutus said:
LOL; easily power the nation? Don't know about easy.

However if I worked for the Singaporean Government, I would be looking at exploring the option to extract the geothermal energy in Indonesia, running a transmission cable to Singapore from Indonesia. Much smarter than the silly Sun Cable project that Twiggy and Cannon-Brookes are supporting.

Another baseless opinion.
Can you add useful content next time please!

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

rederob said:
Another baseless opinion.
Can you add useful content next time please!

Geothermal is the manna from heaven, when it comes to renewable energy; followed by tidal barrage. High capacity factor, more reliable and relatively cheap if the geothermal energy is shallow.

Ache province is just across the pond to Singapore with significant Geothermal energy!

Sorry to torpedo the Sun Cable project

spooly74 · 25 June 2020

Taking a look at what works right now.

RE: Nuclear. Has anyone seen just the bricks & mortar cost for construction of a nuclear plane vs coal, solar equivalent? No red tape, approvals etc etc etc.
Just the construction cost, not the total cost?

rederob · 25 June 2020

Chronos-Plutus said:
Geothermal is the manna from heaven, when it comes to renewable energy; followed by tidal barrage. High capacity factor, more reliable and relatively cheap if the geothermal energy is shallow.

Ache province is just across the pond to Singapore with significant Geothermal energy!

Sorry to torpedo the Sun Cable project

No basis for those comments.
Have a look at New Zealand to get an idea about the feasibility and costs of geothermal. You will find your ideas have no economic merit.

Chronos-Plutus · 25 June 2020

rederob said:
No basis for those comments.
Have a look at New Zealand to get an idea about the feasibility and costs of geothermal. You will find your ideas have no economic merit.

Haha; your Sun Cable project has no economic merit when juxtaposed with geothermal that is in such close proximity. Running cables for 1000s of kilometres from an energy source that has a capacity factor of half that of geothermal.

You truly are delusional.
"Geothermal represents the lowest levelized cost of electricity in comparison to other sources of energy." (https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/u-s-...itive-on-levelized-cost-of-electricity-basis/)

rederob · 25 June 2020

spooly74 said:
Has anyone seen just the bricks & mortar cost for construction of a nuclear plane....

No, but do you have the pictures?

basilio · 25 June 2020

SirRumpole said:
I don't believe anyone is suggesting 100% renewables, but what would you call renewables + storage ? Maybe 50% renewables ?

Anyway I think that there will always be a need for a "baseload" backup (hydro could obviously fill some of that gap, but like batteries it eventually runs dry) . It's pretty clear that coal will become less important and gas turbines using whatever fuel you like whether it's gas , kerosene, hydrogen, ethanol or whatever will take over that role, due to their fast startup times.

Hydro doesn't have to run dry at all.
CSIRO identified 22000 pumped hydro sites across Australia. Essentially surplus solar/wind energy pumps water up to site and is then run downhill when required.
In fact an old gold mine makes a great renewable energy project
https://theconversation.com/want-en...sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275
https://watersource.awa.asn.au/tech...oject-repurposing-mine-pits-for-pumped-hydro/

The future of energy generation and storage

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency